1966-05-31

BANKRUPTCY ACT


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (for Mr. Cardin) moved: leave to introduce Bill No. S-17 (from the Senate), to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: the Opposition): I address this question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with press articles today to the effect that Arthur Va-chon, president of the Quebec provincial police association, is a security risk.
I ask the Prime Minister this. Did his government forward to Quebec security information on this matter, and are security files now being made available outside the ambit of federal authority so they may be used against people in this way?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to take the right hon. gentleman's question as notice.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. Solicitor General?
Following the accusations made by the premier of the province of Quebec against the former policeman Mr. Vachon, is it the intention of the minister to hold an inquiry in order to invalidate or support the said accusations?
[English1


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has taken notice of a question along similar lines, and I will await the Prime Minister's reply.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether there has been any change in government policy in that security files are being bandied about and made available in this way to those outside parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a question of general policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: It is argumentative and perhaps hypothetical.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Speaker, supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was asking a particular question and one which, unless answered, affects the public conscience.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in his capacity as head of security in Canada. Does he agree with the statement of Premier Lesage that Mr. Arthur Vachon is a security risk?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. gentleman's question is out of order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. I can see he is just waiting to answer. In view of the fact that members of the armed forces may be disturbed by the announcement made by Premier Lesage with respect to the dismissal of Quebec provincial policeman Arthur Vachon, can the minister inform the house why this man was enlisted by the air force if he was considered a security risk, and why he was later given an honourable discharge.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not in order.

May 31, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS



QUEBEC-STOPPAGE OF WORK BY LONGSHOREMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether he has received a telegram from Mr. Gerard Tremblay, the Atlantic coast district vice president of the international longshoremen's association, denying that the 15 per cent of the longshoremen whom the federation is seeking to dismiss are casual employees and asserting that many of them are workers who are not yet old enough to receive pensions but who are too old to work more than part time. Has the minister, or has Judge Lippe, had an opportunity to examine the statistics which are available in the central records bureau of the St. Lawrence river ports?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: I did not receive a telegram along those lines today; I received one yesterday. I think a word of explanation is in order in view of the fact that I mentioned a test of 15 or 16 weeks work yesterday. It has to do with hours worked, not weeks, averaging out. It comes to about 15 or 16 weeks.
This is a matter which could, I think, be referred to Judge Lippe for consideration and advice. I certainly will give it serious attention before I speak to the mediator later today.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister
whether the statement made in the telegram from Mr. Tremblay is correct, that so far the shipping federation of Canada has not replied to the written submission made by the longshoremen's association, that no reply whatever has been made to the offer submitted?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Technically that may be correct. However, both sides submitted proposals to me and I in turn, out of the proposals which came to me, made suggestions to the two parties which I asked them to consider. I think the longshoremen's association can certainly take it from the remarks I made late on Sunday night that they had received a reply from the shipping federation. There has been a certain amount of by-play, as there is in all negotiations. It was to try to put an end to this that I adopted the course I did.


Mr. David Lewis (York Souih):: I should like to ask the minister in reference to his statement yesterday that a fantastic offer of

wage increases had been made by the federation, whether he communicated the actual offer by the federation to the union, or whether the offer he made to the association was something other than that about which the federation had privately informed him.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is difficult to answer a question of that kind on the orders of the day. I could give an extended answer but I cannot deal with the point in two or three sentences.


John George Diefenbaker: Would it not be a good idea if the minister were to answer these various questions and deal with the matters raised in this telegram? After all, I understand that the Prime Minister has received a warning from the Montreal port council that any further delay in bringing about settlement of this strike would be "catastrophic". Would it not be a good idea if the house would permit the minister to revert to motions so that we might hear something about this and ascertain the facts?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sainte-Marie.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.
Is the minister aware of the fact that the longshoremen's strike could be settled very soon, if he gave them the assurance that there will be no decrease in personnel until December 31, 1967?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think that question is argumentative.


Georges-J. Valade: May I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister intend to propose to the longshoremen as a solution that no decrease in personnel will be made until Decembre 31, 1967, in order to end the strike?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will admit that it is the same question, put in English.
May 31, 1966


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I want to ask the right hon. gentleman whether the shipping strike is affecting the progress of construction at Expo '67. Did the commissioner general of Expo '67 discuss the difficulty with the Prime Minister last week and, if so, with what result?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the commissioner did discuss the matter with me last week in connection with a ship which has material for Expo '67, and which it has not been possible to unload. As a result of further discussion between the commissioner and the Minister of Trade and Commerce I hope this difficulty has been overcome, but I shall be glad to look into the question.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Could the minister tell us how many grain boats are waiting to load and unload at the port of Montreal?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question without making inquiries, but I can say the matter is of the very greatest concern to the Canadian Wheat Board.


George Robson Muir: As a further supplementary question, would the Minister of Finance supply us with those figures tomorrow morning?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the difficulties that are now being experienced as a result of the strike of the longshoremen in Montreal, will the Prime Minister call the parties involved to Ottawa, to bring them into a different atmosphere so they may proceed to a settlement through the collective bargaining arrangement, under the chairmanship of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), who has a great deal of experience in this type of work?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, everything that can be done is being done to bring this strike to an end. The Minister of Labour is in touch with the situation, as my hon. friend knows, and if and when the time comes that the minister who is dealing with the matter feels
Inquiries of the Ministry the intervention of the Prime Minister would be helpful, naturally he will let me know.


John George Diefenbaker: As a further supplementary, in view of the request which the Prime Minister received from the Montreal port council, in which the council stated that any further delay in settlement would be "catastrophic", is the government going to accede to the request of the council for immediate action to get shipping traffic moving and avoid further economic loss?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, action is being taken.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question somewhat similar to that which has just been directed to the Minister of Labour?
In view of the fact that yesterday and this morning I received reports from my constituency to the effect that elevators have only three-day supplies left and that our mills will have to stop operating, is the minister ready to take extraordinary and drastic steps so that the activity will be resumed on the wharves while negotiations are under way?


Mr. Speaker:: The question of the member for Trois-Rivieres is similar to that asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, may I bring up that question at ten o'clock to obtain further details.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Labour, concerning his answer given yesterday to a question asked by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette).
My question deals with Quebec farmers as regards the present longshoremen's strike. The minister told the house that the farmers could go to the harbours in order to get their own grain.
Did the minister receive any telegrams from various firms in Montreal, Trois-Rivieres or Quebec city, to the effect that those truckers will find it difficult to drive through the picket lines in the harbours?
tEnglish]


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the hon. member has asked this question. I

May 31. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry did receive such a telegram this morning, and I should like to clear up a statement that I made yesterday, which related to the port of Montreal only. We have received complaints about interference with the activities of farmers in Quebec by strikers placing trucks to block their access to the harbours board property. The matter is under special study at the present moment, and I may say that the government has been in discussion with the authorities in Quebec about this subject.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
minister a supplementary question. In view of the dire consequences of a continuation of this strike, and in view of the fact that the minister has today said he has information which would take more time to relate than he has available on orders of the day, will he assure the house that he will make a full statement on this matter tomorrow so the house may be fully informed as to the facts relating to this strike?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will give that suggestion serious consideration, Mr. Speaker.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. It deals with the longshoremen's strike and aims at clarifying the position of the parties concerned.
Does the minister or his mediator intend to assure the longshoremen that there will not be any staff cut before December 31, 1967, so that a settlement can be reached shortly in the present conflict? Does the minister or his mediator intend to take such action?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member asked the same question a few moments ago and the Chair refused it.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. May I refer to citation 178 of Beau-chesne's? The second paragraph reads as follows:

Within these lines an explanation can be sought regarding the intentions of the government, but not an expression of opinion-
I am asking whether it is the intention of the minister to propose that there be no reduction in personnel until December 31, 1967. I believe this question is in order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has already asked this question twice, and I find that I

cannot accept it. If the hon. member feels that the question is justified and sufficiently urgent he can give notice and it will be discussed in the adjournment debate.


Georges-J. Valade: Then I request that the question be debated at ten o'clock.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Because of the urgency of time, particularly relating to summer traffic on the railroads, could the minister tell us whether the governor in council is contemplating the various appeals made by petitioners regarding reduction of passenger traffic on the C.P.R.?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the government will endeavour, at the earliest moment convenient to all the parties, to arrange for the oral hearings that many of them have requested. I do not think the hon. gentleman would feel it would be proper for us to try to reach a conclusion without having these oral hearings.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbilt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he in a position to comment on the reported intention of General de Gaulle to withdraw France from the political aspects of NATO as well as from the military aspects?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: No, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that this question is of a very general nature and of the type which should not be asked at this time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. I should like to ask him what action he is taking with regard to a brief he
May 31. 1966

received on Saturday protesting the prosecution and jailing of Ukrainian poets and intellectuals in the Soviet union.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the importance of the question now being put by the hon. member for Ontario. However, I have very serious doubt whether it is the type of question which should be placed at this time. Although it is a matter of very great importance, it is a general question and I really do not think it should be asked on the orders of the day.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has seen the statement of the Secretary of State of the United States, as follows:
We have been very much interested in the suggestion that has been made, I think more than once, by Prince Sihanouk that the international control commission should strengthen its personnel and its capabilities in order to assure the neutrality and territorial integrity of Cambodia.
I also should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has given any thought to, or has contemplated any action in respect of, the move to Cambodia for this purpose of many of the presently underemployed staff of the international control commission who now are situated in Viet Nam.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend will recall, I dealt with this question in the external affairs committee. There has been a suggestion made by Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia but no progress has been made as to whether the other members of the commission would be prepared to accept the suggestion for an expanded role for the commission. The statement of the Secretary of State was noted by me, and we have been discussing the matter with those concerned.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a supplementary question. Has the minister discussed with the other members of the joint commission, India and Poland, the possibility of moving a large proportion of that staff to Cambodia where they could possibly perform a very useful function?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not agree with my hon. friend's premise, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry The question as to what the commission might do in Cambodia would only arise if the request for its use in the particular circumstances was in accord with the Geneva agreement.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. When Dean Rusk talked about strengthening the presence of the international control commission during his press interview on May 27, was he suggesting strengthening the presence of the commission by the introduction of troops?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not believe so.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the government continuing to give consideration to increasing aid to recipients of the old age pension?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question might be placed on the order paper.



USE OF FUND SURPLUS TO INCREASE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. It is one of concern to a great many Canadians. Pending action on a permanent basis, will the goverment consider taking the necessary steps in order to use the surplus in the old age security fund to increase old age security pensions by the amount that surplus would make possible?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is of a very general nature and concerns general policy. Therefore it cannot be asked at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Dix heures.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question
May 31, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister now delaying the issuing of CATV licences pending amendments to existing regulations, or the establishment of new regulations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the process that is being followed at the present time is the same process that has been followed for quite some considerable time.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Can the minister give an assurance that those people in the CATV business will have ample opportunity to express their views before any amendment of or issuing of new regulations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will take the hon. gentleman's hypothetical question under careful consideration.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance. In yesterday's newspapers there appeared a report of a breakdown in the discussions among the group of ten over the question of the reformation of the international monetary system. In view of the fact that the Canadian government advanced some proposals in this regard, can the minister tell us whether any further action is going to be taken on the part of the Canadian government to deal with this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this question involves a matter of extreme urgency, or is so urgent that it should not be placed on the order paper. I suggest that the hon. member may wish to put it on the order paper.



POSSIBLE DECLINE IN U.K. PURCHASES IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to either the Minister of Finance or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Are they aware of the statement made by Mr. Douglas Jay, president of the British Board of Trade, warning Canada to buy more British goods or face a serious decline in British purchases in Canada, and calling on

the Canadian government to remove discriminatory duties on British goods? If so, is any immediate response or action anticipated?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question of general import and cannot be asked at this time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I would like to rephrase a question which I asked earlier. I hope, Mr. Speaker, it will meet with your approval. I would like to direct this question to the minister of external affairs. Has the government been warned by the British Board of Trade to reduce the discriminatory duties on British goods or face a significant decline of British purchases in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret very much that I cannot accept this question.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO AGENDA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. On Friday last I asked him a question concerning the agenda of the federal-provincial conference to be held in Victoria commencing June 16, and he indicated at that time that he would be in a position early this week to give a reply to this question. I wonder whether the time has now come.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to do this tomorrow.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is there a new date for the federal-provincial conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, though certain developments have raised some doubt in the minds of some provincial governments as to whether it will be possible to go ahead on the original date of June 16. But as at present there is no suggestion that this date should be changed.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister say whether
May 31, 1966

the newly announced inquiry into the cost of farm machinery will include any examination of the problem of so-called tied sales in this industry, a problem which I raised in this house on March 31 in a question to the Minister of Justice?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the terms of reference of the inquiry are sufficiently broad to cover all aspects of farm machinery costs, but I will bring this particular question to the attention of the commissioner.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister inform the house whether the Canadian railway transportation companies, namely the C.N.R. and C.P.R., are planning on purchasing new, specially built hopper cars capable of carrying twice as much grain as the present largest grain cars, such as have been introduced on the United States railway lines?


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



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I would repeat the question I posed yesterday with regard to Aklavik, and ask whether he is yet in a position to answer it.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the old school building was condemned. We are busy building a new building, which will be ready for September 1. There is no interruption of classes; we have the children in other accommodation at the present time for the balance of the current school term.

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Would she tell the house if the returning officer in a federal constituency can solicit financial contributions on behalf of a political party?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for an interpretation of the act. That question is out of order.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the government giving consideration to providing the government of India with additional gifts of wheat to alleviate the famine conditions existing in that country at the present time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will recall that we have already provided assistance to India to meet her very regrettably serious food situation, in the amount of some $75 million for this year. The high commissioner has acknowledged this, as has Mr. Ashoka Mehta, the Indian minister for planning.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that a large portion of the gift just mentioned by the minister is a forgiveness of loans and interest thereon, is the government considering giving additional gifts of wheat, which is something the people can eat?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend, of course, is wrong in his facts. There was a concellation of an indebtedness of some $10 million this year. The $75 million represents a net amount.

May 31, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry NATO-POSSIBLE CHANGES IN ORGANIZATION
On the orders of the day:


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On April 8 this year the minister discussed in the house the changes in our organization of NATO and the prospect of withdrawing the Canadian air bases from France, and he used these words:
-the government of France does not intend to leave NATO.
I now ask him, has he any information concerning further substantial changes in the NATO organization?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I said, and I repeat now, that the French government has given notice of its intention not to participate in the integrated defence structure of NATO. The government of France has said, however, that it does not propose to denounce the treaty, and will continue to be bound particularly by articles 3 and 5 of the treaty. Formal negotiations on a bilateral basis or between the 14 participating countries and France have not yet been started, but negotiations based upon the determinations of national policy may soon begin.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in view of the expressed intention of the United States to press for the removal of the north Atlantic council from Paris and the support the United States is receiving from Britain, West Germany and some smaller NATO powers, what Canada's attitude is in this regard. With the meeting a few days away, the people have a right to know what stand Canada is going to take in this regard.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easi: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada have a right to know the Canadian position when that position, after discussion with our allies, has been arrived at. No final decision has been taken as yet by any one country. My right hon. friend based his question on a press report. There will be discussions among the 14 countries next Monday, when this matter will be among those discussed. The general position of Canada in all these matters will be that while we must take action consistent with our belief in a strong NATO, we hope that we will not come to the point of making the

organization one that is further removed from French participation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, in connection with these matters I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he is going to leave for the NATO foreign ministers' meeting in Brussels, and whether he is going to take advantage of his presence in Europe at that time to discuss with the French government the terms under which we will be leaving our two air force bases in France.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we have no alternative but to withdraw from the two bases. Where the units will be relocated has not yet been determined. The negotiations could run up to April 1, 1967. I will be discussing a number of matters concerning our bilateral relations with the French foreign minister next Monday.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would it not be possible for the government to give effect to the New Democratic Party proposal to return our forces to Canada for training without denouncing the treaty?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: It might be possible, but whether it is desirable is another question.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: My question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the growing concern over the proliferation of judicial inquiries and royal commissions, would the Prime Minister tell us whether the government intends to bring in legislation establishing the office of ombudsman during this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it will certainly not be early in the session.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton Wesl):: May
I request some information from the Minister
May 31, 196G

of Transport on the matter of the St. Lawrence seaway tolls. Will the minister inquire from the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority whether they would be prepared to receive further briefs on the question of tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway and lockage fees on the Welland ship canal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority has already indicated to me and to one or two persons who have inquired that they would be prepared to receive briefs at any time up to June 20 which under the law, is 10 days before they have to make their recommendations to the government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister undertake to transmit to the seaway authority a copy of last Thursday's Hansard with a covering letter indicating his approbation of the expression of opinion by the house on the question of the seaway tolls?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the seaway authority are regular subscribers to Hansard and do not need to have their attention drawn to it by me.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in his capacity as future minister of manpower.
Has he received any reports for the 1961 winter works concerning the municipality of Notre-Dame-de-la-Guadeloupe in the last few days and has he conducted an investigation in that connection?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this question is sufficiently urgent to warrant it being asked at this time.


Raymond Langlois: Then I request that the question be debated at ten o'clock.



REPORTED CONGESTION IN MANITOBA AND SASKATCHEWAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: Last Friday I directed a question to the Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry of Transport, and in his absence the acting minister took notice of it. Can the minister say whether he has taken any action to advise officials of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railway with regard to the heavy grain congestion in the eastern part of Saskatchewan and Manitoba? This question is of some urgency because we have only 39 shipping days left before July 31.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand the information was given to the railways. I also have the impression they are aware of it.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: wish to ask this question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware of the encouraging action taken by the government of British Columbia toward combating lung cancer by declaring today, May 31, to be non-smoking day in British Columbia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: My question is addressed to the minister of manpower and immigration. Considering the serious charges and the excellent suggestions contained in the study called "Newcomers and New Learning" by Edith Ferguson, can the minister tell us whether he has received this study, whether careful attention is being paid to it, and whether steps will be taken to implement the recommendations contained therein?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will have to read the book before he can decide whether the question is in order.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: My
question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the strike situation in Montreal, would the minister consider leaving the Air Canada overhaul base in strike-free Winnipeg?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Thank heaven there is no strike yet in Air Canada.
May 31, 1966-

Government Organization


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he would explain his answer of a minute ago, when he was thanking heaven there was not yet a strike in Air Canada. Is he anticipating a strike?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very hopeful that there will not be a strike.



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received yesterday or today a communication from the federation of Quebec businessmen's associations asking for a royal commission on bankruptcies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member is not in order in asking whether a telegram or message has been received.



GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 30, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-178, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Mr. Pearson-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 29-duties, powers and functions of the minister.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on Monday, clause 29 of the bill was being considered.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, at this stage of our consideration of the bill we are dealing with a department which will have as its responsibility perhaps the most vital area for Canada's future, namely, the responsibility on the one hand for developing and co-ordinating policies, plans and programs with respect to Canada's resources in co-operation with the provinces, plans for the development of the resources of the territories, the territorial waters and the continental shelf under the jurisdiction of the federal government on the other hand, and bringing those plans into a

co-ordinated whole, thereby giving to this country one of the surest and most important springboards or foundations to ensure the maintenance of our independence, our future prosperity, our growth and survival as a nation, as well as the ability to play an ever more important part in the community of nations.
It is in this context that I want to discuss the deficiencies of the plans and of the organization proposed for this department. I regret that the minister who is designated as minister of this department is not in the committee at the moment because it would be interesting, and I believe important, to have his explanations at this stage and his answers with respect to our criticisms, not of the expressed intent of the legislation but rather of the ways in which it falls short of implementing that intent.
Last evening, Mr. Chairman, I had just finished pointing out the inconsistencies between policy in connection with this new department as stated by the Prime Minister on various occasions and the implementation of that policy as reflected in the right hon. gentleman's speech on second reading.
Let me review the situation very briefly, Mr. Chairman. The object on the government side, as stated by the Prime Minister and others, is to consolidate the responsibility for the development of resources policy. Unfortunately the accomplishment so far as this bill is concerned is a complete division of responsibility in that field between two departments. Indeed, in my submission, never was a policy so good in principle so completely defeated in detail by the results of legislation introduced ostensibly to implement that policy.
Last night I had directed attention to the statement of the Prime Minister which is reported at page 5431 of Hansard as to the roles and responsibilities of the two ministers concerned, the minister of Indian affairs and northern development on the one hand and the minister of energy, mines and resources on the other, and I had pointed out the areas of potential conflict.
This process of outlining conflict and division was continued in the speech of the Prime Minister in the tortured explanation he gave, as reported on the balance of page 5431 and down through the first column of page 5432 of Hansard, including his very inept use of the words "dry land" and "wet land". Well, Mr. Chairman, perhaps his use of those words is not so inept after all; they may be a pretty
May 31, 1966

apt description of the state of the government administration as it will exist after this bill goes through.
Wet land, as I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, is usually a bog, and if not drained it becomes a quicksand. I have a very acute suspicion that the future course of administration in this field, if this legislation goes through in its present form, will be bogged down in the wet land left by the Prime Minister's proposals and it will need more than the ordinary lifebuoy to drag it out of the quicksand in which it will founder.
I want to direct the committee's attention to the specific passages found at the bottom of the first column on page 5432 and the top of the second column where the Prime Minister is reported as follows:
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.
So, Mr. Chairman, we have one of the most important areas of jurisdiction in resource planning and development divided in half arbitrarily.
Then the Prime Minister, failing so utterly to appreciate the disastrous consequences of that division, went on to say:
This division is not reflected in the present bill because it has no legal consequences or significance.
What an abysmal failure, Mr. Chairman, to appreciate the very far reaching significance of what is proposed. The Prime Minister dismisses it in his next words:
It is simply a division of federal administrative responsibility between two federal ministers about which I thought I should inform the house.
I wish indeed that we could take it as casually as does the Prime Minister. It indicates a complete lack of awareness on the part of the government of any of the significance of this field of resource development, and with the tremendous potential in the northern areas and in the continental shelf it especially indicates a complete unawareness of the importance of co-ordinating policies in
Government Organization this regard. Here we have the most confusing division with respect to administrative arrangements. Did you ever hear of such a half-baked idea of dividing administrative responsibility for areas having the same general problems between two different ministers?
Perhaps even more important, Mr. Chairman, than the chaos created by this administrative division is the fact that the bill is completely silent as to the responsibility for planning and co-ordination of programs for development. It is important that we bear in mind this distinction between responsibility for administration and carrying out plans and physical development on the one hand and the responsibility for making those plans and co-ordinating national policy on the other.
The bill having created chaos by an administrative division, Mr. Chairman, it further confuses the situation by being silent as to the responsibility for planning within the area of the continental shelf. I say that because in clause 17 the minister of Indian affairs and northern development is given responsibility for the territories and their resources and affairs; and while I may have some reservations about the effect of the wording, nevertheless in so far as administrative responsibility is concerned on the whole I think that is sound. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, the minister is in effect acting as trustee for future provinces. This, of course, is acceptable, and in that respect I am sure the territories will co-operate with the minister of energy, mines and resources with respect to the planning and co-ordination of programs in those areas.
However, Mr. Chairman, although the minister of northern development is given responsibility for the territories and their resources and affairs, nowhere is anyone given responsibility for the resources underlying the territorial waters of Canada or the resources of the continental shelf, that is to say, responsibility for the planning, programming and co-ordination of the development programs. In clause 29, the clause now under consideration, no mention is made of these areas or their resources.
Our view is that there must be the clearest definition of administrative responsibility and responsibility for planning and development of resource policy in these areas which, as I have said, constitute a large part of one of the most vital areas of Canadian development and interest. In our view, Mr. Chairman, you simply cannot leave out responsibility for
May 31. 1966

Government Organization planning in one half the area of Canada-the territories, the territorial waters and the continental shelf.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
We therefore propose to move two amendments to rectify this situation. The first would be an amendment to give to the minister of energy, mines and resources responsibility for the administration of the resources underlying the territorial waters within the continental shelf in so far as these belong to Canada. This amendment and its results must be read to some extent, of course as subject to whatever ruling the Supreme Court of Canada may make with respect to jurisdiction in this field.
I pause here, Mr. Chairman, to say that in our view, as we have already expressed it, if the ruling should support the position taken by the government of Canada there must be immediately a discussion with the provinces with regard to a fair apportionment of the benefits of these resources.
The second amendment we will move is an amendment having as its purpose to make clear that the minister has responsibility for planning and co-ordinating programs for all of these resources. Both of these amendments refer to clause 29 of the bill. I say this because I should like to complete my remarks and then speak only briefly before moving the second amendment. We feel that there must be an amendment to make sure that this minister has responsibility for planning and co-ordinating the programs for resources. So far as national responsibility is concerned for co-ordinating these plans and programs, we feel there is at the moment a substantial gap which is not repaired by the inclusion in clause 31 of the bill of the proposed new section 8A of the Resources and Technical Surveys Act.
It should be borne in mind that although there is presently in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources Act section 7 which clearly delineates the responsibility and authority of the minister for planning in this regard, that section is being repealed. In our view nothing adequate is provided to take its place.
When I move the second amendment I shall go into a little more detail as to why we feel the proposed section 8A of the Resources and Technical Surveys Act is not adequate to fill this gap. I mention the proposed amendment now because I want the committee to realize that the two amendments are complementary. The first one,

which I will move in a moment, is to make it clear that the minister has responsibility for administration of the resources of the territorial waters and continental shelf instead of that responsibility being bifurcated as at present.
The second amendment would give the minister of energy, mines and resources responsibility and authority for planning, so far as the federal government is concerned, in this area and of co-ordinating these plans between the federal and provincial authorities. On that basis, Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Section 29 of the Bill be amended by deleting the word "and" at the end of subclause (b) and adding thereto the following subclauses:
(d)	the resources underlying the territorial waters of Canada: and
(e)	the resources underlying the continental shelf in so far as the same are assigned to Canada by the international agreement respecting the continental shelf reached at Geneva in 1958.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak to this amendment and say a few words in response to the points brought forward by the hon. member for Kamloops. He told us that a committee of his party had canvassed the situation and decided it was imperative that the resources of Canada, their organization and planning for their exploitation should be held in one department and not more than one. I am quite certain that does not represent the viewpoint of all the members of his own party. The hon. member referred to the regrettable gap that existed, and I think there is a gap in his knowledge of the particular conditions that exist in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I am going to tell him now that no member of a government who had allocated to him the responsibility for the development of Northwest Territories and the Yukon could discharge that responsibility or have any hope of discharging it unless he had control of the resources of these particular areas.
The other day the Prime Minister referred to the minister charged with this responsibility. I am quite certain that these views I am now giving to the hon. member for Kamloops would be corroborated by the former ministers in his party who have had the responsibility that I now have. The first impression one gets when one goes to the Northwest Territories, and to a lesser extent the Yukon, is that there are no resources above the ground. There has been a long-held hope that there are great resources under the ground. I
May 31. 1966

need only remind the house again, to prove that this is the very fortunate case, that in one year from 1964 to 1965, as a result of the building of the Pine Point Railway, the production of metals in the Northwest Territories rose from $17 million to $74 million. In the current year it is going to exceed $100 million. I predict it will go on to many hundreds of millions of dollars because of the development that is taking place there.
The people who reside there are hopeful of creating something other than the type of government they enjoy at the present time. They can look forward to the development of what the Prime Minister referred to hopefully the other day as one or more provinces in an area where the resources are conserved and developed for their advantage.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In order to improve the living standards of the Eskimo and Indian people in the north it is necessary to relate these native people to the resources which lie there. The hon. member has made an unconvincing case. I am sure he would not have attempted it in this house had he made a visit to the territories or been in touch with members of his own party who have responsibilities there.
With regard to offshore rights, let me say that we have in Canada at the present time about 1,400,000 cubic miles of sedimentary rock. Not all sedimentary rock contains oil but all oil comes from sedimentary rock.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Laing: More than one million cubic miles of this rock is in the high Arctic islands entirely apart from the Northwest Territories compared with 135,000 cubic miles to be found in Alberta which is today our great source of oil.
So we are extremely enthusiastic about the development of the north and I as minister have to relate the ambitions, the hopes and the plans of the people who live there to conditions as they exist today. The population in the north wishes its resources to be maintained in order that the people may be able to develop the type of government they want. It will therefore be necessary to refuse to accept this amendment at this time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has rejected the amendment and advanced an argument in support of its rejection apparently without having read the terms of the proposal. I cannot believe that a colleague of mine in this house from British Columbia would be so

Government Organization incapable of understanding an amendment unless he had failed to read it. I can only suppose that he did not read it and that he is stubbornly determined to oppose it simply because it comes forward as a constructive suggestion from the official opposition.
I was glad to find the hon. gentleman paying tribute to the work started by the Conservative government in connection with the Pine Point Railway. It is unusual to find members opposite saying anything good about the government which preceded their own.


Mr. Benson:: There is little that can be said.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Had the minister paused to reflect he would have realized that members of a government which took such an interest in developing the north would scarcely fail to recognize the importance of developing the administrative integrity of the resources in that area.
I should also like to inform the minister, in order to keep the record straight, that I visited the territories on two occasions during the time I had some responsibility in that area in connection with the R.C.M.P. and the administration of justice. I took advantage of that opportunity to talk to the people there and became acquainted with their ambitions and their views. I realize how important it is to the development of their plans that we should maintain the administrative integrity of those resources in the area. I should also like to assure the minister that I have discussed this question with my hon. friends in this party including, of course, the hon. member for Yukon. Unlike the situation in the hon. gentleman's own party, there is no internal dissension within our ranks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are not divided by the kind of dissension which makes it impossible for members of the government opposite to introduce some of their most important pieces of legislation, the kind of dissension which holds up the Bank Act.
I have indeed discussed this question with my hon. friends of this party including the hon. member for Yukon. The essential point, and one which the minister has failed to appreciate, is that the amendment I have presented in no way lessens the administrative responsibility of the minister of Indian affairs and northern development in relation to resources within the territories. It changes in no way the provisions of section 17 of the
May 31, 1966

Government Organization bill. What it does is to straighten out the bifurcated responsibility for the administration of the shelf and of the territorial waters, that is the resources of the shelf outside the land areas of the territories. Whatever the minister may say, this is a desirable and, indeed, an essential development if we are to have a policy of co-ordinated resource development in this country.


Arthur Laing: would the hon. member permit a question before he resumes his seat? Is he saying that the hon. member for Yukon supports this amendment?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Most certainly. And let the minister not pretend that this amendment does what he pretends it is doing. I know perfectly well the game the minister is playing. Let him not pretend that this takes away any degree of ministerial responsibility for the administration of the resources within the land area of the territories. It does not.


Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Chairman, having listened to remarks made by the minister I think I should say a few words. As my hon. friend from Kamloops has pointed out, this amendment was put forward in an attempt to rectify what is in our view a schizophrenic act by the government. The Prime Minister, speaking on second reading, announced that the continental shelf would be divided between two ministers. The effect of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kamloops is to place the shelf under one minister's jurisdiction.
Speaking on second reading I emphasized that in the future the continental shelf would be the subject of hard bargaining with nations like Russia in the west and north and with the countries of Europe to the east while the boundary line was being defined. What struck me as being schizophrenic was that the Prime Minister said that one minister would have responsibility for the shelf north of an arbitrary line while another would have responsibility south of that line. It is my firm belief that responsibility for dealing with foreign powers and for developing policy with respect to the continental shelf should be under one minister.
Had the government been content to leave the whole of the responsibility with the minister of northern affairs there would, I am sure, have been less objection taken here. This is the position adopted by the hon. member for Yukon. He was trying to preserve the resources of this area under the

control of the northern development section of the government. Administratively we want to strengthen the minister of northern affairs. But since there is to be a division of responsibility between the two ministers, then at least let us put responsibility for the continental shelf under one or the other.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
This could be done without reducing the power of the minister one iota under his part of the bill because there is nothing in that part which precisely implies that the continental shelf will be under his department. We simply had a statement by the Prime Minister on second reading, and under the Transfer of Duties Act it can be placed anywhere without statutory enactment.
What we are trying to do by this amendment is to put into clear, statutory language the fact that we want one minister to have charge of the continental shelf. The continental shelf is in two parts, the territorial section which runs from high water mark to three miles offshore and, second, that part of the bottom of the sea which is beyond the three mile limit and extends halfway across the Arctic, the Atlantic and the Pacific, as far as our jurisdiction will go when these areas are finally divided. What we are trying to do is give constructive help to the government so that there will be one minister to whom we can address questions about the behaviour of the government on continental shelf policy.
That is the essence of our amendment. If any one minister had this responsibility I think that would be satisfactory to most of us. As I pointed out on second reading, I thought from the words of the Prime Minister that the workings of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources were being cut down to a provincial government type operation and I stated that I was a little bit frightened about the personality who was going to look after the other department which the Prime Minister called "national". To keep the legislation itself coherent and logical I suggest that these amendments make sense. There is another matter I intend to raise but I think it will come up more properly after a vote is taken on this amendment.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I had intended to speak earlier but I think my remarks will apply equally well to the amendment and to the bill. I have gone back to the statement made by the Prime Minister on second reading at the pages referred to by the hon. member for Kamloops. It concerns
May 31, 1986
me a bit to see statements that at some time in the future we will have one or more provinces in the north, because there are some Canadians who do not look favourably on the idea of having an additional province in an area of small population, with a complete provincial assembly and all the trappings and expense that go with it in order to administer the affairs of a small group of people.
We seem to have set our minds so firmly on the concept of Canada continuing to proliferate in provinces that we have ignored, until it is almost too late to do anything else, the possibility of other arrangements such as expanding existing provinces and thus negating the necessity of setting up others that will be a material drain on the rest of Canada.
I am concerned that this particular aspect of government reorganization has been introduced at this time and that we are engaging in setting up a department of energy at a time when the question of the territorial shelf and offshore mineral rights has been placed before the Supreme Court of Canada by the federal government. The Prime Minister stated:
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.
If they are essentially national in character I do not think the whole question would have had to be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. If that were the case the situation would have been adjusted automatically. The Prime Minister went on to say:
This is purely a constitutional question and it has been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion.
I submit that it is not purely a constitutional question but is a political question. The confederation of British Columbia with the rest of Canada was at that time a political settlement which of course had a constitutional arrangement, but there are many other factors involved than simply the constitution as such. I would recommend to hon. members an article in the winter 1966 edition of Queen's Quarterly by Edwin R Black, titled "Oil Off shore Troubles the Waters." In it he sets out some of the arguments for the federal case and one of them is:
-extending Canada's sovereign boundaries westward into the Pacific ocean beyond those bound-anes which British Columbia brought with it when it joined the federation in 1871.
When it gets around to tackling this issue the supreme court is going to have an 23033-365
Government Organization extremely difficult time sorting out the constitutional implications from the political. I am convinced it will not find it a purely constitutional question and that its decision is just as likely, if not more so, to come down on the side of B.C. as on the side of the federal government. The rather pathetic suggestion that if it does we can then make the necessary readjustments, but at the moment we will go ahead and set up the machinery, anticipating the decision of the supreme court, is something which we should criticize most strenuously as a sort of fait accompli being presented by the government and, if anything, it is being assisted by the amendment presented by the hon. member for Kamloops.
I do not know if that was the hon. member's original intention but as the amendment is worded it is going to apply to a great deal more than offshore Arctic waters. It is going to concern the offshore waters of B.C. and I would remind hon. members that B.C. is the only province which has a Pacific coast. There are some aspects of the problem that are quite unique to the province and-


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Howard Earl Johnston: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: From the words he has just used are we to infer that he believes that Canada does not have a Pacific coast?


Howard Earl Johnston: That is not quite the interpretation I would put on it. I would suggest that B.C. brought its Pacific coast to Canada in confederation and that they are identical. Therefore the development that was going on at that time must be considered rather than any changing of the picture. I think in a way that this part of the bill is out of order. I do not have any legal training. I cannot say that the question is sub judice or use such legal terms, but it does seem a bit improper for this house today to proceed to divide authority over part of Canada when we are awaiting a supreme court decision whether or not we have the power to do that.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, the minister in charge of northern development has intimated that former ministers of northern affairs would not be quite in sympathy with the amendments that have been put forward by the hon. member for Kamloops. I shall speak only briefly because we are anxious to get on with this legislation but I want to indicate without any equivocation whatsoever

575$

May 31. 1966
Government Organization that I heartily endorse the two amendments. I should like to speak about them together in order to save time.


Arthur Laing: The Yukon is not going to like you either.
0	(4:00 p.m.)


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak to the two amendments because had
1	had the opportunity last evening to speak on clause 15, I would have pointed out that under the terms of the omnibus bill now before us the ministerial responsibilities which come under the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources now are rapidly withering away. As the Prime Minister himself has indicated, the responsibilities of the minister of northern development will be those of a provincial premier. This means that the former important responsibility for national planning of resource development, which was emphasized by prime minister Louis St. Laurent, has been left out in no-man's land to a certain extent. Therefore I heartily agree with the hon. member for Kamloops that in view of the transition taking place under this legislation it should be spelled out in no uncertain terms that the minister of energy, mines and resources should carry on the responsibility for national planning in the resource area which under the former act was delegated to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
I say this because I think the minister of resources has not realized he is assuming a very important responsibility which only recently has been assumed by the federal government. In a speech in Toronto over the week end the minister of resources dealt with national resource planning in the realm of water resources. My attention was drawn to a significant editorial in the Toronto Star of yesterday, May 30, under the heading "Stand Up and Lead, Mr. Pepin''. This article scored the minister's speech on national responsibility for water resources for failing to demonstrate the initiative and leadership which is required if Canada is to continue to cope with the crisis in renewable resource development which is now on our doorstep and has been for the past decade or so. So, contrary to what the minister of northern development has said, I heartily support the viewpoint expressed by the hon. member for Kamloops.
Others have given consideration to the anomalies and discrepancies which appear with reference to the administration of the

continental shelf and, to use the learned phrase of the hon. member for Kamloops, the bifurcation of responsibility in this regard. Mr. Maurice Western, writing in the Winnipeg Free Press, has drawn attention to this problem in precisely the same terms as the hon. member for Kamloops did this afternoon. Here is how this distinguished journalist points up the problem:
Mr. Pearson's original idea, evidently, was that Mr. Pepin would be concerned with matters national in character and not relating to any particular province or territory. The 60th parallel would be a convenient dividing line and Mr. Pepin would take over the controversial business of resources on the continental shelf.
But the problem was not so simple and Mr. Pearson ended with a "purely pragmatic" solution, which he explained in his somewhat laborious speech of Tuesday. He seems to have thought at one point that Mr. Laing might function as a "dry land" and Mr. Pepin as a "wet land" minister. But nothing is much wetter than the north, especially the Arctic archipelago. It was decided that Mr. Laing would have charge of this area on the theory that it is land "interlaced" with water while Mr. Pepin, incredibly, would be responsible for the islands of the bay because they represent "exactly the opposite situation."
Thus "to avoid confusion" the line is to run "substantially along the south coast of Southampton and Baffin island." In fact, however, the islands south of the line are part of the Northwest Territories. This is a ridiculous situation.
So others are concerned with the problem we are attempting to solve through this amendment this afternoon. A short time ago the minister interjected a suggestion that the hon. member for Yukon would not be in sympathy with the sentiments of this amendment and that the present comments I am making would not go down very well with the people of the Yukon Territory. It already has been spelled out that the administration of the mainland in the north would not be disturbed at all by the amendment. What we are endeavouring to do is to rationalize the anomaly outlined in the comments made by Mr. Maurice Western in his article in the Winnipeg Free Press of May 25.
If it would serve the minister's purpose that he assume total responsibility for the continental shelf, that would get around the difficulty in precisely the same way as the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Kamloops; in other words, he would have the total responsibility. I am sure my hon. friend from the Yukon would be heartily in sympathy with this viewpoint. What we are asking is that the confusion which is obvious at least to most members of the house and to distinguished members of the press gallery shall be ended in one way or another. Either
May 31, 1966	COMMONS
the minister of resources should assume this total responsibility or the minister of northern development should do so.
As a former minister of northern affairs and in view of the rapid withering away of the department of northern affairs I would say, speaking sentimentally, that it might be placed under the jurisdiction of the department of northern development. If the minister cannot accept our amendment, I hope sincerely that in the interest of peace, order, good government and good common sense he will seize the initiative and resolve this difficulty by placing it under his own moral responsibility.


Mr. Davis:: Mr. Chairman, before the vote is taken I should like say two or three words.
I listened with considerable interest to the hon. member for Kamloops. The word he used most frequently was "gap"; he referred to the yawning gap between several departments which was developing because of this legislation. He thought this applied particularly in areas of policy. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle got up and said that this responsibility should be in either one department or another. In other words, his primary concern seemed to be with overlapping in the future administration of the government's policies with regard to matters such as water and energy. One speaker from the opposition side is concerned about gaps and another about overlapping. I suggest there is some inconsistency in this regard.
In respect of fundamental matters like water and energy, which nowadays are becoming of increasing interest in this country, there have been various government departments involved. Necessarily there is some degree of overlapping and some degree of co-ordination but this legislation is designed to minimize the degree of overlapping. More of the responsibilities in connection with water and energy have been put together in one new department, the department of energy, mines and resources.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The amendment refers to this matter. The hon. member for Kamloops is concerned primarily with the fact, and this is substantially an interpretation of his words, that the new minister of energy, mines and resources will not have authority over planning, programming and co-ordinating of policies with regard to energy. I respectfully submit that 23033-3651
DEBATES	5757
Government Organization the clause as it now stands does give the minister that power. The clause reads:
The duties, powers and functions of the minister of energy, mines and resources extend to and include all matters over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction-
I wish to emphasize the words, "all matters over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction." Surely "all matters" includes planning, programming and co-ordinating. Surely this is what policy-making is all about, and I trust that policy-making is still one of the principal functions of the government of Canada. Therefore I would suggest that the amendment to this extent is redundant and unnecessary.
I listened with some interest to the hon member for Okanagan-Revelstoke who, coming from the province of British Columbia and being a member of the Social Credit faith, believes that the offshore mineral resources, at least on the west coast, should come under the jurisdiction of the province as distinct from the jurisdiction of the nation. I happen to hold the contrary view. However, I suggest that wherever the jurisdiction for these resources resides, and I believe it resides with the nation, this subject clearly comes within the terms and wording of the present clause. Therefore the clause does not have to be amended.
Unlike several hon. members on the opposition side who really skated around the issue of whether off-shore mineral rights belong to the province or the nation, I categorically state that I believe these are matters which this clause now covers in its present form. They are certainly covered by subclause (a), energy, mines and minerals.
Reference was made to the present minister and some recent statements he has made. I know that the present incumbent, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys is a very intelligent and capable man who has come to understand effectively and quickly not only the administrative details but also the policy implications and responsibilities of his new department. I am convinced that he and certainly this government intend to strike clearcut stances and declare clearcut policies in respect of resources. I think this is vital and important, and I suggest to hon. members that to add more lines to clause 29 would merely proliferate the words and perhaps undermine the power of the federal government. I suggest we should all vote against it.
May 31, 1966

Government Organization


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the arguments of the hon. gentleman who preceded me. He seemed to advance them with a certain amount of diffidence. He started off powerfully and ended up almost apologetically. His final words were to the effect that any amendment of this kind would weaken the powers of the department. I find it difficult to understand that argument.
The hon. gentleman referred also to the fact that the members of the opposition were dodging the question of the ownership of offshore mineral rights. The present government of Canada has done just that. The question of mineral rights should not have been submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada. It should have been decided in a truly national way after discussion and consideration at a conference with the various provinces. Instead of that being done the government wanted to get away from its responsibility to make a decision, a course it has followed during the three years it has been in office.
I have a high regard for the minister, but as I listened to his argument to the effect that of the north will strengthen the administra-dividing by arbitrary lines the various areas tion of the great resources to which he referred I must say that I felt it was indeed one of the most unusual arguments I have ever heard. The government is going to say to one minister, this part of the sea is your jurisdiction, and to another minister, this part of the sea is your jurisdiction. Let me suggest that this government needs no assistance so far as being at sea is concerned. I cannot understand what is behind the attitude taken by members on the government side toward this amendment. I would have thought it would be accepted as a serious endeavour to strengthen the department.
I listened with tremendous interest to the minister as he paid warm words of tribute to the Pine Point Railway development.


Arthur Laing: I was trying to hatch your vision.


John George Diefenbaker: I am very glad to find there has been a change of attitude on the part of the minister opposite. When we went ahead with this proposition the Liberals ridiculed it as another example of the weakness of the vision of northern development. That which was heresy when we were in office is now embraced by the present government as an example of its wise foresight in bringing the development of the north to fruition.
IMr. Davis.]


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: We remember the immortal words of the Prime Minister when the Conservative party spoke of the new northern development. He said: What are they going to do, build roads and railroads from igloo to igloo? There is always hope when there is recognition of wrongdoing, however late. There is always hope for those who adopt that attitude. Imagine the change that took place. They ridiculed this vision and said it was a nightmare. We went ahead in the face of the most bitter criticism on the part of the Liberal opposition of that day and proceeded with the development of the north. The people of northern Canada realize that it is in consequence of our actions that tremendous mineral developments are taking place in the north.
The reference made by the minister to the Pine Point development was what one might call a tribute in reverse. He now admits that the reason he mentioned it without specifically paying a tribute was to assure to the Conservative party a subtle compliment. He hid that compliment very well when he spoke.
Speaking of development, what is going to happen when one minister is in charge of one portion of the sea and another in charge of another portion? Why does the government establish this division and what is behind it? Where is the incumbent minister of this department? Is he away today on some political harangue? Why is he not here when this whole matter is being considered? What possible excuse can there be for his absence?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I know the right hon. gentleman would not wish to leave the impression with anyone that he was unfairly attacking a minister. The minister in question today is in Winnipeg attending a meeting of the resource ministers council of Canada making plans for a convention on the subject of pollution to be held in the city of Montreal in November. I am sure this convention will be of tremendous value to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that indicates how little hon. members opposite have upon which to base their applause when they pound their desks in the manner they have. The place for a minister when a matter dealing with his responsibility is before parliament is here in the house. I
May 31. 19G6

think even at this stage there should be a move made to postpone the discussion of this subject until he has returned. Today he is on an important mission and certainly we should not go ahead behind his back to make a determination of an amendment of which he knows nothing and which possibly he in his wisdom might decide is worth while.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: They laugh because they know he has no wisdom.


John George Diefenbaker: I suggest that this portion of the bill be left over for further consideration. I should like to give an example of the kind of thing that is going on. I cannot understand the division of responsibility that is taking place. The hon. member for Kamloops mentioned divisions a moment ago. One of the finest examples is the shadow-boxing going on between the Minister of Finance and his predecessor. I recall one of Abraham Lincoln's sorties that I think illustrates the situation very well. He spoke at one time of two men, somewhat intoxicated-that does not apply-who got into a fight. Both were wearing overcoats. They fought for over an hour and when it was over each was wearing the other's coat.
As I thought of this example of unity within the ranks of the present government I could not help but recall Abraham Lincoln's story. We do not know what their stand is on the question of northern development. The Minister of National Revenue is fully conversant with these things, but in connection with northern development some questions have been asked of him regarding Mr. John Doyle and they have not been answered.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I have the floor now.


Edgar John Benson: On a question of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman-


John George Diefenbaker: I have the floor.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The Minister of National Revenue on a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, on what point does the hon. gentleman rise?


Edgar John Benson: On a question of privilege. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition
Government Organization indicated that questions have been asked of me with respect to northern development, which is really not the case. Perhaps he is referring to one question concerning an individual's personal tax affairs which was put on the order paper last Friday. I can assure him that it will be answered promptly.


John George Diefenbaker: Fine. Now we are making progress. We did get one answer in this connection which shows something about what is going on in these departments with regard to northern development. It is difficult to understand. The question was asked by the hon. member for Saskatoon and is recorded at page 5673 of Hansard:
1.	Is the federal government aware of a press release of Canadian Javelin Limited concerning a $35 million paved highway to connect Goose Bay with the Gulf of St. Lawrence and, if so, has the government announced its intention to build such a road?
2.	Has the said road been approved by the government and (a) if so, when (b) if not, what is the present position of this project?
This question was answered by another minister, not the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources who has to do with northern development. The answer was:
1.	The answer to both parts is no.
2.	No such project has been approved by the government.
The answer was given by the Minister of Public Works. Mention was made by the hon. member for Saskatoon that he had certain information in this connection. The government has no knowledge of this great developmental plan that will help the Doyle interests, nothing of that kind whatsoever. I have before me a press release of Canadian Javelin Limited which deals with the question of development. We want to know what is behind this. The release describes the developments that are taking place. Mind you, a reputable company such as the one with which Mr. Doyle is connected would not be putting forth things that are not true because even in his present condition he is one of the worshippers of this government, one who, according to those who know, devoted himself in various ways to assuring that this government would actually be formed. This is what the press release says:
The federal government of Canada has announced its intention to immediately build a new $35 million paved highway which is to connect Goose Bay on lake Melville with the gulf of St. Lawrence and the strait of Belle Isle. This highway will permit winter shipments from the proposed mill as it will provide access to a year-round port on the gulf of St. Lawrence. The new road will play an
May 31. 1966

Government Organization
important role in the harvesting and transportation of the wood as it bisects Jubilee-NALCO forest reserves. These reserves contain approximately 50 million cords of valuable black spruce.
Certainly a man of Mr. Doyle's standing would not be placing before the public a completely untrue statement. I can only review this matter, sir, in relation to the development of the northern areas of Canada by saying that there has been too much division opposite. One minister looks after one phase of development and another minister looks after another. The answer given yesterday does not meet the situation and I would suggest that there be a little more consultation.
Returning once more to the question of division of responsibilities let me ask, can anyone contend-it surprises me to find the minister of northern development doing this-that there can be any justification for dividing the areas of the sea between two departments on a territorial line enunciated in a general way by the Prime Minister in the course of his remarks? What is the reason for this? Are our great northern areas going to secure developments that otherwise would not take place? Surely there is no efficiency in this.
The explanation given is that if we accept this, swallow it, somehow or other developments are going to be initiated in northern Canada by those who now are the government of this country, who ridiculed the potentialities of northern Canada throughout the years and now want to go ahead with further developments. Instead of having unity they are going to divide the northern sea areas between two ministers. If division is going to increase efficiency, why have they not distributed the responsibility among three or four ministers? What is the purpose of this? It may add to the number of ministers, but the Prime Minister has said it will not. What is the purpose here?
Why does the minister, so out of hand, brush aside a suggestion that I thought he would have been the first to at least consider? He is not the one who is going to administer these matters; another has been chosen and that other is away today. I suggest that the minister who is piloting this bill through the house might very well postpone further consideration of it. You never know, when the absent minister comes back he might be one of the first to agree, because of the views he has expressed, that what we are trying to do is increase efficiency in this

connection. What is being done by the government in taking responsibility for development and dividing it, subdividing it and handing it out to one minister and another will achieve a state of chaos, which is something this government needs no assistance in bringing about.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Chairman, I have been unavoidably absent from the house during the initial stages of this discussion because of attending a very thought-provoking and useful discussion with the members of the Carrothers commission who are most concerned about matters affecting the north and northern development. I really do not know what all the fuss is about. I do not know what everyone is arguing about because the matters before the house should properly be under the control and jurisdiction of the people of the north, not of this house.


John (Jack) Davis: You are on the wrong part of the bill.


Erik Nielsen: I am not on the wrong part of the bill at all. If the hon. member for Coast-Capilano had any appreciation of matters concerning the north he would not make aimless remarks. Clause 17(b) deals specifically with matters about which I am going to speak. So far as divisions are concerned-


An hon. Member:: We are on clause 29.


Erik Nielsen: We are now talking about the transfer of responsibility for resources which lie in the north from one department to another, and I intend to speak about this.
So far as division is concerned, I can remember when those who now sit opposite were on this side of the house and the former minister of transport, now Canadian high commissioner in England, said in one of his speeches-this will give an indication of the kind of attitude displayed toward the development of the north by those who now sit over there-"I am sick to my stomach of all this talk about northern development where nobody lives but Indians and Eskimos anyway".


Mr. Byrne:: That is why he is high commissioner.


Erik Nielsen: Exactly. That was his record.


John George Diefenbaker: You say that is why he is high commissioner? Those are Liberal rewards.
May 31, 1966


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Kootenay East has interjected before. When the Leader of the Opposition was speaking he said "Don't be so childish". This came from an expert on all things childish. He finds it so easy to change feet when he opens his mouth.
Speaking about divisions existing over there, I say that the minister should look within his own ranks and within his own heart because I know he does not like these changes. He felt very baldy about the responsibility for resources being forcibly taken away from him and given to someone else for whom some position had to be found. The resource responsibility in the minister's department was and is one of the most important. As I understand it, the position being taken on this side is that the administration of those resources should remain with him, and so it should, until such time as we can soften his hard heart and those of his colleagues in the government and get them to transfer the responsibility where it properly belongs. Until that time there can be no argument with the principle that he is acting in all respects like a provincial resource minister. He has the responsibility of controlling these resources until such time as that responsibility is transferred to properly constituted assemblies in the Yukon, Mackenzie and elsewhere in the north wherever provinces may be set up.


Arthur Laing: Would the hon. member speak to the member for Kamloops?


Erik Nielsen: I have spoken to the member for Kamloops and I can find no division between the policy he has stated and the policy I am stating now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The trouble is, the minister cannot or will not read the amendment.


Erik Nielsen: I am sure the minister can perceive it but with the propensity he has- and I do not attribute any motivation to him in this connection-of being unable to view things otherwise than in a political light it is sometimes difficult for him to see the unity which exists in constructive suggestions from this side of the house.
We in the north believe that the responsibility for resources should be under one minister instead of being divided in the way that is proposed.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Erik Nielsen: I can think of a reason
for the delineation of this arbitrary line
Government Organization which strikes northward from the western boundary of Hudson bay, skirts around the southern edge of Baffin island, over to Resolution island and thence to the eastern boundary of Canada in the Arctic, excluding all the islands south of that line which would come under the jurisdiction of the new proposed department.
That territory is in the north and was hitherto administered by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The minister shakes his head negatively, but this is so. He had responsibility for this resource and now it is being taken from him and, as the Leader of the Opposition put it, with respect to the continental shelf and territorial waters resources one minister has responsibility for one portion of the Arctic ocean and another minister for another portion. It seems completely illogical, and indeed it is. There is no justification for it.
However, I am pleased to see the amendment that has been put forward by this side advocating that resources underlying the territorial waters of Canada and the continental shelf be placed under the jurisdiction of one minister. That does not impair in the slightest way the jurisdiction of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources over his existing responsibilities with regard to administration of resources in the north. That is his one important responsibility and one which we look forward to assuming in due course.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member answer a question? He is even more familiar than I with the geography of the high Arctic islands. I am sure he would admit that over half of the sedimentaries in the Arctic are covered by water.


Erik Nielsen: I will agree immediately with the minister but I fail to see the relevance of the statement he has just made.


Arthur Laing: The relevance pertains to the fact that the hon. member for Yukon said he supports an amendment which would remove jurisdiction over those waters and the minerals under them from the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


Erik Nielsen: Precisely; I was speaking with respect to waters above the continental shelf and resources underlying the territorial waters of Canada. This does not impair in the slightest the jurisdiction of the minister.


Arthur Laing: I want to make myself clear. It has been known to Canadians, not only in the
May 31, 1966

Government Organization time of this government but previously, that over 50 per cent of the oil and gas which we hope and expect to take out of the north is under water. The hon. member is now supporting an amendment to remove jurisdiction over this resource from the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I fail to see how the amendment impairs at all the administrative responsibility of the minister if it is accepted.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is the key point, Mr. Chairman. When the Prime Minister spoke in the house on May 24 he said that the minister of Indian affairs and northern development would be like a provincial minister. On the other hand, he said that the minister of energy, mines and resources would be exercising responsibilities which are essentially, if I may use his word, "national" in character.
These lands underneath the sea are not provincial. Let that be clear. By international law the lands under the sea have been given to Canada, not to any province. Let us be clear about that. This does not mean that the federal government has to administer every little detail, because I am sure there will be discussions with the provinces and the territories about administration. But as to the silly argument that half the wealth of the north is under the sea, that is not the point at all.
Either the minister is to be, as the Prime Minister said, like a provincial minister or he is not. Either the other minister is to be, as the Prime Minister said, a national minister or he is not. The words of the Prime Minister are so clear, Mr. Chairman, that to try to divide a national responsibility and give part of it to a provincial minister just does not make sense.
We are not giving up one bit of the rights of the province of the future in the north to administer its own resources. They go to the high water mark like those of every other province do. The boundary of the province of Ontario stops short of the high water mark. The boundary of the province of Manitoba stops short of the high water mark. The boundary of the province of Quebec stops at the same point, short of the high water mark. Therefore, why should the Northwest Territories have more than any other province? If we are to be consistent, let us keep this bill consistent. If we are to have a national minister, then give him national responsibilities. But do not divide the cake in half.

If we still want to keep the resources of the continental shelf under the jurisdiction of one minister and if it is clearly understood that the continental shelf is to be looked after by the national minister and that the responsibility is delegated to the minister of the north, then that is good enough for me. I am simply making it very clear that a resource which is the property of Canada by the international law of the sea should be dealt with by the national minister.
If parliament wishes to place that national duty upon another minister then that is its privilege. But it should be one or the other, Mr. Chairman. We want that resource dealt with as one unit, as the property of the people of Canada, regardless of negotiations with the provinces or territories in connection with administering it. We will fight hard to keep the power of administration in the hands of the territories so far as administering those resources is concerned, but let me make it very clear that the resources at the bottom of the sea, whether in territorial waters or beyond the territorial waters, are the property of the national government by international law.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has helped to penetrate the lack of appreciation on the part of the minister of the point we on this side are attempting to make. I believe that the reason he fails to understand lies in the fact that even though he pays lip service to the idea, as does the Prime Minister, he does not even treat seriously the possibilty that one day there may be a province of the Yukon or a province of Mackenzie. I say that because if at this moment he thought of the Yukon, the Mackenzie, the eastern Arctic and possibly the high Arctic as provinces of the future and treated them in his mind as provinces, then the distinction would become clear at once and he would appreciate the responsibility he has regarding potential future provinces of this nature. That responsibility would be on all fours with the responsibility of any provincial resource minister and is quite distinct from the responsibility he now has with regard to resources under territorial waters and the resources of the continental shelf.
That is the distinction, Mr. Chairman, between the responsibilities, and to me that is the nub of the amendment. It is not difficult for me to think in terms of the future development of the Yukon and other northern areas as provinces because I am from
May 31, 1966	COMMONS
that area. It is not difficult for me to see that this amendment does not impair in the slightest the administrative responsibility that the minister now holds vis-a-vis his function as a resource minister in a provincial sense compared with his functions in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. That is why this amendment should commend itself to the minister but he has so far failed to appreciate the nature of the amendment and has suggested that there are divisions on this side when none exist at all.
Having explained that position, Mr. Chairman, 1 will resume my seat, believing that perhaps the words of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and my words have finally penetrated the thinking of the minister. I see him in discussion with the junior minister of transport who I suggest-


Arthur Laing: He is being very helpful.


Erik Nielsen: I am sure he is. I am sure he appreciates the point being made on this side, and he is one among the very few over there who has any sense of appreciation of northern problems and the north.


Mr. Turner:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, not quite in the same terms always as the hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: I am trying to be nice to the junior minister of transport.


An hon. Member:: Can you be?


Erik Nielsen: Oh, yes. I would commend the amendment. Now that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is silent I know that we have got through to him and he now sees the validity of the amendment. He stills looks a little quizzical but I would suggest to him that he take a minute or two to consult his colleague the Minister without Portfolio, whereupon he will see the light and be the first on his side to rise in support of the amendment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I desire to say only a few words about the amendment. As I understand it, the hon. member for Kamloops is concerned, as are many of us, about the proposal that the continental shelf shall be divided by a line north of which responsibility will lie with the minister of Indian affairs and northern development, with the area south of the line coming under the jurisdiction of the minister who will head the new department of energy, mines and resources. I think that this concern is shared by a great many of us.
DEBATES	5763
Government Organization
If the hon. member were moving, that all of the continental shelf and all of the territorial waters and minerals which lie thereunder should be transferred to the minister of Indian affairs and northern development, then I would certainly support the amendment. But this amendment does not provide that the minister of Indian affairs and northern development shall have such jurisdiction. On the contrary, it suggests that jurisdiction over minerals which are under the territorial waters and over all of the continental shelf shall be transferred to the new department of energy, mines and resources. It seems to me that if the proposal being made by the government is confusing and I think it is, the passing of this amendment would compound the confusion.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Edmund Davie Fulton: How would it do that?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to point out that if we are going to have adequate development of the minerals under territorial waters we will have to work out arrangements whereby they can be developed by the same people who are developing minerals on the land. I believe that the government of Canada must eventually enter into arrangements with the provinces to allow the provinces to administer the development of resources under the territorial waters. These arrangements would include a provision, of course, whereby the federal government would receive a share of the revenue from such development.
If we do not do that, what we will have increasingly will be two kinds of development going on side by side, one on the land and for three miles out under the sea and one set of regulations, one type of permit, one type of drilling regulations, one set of royalties, and totally different administrative procedures established for the territorial waters. This arrangement will not work satisfactorily or efficiently. I believe the time will come in Canada when the administration of mineral development, whether on the land or in territorial waters, will be under the same authority. I believe that it has to come. It may take a long time to work out but I think it is inevitable. If this is true, I suggest that all the minerals under the territorial waters and the continental shelf should be under the minister of Indian affairs and northern development.
If we follow the proposal in the amendment, this is what will happen: In the north applications for drilling permits and all the
May 31, 1966

Government Organization regulations that have to do with mineral development will be under the minister of Indian affairs and northern development. However, if a company wants to drill three miles off the shore of an island-I do not know how you know if you are three miles off the shore of an island when there is 20 feet of ice-it will have to apply to the minister of energy, mines and resources. If the north is to be developed, surely it has to be developed as a unit.
I do not profess to be any authority on the north, but as a result of visiting certain northern parts of Canada it seems to me absolutely ridiculous to think you can develop minerals in northern Canada by trying to follow a line three miles along the coast. It is true that the hon. member for Yukon said that when the time comes for the north to develop into provinces, as I hope it will, then there will have to be some arrangement between the federal government and the new provinces for the joint administration of the minerals under the territorial waters.
Surely in the meantime these resources ought to be developed as a single entity, under a single minister. If the committee believes we will have confusion under the government's proposal, imagine the confusion we will have if, in the development of the minerals of northern Canada, gas, oil and mining companies have to deal with two ministers merely because one company at one point is drilling through the ice where there is land and in another place the company is drilling through to the water under the ice. Surely that would be a ridiculous and fantastic situation, an administrative nightmare.
I certainly hope that the government will reconsider the suggestion for dividing the continental shelf. I agree with the official opposition that the continental shelf and the territorial waters ought to be under one minister, and that minister ought to be the minister of Indian affairs and northern development. Since this amendment will not accomplish that but rather will further confuse the situation, I do not believe I can support it.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Fulton) negatived: Yeas, 28; nays, 69.


Maurice Rinfret: I declare the
amendment defeated.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, in my remarks before I introduced the amendment just disposed of I said we felt there should be two amendments to clarify this bill. The purpose of the second amendment is to restore the planning authority to the full extent, that is to say, to the extent previously enjoyed by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I have referred to section 7 of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources Act which contains three different subclauses giving the minister, first, a general power to formulate plans for the conservation and development of the resources of Canada, and for research with respect thereto. Second, he may co-operate with the provinces and with municipalities in carrying out any surveys or development plans. Third, he may consult with and inaugurate conferences with representatives of industry, universities, etc.
I should say that that section will no longer be at the disposal of the planning and coordinating minister by virtue of the proposed repeal of that act. While it is true that there is in the bill before us a proposed new section of the resources and technical surveys act, in my view there are serious areas of difference between the powers and authority conferred by this proposed new section and the powers previously available to the northern affairs minister under section 7 to which I have referred.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Primarily the differences are that the minister is not specifically given authority to confer or co-operate with the provinces in formulating and carrying out a plan and he is not specifically given authority to convene conferences of various bodies with respect to study and research into the use and development of our resources. I am in no way denigrating the powers given under the proposed section 8A but if one studies them and compares them with the powers contained in section 7 of the present Northern Affairs Act, the divergencies will become obvious, and in our view it is desirable that the authority of the minister should not be diminished but should be enhanced by this legislation.
When he introduced the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources Act Mr. St. Laurent drew attention to the necessity of planning Canada's resources both material and human, and section 7 was in his view, and in the view of parliament at that time, an important provision with respect to
May 31. 1966

the planning authority given to the minister upon whom responsibility for these material resources was conferred.
Accordingly, I move:
That Bill C-178 be amended by re-numbering section 29 thereof as section 29(1) and adding thereafter the following subsections:
2.	In addition to the duties, powers and functions outlined in subsection (1) hereof, the minister may formulate plans for the conservation, development and use of the resources of Canada specified in subsection (1) and for research with respect thereto, and, with the authority of the governor in council and in co-operation with other departments, branches and agencies of the government of Canada, provide for carrying out such plans.
3.	The minister may co-operate with the provinces and with municipalities in formulating and carrying out any plans under subsection (2).
4.	In carrying out his duties and functions under this section the minister may consult with and inaugurate conferences of representatives of producers, industry, the universities, labour and provincial and municipal authorities.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make some comments in connection with the amendment we are now considering. I believe it essent.al that the department to be set up should give leadership in the development of our water resources and in the war against pollution. In order to achieve this result it must be given the tools with which to do the job. The minister must be able to give the necessary leadership. We need to look at the proposed set-up in order to decide whether this can be done under the terms of clauses 29, 30 and 31. I will direct my remarks to clause 31 which deals with the authority granted to the minister of energy, mines and resources.
While research, co-ordination and inventory with relation to water resources are a necessary prerequisite to action, it is obvious that action must follow if any leadership is to be given on a national basis. I have, therefore, read and reread the proposed new subsection 8A of the Resources and Technical Surveys Act to determine the real intention of the government in this respect. The foundation for any real action is lacking. May I illustrate my point by an example.
Senior levels of government can best give guidance by the initiation of pilot projects. In the case of the United Nations agencies, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Development Association, pilot projects are undertaken in developing countries to indicate the essential worth of an agricultural, industrial or educational project. The actual development of such projects and the subsequent 23033-3661
Government Organization operation of them are strictly within the field of the developing nation itself. The pilot project, however, is financed by the international agency to give leadership and impetus to the commencement of such projects.
Likewise, in the fields of water resources and pollution pilot projects are essential. In the Ruhr valley of Germany water resource co-operative associations have been operating since the year 1904. Whole river basins are controlled by one authority and the cost of pollution control is charged directly to those who pollute the stream in proportion to the extent of pollution. The system has been successful in spite of the fact that the Ruhr valley is one of the most highly industrialized and heavily populated areas of the world.
These associations were given almost complete multipurpose authority over water quantity and quality in entire watersheds by their special laws. They have for up to 50 years made comprehensive plans for waste disposal, water supply, flood control and land drainage. Members of the association are principally the municipal administrative districts and the industrial enterprises, and general public supervision is carried out by a government ministry. They have authority to plan and construct facilities for water resources management and to assist their members with the cost of constructing and operating such facilities.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
On February 23, 1966, giving acknowledgement of the need for federal leadership in the urgent problems of pollution control in the United States, President Johnson sent a message to Congress proposing the setting up of pollution control programs for entire river basins. He proposed combined efforts by all means at American disposal, federal, state, local and private, to reduce progressively the pollution of United States waters. He proposed a clean rivers demonstration program which would unite all the pollution control activities in a single river basin from its source to its termination. I have complete details of his proposals and of the federal participation, but they are not essential to the point I am trying to make.
To turn now to Canada's problems, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys seems to be saying in his speeches that the management of water resources and pollution control are a provincial responsibility. He seems to be saying that the federal government should not evolve a national water
576G
May 31. 1966

Government Organization resources policy or program or a national anti-pollution drive. He seems to feel that he does not have either the constitutional authority or the responsibility for a national program involving water resources.
According to a press report of a speech he made in Toronto on Friday, May 27, he outlined the federal government role in water policy as one of taking inventory, of basic and applied research, of development of nationally accepted pollution guide lines and of continuing liaison with the provinces and the United States. These are all necessary prerequisites to a policy of action on water resources and pollution, but they are not enough. They do not provide for any action by the federal government. They provide no leadership.
The Ontario Water Resources Commission is doing an excellent job in pollution control and so are many other provincial bodies. But the development of industry, increased population and new types of waste are making the race against pollution a losing one for all local jurisdictions. Furthermore, we must make plans for the future and carry them out on a national basis.
A pilot project for a clean water development involving federal, provincial, municipal and industrial co-operation could well be carried out in several areas of Canada. Indeed, we do not need to go very far for the essentials of such a project because one could well be carried out on the Ottawa river. There is a twofold federal interest. First, the river forms a boundary between two provinces and, second, the river flows through the national capital region. There are also strong provincial interests.
On the Ontario side there are two conservation authorities in existence, one on the South Nation river and the other on the Rideau, the latter having recently been formed. However, there is no authority for the Ottawa valley as such and it would be useless to have such an authority on one side of the river if there were not a similar authority on the other. There are extensive municipal and industrial interests because each municipality and industry is interested in receiving clean water from upstream. This is a pilot project in which the federal government could well give leadership. I mention it only as an example but it is a fair example. It is nearby, and the proposal indicates that the federal government can easily undertake leadership in a pilot project.

While we have reasonably good working arrangements for international boundary waters under the International Joint Commission, it is very strange that we have no procedures established for dealing between and among provinces on water resources and pollution. Surely this is a fundamental federal responsibility. Surely this should be a first priority for the new department which we are considering.
We hear a great deal of talk about constitutional problems. These are always present in a federal system such as we have, but while they are present they have not deterred the federal government from taking leadership and responsibility in the purely provincial matters of health involving hospital insurance and medical care, of welfare involving pensions, of education involving university grants and vocational schools. Why then do we tread so timidly in dealing with the urgent national problem of pollution?
Returning again to the powers proposed to be given to the new department under the amendment, I believe that this amendment is necessary in order to give the minister authority to deal with the problems that are facing us. I can find no clear wording in the bill as it stands which indicates an intention to propose and carry out pilot projects under federal initiative. The very wording of the clause which includes the words "coordinating, promoting and recommending" but not the words "carrying out", or anything similar to them, indicates the lack of resolution of the government in this field. This is why I rose to speak in connection with this amendment.
I sincerely believe that the problems of water resources and water pollution in Canada are serious and deserve national attention, and to get national attention the leadership must come from the federal government. It is true that there is provincial responsibility. There are indications that the provinces are not only aware of the problem but are doing something about it. I think they are looking to the federal government to take the initiative. I think they are looking for the passage of this bill which to some degree at least will co-ordinate the responsibilities for water resources.
I believe the provinces are waiting for an indication from the federal government that it intends to take the leadership and lay plans for the future. We all know that pollution is not a problem that can be settled quickly but a start on settling it can be made
May 31, 1966

quickly. Pilot projects can be commenced. Policies can be laid down and a start can be made with leadership from the federal government and from the new minister. It is essential that this be done, but what is completely lacking in this bill is any indication that the government intends to give the minister that authority. There is also a lack of intention on the part of the minister to take any leadership.
I hope that the amendment will be given serious consideration. If it is not accepted then there will be an acknowledgement by the government that it has no intention to give the minister any power to do anything more than undertake research, to make plans, to put forward proposals and to co-ordinate activities. These are all essential but following them action will be necessary to deal effectively with the problems of pollution.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
No matter how fast we go on this problem, it continues to develop; we cannot keep ahead of it. Quite suddenly the Americans have realized they are so far behind that they may never catch up. Mr. Chairman, we must never let that situation arise in Canada. The only way in which we can ensure that it does not arise here is to start now.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the amendment, if it does what the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka indicates he wishes it to do. In reading it, however, I am not sure it does so. I am concerned that we have to be so legalistic in the wording of amendments to the bill because it makes it exceedingly confused rather than a bill containing a simple statement of what it is sought to accomplish.
I agree that while we were discussing the water levels of the great lakes last year it was very apparent at that time to anyone who was on that committee that there was a breakdown of communication between the various departments concerned with the matter of water. They certainly were not working in co-operation with each other and there seemed to be little understanding of where one jurisdiction ended and another started. It appeared that there was more oversight in connection with the management of water in Canada than there was supervision. It seemed odd to me that the person who measured the water flow was not the person who measured the water depth. On came under the Department of Transport and the other under the Department of Public Works. Rainfall

Government Organization involved another department and the longterm forecasting of water levels and maintenance of water levels involved another department.
I would have preferred a very simple amendment to establish a director general of water, in the person of a gentleman by the name of Mr. Patterson, to solve the whole problem because in every department this gentleman was called on when there was a problem and was able to shed some light not only on what had happened in Canada but also on what had happened in the United States. I was surprised to learn that he sat on a couple of boards which were international in scope.
I agree with the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka that the problem is a major one. I am surprised that the officials of the various departments have not decided already to change the jurisdiction of their departments so that they will be able to do what they wish to do and so that much of the overlapping which has not produced any result will be eliminated. I also see another gentleman around at this time who in my opinion has, with justification, been kicked from one department to another. It is my hope that he will not receive any special recognition in the new department which is to handle the energy resources of our nation, because he would do as lousy a job as he has in the past in the two or three departments where he has served. I said the other day, and I still hope it is true, that we do not establish departments for the deputy ministers whom we may be moving around but for the job we want done. I hope that is the case: in relation to this amendment. I am not sure,, however, whether the amendment does exactly what the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka wishes it to do.
I think the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources particularly, and certainly the Minister without Portfolio, are most interested in the problem of water. In addition there are three or four other cabinet ministers who have been very much concerned about our water resources and the fact that there is no co-ordination and does not seem to be any desire for co-ordination on the part of many of the officials in some of the departments. This type of confusion may seem amusing occasionally because it produces all kinds of odd situations, but it seems to me that as Canadians we should be very shocked when we reach a position where the senior officials in our nation are not able to-
May 31. 1966

Government Organization project long-range water forecasts for a particular water system as important to Canadians as the great lakes and have to rely on the United States army engineers for a longterm forecast of the water situation in the great lakes.
I am not suggesting that we are going to solve this problem all at once. I think the remarks of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka commend themselves to the house, and if the amendment does what he says it will do I think it should receive support. I know the government resists amendments from the opposition, and perhaps rightly so, but I should like the minister, who is familiar with this subject, to give consideration to the amendment to ascertain whether it would put water resources under one jurisdiction so that we could measure the flow of our water ourselves and make the long-range weather forecasts which have a great bearing on this resource. I should think the minister would be wise to give consideration to this amendment or persuade the government to bring in an amendment which would accomplish this purpose.
The minister may be interested to know that in the committee on industry, research and energy development this morning a question was asked along this line and an outline was given to the effect that changes were being comtemplated. I think it is safe to say that in this regard the official indicated some changes had been made but that the changes were not large enough to bring the complete control of the water resource under one branch. I may be unfair to him, but it was my impression that he said he would like to see this whole resource brought into one place so that all the facets of the water problem which face Canada could be handled at the same time and could be solved more readily.
1 hope that the minister will consider this before he rejects the amendment out of hand. Having read the amendment I say that I do *not think it does what it is hoped it will accomplish, but if there is merit in the proposal made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka I would hope that the minister would consider standing this clause provided it is the intention of the government to establish a director general of water.
In this regard I certainly would recommend Mr. Patterson because I think if we had one person, one department or one section of a department which could co-relate all the things involved we would come much
fMr. Peters.]
closer to solving the problem than is possible now with the diversity we have in respect of our water resource.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to hon. members who have spoken. I believe they have taken part in a debate which is extremely valuable because what we are discussing I think in time will be proven to be the greatest resource of all that Canada possesses. Any time matters of this magnitude are discussed in the house there is profit for all of us. I wish to remind hon. members who have spoken that I have had some experience in endeavouring to evolve national programs which are meaningful economically and geographically beyond the borders of the provinces. There are other members here who are familiar with the viewpoints of the provinces, and I am quite sure they would confirm my impression that most of them are extremely jealous of the resources that lie within their borders. This should not surprise us; indeed, if it were otherwise we should be surprised, o (5:30 p.m.)
It is imperative from the point of view of provincial interests and taxes that they develop and exploit the resources within their borders as broadly as possible. However, I would hope that in most fields of exploitation of the resources of Canada we can prove that by co-operation, understanding and common purpose as between the provinces, in so many instances, we can make the whole greater than the total of its parts.
When I had the responsibility in this particular field I spent as much time as I could speaking to and working with the Council of Resource Ministers. I think this is a vehicle that is not appreciated today in this country, but one that could become very important indeed.
That council is meeting in Winnipeg today and I think Hon. Sterling Lyon, minister of mines and natural resources for Manitoba, has just been elected chairman. He has made a statement in reference to his hopes for the great convention to be held in Montreal in November in respect of water pollution and has stated that over 1,000 people will be present. This is the type of thing that the national government, in co-operation with resource ministers, can stimulate.
It was contemplated by my predecessor that as a result of the resources for tomorrow conference in Montreal in 1961 great things
May 31, 1966

would be done. I should say at once that at the convention at which water pollution will be discussed that in all probability, as a result of requests, representatives of interested parties including municipalities, provinces and, indeed, corporations which realize the costs they are going to be confronted with as a result of the requirements of society in the future, will be in attendance to the extent that they will probably overtax the accommodation that can be provided.
I believe that we can do a great number of things along these lines in the future. I want to give credit to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for be.ng very consistent in his insistence that something be done in the realm of creating a national policy on water. I draw to his attention that the provinces are particularly knowledgeable and jealous about the tremendous value that can come to their governments as a result of the development of these resources in a regional way, and it will be the responsibility of the ministers, through the resource ministers council, to convince each province that nothing will be lost to any of them but that more will be gained in total and I think this can be demonstrated.
I am particularly happy that the minister has signed an agreement for studies in the region extending from the eastern slopes of the Rockies across the three prairie provinces in respect of the waters which flow across these provinces into Hudson Bay.
I want to pay tribute to the government of Alberta and its officials, who said very frankly that they could take action in that province that would hurt the province of Saskatchewan, which is common knowledge to us all because the placement of dams in Alberta at certain places would bring great economic improvement to Alberta but would hurt the position of Saskatchewan, but instead are now working with the federal government under a new program, signed by the new minister, which will provide 50 per cent of the estimated cost of $5 million to devise a means to use water to the optimum degree throughout the three prairie provinces. Under that program there is contemplated, as a primary estimate, the building of no less than 120 dams of various sizes for the containment of water at various places. The progress in this regard has been very good. This whole problem is much more difficult of solution in respect of the Great Lakes.
The hon. member for Timiskaming, who dealt with a number of points of view in

Government Organization respect of water resources, overlooked the power of prayer. I should like to remind him about that power. In the proposed amendment there are very wide provisions for the minister to work with almost any government, and when I read it I was reminded of the lighthearted composer who spoke of animal, vegetable and mineral, because it seems they are all contained in this amendment.
I agree with the hon. member for Kamloops that probably his amendment spells out more clearly and reasonably what should be done, though I am a little concerned over the fact that municipalities are mentioned. I am sure that any minister or former minister would be concerned, because when we are negotiating with provinces they are concerned with responsibilities in respect of work done in various areas in that the programs should be routed through them rather than developed directly with municipalities.
It is quite obvious that I have now received the word. A suggestion has been made from the other side which will be taken care of, and I understand that the minister has had a discussion with the hon. member for Kamloops in respect of an amendment that may be suitable.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could say a word or two about the proposed amendment. I have consulted with the hon. member for Kamloops and with the law officers of the crown and an amendment to clause 31 is being drafted in proper form which would in our opinion more properly deal with the situation. The government accepts in principle the idea proposed by the amendment of the hon. member for Kamloops, and I am wondering whether that hon. gentleman will withdraw his amendment so that we can then agree to clauses 29 and 30 and consider the rest of the bill, at which time I will be prepared to move, say at six o'clock, the amendment being prepared.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I mentioned earlier this afternoon that I intended to raise another matter and it has a bearing on the minister's suggestion, which I should like to support. Perhaps we could stand one or two clauses of the bill and consider the remainder. The Prime Minister made a promise in the house on May 24 in respect of our consideration of this bill and I should like to
May 31, 1966

Government Organization quote his words briefly, as reported in Hansard of that date at page 5429:
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.
The following is the key statement:
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 could handle that section.
What I am really proposing here in support of the minister's proposal is that we let this matter stand and consider the other parts of the bill. I think we should do so for two reasons to give the government plenty of time to draft an amendment in conformity with the suggestions of the hon. member for Kamloops and to defer consideration of at least one part so that we can put questions to the new minister.
During the past three months I have informed the minister about the questions I wish to ask, and if we could now consider the rest of the bill we would then have an opportunity of hearing the minister answer those questions. I think we should accept the minister's proposal and let this clause stand.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, just before the amendment is withdrawn, if it is to be withdrawn, and the new amendment is presented to the committee by the government, there are one or two suggestions I should like to make. First of all, I think we need a great deal more information respecting the purpose that this amendment or an amendment to clause 31 is designed to achieve.
I have no disagreement whatever with vigorous plans and programs in co-operation with the provinces for dealing with water pollution and so on. But what is in the amendment does not deal specifically with water resources. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that if this amendment is to have any operative effect it must certainly be confined to the words, "the minister may formulate plans for

the conservation, development and use of the resources of Canada."
If the purpose is to grant to the federal government, by means of a clause in this bill, higher or prior authority over that of the provinces in dealing with the formulating of plans for the development of resources in Canada, I am not in favour of that kind of legislation. I think there needs to be a great deal more co-operation and, what is more, more active ways and means must be found of setting programs in action in so far as water pollution is concerned. But there is nowhere in clause 29, the amendment proposed to clause 29, or for that matter in clause 31 dealing with the new section 8A, anything that confines this matter to water resources. If it is to include other resources I think there will be a very serious constitutional problem in this respect. Even if it is only for water resources it seems to me it is the wrong way of granting this superior authority to the federal government.
What I am saying is not intended to take anything away from the desirability of a higher level of co-operation and more active programming and planning. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources mentioned, I believe, that the conference of ministers was meeting in Winnipeg today and agreement had been reached between the prairie provinces and the federal government to co-operate in developing plans and programs for the Nelson River drainage basin. I have no objection to this and in fact I wholeheartedly support it. But we need some better explanation with regard to how this kind of amendment will effectively achieve what the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka claim it will achieve, because it is not confined to water resources.
In so far as paragraphs 3 and 4 of the proposed amendment are concerned, which call for co-operation with the provinces and the calling of conferences and so on, I think they are almost superfluous to the legislation because this is being done by the minister now. The proof of this is to be found in the example stated today. The minister said that agreement has already been reached with the three prairie provinces with respect to draining the enormous Nelson river basin. When the government comes in with a new amendment I think it ought to be fairly clear that if it is designed to give the federal government a superior authority in the matter of setting up plans and programs for the development
May 31, 1966

and conservation of water resources it had better say what it means and not just refer to the resources of Canada.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I think we should carefully consider the constitutional and statutory division of responsibility respecting resources because the provinces have by an act of this parliament full authority to set up plans and programs for the conservation and development of resources. In so far as Alberta is concerned I think the act was passed in 1930. If we are to try now to supersede that authority by a clause of this bill, I think we will be doing it in the wrong way and will perhaps wind up with something that is undesirable in the long run.
I wanted to state those qualifications, Mr. Chairman, if there is any intention to bring in this kind of amendment. I do so not because of the wording of the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Kamloops but because of the explanation given by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka that this was the purpose of the amendment. I suggest there will be resistance on the part of the provinces in this respect. Furthermore, with respect to the application of this kind of statute, if the provinces do not agree then you run into the constitutional problem of which is the superior authority in dealing with resources.
I wanted to make these observations, Mr. Chairman, and I shall withhold any further comment until we see the amendment which the government brings in. I hope it will not attempt to set up a superior authority with respect to water or any other resources.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, may I express appreciation to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Minister of National Revenue for the indication that the government accepts in principle the amendment that I have moved, although they would prefer to redraft it so that it may appear in an appropriate place under clause 31 of the bill. I agree that this is probably the appropriate place in which to include this amendment. So far as I am concerned, therefore, I am quite prepared for myself and this party to agree, if I have the permission of the committee, to withdraw my amendment and leave it to the government to introduce an appropriate amendment when clause 31 is reached. We also agree that clause 31 should stand at the present time in order to give an opportunity for drafting of the agreed amendment.
Government Organization
May I say just a few words with regard to the concern of the hon. member for Medicine Hat who has just resumed his seat. I would remind the hon. member again perhaps he did not hear me say this when I introduced the amendment-that it is not a new provision. The wording is almost precisely that which is found now in section 7 of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources Act. In other words, the amendment as I introduced it, and the purpose I have in mind, is simply to preserve in the bill before us the planning and the co-ordinating authority which the present Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources Act confers upon the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and transfer it to the minister of energy, mines and resources. So there is no new authority in this amendment.
Indeed, as the hon. member said, we have just been reminded that two or three co-operative developments, as far as the federal and provincial governments are concerned, have taken place. They have taken place, if I understand the position correctly, precisely because of the authority and initiative contained in section 7 of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources Act. That is why I feel it is so desirable to carry this authority and initiative over into the new act.
If we do not do this, then by virtue of the fact that the northern affairs act is to be repealed this authority will be lost, or at least lost in its present form. So I can assure the hon. member that so far as the purpose I had in mind in introducing the amendment and the wording of the amendment in its present form are concerned, it confers no new power. Of course, parliament is powerless to confer on the government of Canada any overriding authority. We can only enact what is within our present jurisdiction under the British North America Act. The provision embodied in my amendment was felt to be within parliament's jurisdiction, and was contained in the act introduced some time ago by that very fine constitutional lawyer, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. Mr. St. Laurent was not very often wrong in his constitutional law, although he was sometimes wrong in his politics.
May I again express appreciation to the government for their willingness to accept the principle of the amendment.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I have been absent on other business since
May 31. 196S

Government Organization question time today but I am very glad to be here at this moment. I read the amendment introduced by the hon member for Kamloops and I endorse it fully. I will say again that I am glad to note he is now following in our footsteps. I was also very glad to hear him say that the government accepts the principle and purpose of the amendment and intends to introduce an amendment in another place in the bill. I am sure all of us were delighted with that because we all know the circumstances regarding the provinces. Nothing can be done in the matter of water resources except by consultation, agreement and planning with the provinces concerned.
I will be very interested to hear the reply of the Prime Minister to a question which I wish to put to him tomorrow regarding whether he has received a letter from Hon. J. W. Gardiner of Saskatchewan with respect to the water resources policy of the government of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. However, I was very pleased to hear the remarks made by the member for Kamloops, and I am sure we are all looking forward to the amendment which will be introduced later by the minister.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, in view of the remarks of the hon. member for Medicine Hat I would like to say to him that I am perfectly aware of the constitutional problems and the constitutional position. In supporting the amendment my intention was to give the minister power and direction to proceed in this matter within his constitutional authority and no further. I felt that the bill could be more direct and specific in instructing and directing the minister in regard to his duties, but certainly no one would suggest that we can go beyond our constitutional authority. I want to make my position very clear in view of the point raised by the hon. member.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for
Kamloops has requested the unanimous consent of the committee to withdraw his amendment to clause 29 of Bill C-178.
Amendment withdrawn.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the minister wish to have clause 29 stood?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Chairman. We will
ask that clause 31 stand.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
IMr. Herridge.]
On clause 31-Short title.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I hope I will be here before clause 31 is called again because I am very interested in the amendment which the government wishes to introduce after the drafters have gone over it. I have asked the minister to give consideration to this matter.
With leave of the committee I should like to anticipate schedule A for a moment. I should like to raise a question as to whether part 5 should not include the measure known as the Dominion Water Power Act. If I recall correctly, it is referred to in the order in council of December 22, 1965, which was tabled here on January 18, 1966, but it does not appear among the list of statutes which will come under the authority of the minister of energy, mines and resources.
I see it is in part 4. My question then would be whether it should not be in part 5 rather than in part 4? In other words, should not the act be administered by the minister of energy, mines and resources rather than by the minister of Indian affairs and northern development? I would be grateful if the minister would look into that question and perhaps give us the answer when we consider clause 31.


Edgar John Benson: I will be very glad to do that.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 31 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
On clause 32-Treasury Board.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister give us a very brief statement about the proposal regarding the treasury board? May I ask in particular if it is to become a department such as other departments of the government? I notice it is to have a president who ranks as a cabinet minister, a secretary who ranks as a deputy minister, and such other officers and employees as may be necessary.


Edgar John Benson: I will answer this question very briefly as I do not wish to take up too much time of the committee. The intention is to make the treasury board a separate ministry with a separate deputy minister and its own staff. As you know, at present the staff of the treasury board is not large. The intention is to let the privy council office administer the staff, the handling of their salaries and office expenses and so on rather than to set up another department under another statute.
May 31, 1966

Private Bills
I should like to add further that the recommendations for the establishment of the treasury board are identical with those made in the Glassco commission report. May I refer the hon. members to pages 53 and 54 of the plan for management which appeared in September of 1962 concerning the role of the treasury board as the central management agency of the government of Canada and the ways in which this role needed strengthening and reinforcing. This is almost carried out to the letter except for the fact that in this recommendation a separate minister was to be appointed with no other responsibility. The Prime Minister has indicated that for the present I will act as the president of the treasury board as well as the Minister of National Revenue.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: It being six o'clock, in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business it is my duty to leave the chair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise), Television-offer of Northern Quebec Telephone Company Ltd. to serve Chibouga-mau-Chapais; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Education- inquiry as to abolition of university fees; the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown), Health and Welfare-grants for recreation centres for senior citizens.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
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. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-8, respecting General Mortgage Service Corporation of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, General Mortgage Service Corporation of Canada was incorporated by this parliament in 1961, being chapter 78 of the Statutes of Canada 1960-61, and its charter was amended by this parliament in 1963, being chapter 72 of the Statutes of Canada 1963.
It is now desired to change the name of the company to that of General Mortgage Corporation of Canada and to provide that the corporation may use in the transaction of its business either the name General Mortgage Corporation of Canada or the name Societe Generate d'Hypotheque du Canada, as and when it so elects, and that it may sue or be sued in either or both of such names.
It is further desired that chapter 78 of the statutes of 1960-61 as amended, being chapter 72 of the statutes of 1963, be further amended by substituting the words "series A bonds" for the words "series A mortgage bonds" wherever the words "series A mortgage bonds" appear therein, and by substituting the words "series B bonds" for the words "series B mortgage bonds" wherever the words "series B mortgage bonds" appear therein.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman when he was introducing his bill but it would have been helpful to know the ownership of the company. It is always a matter of consideration to us whether a company like this is a so-called Canadian company or whether its ownership, either effectively or absolutely, rests in the hands of a company in some other country. I wonder whether I could pose that question to the hon. gentleman before he concludes his formal remarks on second reading, if the information is readily available.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the house would give the hon. member for High Park permission to speak now without prejudicing his right to speak again on second reading.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), to the best of my knowledge this is an entirely Canadian corporation. Its business consists simply in issuing bonds to persons who are inclined to invest their money in that type of security and using the moneys thus produced to buy additional bonds. It is an authorized lender under the National Housing Act and kindred acts. The series B bonds are issued in


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I want to express appreciation for that information and for the fact that the house gave the hon. member for High Park the opportunity to supply it without interfering with his rights under the rules.
Some of us have a different attitude toward Canadian-owned companies as distinct from those that are foreign controlled. In fact, I understand that within the hon. gentleman from High Park's own group in this house there is a raging controversy now taking place over whether or not we should enhance Canadian ownership of our industry and our service companies or whether we should rely more heavily than in the past on investment and ownership by groups or companies in foreign countries, notably the United States. I do not want at this moment to inject any of the controversy within the Liberal party into the debate on this bill. I simply make passing reference to it and say that there are members of the house who would be interested in knowing whether or not this particular company fell within the one category or the other.
The fact that it is at the moment a Canadian company, or is owned, operated and controlled entirely within Canada, is of course no guarantee that this situation will prevail in the future. In fact, with respect to General Mortgage Service Corporation of Canada I think we are entitled to speculate about the possible outcome of the difference of opinion which sharply divides the cabinet on the question of Canadian or foreign control of companies in this nation. Depending on the outcome of that split within the government this particular company may or may not be affected.
I for one am not too partial to the view expressed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters), and by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) probably to a

slightly lesser degree, that we must rely heavily upon investment funds from other countries in order to maintain our economic equilibrium and growth, jl rather subscribe to the view of the previous minister of finance who was unceremoniously fired from the cabinet as a result of that difference of opinion.j Nevertheless it is something with which I think the house is entitled to concern itself, because even though we are simply being asked with respect to General Mortgage Service Corporation to make a slight alteration only so far as the name is concerned and another slight alteration so far as particular words appearing on certain of their bonds are concerned, I think we are duty bound to look a little beyond the present position and to wonder about the actual operations of the company itself.
This bill came before the house during the last session of the last parliament and was one of those which got the axe, as it were, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) decided to call the election, thus wiping everything from the order paper. The hon. member for High Park can at least find a little comfort in the thought that had the election not taken place he would not be sponsoring this bill at this moment, because in all probability it would have received assent some time last fall had everything gone as planned. But, Mr. Speaker, this did not come about and accordingly we have again to consider the bill and all the implications inherent in its passage.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
Again we have to look at the situation. It was not sufficient that the time of parliament should have been wasted last session in dealing with such an insignificant matter as the deletion of two words in the name of a company; we have to do the same thing all over again. The degree of interest shown in this bill was evidenced by the very cursory examination given to it in the Senate, both this session and last session, involving a simple explanation by the sponsor of the bill and the acceptance thereof by the Senate and others as sufficiently satisfactory to give approval to the bill. There were no committee proceedings or any hearing on the bill so far as I have been able to discover. There is no indication that the banking and commerce committee of the Senate gave more than the usual polite, surface examination of the change in name.
I believe we have to go a bit beyond that both from the point of view of the eventual
May 31. 1966

operation of the company and from the point of view of whether or not parliament should meekly accept applications of this sort. Should we rubberstamp this bill because the change happens to be requested by the corporation itself? I submit it will not make one iota of difference to anyone except perhaps the printers who may have to print some bonds or the typists who may have to type some letters for this company. Other than that, it will make no difference whether or not the bill passes. The company will remain in business. It will continue to engage in the practice of borrowing money at a certain interest rate in order to lend it at a higher interest rate and thus be able to keep the difference.
It does seem rather illogical that the time of the Senate-perhaps it has nothing better to do-should have been spent on this bill and that it should come to the house and we should consider the matter and pass it on to a committee for whatever examination that committee wants to make. Then the bill would be reported back here for committee consideration and would be given third reading. This procedure would seem especially illogical, at least on the surface, when the principal point of the bill is so insignificant, particularly in relation to the economy of Canada. It may well be that unless some other course of action is taken by the government this bill may not reach third reading. At the end of this session it and a number of other bills may have died on the order paper.
Even although there may be something illogical about this statement, I submit it should not be our business to concern ourselves with this matter. One may argue that if it is so insignificant why should I bother taking up the time of the house talking about it? Why should we not simply give it our stamp of approval and allow the bill to be rushed through parliament without any concern on the part of anyone? I submit that to do that would detract from the principal objection and that by acquiescence in an obsolete procedure we would be endorsing that procedure. About the only way attention can be drawn to the ridiculous situation is for me and others who are concerned to proceed-


Mr. Fairweather:: To make speeches.


Frank Howard: -to make nuisances of ourselves. I did not catch the interjection but perhaps I caught the sense of it.


Mr.   Church@: May I ask a question?
Private Bills


Frank Howard: I would be more than happy to answer a question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Has the hon. member received any indication from the government, any response to his repeated requests for a change in the procedure with regard to these bills?


Frank Howard: The simple answer is no, none whatever. It is as if one were talking in a vacuum. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, with the experience he has had in other fields of endeavour, will say that it is not a unique situation for this government to give no consideration to this situation because this is the policy they seem to follow in connection with other matters as well.
We have had no response, no indication of support for the contention that this type of bill should not come before parliament. There has been no acknowledgement of our suggestions, not even a rejection of the idea. However, we have received endorsation of our ideas from a number of private members on the government side. Without drawing individuals into this debate I may say we have received support from those who happen to be sponsoring particular bills. I do not say that this support has been occasioned by that fact. I believe it is an indication of general concern on the part of private members.
By persisting in this action we hope somehow to get the government to act. The government has control of the order paper and if it so desired would be able to introduce a public bill to deal with this matter. As we know, this particular authority is vested only in the government and not in the hands of a private member. Our only method of prevailing upon the government to listen to the pleas we make, therefore, is the course we are following. I am sure that if the government asked each member of the house they would not find one member who would desire to preserve the present system and there would be almost unanimous approval for bills of this type not being brought before parliament.
What does it matter whether this company is called General Mortgage Service Corporation, General Service Corporation, General Mortgage Company or any other combination of the variety of adjectives that are contained in its name? What does it matter what sort of title they put on their mortgage bonds or whether they call them mortgage bonds or

May 31, 1966
Private Bills
some other type of bonds? It does not matter a bit. The claim is that it is necessary because the word "mortgage" in the title or on the bonds is something of a misnomer since the expression "mortgage bond" is generally used to describe a mortgage secured directly by real estate whereas these bonds are secured by the mortgagors themselves. But what does it matter, even though the name may not be precisely applicable? It does not matter a pinch of salt whether we pass the bill.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I suggest it does matter, however, that this corporation has come to parliament with a petition, spend I do not know how much money to have a private bill introduced, put down its deposit and put the whole antiquated machinery of parliament in operation to deal with the insignificant matter of changing a name from one thing to something else. We could react to this ridiculous state of affairs by defeating the bill, in which case I venture to suggest that General Mortgage Service Corporation would not be affected by one solitary cent. It would still be in business borrowing money from someone at a low interest rate in order to lend it to someone else at a higher interest rate. It would still be one of the elements driving consumer interest rates ever higher. It would still be one of the elements withholding loan money in the hope that interest rates would rise and that the corporation would find itself in a more lucrative position. It would still be one of the elements which would desire to bilk the individual home owner of every cent it could in interest rates on mortgages. The defeat of this bill would not affect the corporation's attitude or activities one way or another.
In addition to the general obstinacy of the government about recognizing a valid argument there is another reason why, regardless of the outcome of the more general matter concerning a wider principle, Bill No. S-8 may be still on the order paper when parliament prorogues at the end of this session, just as was the case last year. And I submit it will make no difference to anyone.
I realize that the time allotted to me is fast running out, if it has not already done so. I sincerely hope the government will take cognizance of what we have requested and make some public declaration in the near future about its intentions so that we may cease spending this hour talking about the inconsequential things we have been discuss-

ing and being talking about the public business instead.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I asked the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) whether there had been a response from the government in the face of repeated suggestions by him and other hon. members that the method of procedure in regard to such bills should be reconsidered and perhaps some other method introduced. I was astonished to learn that no notice whatever had been taken of that request.
It appears to me that when there are 13 private bills before the house awaiting consideration, all of them with one exception from the Senate, the government should pay some attention to what is after all a reasonable request, namely, that the procedure should be re-examined. To ignore this request completely strikes me as discourteous; it is certainly not helpful to getting business through the house.
As I understand the hon. member for Skeena and others who have spoken in similar vein, they are not disposed to prevent the passage of most of these bills but they are trying to find a method by which procedure can be changed. As the hon. member for Skeena has said, this rests with the government.
We have had experience in the past of the methods, and they are legitimate, by which hon. members can hold up the passage of private bills until some proposal of their own has been considered. Here is an instance where the government should at least recognize the fact that a reasonable suggestion has been made by those who have been discussing these bills and that a conference should be held to see whether a suitable change cannot be made. Consequently I rise to support the plea of the hon. member for Skeena and those who have made a similar plea in the past that the government take notice of this request and endeavour to take some action.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I am taking this opportunity to congratulate the mover of Bill S-8. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has just remarked that it is not a very important bill, but in spite of the minor importance he attaches to this bill, we think that it is worthwhile mentioning that a company founded several years ago and probably organized to do business in Englishspeaking Canada, has suddenly realized that
May 31. 1966

a French title must be adopted in order to become bilingual.
I hope all our companies will follow the example of the General Mortgage Service Corporation of Canada, because as long as companies continue to operate throughout Canada under a unilingual title, such companies will not deserve to be called Canadian companies in the true sense of the word.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
To my mind, even if the bill were to be adopted in the house only to give the company a bilingual character, I think it would suffice to make it important.
I do not quite understand the argument of the hon. member for Skeena who does not find it important, because I believe he is also for a bilingual Canada. I believe that all Canadian companies should try to do the same for the 1967 Centennial.
As to the manner of introducing the bill, and all other b 11s introduced here, I agree with the hon. member for Skeena, and once again I wonder how long this overlong parade of bills is going to keep coming from the Senate to the House of Commons, going from the House of Commons to the committees, from the committees to the house and so on. The time wasted in such futile procession is unthinkable.
A while ago the member who spoke before me asked the hon. member for Skeena a question to find out what answer the government had given to his request to improve that procedure. And to think that the same member was a minister in years past. He never thought of improving that procedure and now he is urging the government in office to do it.
When will we see the end of this game where each side blames the other and when will me make a concrete improvement? I feel that it would be so easy for the government to introduce an amendment in the house. It seems to me that a bill like this one would be passed within 10 or 15 minutes, if it did not have to go through that whole procedure.
With regard to the company mentioned in this bill, I was very happy to hear that, for a change, it was a wholly Canadian company with Canadian capital.
We are and will always be against foreign investments which seep into this country through Canadian companies but operating on capital coming from outside Canada. Mr. Speaker, if ever-and that is the hope of any nation which wants to come of age-we are to become at last masters in our own house, this
Private Bills
parliament will have to encourage Canadian companies whose capital is entirely Canadian. On the other hand, if we keep on encouraging companies with 50, 75 or even 80 per cent of their capital coming from outside, or if we grant them the same benefits as to the Canadian companies with Canadian capital only, I say that we are not working in the interest of the Canadian people.
We are asking our people to invest, but we do not guarantee them the protection they need against those foreign investments which take over the best in Canada.
It is easy to say today, Mr. Speaker, that Canada is a rich country, but that is true only for those who come to Canada to benefit from its resources. The time has come to change all that. The central government should put a stop to those investments and encourage Canadians to invest in their own country.
We will, once again, refer this small bill to the committee. I wonder how many weeks it will take before it comes back to the house? However, to promote bilingualism and in view of the fact that the main objective of this bill is to give a French name to that company, I hope that this bill will come back as soon as possible to be passed by the house.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not delay the house long on this bill but I want to endorse the proposal put forward by my colleague from Skeena and the support it received from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). For some time we have been suggesting that it is a gross waste of our time to have this constant parade of company bills whose sole purpose is to change a name or add a French name to the English name.
Of course this is a laudable practice which companies are following and we are all glad to see it taking place, but it could be more adequately dealt with in the way which the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has suggested, by a piece of legislation which would permit changes of name of this character to be made by supplementary letters patent.
Under the Ontario companies act corporations can not only change their names but also the objects of companies, their capitalization and their stock structure merely by formal application for amended or supplementary letters patent, and it seems to us something of that type could be available in cases such as

May 31- 1966
Private Bills
Bill S-8. As the former house leader for the Conservative government has said, this matter could be dealt with by some sort of joint house meeting to explore ways and means of expediting measures of this kind so that we would not have to spend our time on them in the House of Commons.
We in the N.D.P. do not particularly enjoy holding up bills but sometimes it is the only way we can get a commitment from the government that some sort of action will be taken. A very painful exercise in this regard was carried on some years ago by the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) with respect to divorce petitions and eventually some action was taken, but not before three or four sessions had produced considerable hardship for a lot of people, something regretted by everybody but which was necessary in the circumstances of that time.
It would be unfair to hold up the present bill because it is not the fault of this company that the government is not prepared to take any kind of corrective action. We shall not hold it up but we serve notice on the government that if some action is not agreed upon and concrete steps taken, then in order to emphasize our point we may have to talk at great length on these bills and explore them very carefully.
Because this bill deals with a mortgage corporation I want to put on the record some material dealing with the increasing and drastic drought of mortage money in Canada. This is a subject that members of the opposition have tried to raise on orders of the day. We did have a short discussion on it with the minister but time ran out and it was not possible to make our point. For some weeks now we have been saying that a drastic, dangerous and serious situation is building up in the house building industry caused by the lack of mortgage money, and I hope the company named in this bill will be able to help out in this drought.
When we raised the question previously we were told that house building would continue at a slightly reduced level from that of the preceding year and that the government was going to provide sufficient mortgage money to equal its commitments of last year and make up for the shortage of money available from private lenders such as the company named in the bill under discussion. We tried to emphasize that there was a delayed reaction in matters of this kind, and now I want to read

into the record six examples of what is happening in my own city of Toronto.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am wondering whether the hon. member for Danforth is not now departing from the actual principle of the bill before us.


Reid Scott: Well, Mr. Speaker, I thought I had kept myself within the confines of the bill. It is a bill which deals with the provision of mortgage money. Since we are on second reading and the whole principle is involved, I thought it might be permissible to develop this theme a little. I certainly will try to stay within the ambit of the bill. If I depart I know, Mr. Speaker, that you will not hesitate to point this out to me.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Perhaps it would be a service to have more mortgage money.
Mr. Scot! (Danforth): My friend from Royal says it would be a service to have more mortgage money. I agree. To emphasize the seriousness of this matter I wish to give a few examples which were released by the Toronto Metropolitan Home Builders' Association on April 29, 1966:
Builder No. 1 -last year had 137 loans
-to date this year have received no loans through regular lenders
-has put me right out of business-construction program stopped completely
-at least 20 trades possibly 100 people directly affected by our shut down
I should like to emphasize this and say that there is a great need for mortgage services in this very serious and dangerous situation. Builder No. 2
-no money coming through regular lenders has caused complete shutdown of my construction program.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sure that if the hon. member for Danforth reads the explanatory notes of this bill he will realize that the principle of the bill is not very closely connected to the argument he now is making. I realize this bill deals with a mortgage corporation, but the shortage of mortgage funds to which the hon. member now refers is not the principle of Bill No. S-8 which now is before us.


Reid Scott: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I agree with you completely that the shortage of mortgage funds is not the principle of this bill, but I am hoping one effect of the
May 31, 1966

bill will be to reduce that shortage if companies such as this make more funds available. Perhaps this company will be operating in the Toronto area. Perhaps the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) can tell us that. This company might be in a position to help out in this very dangerous and drastic situation.
Builder No. 3
-within two months all my trades people will be directly affected by our construction shutdown. Builder No. 4
-approximately 200 people will have to be laid off within two months
-I've had to refuse 115 pre-sales because of short mortgage money Builder No. 5
-one month to six weeks will see us laying off trades, complete slowdown or stoppage of our construction program will be caused unless money situation improves considerably.
Builder No. 6
-effect of short money on trades is fantastic -trades scared to death that they are not going to have work, they see that within one month or six weeks they will be unemployed.
-trades cutting their own throats price-wise, they are almost panicking just to try and cover overheads.
I have read this into the record, Mr. Speaker, merely to support our suggestion that the action this government has taken to date to meet this crisis truly has been inadequate. In his speech the minister said he wanted private lenders, such as the one mentioned in the bill under consideration, to fill the void, but no matter what their views are they are totally unable so to do because they are private businesses and are obligated to operate in areas where they receive the maximum return on their money. Therefore they are not the slightest bit interested this year in making further loans under the provisions of the National Housing Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Again I must remind the hon. member for Danforth that the argument he is now advancing has very little if anything to do with the principle of the bill before us. I would request that he stay within what ordinarily are considered to be the confines on second reading of a bill.


Reid Scott: Well, Mr. Speaker, you are making it very difficult for me. Naturally I respect your ruling. You will understand that it is not always easy to stay strictly within the ambit of the bill under discussion. I do not wish to prolong the matter. I merely wished to make the point for the future, that, notwithstanding what the
Private Bills
minister has said and the assurances he has given, his officials in their pronouncements have indicated that the situation for the rest of the year will become grave and serious. Every indication we have from the building trades from coast to coast is to the effect that the worst is yet to come and that the stoppage of mortgage moneys now, for whatever reason, will not be felt for two or three months. Present mortgages are being used up and in two or three months from now the very dangerous and difficult effects will be felt. At that time it will be almost too late to do anything because builders will have disbanded and the trades will have been discharged.
I hope I shall be proven wrong, but I believe the present policy of the government cannot help but have a dangerous effect upon the whole construction business in Canada. Once again may I say I hope I am wrong, but every indication we have at the present time is that unless a change of policy and a change of heart are brought about the whole building industry in Canada faces very difficult days.


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


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this bill I am concerned about the fact that when particular members sponsor this type of bill they are not willing to give a complete explanation of the reason a bill of this type is introduced. This is a waste of parliament's time. I am not going to speak about it from the same point of view as did the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), although I agree they have indicated the solution. I wonder why the hon. member who introduced this bill did so when all it purports to do is to change the name to allow a French translation of the name by removing the word "service" from the present name. It is true there are two other clauses in the bill which slightly modify the act. In one case the word "mortgage" is added where it did not appear before. In respect of both series A bonds and series B bonds they add the word "mortgage". Surely this company does not have enough money to throw around to be willing to spend the amount of money they must spend merely to change three words.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
I think we would be naive to think that this company is doing it just for that purpose. It is an act of parliament which they are

May 31. 1966
Private Bills
asking for and I do not believe that the explanation we have been given, or that contained in the explanatory note, really is the purpose of this bill. Perhaps something hinges on the wording of the bill in that it states:
Whereas General Mortgage Service Corporation of Canada, hereinafter called "the Corporation"-
They are reducing the name to simply "General Mortgage Corporation of Canada", leaving out the word "service". I am wondering whether this has some significance as to the type of mortgage money that will be made available. If there is nothing more important in this bill than that change, either the directors of this company think we are extremely naive or they are extremely naive in believing their shareholders are going to agree to an expenditure of money for this purpose.
The fees paid to the directors last year amounted to $2,800. They all live in the city of Toronto. I suggest they are receiving this money unjustly if the only thing they can do is recommend a change of name. It surprises me that the sponsor of the bill would abide the wishes of this "kookie" company in bringing this kind of immature, mundane legislative measure before parliament, knowing full well that this body has many more important things to consider.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Certainly.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Would the hon. gentleman not agree that the company is not at fault but that the fault lies with parliament itself because it has not seen fit to amend its procedures? It is hardly proper to call the company "kookie" because of this fact, and perhaps that expression could more aptly be used in a different direction.


William Arnold Peters: I agree that we have a responsibility to do something about the situation but I feel also that some responsibility is attached to the sponsor of bills of this kind.
If anyone cares to look at the report of the Superintendent of Insurance for 1964, which is the last year for which he has made a report, he will find that General Mortgage Service Corporation of Canada has an authorized capital of $10 million with a paid up cash value of $1,115,784 and total assets amounting to $7,146,000 including mortgage loans, both first and second.

One might compare this company with another which also has an authorized capital of $10 million but which has a paid up cash value of $7,200,000. The fees paid to the directors of the company now under discussion amount to $2,800. I presume the directors of the other company work a little harder because their fees amount to $36,435.69. It is also interesting to note that the second company pays $80,000 in staff pensions and insurance fees whereas the company under consideration pays only $195 for the same purpose. One can compare salaries and find some difference. One company pays $1,850,000 in salaries whereas the other company pays $81,000.
I suggest that the sponsors of bills of this kind should give more consideration to their responsibilities to parliament. Parliament is not an operation similar to a law office where every client is accepted. Perhaps I am wrong in making such a comparison, but I think that members of this house should consider their responsibilities to parliament before accepting the sponsorship of whimsical legislative measures such as are contained in bills of this type.
If one reads the report of the Superintendent of Insurance regarding loan and trust companies he will find that this particular company does not stack up very well, and I suggest that the sponsor should consider his responsibility seriously and not act as a lawyer handling a client's case. If he is prepared to sponsor such a bill he should be prepared to give a complete and thorough explantion of the reasons behind it. In support of my suggestion let me point out that it appears that very few members are willing to sponsor proposals such as the one before us.
The report of the Superintendent of Insurance makes a distinction between various incorporated companies. The company under consideration falls into a particular category because it was originally incorporated by an act of parliament in 1961. However, if one considers the situation further he will find that the company was originally incorporated under letters patent.
We do not wish to be unfair to this company and so far as we are concerned we have no objection to the bill being given second reading at this stage, but I hope in future that other members who sponsor bills of this kind will take into consideration their responsibilities to parliament.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
May 31. 1966	COMMONS


Frank Howard: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour for consideration of private members' business has now expired and the house will revert to the business interrupted at six o'clock.



GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-178, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Mr. Pearson-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: When the committee was interrupted at six o'clock clause 34 which appears at page 11 of the bill was about to be considered.
On clause 34-Powers of the Secretary of State.


Mr. Priltie:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to make a speech on this clause but I should like to ask a question. In view of the absence of the Secretary of State I presume I should direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue.


Edgar John Benson: The minister will be here in a moment.


Robert William Prittie: Perhaps I should wait until she arrives. During second reading of the bill I advocated that there should be a federal office of education and that the numerous educational activities of the federal government should come under that office. At that time I quoted a news story which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, written by Joan Cohen, which said that a home had been found within the federal government for an office to deal with education, that this was to be located in the Department of the Secretary of State, and that the responsibility for university grants was being transferred from the Minister of Finance to the new office within the Department of the Secretary of State.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
Now that the Secretary of State is here, I should like to ask her this question. I have referred to an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of May 21, written by Joan
DEBATES	5781
Government Organization Cohen, which referred to a new office established in the Department of the Secretary of State. I later asked the Minister of Finance if it was true that university grants were being transferred from his department to that of the Secretary of State, and he replied that it was. I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether the article written by Mrs. Cohen in the Citizen is substantially correct. I am sure she knows the article to which I am referring.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What was the substance of it?


Robert William Prittie: I will not read the whole article again, but for the benefit of the hon. member who has asked the question I will read parts of it. I did read it last week on second reading of the bill.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: It has all been read into the record.


Robert William Prittie: It is in the record at page 5467 of Hansard. The substance of the article was that the federal government had found a home for education within its confines and that this home would be in the office of the Secretary of State; and as a first step, university grants would be administered by that office. In my speech last week I indicated that there are other educational functions which they are now carrying out, and that these should be transferred there as well. I can appreciate the fact that the government wants to move very slowly in this field.
For the minister's information I should like to refer to yesterday's issue of Le Droit. Perhaps the minister has seen the news story there which reports the speech of le Pere Roger Guindon, the director of the University of Ottawa. The story is headed, "L'education: un droit provincial, mais une priorite au federal. Voila ce qu'a declare le Pere Roger Guindon durant la ceremonie de collation des grades de l'Universite d'Ottawa." It is interesting to get this type of statement from a person in Father Guindon's position. I suggest to the minister that there is not nearly as much opposition to the proper sort of federal involvement in education as some people in this country may think.
Mr. Scot! (Danforlh): Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the minister a short question. How is she getting along with the $6 million painting that she was going to buy?


Miss LaMarsh:: Mr. Chairman, I thought I made it clear in the house that I had flown a
May 31, 1966

Government Organization kite in an attempt to find out what public opinion was. Public reaction is rather surprising. I have been informed that there has been a lot of radio broadcasting, telephoning-in sort of thing, and discussions on this subject. The hon. member for Ontario has talked about buying a $6 million painting when the aged of this country do not have an increase in their pension. This kind of argument does not pay any attention to the fact that $6 million spent once is $6 million, and that even $10 a month adds up to an expenditure of $100 million if carried on indefinitely every year. This sort of thing has been discussed on some of the radio programs and my mail has been running about half and half. In this respect my mail has been surprisingly heavy.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: How does the hon. lady spell that?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: H-a-l-f. There has been a great deal of interest in this matter. I have received letters from those in the art world in particular and people who appreciate the goal which was intended, which was to erect a symbol of excellence similar to that which exists in the museum in Holland with regard to Rembrandt's "Night Watch". I suppose that every tourist who goes to Holland visits Amsterdam to see this painting, and for the same sort of reason every tourist who goes to Paris visits the Louvre first to see the "Mona Lisa".
It was my opinion that the National Gallery, which really is not very old and which I think has never spent more than $100,000 on any one acquisition, might benefit in very many ways from being the setting for a very fine jewel in the world of painting. I do not know that the owner of the painting in question would be prepared to sell it to Canada, or whether the price I have suggested it might be worth would be acceptable to him. I do not believe that most Canadians feel this kind of investment is a bad one. After all, billions of dollars are spent each year in this country for many different purposes and I cannot believe that because an expenditure is not made on one hand, all expenditures on the other hand or for any other purpose should be withheld.
I am looking forward to the arrival of the new director of the gallery, who is to start tomorrow. I hope to have some conversations with Dr. Boggs and members of the board about this painting or a similar kind of project. To my knowledge Canada has not

rejoiced in being the recipient in its gallery of gifts such as the Hirshhorn gift to the U.S.A. Indeed, Dr. Buchanan who died recently and was a member of the board, saw fit to leave his collection to his native province of Alberta. I think hon. members will have noticed lately that individuals have been leaving similar collections to their provinces. This happened recently in the case of the province of Ontario. I would hope that Canadians would be encouraged to leave their treasures to the country so they would become national treasures.
I cannot think of any better way to teach people that Canada has an appreciation for the very finest objects of art than by providing a home for a work of art such as this. It seems to me that, as the Bible says, man does not live by bread alone, and we need a goal in our cultural life which perhaps does not exist at the moment. Canadians often think they do not deserve the best that they are second rate and the best that is in the world cannot be ours. I know that voting money in this amount for such a purpose is not very common for this or any other country. But if this amount of money was spent on something which could be put on display next year at Expo, it would be a terrific drawing card and would be the diamond in the sceptre of the National Gallery's existence. Indeed, it might even begin to pay for itself. The acquisition of this painting has commended itself to many people, and I would be very happy to know what the hon. member had in mind and whether he believes it would be a good thing for Canada to have.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, I only raised the point because the minister has an uncanny ability for making pronouncements which catch the public eye. This announcement in particular, for some strange reason, seems to have evoked a fantastic response, certainly in my experience, both pro and con. We have seen much the same reactions as the minister has outlined. The minister said she was sort of flying a kite in this suggestion. I was wondering whether she is still flying the kite, or have any steps been taken to make a positive offer for the purchase of the painting?


Richard Albert Bell: Don't incite her to make another speech. Let us pass this bill.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The kite is still in the air so far as the government is concerned. I will
May 31, 1966

have to reserve answering at the moment what my personal opinion might be.
Clauses 34 to 46 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A and B agreed to.


Thomas Miller Bell: We have been making wonderful progress and I hope we will continue to do so, but I would like to make a plea to the minister that he now consider the suggestion that this bill be divided into six separate bills. This omnibus bill is the worst legislative draftsmanship that I have ever seen, and I am sure that it is only presented in this form because the hon. member for Ottawa West, the house leader, has insisted that this is the way to get the bill passed by the house. I am not going to say anything more.
I would really like to make a plea to the other place that they divide the bill and send it back to us in the form of six separate bills. I am sure that all of us here would welcome this legislative tidiness, with enthusiasm.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I want to support that suggestion. I think that is perhaps the best way in which it can be done, and I hope the other place will pay attention to what we say here. We pay attention to what they say on some occasions. That would be the easiest and neatest way of doing it. I support the *division that has been suggested by the hon. member for Carleton.


Maurice Rinfret: We will now revert to clause 31.


Edgar John Benson: As indicated this afternoon, I have prepared an amendment adopting the principle put forward by the hon. member for Kamloops. I would like to move that Bill C-178 be amended by adding the following to clause 31, immediately after clause 8(a) as set out on page 9 of the bill:
8B(1) In carrying out his responsibilities under Section 8A, the minister may formulate plans for the conservation, development and use of the resources specified in that section and for research with respect thereto, and with authority of the governor in council and in co-operation with other departments, branches and agencies of the government of Canada, provide for carrying out such plans.
(2)	The minister may co-operate with the provinces and with municipalities in formulating and carrying out any plans under subsection (1).
(3)	In carrying out his duties and functions under this section, the minister may consult with and inaugurate conferences of representatives of producers, industry, the universities, labour and provincial and municipal authorities.

Government Organization
I would simply like to point out that this includes all of the words put forward by the hon. member for Kamloops and supported by various members in the house, except for the introduction to the amendment.


Richard Albert Bell: I think the hon, member for Kamloops should be congratulated upon his legislative paternity.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My remarks on this particular amendment will be to the point. One of the most powerful sections of the Northern Affairs and National Resources Act was section 7, which is now in essence fairly well repeated in the amendment that has been proposed by the government and was originally proposed by the member for Kamloops. On reading the proposed clause 31 of this particular bill several things struck me. It simply gives to the minister power to:
(a)	conduct applied and basic research programs and investigations and economic studies .... and
(b)	study, keep under review and consider recommendation-
What this amendment does is to add a little more punch to the active section of the bill and allows the minister, in carrying out his responsibilities, to
-formulate plans for the conservation, development and use of the resources specified ... in cooperation with other departments, branches and agencies of the federal government of Canada, provide for carrying out such plans.
This is an operative type of legislation.
In the second clause the minister may co-operate with the provinces and with municipalities in formulating and carrying out any plans under subsection (1). The point I want to make is that under section 7 of the Northern Affairs and National Resources Act we, as the federal government, were able to take the initiative on such far-reaching proposals as the Resources for Tomorrow conference held in 1961, to set up the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers, and to propose the Saskatchewan-Nelson system. This proposal was originally made in 1958 and was finally accepted in 1965. It took seven years before federal initiative under section 7 of the Northern Affairs and National Resources Act was carried out. The fact is that the minister had the power and direction of the act to carry out this initiative. There are other things such as ARDA which are actually the type of thing that the minister can put before his colleagues in the government when there is a section in the act directing him to 'formulate plans for the conservation, development. . ." etc.
5784	COMMONS
Government Organization
I would therefore like to support his amendment and congratulate the government upon incorporating in this act a section from the old act, and for not letting it float around.
I think you will And that this section will strengthen tremendously the power of the minister.
I have another matter which I wish to mention briefly, so as to avoid speaking again. The Prime Minister made a promise that each of the new ministers would make a statement. I do not want to hold up this legislation and if I could get from the minister presiding over the legislation some sort of an indication which would appear in the record that the minister, when making his statement on estimates to the house, will deal with a number of very important policy statements, I will be satisfied.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Which minister?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The minister of energy, mines and resources. I am asking that the minister indicate his thinking on a number of policy matters which are causing grave concern across the country. That would be satisfactory to me. I know where the minister is and I know how important it is for him to be present at the meeting of the Canadian Council for Resource Ministers in Winnipeg; but I would like to list, for the convenience of the minister a number of questions that are on our minds.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
We should like to know what is the minister's policy in relation to the national oil policy on such questions as (a) setting annual targets to industry. We have not had a statement from the minister on this subject for two years now. Then, (b), what is the attitude of the minister toward building a refinery at Quebec, which negates the background of the whole national oil policy? (c) What is his policy on the second oil pipe line to Montreal? (d) What is his attitude toward oil and gas regulations in the north-and I am particularly dealing with the continental shelf? (e) What are his attitudes with regard to the oil and gas regulations on the continental shelf which are now in existence? These are matters, Mr. Chairman, vital to the whole future of Canada, and we must have a clear-cut statement from the minister so that we know where we are going.
The second major question which I want to put before the committee for the minister to discuss when he makes his statement deals with the national energy policy. We should

DEBATES	May 31, 1966
like from the minister some statement (a) as to the relations he foresees between the Federal Power Commission of the United States and the National Energy Board of Canada. There is obviously trouble brewing on this front unless there is a clear-cut policy to avoid the difficulties ahead. Then, (b), we also want from the new minister a statement on the national transmission grid, which is vital to the whole concept of sovereignty and using our energy as a basic part of strengthening our bargaining power in the field of resource use on the continent, (c) We should like a statement from the minister with regard to the relationship between atomic power and hydro reserves in Canada, (d) We should like projections on what the minister foresees is the energy demand for new industrial complexes in Canada during the next 20 to 30 years.
The third subject, Mr. Chairman, deals with water policy, (a) We desperately need something which has been recommended since 1962, and that is a study on the supply of water in Canada. I can go into detail on this, but that is sufficient to indicate the subject, (b) Even more importantly, we need a study of the demand. If we have to use United States figures and translate them into figures showing Canadian use, this is a little embarrassing when we are trying to estimate our demand for water. Before we can discuss water intelligently we have to know the supply and demand picture. Then, (c), we should like from the minister officially in his new capacity a statement on the NAPA plan which the United States has proposed and has been pushing on the legislators of this country in private sessions. And, (d), we should like a statement from the minister on the Kiernan plan proposed by a Canadian engineer. We should like the direction of the minister on these subjects.
That, Mr. Chairman, is a list of the 12 or 13 subjects which are the real pressure points for those of us who are trying to resolve our policy in connection with energy, minerals and resources. Instead of my waiting for the minister to make a statement before asking these questions, I would ask the minister in charge in the committee whether he would convey to the minister of energy, mines and resources these examples of the type of questions upon which we should like a statement from him when he speaks on his estimates.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I would be most pleased to undertake to bring the questions that my hon. friend has raised to the
May 31, 1966

attention of the minister of energy, mines and resources. I am sure he will appreciate advance notice of these questions and will deal with them when he makes a statement on estimates. I cannot, of course, obligate the minister, but the list having been prepared, and its being a comprehensive and useful one I will bring it to the attention of the minister; and I am sure he will deal with these matters on his estimates.
I would point out that it is not through neglect or through any desire not to be here that the minister of energy, mines and resources is not in the committee today. His absence is due to federal-provincial conferences now taking place. In speaking to my hon. friend a few minutes ago I indicated that it was essential for him to be there in the interest of resource development in Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, just on that point, the minister said that he would bring these matters to the attention of the minister of energy, mines and resources, which perhaps is all he can do. But it is almost a point of honour now with the Minister of National Revenue-a gentleman's agreement-that the topics raised by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle will be the subject of responses by the minister of whom he is speaking. Our concession on this side, of course, is to pass the bill now in committee stage and get on with other matters. That is a major concession, in view of the importance of the subject matters raised by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, when I indicated that I would bring them to the attention of the minister of energy, mines and resources, I am presuming that he will have the courtesy to reply to the questions raised by the hon. member.
The Depuly Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.


Edgar John Benson: the second reading of Bill No. C-170,
Public Service Collective Bargaining respecting employer and employee relations in the public service of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government, with the co-operation of hon. members, to proceed with second reading of the three bills, C-170, C-181 and C-182, which together would provide for the introduction of collective bargaining into the public service and for a number of other important reforms in the processes of public administration. If it is agreeable to the house, Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by asking hon. members to consider Bill C-170, the proposed Public Service Staff Relations Act. Following second reading of that bill, I would like to proceed to Bill C-181, the proposed Public Service Employment Act, and then to Bill C-182, which contains proposed amendments to the Financial Administration Act.
Hon. members have already approved the establishment of a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which, it is hoped, will review all three measures and report its views to the house prior to third reading. It is my intention after each bill has been read a second time to propose a motion to provide for referral to this committee, which has been established by the house.
In speaking to Bill C-170, I would like to begin by reviewing very briefly the principal features of the system of collective bargaining for which it would provide.
Under the proposed system, bargaining rights would be available to virtually all public servants except those carrying managerial responsibilities and those serving management in a confidential capacity. It would not be available to employees of crown corporations now covered by the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, to members of the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or to certain smaller groups for whom it would be difficult or inappropriate to establish terms and conditions of employment by means of collective bargaining.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
The system would be administered by a staff relations board, similar in composition to the labour relations boards that operate in the different jurisdictions across Canada. The board would have the power to define bargaining units and can certify employee organizations as bargaining agents. It would also provide an administrative umbrella for other third party functions, including the arbitration of disputes and the adjudication of grievances.
May 31, 1966

Public Service Collective Bargaining
For a period of about two years, bargaining units in a large part of the public service would be defined in such a way as to correspond with the occupational groups identified in the classification structure now being developed and implemented by the Civil Service Commission. This feature, recommended by the preparatory committee on collective bargaining, is designed to ensure that bargaining rights are extended as quickly as possible, with a minimum of destruction to the ongoing processes of pay determination, and in a manner consistent with the interests of employees and the effective operation of the public service.
For the great bulk of the public service, the interests of the employer in bargaining would be represented by Treasury Board. Provision is made, however, for the designation as separate employers of a number of agencies, such as the National Research Council and the National Film Board, that have traditionally had a significant measure of independence in matters of personnel management. The interests of employees would be represented, of course, by employee organizations able to meet the normal tests for certification as bargaining agents.
Agreements reached would be binding on the parties. Arguments about their interpretation would be subject to mandatory grievances procedures and, ultimately, to independent adjudication.
The dispute settlement provisions in the bill are of great importance. In applying for certification as a bargaining agent, an employee organization would be required to choose one of two dispute settlement options; one providing for recourse to binding arbitration, the other for a procedure requiring reference to a conciliation board and offering, in defined circumstances, to employees other than those deemed necessary in the interests of the safety or security of the public, the right to strike. Each bargaining agent would be bound by the procedure of its choice and would be unable to change its option for a period of three years. The reason for the three-year period is to move through one bargaining period and on to the next before there can be a change in the option of employee representatives.
The arbitration of disputes would be the responsibility of an independent arbitration tribunal. For any one dispute, the tribunal would consist of a permanent chairman and two members drawn from panels of individuals representing generally the interests of

employer and employees. Awards of the tribunal would be final and binding on both sides.
I want to say how pleased I am, Mr. Speaker, with the reception given by the house to the Prime Minister's statement when he moved the resolution. I am likewise pleased to note the support for the underlying principles of the bill that has been expressed outside this house by the principal employee organizations.
A number of points were made during the debate on the resolution on matters affecting the proposed new system of staff relations in the public service. No doubt all of these will be given careful consideration in the joint committee. In the meantime, I would like to comment on one or two of the more important of those comments which were made.
There were warm words of praise for the National Joint Council of the Public Service of Canada. I am happy to associate myself and the other members of the government with the sentiments expressed. For more than two decades the council has served as a focal point of joint consultation in the public service. Its deliberations have led to a steady stream of improvements in conditions of employement and, what is perhaps more important, a steady growth in the maturity of the relationship between representatives of the employer and the employees.
For some months, Mr. Speaker, the National Joint Council has been reviewing its future role in the light of the anticipated introduction of a system of collective bargaining. Recommendations resulting from this review were approved by the council last week and were received in my office a few days ago. The government will wish to consider these recommendations before taking a definite position on the issues involved. I can now say this much, however: The government believes that in the new system there will be need for an institution like the National Joint Council in which representatives of bargaining agents and representatives of the employer can come together and jointly seek solutions to problems that go beyond those of particular bargaining units. Like the preparatory committee on collective bargaining, we believe that, if preserved and nurtured, the traditions associated with the council could be put to good use in the new system.
In the debate on the resolution, a question was also raised about the future role of the Pay Research Bureau. Let me say at once that in my opinion there can be no doubt
May 31, 1966	COMMONS
about the valuable service rendered by the Pay Research Bureau since its creation in 1957, nor about the increased objectivity which its work has brought to the consideration of the remuneration of employees of the public service. I would like to commend officials of the bureau who, in the past dec-cade, have built it into one of the most respected research organizations of its kind in Canada.
As hon. members know, the preparatory committee made quite specific recommendations about the future of the Pay Research Bureau. The government has not yet dealt with these recommendations. It seemed to us that they could not be dealt with in a satisfactory manner until consultations with employee representatives could take place in the full knowledge of the characteristics of the legislation we are now considering. We believe that the Pay Research Bureau should be retained as an independent and impartial unit whose findings are made available to accredited representatives of both employer and employees. We are satisfied, however, that decisions about its future terms of reference and method of operation should be made only after employee representatives have had an opportunity to consider those matters in the context of the collective bargaining legislation and to express to the government their considered views.
In the debate on the resolution, mention was also made of arbitration mechanisms proposed by the preparatory committee, mechanisms which, as the bill indicates, are considered by the government to be appropriate. The arbitration tribunal proposed in the bill is directly comparable to the arbitration tribunal which has successfully dealt with disputes in the Whitley Council system of the United Kingdom since 1925. During the more than 40 years that it has functioned, the British tribunal has dealt with some 600 cases and, throughout this very long period, has enjoyed the confidence and support of representatives of both employees and successive governments.
One hon. member, commenting upon the proposals of the preparatory committee, expressed some doubt as to the wisdom of making no provision for the public expression of dissenting views in awards of the tribunal. It seems to me, however, that an award which associates the chairman of the tribunal with only one of the members is apt to be divisive, encouraging one of the parties to welcome the award and the other to resent it. The 2303a-367
DEBATES	5787
Public Service Collective Bargaining manner in which awards are to be made is an important element of the proposed legislation that will no doubt be analysed in greater depth in the joint committee. I am sure that members of the committee will wish to ascertain the views of the staff associations on this question. Although our position on this point is by no means rigid, it seems to me at the present time that the proposal for an award signed only by the chairman has much to commend it.
I have already indicated that, where a bargaining agent rejects arbitration in favour of the process involving conciliation and the right to strike, provision is made for the designation of employees whose services are necessary in the interests of the safety and security of the public.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
This proposal has been the subject of some comment outside the house and it is important, I think, that there should be no misunderstanding of its character and significance. The absolute requirement for such a provision is clear, I think, to anyone who comprehends the many areas where public servants provide services which, if withdrawn in some circumstances, could endanger individuals in the community. A number of examples come to mind, including prison security, air traffic control, and hospital care. The identification of all such services is of course not possible without a systematic review of work being performed throughout the whole public service of Canada.
In considering this aspect of the proposed legislation, hon. members must differentiate between what might be described on the one hand as useful and important services, and on the other, as services necessary in the interests of the safety and security of the public. Almost every public service is, in one way or another, important to the well-being of the community. The proposed limitation on the right to strike is not intended to deny that right to all whose services may be deemed important. Such a limitation would be so severe as to serve almost as a statutory prohibition of all strike action.
In relation to this aspect of the proposed legislation, however, it is not necessary for me to remind hon. members of the ultimate sovereignty of parliament and its authority to protect and safeguard the public interest. It is, I believe, our duty in dealing with issues of this kind to legislate in such a way as to deny no man the ordinary rights and privileges of Canadian citizens unless in the public
5788	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining interest it is absolutely necessary to do so. On the other hand, no one should doubt the capacity or willingness of parliament to qualify such rights and privileges where they are being used in gross disregard for the well-being of the community.
Let me remind hon. members of the objectives of this legislation which the Prime Minister suggested that all members should bear in mind as they examine and evaluate the provisions of this bill. These were: first, to protect the public interest; second, to respond in an understanding and responsible manner to the aims and aspirations of organized employees; third, to preserve the capacity of the public service to function in an efficient manner; and fourth, to respect the principles underlying industrial relations law and practice in Canada.
With respect to the first objective, there has not been, and indeed there cannot be, any equivocation. The public interest must be served. In the development of all aspects of these bills, this basic requirement has been a primary consideration.
With respect to the second objective, I am satisfied that in its principal elements this legislation is a reasonable response to the claims of all interested employee organizations. However, I do not expect every one of these organizations to support all the details of the bill, if only because their wishes and aspirations are not in all respects the same.
With respect to the third objective, I believe that improvements in morale will result from the introduction of collective bargaining and mandatory grievance procedures, and will in time produce substantial gains in the efficiency of the public service. Hon. members know that this legislation is only one of a number of steps which the government is taking, or proposing to take, to gear the administrative machinery of government to the present and future demands of Canadian society.
Many of these steps are in the field of personnel management. Reforms in this field are as important and as necessary as reforms in the processing of income tax returns-I might perhaps say they are even more important-or as the need for reforms in the presentation of estimates to parliament. Each in its own way represents a change which adapts the machinery of government to the new age in which we live. Each in its own way will, I am sure, contribute to the administrative efficiency of the public service.

DEBATES	May 31, 1966
Finally, the proposed legislation in most of its basic principles is consistent with the provisions of statute law which regulate these matters in the private sector. It provides for the definition of bargaining units and the certification of bargaining agents. It imposes an obligation on the employer to negotiate in good faith with certified bargaining agents with a view to the conclusion of collective agreements. It provides for third-party adjustment of disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of collective agreements and arbitral awards. It permits employees to choose freely the organizations by which they wish to be represented in collective bargaining, and to replace those organizations when they no longer enjoy their confidence. It prohibits interference in the affairs of employee organizations by representatives of the employer, and it assures the right of every employee to belong to an employee organization of his choice.
In two important respects, Mr. Speaker, the proposed legislation goes beyond that which governs the relationship of employers and employees in most other jurisdictions. It grants bargaining rights to all professional employees, and it provides to all employee organizations applying for certification as bargaining agents the right to choose between alternative methods of dispute settlement.
In the long history of staff relations in the public service of Canada, organized professional employees have played a prominent and responsible part. In recent years they have been among those advocating a system of collective bargaining and arbitration. Now that such a system is being provided, the government can see no reason why they should be denied access to it.
As far as we know, the proposal for alternative methods of dispute settlement has no counterpart in other jurisdictions. We believe however that, when coupled with the provision for the designation of employees necessary to the safety and security of the public, it represents a sensible response to the requirements of the public service. As hon. members know, some groups of organized employees have expressed a strong desire for a system in which disputes are settled by binding arbitration and others have made it clear that they oppose arbitration as a matter of principle. The government has concluded that in the public service, in a system designed to embrace a wide spectrum of occupations-indeed, it will be the largest
May 31, 1966

employer-employee relationship governed by collective bargaining in this country-organized employees should have the freedom to choose a dispute settlement procedure with which they are in basic agreement and by which they are prepared to be bound.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, this bill is as complex and intricate as it is voluminous. Together with its companion measures, the Public Service Employment Act and the amendment to the Financial Administration Act, it constitutes an immense change in the approach to personnel management and staff relations in the public service.
At the resolution stage I endeavoured to outline the principles which we on this side think should govern collective bargaining in the public service, and indicated clear support for those principles. With reservations which I shall mention tonight, I support this bill although I must assert that a detailed study of it and of its two companion measures leaves many questions unanswered. The minister's statement tonight, to which I listened carefully, did not remove these uncertainties.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
It is still not clear how this collective bargaining bill will be integrated with the regular procedures under the new public service employment bill and with financial control under the Financial Administration Act. Indeed, few of these questions have been answered by the minister's opening presentation tonight, and they will require to be pursued before the proposed joint special committee of the Senate and House of Commons.
Because this bill will go to that joint special committee I believe it is desirable, indeed important, that members of this house should not adopt final, or hard and fast positions on second reading. In the special committee all interested parties will have the opportunity to give evidence and make submissions, and thereafter there will be ample time to take up positions.
Within the public service itself, sir, there is still but little appreciation of how radical, indeed how revolutionary will be the changes wrought by this bill. Many of the familiar and established procedures will go out the window and be wholly abandoned. The whole system of salary determination which has been built up over the years will be altered beyond recognition. This will not be achieved
Public Service Collective Bargaining without major headaches-headaches for management and employee alike. There will be major and startling upsets in the public service of this country.
In many departments wholesale dissatisfaction has already arisen with the classification revision program, the so-called red circling program. Many employees feel a sense of discrimination and hurt, and I hope the government will be able to allay those fears which have already been aroused.
The house should not think that the public service is wholly unanimous in favouring the changes now proposed. The old system of salary determination, based upon reports of the Pay Research Bureau and involving cyclical revision, is not unanimously condemned by any means. Many intelligent civil servants would prefer to retain the existing system in preference to collective bargaining. For myself, sir, I believe the change to a system of collective bargaining is both inevitable and desirable and will accrue to the great advantage of the majority of civil servants.
Equally, I have never concealed my hope that it could have been achieved by a process of gradualism. In my view the Whitley councils in Great Britain would be the best model for us. They have no statutory or legislative basis, and my hope had been that before this we could achieve the same results in this country by a process of broadening down from precedent to precedent. It became obvious, of course, that this was not possible, and that section 7 of the old act would not lead to this result.
Obviously we have come to the stage today where we must now have this legislation, but what troubles me most about this bill is its complexity. It purports to dot every "i" and to cross every "t". In the joint special committee I shall need some convincing that this exhaustive complexity will not lead to inflexibility or to excessive rigidity in employee relations. I say to you, sir, nothing could be more undesirable than to initiate a new system of collective bargaining and confine it in a legislative strait-jacket at the very outset.
In my view the new system must have room for experimentation, room to live, to breathe and to grow. Personally, I have never seen any employee relations legislation so exhaustive, so saturated with detail as is this bill. In committee I submit that we must ask ourselves whether this very exhaustiveness is.
5790	COMMONS
Public Service Collective Bargaining not self-defeating-whether the system so rigidly defined may not break down of its own weight. I hope that it will not, but I would like to see less definition, less exhaustive presentation and more opportunity for the system to live and, as I say, to breathe and to grow.
In the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, two human factors will determine the success or failure of the new system-first, the calibre of the persons appointed to the Public Service Staff Relations Board and to the Arbitration Tribunal and, second, the good will and loyal competence of the negotiators for management and the representatives of the bargaining agents. I reiterate what I tried to say a,t the resolution stage, that the appointments to the board and to the tribunal must be of the very highest calibre. There must not be even a breath of suspicion of patronage, and I speak of patronage as either political or bureaucratic. Indeed, sometimes I think bureaucratic patronage is worse than political patronage. I repeat, there must not be the breath of suspicion of patronage in these appointments.
It will be the responsibility of the rank and file of civil servants themselves to make certain that their employee organizations, which will be their bargaining agents, do not fall into improper hands-into power-hungry or influence-seeking cliques. If civil servants generally just leave it to "George", if they let minorities rule the employee organizations, then I say that collective bargaining will be no new Valhalla, and they will have only themselves to blame. The early stages of collective bargaining particularly will necessitate wise leadership and genuine employee relations statesmanship among the heads of the employee organizations.
If I read the bill correctly it does purport to retain as the final basis of an arbitration award the principle of salary determination which has become known as "fair comparison." The Arbitration Tribunal is instructed to have regard to "the conditions of employment in similar occupations outside the public service." Personally I believe that is proper. The government of course should always be a model employer, exercising a good influence towards all employment across the nation, but the role and status of public servants should not get out of line, either upwards or downwards, with those prevailing .generally in similar occupations. The basis of "fair comparison" has worked satisfactorily as a general rule and should be retained as a
IMr. Bell (Carleton).l
DEBATES	MaY 31. 1966
basic test for negotiation, conciliation and arbitration.
There is one aspect of the bill which may cause some concern. The Arbitration Tribunal is instructed to have regard to "such geographic, industrial or other variations as it may consider relevant." This of course is well understood in the prevailing rates employment, but for classified civil servants a national uniformity of pay has always been maintained, subject only to some bonuses for overseas or northern service. If there is to be a change in this policy, so that in the future a secretary in Vancouver may have a different pay scale from one in Saint John, we should be told about it. We must be vigilant that a basic change in the national policy of uniformity of pay is not just smuggled in.
0	(8:00 p.m.)
The bill is not fully clear in my view as to precisely what matters may be the subject of collective bargaining and what may not. The companion and integrating bills, the Public Service Superannuation Act and the amendments to the Financial Administration Act, do not make it clear either. For example, is a matter such as bilingualism for certain persons and not for others, to be a subject of collective bargaining? This is not clear. What
1	should like to reiterate is that there must be no intrusion by collective bargaining, either directly or indirectly, upon the merit system. In my view it is this merit system which has given Canada the finest public service of any nation, and no erosion of and no encroachments upon it can be tolerated. It is only upon the assumption that the combined effect of the new public service bill and schedule B of this bill will protect the merit system that I would be prepared to support it at second reading.
The Minister of National Revenue, as I endeavoured to do at the resolution stage, has paid a well merited compliment to the work of the 22-year-old National Joint Council. I of course am not aware of what the recommendations may be as to the future role of that council. The minister has not disclosed the recommendation in this regard tonight. No doubt he will do so before the joint special committee. I should like to say I believe it has an important role and that there is no organization within the public service which has more effective public contributions to its credit. In the future it must be continued and we shall expect, before the committee, a clear
May 31, 1966
579f

statement of what this government is prepared to suggest in respect of the role that the National Joint Council should play.
The minister has been a little more vague tonight than I would have hoped in relation to the future role of the Pay Research Bureau. I have a somewhat paternalistic feeling for the Pay Research Bureau, because my first action when originally elected to parliament was to persuade the then minister of finance, the hon. Donald M. Fleming, and the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert to establish this bureau. I say to the minister that he must not be at all equivocal on this matter. There must be a role for the Pay Research Bureau because as a source of objective, impartial wage and salary comparisons, its continuance is in my view, imperative.
Mr. Speaker, as I understood the minister's statement tonight he definitely was equivocal in relation to this. I hope when he replies he will make it clear that the Pay Research Bureau will continue and will be the source of the information essential if collective bargaining is to be effective, and which I think cannot be found elsewhere.
Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the most important and effective features of this bill is that dealing with grievances. In any organization as large as the public service of this country, the existence of a substantial number of grievances, some well founded some less well founded, is inevitable. At least one quarter of my total working hours each day is devoted to listening to grievances of civil servants in this area and taking them up with ministers or appropriate senior officers. When I sat on the other side of the house, almost two-thirds of my time was devoted to this time consuming but necessary aspect of an Ottawa member's life.
I believe the grievance procedures in this bill are good. Perhaps they will relieve Ottawa area members like my sincere friend from Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) to enable them to devote more time to constructive legislative duties, although I have some doubts. I think my hon. friend from Ottawa East and my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Tardif) would agree fully with these statements. I know the hon. gentleman who leads this house now, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) has had more experience than any one of us. One of the ironic things is that civil servants are universally and instinctively against political influence until personal problems arise, and then they

Public Service Collective Bargaining resent it if their M.P. does not have enough pull to fix the problem.
Finally, sir, I should like to deal with the principles of the bill as they affect the right to strike. For myself I want to reserve the right of final decision on the issue until all the evidence has been heard and exhaustive discussion has taken place in the joint special committee. On all sides of the house there are major differences of opinion on this subject. The same is true among the employee organizations.
What I fear is that this bill falls between two stools; it recognizes the right to strike for some employees, but refuses it to others. Then it permits those for whom strike action is recognized to bargain away that right. Frankly, to me, this seems to be an attempt to get on all sides of the issue and is likely to fail for that reason. I have been interested to note that the almost universal reaction of newspaper opinion is firmly against the right to strike. For myself I doubt that either recognition of the right to strike or the prohibition of the right to strike really matters anything like as significantly as some people urge.
Recognition of the right will not make employee organizations any less responsible and, on the other hand, it has been my experience throughout life that prohibitions never have been successful in preventing persons with a sense of moral outrage from taking retaliatory action. Actually the only real issue is not whether a strike can be prevented one way or another, but whether, if held, a strike in the public service would be legal or illegal. However, when you encounter that dread tragedy of a strike of public servants, the question of legality or illegality is not very serious or significant, in my view. It really is only a matter of academic exercise.
Parliament always should be seeking to prevent any conditions arising where the possibility of strike action could ever be contemplated. If, for example, the legitimate grievances of the postal workers as revealed to Judge Anderson and Judge Montpetit had been aired in this chamber, we never would have had a postal strike. Civil servants in the Ottawa area had put all their political eggs in the one Liberal basket at that time, and the Ottawa members were silent. The government just sat on a powder keg until, predictably, it exploded into a postal strike.
Obviously, before third reading, there will be much more to say on this subject of the
May 31, 1966

Public Service Collective Bargaining right to strike. That is all I would wish to say at this particular time. I have made my personal position clear. We should await the hearings and the evidence in the committee before making further comment.
There is one principle of the bill with which the Minister of National Revenue dealt which affects the issue very directly, and which I do not think can be allowed to stand. That is the unique provision that the chairman of an arbitration tribunal shall always be a one-man majority, even when his two colleagues are in disagreement. In committee, this extraordinary principle will have to be eliminated, if arbitration is to be realistic. I never have heard of this type of provision. It may exist elsewhere, but I never have seen a situation where one man can be a majority in a body of three. In committee this extraordinary provision will have to be explained to me in a manner which the minister has not done tonight, or else certainly I will be one of those who decidedly will vote against it.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member not aware that this is exactly the system of arbitration which has been used in the United Kingdom for many years in the Whitley council, and has worked out very well in that particular case.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, I am not aware of it. I can only say that to me it is a most extraordinary principle that a chairman can be a majority of a body of three. I think it is a form of dictatorship the like of which I have never seen presented in legislation to this parliament. So far as I am concerned, unless there are arguments that I have not heard at all, this legislation is not going to pass in that form of dictatorship.
This bill does initiate, as I have said, a totally new era in the relationship between the government of Canada and its employees. I would hope personally that there would be a much greater awareness among the rank and file of public servants and civil servants of the vast changes which are in store, and that the deliberations of the joint special committee might profit greatly from wise representations, not merely of employee organizations but of other thoughtful and interested persons, including individual civil servants, members of the public, and national organizations which have a great interest in what is the position of the public service.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with the reservations that I have expressed, we support the second reading of this bill. Hon. members on this side of the house will seek in committee to improve and alter the provisions of the bill to ensure that the bill which ultimately passes this parliament is the best that can be devised in the national interest, and the best for the benefit of what we believe to be the finest public service in the world.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) said at the resolution stage when he spoke on behalf of our party, we welcome this legislation. We feel it is an important milestone in the history of the government of this country for us to be establishing the principle of collective bargaining for our federal public servants. We also welcome the other two bills which are companion pieces to this legislation and which will be dealt with after we pass this bill. I refer to the bill establishing the public service employment act and the bill amending the Financial Administration Act.
We welcome the fact that among these pieces of legislation the number of employees who are to be known as public servants is widened, and we welcome the extent to which the government has accepted some of the very useful recommendations of the Glassco Commission. All told, we feel that a good job for the public service and for public servants is being done by bringing forward these three pieces of legislation.
It will be no surprise to any member of this house if I suggest that my speech is not going to be one of nothing but praise. I shall have some criticisms to make. But even so, I wanted my first words to emphasize what has already been said on behalf of this party, namely that we are glad the day has at last come when we are going to establish collective bargaining in the public service. We also welcome the fact that these three pieces of legislation will be referred, after each one has had second reading, to a special committee where we can go into the details of them. I hope the government's attitude will be one that will accept useful and constructive suggestions that are made when these pieces of legislation are before that special committee.
Mr. Speaker, having made it clear that we are pleased to have this legislation, I should like to make a few criticisms and indicate a few points where we think improvements can be made. Necessarily I shall be referring to
May 31, 1966

items that are covered within the contents of the bill, but I shall not break any rule by referring to the clauses as such; rather, I think it is important to do as the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) did, namely give notice at this point of some of the things that we think should be gone into when we have this legislation before the committee.
The first thing I should like to say is that we feel the government at long last having accepted the idea of collective bargaining for public servants, should have demonstrated more confidence in this principle than I believe to be exhibited by the terms of the legislation. I think not only should it have shown more confidence in the principle of collective bargaining, but I agree with the hon. member for Carleton that the government should have shown more confidence in the experience it has had over several decades in dealing with civil servants through their various organizations. Even though it can be said that we are entering a new era, in the sense that we are going to have collective bargaining, it is not the beginning of consultations between the government as employer and its employees.
There has been a good deal of experience in this field. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) tonight paid tribute to the growth and improvement that has taken place in those relations. He referred to the maturity that has come about. It seems to me that if the government does have an awareness of the fact that there has been experience in terms of consultation between the government as employer and its public servants as employees, it should have demonstrated this by not hedging the principle of collective bargaining quite so much as has been done in this piece of legislation.
Part of what I have in mind in this respect was alluded to by the previous speaker when he referred to the complexities of the bill that is now before us. I recognize that it takes a fairly lengthy piece of legislation to deal with this matter, but it does seem to me that those who drafted this bill have gone a little too far in trying to provide for everything. To the extent that an attempt is made by legislation to deal with every possible situation, room for negotiation, room for good will between parties which respect each other is limited.
I suggest that it would be better to rely a little more on the good will and experience that has been built up between the government and its employees. In this connection I

Public Service Collective Bargaining suppose the outstanding example of what I am talking about, when I say there is a lack of confidence in the principle of collective bargaining, is the way in which the government has given the right to strike and at the same time has hedged it. I am aware of the fact that newspaper editorial opinion to a considerable extent has not welcomed the recognition by the government of the right to strike on the part of civil servants, but I should like to commend the government for not having worried about this. I commend it for having accepted the fact that, at least as far as it is prepared to go, civil servants are citizens like the rest of the workers in Canada and should be accorded the same rights.
o (8:20 p.m.)
But when the government gives the right to strike to public servants, and then says that that right can only be exercised if the appropriate bargaining units make a choice in advance to which they are tied for three years, then I submit that it has, to a considerable extent, denied the freedom of the right to strike which has supposedly been given to our civil servants. I am surprised that once the government was prepared to grant the right to strike it did not give it in at least the same and unconditional way that is provided for other employees in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. This requirement that a bargaining unit must decide in advance whether it wants to have recourse to arbitration or whether it wants to retain the right to strike, I suggest is unrealistic and a denial of the right that is supposedly being accorded.
Not only does this way of dealing with the matter deny the right to strike, but it puts the right to resort to arbitration in what seems to me to be an unreal position. I always thought that any two parties which have respect for each other and are on any kind of equal terms have a natural right at any time to agree to arbitrate and to agree to a third party sitting with them to ajudicate on a dispute; that they have the right in advance to agree, if they wish that arbitration will be accepted.
I suggest that the extent to which arbitration under this legislation becomes something that a bargaining unit has to choose three years in advance as an alternative to the right to strike, puts our public servants in a strait-jacket that is not consistent with the publicity that has been given to the idea that
May 31, 1966

Public Service Collective Bargaining this right has been accorded to civil servants.
I hope that when we go into committee we may have an opportunity to take a new look at this. I think the choice should not have to be made in advance. If the right to strike is granted, it should be there on an unconditional basis.
I shall now move to another area which I think is a limitation in this bill. I refer to the grievance procedures which are established in it. There is much to be said for those procedures that is good, but I see two limitations. On the one hand I think that the range of matters that can be the subject of grievance procedure is too narrow, and on the other hand I suggest that the machinery for handling grievances involves the kinds of delays that can be fatal to a satisfactory solution to the grievances that employees or bargaining units may bring forward. I hope therefore that we can take a good look at the grievance procedure and perhaps improve it with respect to the points that I have made.
Another point to which I should like to draw attention relates to the whole question of how bargaining units are to be chosen and established, but I wish to draw attention more particularly to the fact that there are clauses in the bill which seem to me to open the door to what in certain circles, is called raiding. We will go into these defects when we get into committee on the bill, but I urge that if my reading of the bill is correct, if there are sections that make it possible for this practice to take place, we should tighten it up and make these provisions more clear.
There are certain areas in the bill where it seems to me that there are inequalities between the two sides, namely employer and employees. For example, I find that there are various penalties that are provided for employees or for representatives of bargaining units, penalties that are mostly monetary, but I find no corresponding penalty on the other side of the fence. I know the argument will be made that the employer on the other side is the government; perhaps eventually the employer is the parliament of Canada.
It seems to me, however, that if errors are made or if there is a departure from the spirit and intent of the whole principle of collective bargaining on the part of the individuals who represent the employer, similar to departures which are possible on behalf of individuals who represent the employees, some disciplinary measures should be enforced to assure equality on the two sides of the picture.


Finally I would like to draw attention to the fact that in this bill something is carried over from the old Civil Service Act which will also be carried forward if the government has its way, in the new public service employment act, and that is what amounts to an outright prohibition of political activities on the part of civil servants. The hon. member for Carleton used the words "political" in his speech, but he was not talking about the kind of political activity to which I refer.


Richard Albert Bell: I will talk about that in the next bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member indicated that whenever civil servants in the Ottawa area who eschew political activity are in trouble, they want their members of parliament to use any political influence they have. I was a little disturbed when the member for Carleton used the phrase "let George do it". I wondered which George he was referring to. Surely the purpose of this legislation is to get away from that practice.
The particular provision in the bill now before us which seems to me unfair is the one that goes a long way with respect to the business of political interests or activities. I do not object to the provision that would make it improper for a civil servants union to make contributions for political purposes compulsory in order to belong to that union. I quite agree with that. But it seems to me it is going a little too far to say that a union representing employees, even one which handles money that is given to it voluntarily by some of its members to be given to this, that or the other political party, is to be denied the right to be certified or to engage in collective bargaining in any way whatsoever.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I know that every time this question of political activity on the part of civil servants comes up there is a certain type of editorial response that is automatic, but tonight I am going to rely on the spirit of the statement of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson), particularly in the closing part of his remarks. He used phrases that indicated that the purpose of this legislation is to accord to civil servants their rights as Canadian citizens. We think that that is exactly what this legislation is all about. We think that for far too long civil servants have been only the objects of great praise on our part. We agree that they are the greatest civil servant group in the world, doing the job which keeps parliament and the country going, but having
May 31, 1966

given them that praise, we then make them second class citizens by denying them, for example, the right to collective bargaining that is accorded to employees in private industry.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that full rights as Canadian citizens include not only the right to belong to unions of organizations that are free to engage in collective bargaining, but also include full political rights. If we have reached the point where we are able to grow up a bit in relation to the rights of civil servants-the rights of public servants, as we shall call them from now on-I suggest we grow up all the way. Certainly there will be headaches as a result of these new freedoms which we grant; but I submit, Mr. Speaker, that prohibitions create more headaches than freedoms and I urge very strongly, now that we have gone this far with this principle, that we go all the way with it.
There are other details in the bill, Mr. Speaker, with which we shall be dealing when we get the bill to the special committee to which it and the two others will be referred. I agree with the previous speaker that this is not the time for us to be taking rigid positions on either side; rather, it is time for us to state the subjects which we think should be surveyed and reviewed. I hope that as a result of the study which will be given this bill and the other two by the special joint committee we will be able to bring back to the House of Commons legislation which will make what we are doing a milestone in our Canadian history, that it will bring about an improvement in the kind of service we will get from our public servants, and that it will establish for them their full and untrammelled rights as Canadian citizens.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at any length on the particular measure before us at the present time, but I do want to state the support of our group for the principle of collective bargaining for the public service. It seems strange that this principle, which has been recognized for so long in other areas, has taken so long to be applied to the public service of Canada. As I stated, we are in full support of the principle which has been enunciated.
We believe that the rights of those who are engaged in the public service of Canada should be safeguarded and promoted in every possible way. But, Mr. Speaker, coupled with the bestowal of those rights and privileges I am sure that those engaged in the public 23033-368
Public Service Collective Bargaining service are cognizant of the responsibilities that rest upon them in view of the somewhat different type of occupation in which they engage when compared with the activities of those in the private sector. I am sure that this fact will be recognized both by the government as employer, and by the employees.
As pointed out by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in introducing the resolution preceding this measure, the preparatory committee, under the direction of Mr. Heeney, did invaluable work in evolving this system which is now being presented to us for consideration. We have been advised that some of the recommendations are already in process of implementation, and this whole measure as we have it is based largely on the recommendations of that committee.
This fact, Mr. Speaker, coupled with the fact that this measure is to be referred to the special joint committee of both houses of parliament, makes it more or less unnecessary for detailed study and analysis in the house at this time. In fact, because of the complexities of the measure, it is practically impossible for us to analyse it here and give it the study which it requires. However, when the matter is referred to the special joint committee there will be an opportunity given for detailed analysis, for questions and answers, and for the detailed study of every aspect of this matter.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that many questions remain unanswered. Some have been answered by the Prime Minister, and others have been answered tonight by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson); but many other questions still remain unanswered. We trust that when the matter does go to committee ample opportunity will be given to accord the bill the consideration it merits.
In introducing the resolution the Prime Minister outlined the objectives the measure is designed to realize. I think they are very commendable and I will just mention them. First of all, it is designed to protect the public interest; second, to respond in an understanding and responsible manner to the aims and aspirations of the employees; third, to preserve the capacity of the public service to function efficiently in serving the people of Canada and, fourth, to respect the principles underlying industrial relations law and practice in Canada. If this measure and the companion measures to which reference has been made serve to achieve these objectives, then of course they will be very worth while and commendable indeed.
May 31. 1966

Public Service Collective Bargaining
I just want to refer to two questions which have been raised in the course of debate thus far. The first is the provision for strike action. That is what I had in mind when I mentioned, in the first instance, that along with the rights which are safeguarded, responsibilities will also devolve upon those who are employed in the public service. We feel that the attitude they have taken in days gone by is a good omen for the future, and that they will act in a responsible way even though their rights are safeguarded.
Another question which comes to mind is one raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and concerns contributions to political activities. I do not know just what type of financing will be required in this respect, what type of fees will be necessary, and so on, but I should like to raise one point. I do not know whether this is covered in the bill, but if there is to be any provision for compulsory check-off of dues or contributions, then I should like to emphasize very strongly that those making contributions should not be required to do so if they are to be used for political action with which the contributor is not in agreement. I want to make that perfectly clear.
As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length on this matter because I feel that every aspect of the bill can be considered thoroughly when it goes to the special joint committee.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I think that Bill C-170 introduced today by the government has been long in coming. I know that since I came to the house in 1953, I have been asking that the civil servants be given the right to negotiate with governmental authorities about their working conditions and salaries. Something was done in that direction in all the committees set up to study the Civil Service Act.
I was happy a little earlier to hear the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) say that he supported the new legislation, with some reservations. I remember that as parliamentary secretary he was given the task of refusing the request I made to give the civil servants the right to negotiate with their employer. He has changed his mind since, and I am happy about that. It will be one more vote for this legislation. The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) pointed out that it took a long time for the act to become a reality in Canada.

It was discussed under Mr. St. Laurent's government. Then, the whole thing went dead. Nobody objected to it, but nobody did anything. When the Conservative party was in office, I suggested it and the Liberal party supported me. But the Conservative party, including the hon. member for Carleton, was dead against giving the employees the right to negotiate their working conditions.
I do not intend to speak for a long time. A committee will study that matter and I hope that we will be given the opportunity to discuss that bill clause by clause and to make the necessary changes. I agree with all those who spoke before me and said that the legislation is not perfect. As a matter of fact, it was prepared by human beings and, therefore, reflects all the imperfections of human nature. It is possible to improve it. I say that the Liberal party will not object to amendments being submitted to improve it.
It is impossible to predict beforehand what the arbitration board will be like. I know that there will be such a board and that the employees and the government will each have a representative on it and that both of them will agree to find a third member able to understand their needs, those of the government and those of the employees.
That is how an understanding can be reached. I hope that it will be possible to create an arbitration board which will really be conscious of its obligations, and that is how we will be able to eliminate patronage, as mentioned a little earlier by the hon. member for Carleton. But as you know patronage is dead. There was a little in the past with regard to hourly-paid employees, but it has completely disappeared. With the new attitude which prevails today, it cannot exist. There was a time when I recommended hundreds of people and the hon. member for Carleton did the same thing. They were accepted. The new attitude has changed all that; it is impossible to recommend anyone. Once in a while, maybe, a man will be hired to replace another one; but it does not happen regularly any more. At the present time, contracts are given out. That may be preferable for I admit money can thus be saved. We were somewhat surprised to lose that opportunity of giving a man a job from time to time.
I agree that patronage must disappear, for it cannot improve the situation in parliament. It was done away with in Quebec and things are looking up. I believe the same will apply here when it has completely disappeared. Even
May 31, 1966

though the Creditistes do not seem to want to admit it-they do not believe in anything- they will not believe it until they have placed their hands in the wounds; doubting Thomases that they are, they do not want to believe.
I say that since patronage has disappeared in Quebec everyone is better off for it; the same will probably apply in Ottawa when it has disappeared here also. Even if it caused some astonishment the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) and myself must admit that new conditions have altered the situation; if patronage must disappear, let it be so.
It is said in certain quarters that the bill is not clear. That is a fact. Some things in it are not clear. It is quite difficult. What the employees wanted could not be foreseen. They will clarify things when they ask for specific working conditions and salaries. When the arbitration tribunal is created then their conditions can be studied and the government will see if it can grant them their requests. And so, stability will be achieved. It could not be had from one day to the next.
While talking of conditions, arbitration and what could improve the situation, mention was made of the right to strike. The right to strike, Mr. Speaker, was not requested by the employees, postal workers excepted. None of the others asked for it. The right to strike can be dangerous for a civil servant.
Let us suppose, for instance, that the employees of a department decide to go on strike. This would create a situation which would have an impact not only on those responsible for the working conditions complained about, or merely on those responsible for salaries, but on the whole Canadian people. Have we really got the right to give employees the possibility to cause concern among the Canadian people.
If the employees of the Eddy Company go on strike, this is their sacred right and we cannot prevent them from exerting it. This concerns their working conditions and the Eddy Company. If the employees of the International Paper go on strike, it is normal. This concerns their working conditions and the International.
We all know that the postmen's strike was prejudicial to all Canada. Mail was not delivered; we were obliged to send somebody from Hull to Montreal with insurance policies and this person brought back policies to be distributed to insurance agents in Hull. Those who were living far from the head office
DEBATES	5797
Public Service Collective Bargaining could not work. Were we responsible? Were the various insurance offices responsible? No. Yet, thousands of people had to suffer the disastrous consequences, and only the government could settle the problem.
I say it is dangerous. I am not against it, but I say the government must have thought about it seriously before deciding to grant the right to strike.
I am convinced public servants will not take advantage of that in an arbitrary fashion, because I am also convinced they do not want it. They did not ask for it, they do not intend to use it, but the fact that it is in the act constitutes a danger.
When I asked for civil servants the right to settle their own problems with the government, I always insisted that we should avoid granting them the right to strike, because I thought it was dangerous.
I have met thousands of civil servants in both my riding and the city of Ottawa, and not a single one ever told me he was in favour of the right to strike.
In view of this fact, we are going to examine this bill seriously. I will not object to this point, but I think the government has taken a dangerous step.
Mr. Speaker, the political activities of civil servants were mentioned. Well, this I cannot accept. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) told us that they should be granted the right to enter into politics, to subscribe to political parties. I know that they do not want this. They want to be independent of political parties. They want to be free to work, to earn their salary, whichever government is in office. They absolutely want to stay away from political organizations, because this represents some danger.
Moreover, when an employee goes into politics against a given party, he is prone to try and prejudice this party, if ever it comes into office.
If the New Democratic Party, which is now claiming for civil servants the right to go into politics, came into office-but this will probably never happen-its members would probably be the first to complain about that privilege having been granted, since they would suffer tremendously.
I suggest that we cannot grant them the right to go into politics. They are satisfied as they are. They can stay like that and I hope that the amendments moved in order to enable them to go into politics will not be passed.
May 31, 1966

Public Service Collective Bargaining
As I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, the bill is complex and requires extensive consideration. I do not intend to speak any further this evening. I hope in committee to make the necessary comments to improve the situation.
Moreover, I think that we must stop right now and consider the matter, and one day we will be in a position to give civil servants what they are entitled to expect from the government.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
[English1


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the principle of the bill and indicate some of the difficulties which I see in it, but before doing so I want to make clear that the suggestions I make are not intended to take anything away from the fact that this bill is a milestone in Canadian civil service history and, if it is improved in some respects, it will be an even more shining milestone than it is now.
My first suggestion is that the bill shows a certain amount of fear about the way in which in practice it would work out, with the result it is far too detailed. Too many t's are crossed and too many i's are dotted. There is too little discretion left to the board, and too little room for applying changing conditions. Everything is codified in a way which is likely to cause a great deal of difficulty in the actual, practical working out of this kind of legislation.
It would have been much better had the bill contained fewer specifics, had the government been prepared to let it rest on certain general principles and put the details into regulations which can much more easily be changed on the recommendation of the board, or of some other body which is specified in the bill. In my opinion this is the major defect in the bill. It attempts to set out almost every conceivable detail. I speak with some years of experience in such matters and I say that in labour relations it is impossible to do that and carry out an effective, practical job.
The second major difficulty about the bill is that the Public Service Staff Relations Board has far too many functions in addition to the certification of bargaining agents. It is not only given the job of certifying the bargaining agents, which should be undertaken by an entirely impartial third party, but it also has duties in relation to conciliation-in relation to


the items which are to be placed in conciliation, because its chairman sets them out-and it also has duties in relation to the appointment of adjudication and the manner in which they are to work.
In other words, it is a super board and because it is given powers-on the one side the certification of bargaining units, and on the other the authority to guide all the labour relations through the course of bargaining, conciliation and so on-it has too varied a set of powers to avoid becoming rigid. It will be much more concerned with the details of labour relations processes than would an ordinary labour relations board charged with certifying bargaining agents.
The body charged with certifying bargaining agents ought to be limited to that job, and I for one cannot see why that job could not be entrusted to the existing Canada Labour Relations Board. However, if the government felt it wanted some special civil service body to do that job and make that kind of decision, it could have a separate board undertake it, even though it be a part-time outfit meeting only for the purpose of dealing with certification applications, which do not arise often.
I repeat that it is a bad principle to have the body which creates the bargaining units, and therefore is the body which creates the instrument through which labour rights are to be enjoyed, also act as the body which in effect controls day by day the exercise of those rights the body which creates the rights ought to be separate from the body which controls the day by day exercises of those rights by the parties which gain them. For the life of me I do not see why it was not possible to place those two functions in two separate bodies.
My third general comment, which I make with all the emphasis at my command, is that the bill commits a terrible error in defining a bargaining unit in a detailed way, in effect almost saying to the body which is to certify the bargaining agent precisely what the composition of a bargaining unit should be.
It has been found by every labour relations board in every jurisdiction in Canada, and indeed in every other jurisdiction where such bodies exist, that this is an imprudent thing to do; that the prudent thing is to define a bargaining unit in the widest sensible terms -not the widest possible terms-and then leave to the board which certifies the bargaining agent enough discretion to be able to
May 31, 1966

adjust its certification to the demands of the parties, to the wishes of the parties, and to the particular circumstances surrounding the facts of an application for certification. The proposed board does not have that discretion. It is limited to certain stated, statutory categories, out of which it cannot move. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this will be found by the board, by the government and by the Public Service Commission to be a confinement that will be most impractical and undesirable.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The fourth comment I wish to make is that there is a further limitation on the process of collective bargaining which, to me, is disturbing; that is, the statute gives the employer specific rights which it says are exclusive to the employer. I do not so much object to this being done as I object to the fact that the clause which gives the employer those rights does not make them subject in any way to the collective agreement between the parties.
For many years this was the case with collective agreements. They contained a proviso that such and such should be the exclusive function of management. But any modern collective agreement will provide that such and such shall be the exclusive function of management "subject to the provisions of this agreement". In other words, if the parties can agree that something in relation to dismissal or promotion for example, can be done in some other way than the way set out in some regulation, or the way desired by the employer, then the right of the employer should be qualified by the agreement of the parties in the case of a collective agreement, or by the award of the arbitrator in the case of arbitration. The terms of the bill constitute in this respect a serious limitation on collective bargaining.
My next point has to do with another example of the excessive power which has been given to the board as defined. There are provisions which say, in effect, that if an adjudicator or a board of arbitration trying to adjudicate or reach a settlement of a grievance bumps up against what is called a point of law or of jurisdiction, the adjudicator or the board does not have authority to deal with it but must refer it to the Public Service Staff Relations Board for decision. In the meantime, the arbitration proceedings cease.
In other words, there is a grievance procedure, provision is made for arbitration, and an attempt is made to provide an expeditious
Public Service Collective Bargaining way of settling the matter. Then the adjudicator or the board come up against a point of law-or someone argues it is a point of law. Usually it is the employer who says that jurisdiction to deal with a particular case is lacking. The board then goes home and has to refer the matter to a super board for a decision on the point of law or jurisdiction before arbitration can proceed. Again, this seems to be an instance where one board is given far too much power. There is nothing in labour relations which sours collective bargaining so quickly as protracted delays in the settlement of grievances.
In the same way it seems to me to be objectionable in principle that when conciliation is set up as one of the choices under the act it is not the parties themselves who set out the issues the conciliator has to deal with. They may signify these issues to the board, but it is the chairman of the super board who sets out in writing the matters to be dealt with and gives them to the conciliation board to consider. I cannot see the reason for this unless the government is setting out to take away with one hand part of what it is giving with the other; unless it is fearful of the results of genuine collective bargaining and wishes to place limits upon it.
The parties should be able to determine these matters themselves and if, in the course of conciliation proceedings, they happen to think of something else rather than what they thought of earlier, they should have the right to change. Often in the course of negotiations one party starts out asking for a, b and c while the other wants d, e and f' Then somebody says: give us g and we will abandon a and b. Unless the legislation provides for flexibility to meet situations of this kind, the machinery will work less effectively than it ought to work-I suppose to say it would be unworkable would be to use too extreme a word.
Finally, perhaps the minister would explain to us why two things are necessary. First, why should it be necessary to wait for as long as two years after this machinery has been established before certification takes place. And why should it be necessary for an organization to make a choice as to which of the two processes for dealing with disputes it will choose, right at the start, before it is certified? My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said the choice was for three years. As I read the legislation it is at least for three years, because at the
May 31, 1966

Public Service Collective Bargaining end of that time if the parties wish to make a change from one process to another they have to make application to the board, and it is the board which will consider the application and make the change, not the parties. Why should that be necessary?
Obviously, what the government is doing by this provision is to invite any prudent civil service organization to choose the path with the strike at the end of it. If I had anything to do with a civil service organization and I knew that if I chose the arbitration procedure nothing could be done for three years, and even after that I would have to make application to the board should I wish to make a change, I would choose the other course, the one that leads to a strike.
It seems silly to invite this kind of thing by requiring a choice so far in advance and making the choice so rigid once it has been arrived at. I hope I have not misread the legislation. If I have, I would be glad to learn that some of the fears I have expressed are not justified.
As my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre and the leader of our party, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) have stated, we greet this legislation without hesitation. I congratulate the government for bringing it in, but I hope that when we get to the committee stage hon. gentlemen opposite will make some changes which I am certain will enhance the rights which are set out for the employees, and improve the working of the legislation itself.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize first for having been away when the minister made his statement. I happened to be at supper. But I am pleased, as all members of our group, with the introduction of Bill C-170.
Civil servants, as well as members of the house, have been awaiting this bill for a long time. Several find the bill long and not very clear in parts, but I think it is precisely the right tool to make our work easier in the committee, because this bill must be used as a tool by the committee.
That is why the members of that committee will have to be chosen carefully, because it is precisely within the committee that those who will find the bill difficult to understand will be able to amend it as required.
I hope that government members appointed ito the committee will be adaptable enough to
,
discuss this bill with all the fairness called for by this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will finally enable employees to negotiate with their employer. It follows that good relations between employers and employees will be ensured through the selection of the men who will meet with employers, in the present case, members of parliament and government members. I think that if on both sides, we make every effort to remove the obstacles likely to interfere with the due process of negotiations, then we shall have achieved our purpose.
When I speak of the selection of employer representatives, I am thinking of political pressures and action. Whatever the member for Hull (Mr. Caron) may say, there is always some political action to expect and to avoid, especially in this case.
For instance, if we take members on the side of the employer who use the dues of the employees to finance a political party, I tell you in advance that something is surely going to run amiss, just as it does run amiss when-as I can prove in my area-an employee who is not for a party, as the N.D.P. for instance, has to pay his dues to his union, knowing that his dues will be used against him for the campaign. It seems to me such cases should be considered in committee. The dues of employees should no longer be allowed to help any political party, even though it may claim to protect the employees. Mr. Speaker, we are all here to protect the rights of the workingman; we are all here to protect the rights of human beings. I cannot see in the house any party in a position to claim exclusive right to defend the rights of the workers and to use that claim to justify the use of such dues.
Mr. Speaker, those are points that the members of the committee will have to take into consideration, and especially incorporate into the act in very clear terms, so that the group of employees who will negotiate with the employer are not tied down by any party whatsoever.
We will have justice only when both these negotiating groups feel absolutely free, absolutely detached from politics.
I was listening a while ago to the hon. member for Hull who said: That will eliminate patronage, there is no patronage any more. I think the member for Hull is joking when he says there is no patronage any more because in the country, like in our province, there is more patronage than ever before.
May 31, 1966	COMMONS
I say that everyone will have to take his responsibilities, because I consider that here the employer is a member, and the member is the man elected in the constituency. When, for instance, post office contracts are let without the knowledge of the member elected by 60 per cent of the constituency, I wonder how the hon. member for Hull would call that, if not patronage.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the remarks the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) is now making go well beyond the scope of the bill under discussion, namely Bill No. 170 or
An Act respecting employer and employee relations in the Public Service of Canada.
I therefore ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to this subject matter.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, but it was because the hon. member for Hull had been allowed to deal with the matter of patronage. I think this also comes within the ambit of the debate, because I set out the required qualities of the employers group to negotiate with employees.
The dominant shortcoming here of the employers group is the evil of patronage. I am precisely saying that we need a preventive to this evil, so that it does not develop any more.
The committee will have to consider what deals with the arbitration tribunal. Well, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about arbitration I am fearful, because I find that if the bill is well thought out, if the bill is well drafted, I believe that arbitration will be lessened. I hope it disappears, because the arbitration boards we now have are not too satisfactory. That is why I rely mainly on the good work of the committee. I also hope that a member of our group will be on that committee, for we will have something to say, and we hope that this bill will serve the employees as they wish and as they deserve, and the employers as their duty commands.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hold the house any longer, but, as I believe that perhaps this committee will have 25 or 26 members, I rely on the government's sense of responsibility to make sure that one of our group is appointed to it.


Mr.   Cole@Longueuil: Provided he attends the sittings.
1English1


Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words,
DEBATES	5801
Public Service Collective Bargaining because like other speakers who have preceded me I believe this is a matter which will be discussed in detail in committee, as should be the case. My main remark at this time is in answer to some of those who have said that this is a long overdue act. Perhaps, if we have found the right solution, it is long overdue. I should like to remind members of the house, however, that every one of us on both sides of the house-and let us not make of this bill a political issue-


Richard Albert Bell: Hear, hear.


Jean-Thomas Richard: -has for many years been working in the interest of civil servants. This accolade does not belong to any party in this house. To my knowledge all individuals at least have said the same thing; that is, on both sides of this house over many years members have said that they were interested in bettering the lot of the civil servant and in improving the relationship between employer and employee.
Over the past few years we have had bills affecting civil servants. In 1961 we had long committee hearings at which we had a very thorough representation from the associations. I should like to remind some of those who were not on that committee in those days that some of the things which are found in this bill now go much further than anything asked at that time by the associations. It was difficult at that time even to convince the associations that we really could have true collective bargaining. The word "strike" was hardly heard of. Many of the things which have been included as a result of the Glassco Commission, and some of the representations made by employee associations, the government and others since that time, are radical in relation to representations made in the past by associations of the civil service.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I am not going to discuss the provisions of the bill because this is not the time to do so. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of collective bargaining, as I was in 1961; but as to how the provisions of this bill will provide for the employer and employees the proper system for conducting proper negotiations, I am not sure. I think we should wait until we are in committee and ascertain the attitude of the interested parties. I am sure that at that time we will find that many of the clauses which I have read rather quickly will seem to be, as one hon. member mentioned, rather rigid and the procedure may be complex. I
May 31, 196G

Public Service Collective Bargaining am not an expert in labour relations, but it occurs to me that at the time the bill is before the committee some changes may have to be accepted. I do not wish to delay the passage of this bill before it is referred to committee, and I will save any further remarks that I have until another time.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, at this time I am not going to comment in any detail on the remarks made by hon. members on all sides of the house. Immediately this bill passes second reading I will move that it be referred to the special joint committee, where members of the committee will have the opportunity to hear representations from all interested parties, which of course will include the existing civil service organizations.
I should like to reiterate the fact that the government, in bringing this bill to the house and referring it to committee, considers it on a completely impartial basis. Our aim as a government, as must be the aim of all hon. members of the house, is to come out of that committee with the best possible piece of legislation and the most workable piece of legislation in order to ensure that the civil servants of Canada have their full rights to collective bargaining as envisaged in the bill presented to the house and that the legislation be passed in its most workable form.
Many of the questions that have been raised are similar to questions and ideas which were brought forward by civil service associations at various stages of the hearings of the Heeney committee, and were later included in representations made to the cabinet committee in connection with this particular bill. I am sure these representations will also be placed before the special joint committee.
I hope the committee will be able to meet as soon as possible, perhaps starting next week, will hear representations, and will then move through this legislation as soon as possible in order that the legislation might be completely enacted-that is, this and the succeeding two bills-before we rise for the summer recess. I admit that I may be a little optimistic-


Stanley Howard Knowles: When is the summer recess?


Edgar John Benson: I admit that I may be a little optimistic in this regard, but it is quite important that this legislation be enacted in

order that we may move this fall into collective bargaining with the public service of Canada; because after we start moving into collective bargaining with the civil service a two-year period will elapse before all the organizations will have started to negotiate agreements whereby conditions of employment, wage rates, and so on are arrived by agreement with the government, rather than through an arbitrary decision of the government.
As I have said before, I think the system in Canada which has caused us a good deal of difficulty in the past, has been one whereby arbitration has taken place before a decision has been arrived at by the parties involved or before they have even sat down and had the opportunity to speak one with the other and put forward their points of view. My only hope, and the hope of the government, in referring this particular piece of legislation to the committee is, as I have said, that we come out of the committee with a workable piece of legislation that will provide all the rights which I believe belong to the public servants of Canada, and yet will provide the basic protection of the public of Canada whom all of us represent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time\ and referred to the special joint committee on) the public service.	/


Edgar John Benson: the second reading of Bill No. C-181, respecting employment in the public service of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in developing Bill C-181, the proposed public service employment act, the government has had three basic objectives: first, to preserve and extend the merit system of appointment and promotion under the control of an independent commission responsible only to parliament; second, to provide the commission with a flexible framework of law with which to operate, one well suited to the task of staffing a modern public service with qualified personnel; and third, to relieve the commission of any responsibility for the regulation of classification, pay and conditions of employment, or for the control of personnel policy, and to remove from the law any detailed provisions relating to these matters, in order to make
May 31. 1966

possible a genuine system of collective bargaining and to provide in Treasury Board a focal point of central managerial authority.
In pursuit of these objectives, which are consistent with some of the most important recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Government Organization, we have come to the conclusion that, within a wider jurisdiction, the commission should be given a more specialized role as the central staffing agency of the public service. It is for this reason that important changes of terminology are proposed: a public service employment act instead of a Civil Service Act; a public service commission instead of a Civil Service Commission.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I need say very little, Mr. Speaker, about the contribution made to the Canadian public administration by the present Civil Service Act, which has its roots in the statute passed by parliament in 1918. By the standards then prevailing, the Civil Service Act of that year was one of the most advanced measures of its kind in the world. By establishing the merit system in a clearcut manner, it provided a foundation for what has come to be recognized throughout the world as a great public service. The Civil Service Act has served this country well and I hope that steps will be taken to ensure that its fiftieth anniversary, the year after next, will be appropriately marked.
The government believes that the essence of the 1918 act has been carried forward into Bill C-181. The principle of appointment and promotion according to merit has been retained and, if anything, stated more explicitly than ever before. Provision for an independent commission has also been retained. Indeed it is hoped that in some respects the proposed measure would put the commission in a position of even greater independence than that which it now enjoys. Finally the security of the merit principle has always been linked to the authority of the commission to control appointments to and promotions within the service. No part of the bill now before the house would in any way limit or qualify that ultimate authority.
Under the proposed legislation, the merit principle of appointment and promotion would not only be retained; it would in fact be extended to large areas of public service employment to which it has never before applied as a matter of law. For example if the bill is passed by parliament, all positions occupied by prevailing rate employees and
Employment in Public Service ships' officers and crews, of which there are some 30,000, will come automatically under the merit system and within the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission. I am sure that such changes will be welcomed by all those who value the non-political character and traditions of the public service.
I believe that in the preparation of Bill C-181 great care has been taken to preserve the merit principle. Let me make it clear however, that if, after careful examination and study, hon. members have any doubts about this, the government will be prepared to consider seriously any changes that may be suggested to improve the relevant provisions. We are satisfied that without the merit principle both the public service and the people of Canada would be less well served than they now are.
It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that under the proposed legislation, the Public Service Commission would be given discretion to vary its methods and procedures in order to meet with maximum effectiveness the needs of different departmental programs and the conditions prevailing in the labour market. A conscious effort has been made to ensure that in the independent commission there is a capacity to respond flexibly and intelligently to changing requirements and circumstances.
Among other things, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-181 would permit the Public Service Commission to delegate its powers of appointment and promotion to the deputy heads of departments and the chief executive officers of other agencies. As the public service grows in size and complexity and as its activities affect an increasing number of citizens in so many important areas of their daily lives, it becomes essential for public administrators to be given increased authority to meet the demands that are made upon them quickly, realistically and efficiently, without reference in every case to a central agency. Unless such authority is made available, public administration tends to lose touch with reality, to become simply a matter of rules and regulations. Unless such authority is made available, it becomes increasingly difficult to ensure that the public interest is properly served. Just as it is important to protect the merit principle, so it is necessary to keep in mind the advantages to be gained in terms of administrative efficiency and effectiveness by a sensible distribution of authority within the public service. It is for this reason that the proposed measures would give the commission the capacity to delegate its appointing
May 31, 1966

Employment in Public Service authority to deputy heads and other chief executive officers.
The nature of delegated authority should not be misconstrued. Authority that may be delegated may also be withdrawn. Delegated authority is authority held in trust. It presumes a commitment on the part of those who accept it to use it in accordance with such direction as may be given by the delegating authority. It provides for a desirable administrative separation of those who determine policy and prescribe standards and those who apply policies and standards in the day to day administration of the public business.
It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the delegation of authority in no way removes responsibility from those to whom it is assigned by law. Under the proposed measure the Public Service Commission might delegate authority but it would retain responsibility for its exercise. The commission would be in a position to establish the conditions and standards governing the use of delegated authority and to monitor the exercise of such authority by departmental officers. It would also have the capacity to revoke an appointment made contrary to law or to the terms of delegation. Finally the commission would retain its traditional responsibility for the hearing and determination of appeals.
By making it possible for the commission to reduce its operational load, the proposed legislation would permit it to devote more attention to the development and maintenance of sound selection standards. It would also permit it to provide departments and Treasury Board with substantial assistance in career planning and in the administration of programs designed to make more effective use of scarce personnel resources.
Although responsibility for the effective utilization of manpower will rest with Treasury Board, Bill C-181 gives to the commission an important role in the operation of interdepartmental training and development programs and in the provision of assistance to deputy heads in the training and development of employees within departments. These are not new responsibilities. For the past decade the Civil Service Commission has made a substantial contribution to the efficiency of the public service through its training and development programs. It is hoped, however, that in its new role the commission will be able to increase the scope of existing programs and relate its activities in these areas more directly to the emerging requirements of the service.
[Mr. Benson.l
The bill would also give the Public Service Commission broad authority to make regulations necessary to carry out and give effect to the provisions of the proposed act. This is an important change. Under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, regulations have been made by the governor in council on the recommendation of the commission. The change would not only increase the capacity of the commission to discharge its mandate; it would also serve to emphasize its independence from the government of the day.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this statement, I mentioned that in developing Bill C-181 the government pursued a number of objectives, one of which was to leave rates of pay and conditions of employment outside the jurisdiction of the commission and beyond the detailed regulation of statute law, in order to permit the processes of collective bargaining to operate with a minimum of confusion and delay. I will have more to say about this when I come to Bill C-182, to which I hope we will be able to move when the debate on this measure is completed.
Mr. Speaker, in commenting upon the essential characteristics of Bill C-181 and in contrasting it with the Civil Service Act I have emphasized the very important responsibilities of the proposed Public Service Commission, responsibilities which, although reduced in some areas, would be significantly increased in others. Let there be no doubt in the minds of hon. members about the importance the government attaches to the role of the Public Service Commission. The quality of the services provided by the government to Canadians in all walks of life will depend in no small degree on the success of the commission in staffing the public service with competent and qualified personnel. For this reason the legislation before us is of great importance. I know it will receive careful examination and study when it is referred to the joint committee which has been set up for the purpose of looking at these three particular bills.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, a question has been raised about the long-standing prohibition of political activity of a partisan nature by public servants. Except for one or two technical amendments, the provisions relating to this matter in Bill C-181 are the same as in the present Civil Service Act. In other words, no substantive changes have been made. However, the government is aware that since the original statutory prohibition was written into law
May 31, 1966	COMMONS
there have been changes in the size and character of the public service and in public attitudes toward political activity. It is aware also of the fact that in a number of jurisdictions both in Canada and elsewhere steps have been taken to relax the traditional form of prohibition and to make it possible for certain types of public servants to take part in political activities. It may be that we should be considering some change here.
The government does not advocate change, but it has an open mind on the subject. The government felt that in presenting the legislation it should not change this particular clause in the bill; but if there was a consensus of agreement within the committee consisting of all parties represented in the House of Commons, then the government would be open to considering the advisability of making such a change in the proposed legislation. And, of course, if the change were made in Bill C-181, changes would have to be made in the other pieces of legislation which are closely related to it.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, whatever political party may sit to your right, good government in this country cannot be achieved without a public service of the highest competence and proficiency, of genuine dedication and of unchallenged integrity. Such a public service Canada has experienced, due in large measure to the merit system initiated under the Civil Service Act of 1918, which I believe to be a landmark of Canadian history for which we are indebted to the wisdom and statescraft of Sir Robert Borden.
The tradition of this house, since 1918 at least, has been that public service problems are discussed objectively and devoid of political partisanship. To that tradition I intend to be true in what I shall say tonight.
This parliament, sir, has no task so basic, or in my view so fundamental, as to assure that public service employment now and in the future shall be an attractive and rewarding career for the very best young Canadians. With the increasing involvement of government in every aspect of the daily life of the individual, the public service must be composed, I submit, of the very best-not the second best but the very best-and ablest of our young Canadians recruited for service to their nation. If we are to recruit such young Canadians we must provide rewards which are genuine and real. Service to the state must be considered the highest form of service and those who pursue a public service
DEBATES	5805
Employment in Public Service career must be given the confidence that they will not be led down blind alleys; that they will not have their potential for advancement and promotion restricted by red tape; that they will not have their initiative blighted by needless, frustrating administrative techniques; and that they will not have their leadership qualities lost in the giant mechanism of an inhumane bureaucracy.
The very drastic change which this bill represents from the familiar system of personnel management now in vogue, and in vogue since the Civil Service Act of 1918, has been set forth in the minister's opening statement tonight. I think that members of the house and members of public service should be made aware of the convulsive eruptions in established patterns which will result from the passage of this bill and its two companion bills. In discussing the previous bill I have already expressed the view that the sweeping nature of the proposed changes has not been fully understood among the intelligent rank and file of the public service.
Sir, it is a significant fact that since its reconstitution in 1918 the Civil Service Commission has been the guardian of the merit system, responsible for appointments and promotions, but responsible as well for classification, establishment, standards and grades. It has been responsible further for recommendations as to salary and wage levels.
In effect, it has had a threefold role. Now, let it be clearly understood by the house, the new Public Service Commission will be shorn of two of these three roles or functions. Classification and establishment becomes exclusively a Treasury Board function, intended to be delegated as a general rule to deputy heads. In the jargon of the day, if I may so describe it, these allegedly are managerial functions to be now determined at the managerial level. The protection of an independent commission has been removed and the classification or the grade of an individual is placed squarely under the responsibility and jurisdiction of a political board, the Treasury Board, and of deputy ministers who, however non-political they may be, report after all to ministers who cannot be described as non-political.
Let this house remember, sir, that classification can be just as important as a salary increase. In the civil service those of us from Ottawa know that there is an old practice known as "classification creeping", which means giving a boost to an employee by
May 31, 1966

Employment in Public Service reclassification of his position as opposed to promotion or salary increase.
The commission has heretofore been the guardian against abuse in this respect. Hereafter, however, the commission will be eliminated from this area and the only protection against political, partisan and bureaucratic influences at work in a department will be the vigilance of the collective bargaining agents under the companion public service staff relations bill. Will the bargaining agents be either powerful enough or vigilant enough to protect against abuses in classification and establishment? They have no direct authority. Can they wield an indirect club?
I want to be clear on this, Mr. Speaker. The status and role of the old Civil Service Commission is being wholly abandoned in this field. Deputy ministers vulnerable to political pressures, and Treasury Board, which has a most competent and dedicated staff with a leading public servant as its secretary, but which, after all consists wholly of partisan politicians, will be taking the final decision and will have responsibility in this sensitive area.
I wonder what would happen if the golden, persuasive powers of, shall we say, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) were exercised upon his under secretary to induce the latter to recommend that "dear old Bill" be reclassified from grade 3 to grade 5. We know, of course, that the present Secretary of State for External Affairs would never do it. In his present portfolio, and previously as minister of national health and welfare, his statesmanlike qualities have completely subdued any innate partisanship he may have, even though not all his departmental officials have recognized his political objectivity. But consider, sir, if you will, what some less enlightened colleague or some successor might do with this open invitation to use reclassification as an instrument of political patronage.
As I have said, over the years the Civil Service Commission has been the protector against politicians using classifications as a political instrument. Is there to be a guardian of political purity in the future? Can the bargaining agents be that guardian? I do not know, but I confess that I have some worry that there is a thin wedge of what might become a very large wedge being inserted.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
When the commission was in control of classification there was a central body

which could achieve relative uniformity in grades across the whole public service. Now, if the functions to be vested in treasury board relating to classification are to be delegated as a general rule-and I think this is the plan-to deputy ministers, what assurance have we that a hodge-podge will not be the result. May it not be that in one department a job is done by an employee of one grade whereas in other departments the grade of the person doing equivalent work will be two or three grades higher or lower. Will the bargaining agents be a sufficient guard against empire building in one department which may be contrasted with rigid frugality in another. I think this is one of the aspects upon which the special committee will have to assure itself.
Now, sir, I recognize basically these proposals stem from the Glassco report. It has become accepted practice to preach that a new era of governmental efficiency will result from a divorce of so-called management functions from recruitment and promotion. At this stage, all I say is count me as dubitant. I believe too many amateurs on royal commissions have been playing around in the professional field of public administration. I am not prepared to accept their amateur preaching as necessarily gospel. At this late hour of the evening, I confess I am getting a little tired of royal commissions general.
The third field in which the present Civil Service Commission has responsibility at the present time is pay determination. This is to be, hereafter, the subject of collective bargaining. I say nothing further at this time on that subject except to welcome most heartily the decision of the government to retain the functions of the Pay Research Bureau. The point I want to make abundantly clear is that the new Public Service Commission will be a body very different indeed in authority and in jurisdiction from the existing Civil Service Commission. It will be shorn of two of the present three major functions, and I am not positive that this represents progress. At least in the field of classification, it may well involve serious retrogression.
One of the by-products of the trifurcation-this is a word that has come into popular use in this house lately-of civil service procedures, is that discipline and dismissals are dispersed to three separate bodies. I believe that confusion will be the inevitable result. In my opinion, it is unrealistic to suggest that dismissal for incompetence is for
May 31, 1966	COMMONS
the Civil Service Commission, whereas dismissal for misconduct or breach of discipline is for Treasury Board and dismissal for matters affecting the safety and security of the nation is for the governor in council. The appeal procedures are to be different for each type of case. Indeed, I think it would take a Philadelphia lawyer, and Your Honour and I are not in that category, to work his way through the three bills to determine just what is the appeal procedure.
The provision for suspension or dismissal in the interests of the safety or security of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada, and for review of such suspension or dismissal is little more than window dressing in this bill. An order of suspension or dismissal made by the governor in council under the new bill-I think perhaps I might be now confusing in my mind this new bill now under discussion with one we will be discussing immediately afterwards-is said to be conclusive proof of the matters stated therein in relation to security or safety. Now, of what value in those circumstances is any review or appeal? Recite whatever the governor in council wants to recite, and the proof of the recital is conclusive. Under those circumstances, I think any review is a sham and a delusion. I think these sections of these other two bills will need much additional thought after the report of Mr. Justice Wells in the Spencer matter, and perhaps might be subject to review again at a later date when the report of the proposed new commission on security procedures is available.
In my view, sir, the appeal procedures generally proposed under this bill are primitive and unsatisfactory. They are much less satisfactory than under the present act. There is no provision made in this bill for an employee appealing to be represented at the inquiry. It may be argued that the Bill of Rights gives everyone the right to counsel. Frequently, however on civil service appeals, representation by a staff association officer or by a friend may be equally eifective, if not more effective, than by a member of our profession. It pains me to say this, but it is a fact. Unlike the old act, there is no provision for this in the new bill.
Equally bad is the fact that the nature of the inquiry and investigation is left in an atmosphere vague and unclear. If there are to be appeals, and obviously there must be, then let them be genuine appeals to impartial and independent tribunals. I venture to draw attention to the provisions of Bill No. C-63,
DEBATES	5807
Employment in Public Service which I have on the order paper but which regrettably is unlikely to be reached for debate at this session. This bill would establish a genuine appeal, and proper procedures before an appeal panel. I commend it tonight to the minister as I shall to the special committee. I say that a simple inquiry or investigation by the very body appealed from is not an appeal at all. It is just a sop and a sham. The only way to assure justice is to establish appeal panels of impartial persons outside the commission itself.
Now, the principles established by the government for adjudication of grievances, which would include dismissal for misconduct or for breach of discipline, as I have said are much to be preferred to the inadequate procedures provided in this bill for appeals from dismissal for incompetence, which incidentally is no longer defined, or for appeals in closed competitions. I think these provisions of the bill must be greatly strengthened, and I will submit that Bill No. C-63 shows the correct approach. I believe as well that the time has arrived to allow, under proper safeguards, at least a limited right of appeal in open competitions. It is in this field that I receive more complaints than any other, and some measure of relief to satisfy the complaints of unsuccessful applicants appears to me to be desirable now.
The minister has mentioned what is one of the most significant features of the bill, that is the proposal to bring under the ordinary procedures of selection, appointment and promotion, the prevailing rates employees, ships crews and officers. Personally, I endorse this proposal fully, and what I hope will be the complete abandonment of political patronage in this field. For many years I have been convinced that the continuation of patronage in the field of the trades and of ordinary labour is a blot upon our public personnel administration. I am sure that not all of our colleagues on either side of this house share that view. I do not profess to speak for colleagues on my own side in this respect. There are members on both sides of the house who look upon the existence and continuation of oatronage in the prevailing rates field as the bedrock of political organization. They take the attitude which one J. H. Price did in a letter to Robert Baldwin back on February 6, 1943, and I quote:
Patronage is power; our men won the victory, and they are entitled to prize money.
Business of the House
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Well, sir, after having been responsible for probably as many patronage appointments as any other member present in this house, I am inclined to believe that patronage for a politician is a snare and a delusion. In my previous term I saw over 16,000 people from the Ottawa area seeking patronage employment, and I tell you that takes some doing. I think probably only the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) has ever equalled that. Few of us in this chamber have any training in personnel recruitment or management and I doubt whether the test of a good member of parliament should be his ability in this field. Personally, I welcome the new legislative proposal.
But I would give this warning: The techniques of examination and selection for the prevailing rates groups must not be too rigid or inflexible. It is unlikely they can be modelled upon the existing civil service examination procedure. Humanity and compassion must not be removed from the process of selection applicable to this type of employee. Some of the best prevailing rates employees today could never have passed any type of conventional examination. Among widows, long removed from the labour market, among those who have suffered major illnesses or other reverses in life, there will be found many wonderful people with the will and the incentive to succeed in this type of employment and I believe it is imperative that they should not be eliminated by standard tests or examinations designed for the youngsters just out of school.
Yes, wisdom, compassion and humanity must play a full part in the selection process. These were among the factors which politicians brought to their recommendations and they are factors which I believe must be continued in the new selection process.
But perhaps for the sake of compassion, wisdom and humanity I should call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Tomorrow we shall complete the second reading stage of this bill and bring forward item 59 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill C-182, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act. We shall then proceed to estimates for the rest of the week, and we shall start off with the Department of Industry, the Department of Defence Production, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Privy 
May 31, 1966
Council, Legislation, Veterans Affairs and Labour in that order. I reserve the right to change the order later in the week if necessary.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, several times, but in vain, I have asked the incumbent Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) or her predecessors to put an end to the injustice being suffered by the people of Chibougamau and Chapais concerning television service.
I am told, as the taxpayers of those two cities are told, that the funds voted to the C.B.C. for service extension are inadequate and that they will have to wait.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the Northern Quebec Telephone Company Ltd. which has a microwave service between Grand Remous, Val d'Or, Rouyn and Chibougamau via Senneterre, and between Chibougamau and Notre Dame de la Dore, in Lake St. John, has offered its facilities to the C.B.C. to carry the television signal to Chibougamau-Chapais via Rouyn or Lake St. John.
That is why on May 20 last I asked the Secretary of State whether this offer had been considered and whether a decision had been taken on this matter. I know that the people of Chibougamau-Chapais are anxious to know what the intentions of the government are as regards this new possibility.
I believe that it would now cost little to the C.B.C. to use private enterprise, to co-operate with it to ensure a long-sought and wanted service to the people of Chibougamau-Chapais, a service to which they are entitled.
The Secretary of State has no more excuses and I hope that the citizens of Chibougamau-Chapais will be satisfied with the answer she will give tonight and I must point out that the only satisfactory answer will be the assurance that they will soon have the benefit of free television service, as is the case elsewhere in Canada.

May 31, 1966


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can give satisfaction, on behalf of the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) and of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to the population of Chibougamau-Chapais. Personally, I was ready a month ago to give the same answer to the hon. member, who had put the question last March.
The question of the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, raises this whole issue of the extension of television services in Canada.
Although no country in the world, except our United States neighbours, has more television and radio broadcasting stations, on the basis of population, than Canada, there are unfortunately-and the Secretary of State as well as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation realize this and work closely on this

remote areas which are not yet served or are inadequately served by this excellent education medium, that is television. One of these areas is that which interests the hon. member for Chapleau, namely Chibougamau-Chapais.
The hon. member asked on March 29 last and again on May 20 whether the Secretary of State had received an offer from the Northern Quebec Telephone Company Limited to provide broadcasting facilities for television service in the area of Chibougamau-Chapais, and what consideration she had given to this oiler.
I shall answer to the hon. member that the minister has indeed received such an offer from the Northern Quebec Telephone Company Limited and that she referred it-as was in order-to the C.B.C. for consideration.
The minister, who acts only as an intermediary, cannot, as the hon. member knows, prepare radio and television development and extension programs for the C.B.C.


Gérard Laprise: She can recommend passage of the estimates though.


Albert Béchard: Let it suffice to refer the hon. member to the speech delivered in this house by the Secretary of State, upon consideration of her estimates on March 9, 1966, as recorded on page 2454 of Hansard. In view of the time at my disposal, I will not read the words of the Secretary of State, but I believe the hon. member can refer to them.



EDUCATION-INQUIRY AS TO ABOLITION OF UNIVERSITY FEES

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 24, as
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion recorded in Hansard at page 5424, I put this question to the Prime Minister:
In view ol the statement made on Friday night-
The reference was to Friday night, May 20.
-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?
As Your Honour will recall, there were a number of questions on education that day and with your usual impartiality you treated all of them alike, and so this one got posted for the first available adjournment motion, namely tonight.
My question was based on a speech made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), the text of which he was good enough to make available to us. But I also noticed a very good report of his speech in the Montreal Star of May 21, and I should like to quote two or three portions from the report in the Montreal Star:
The day "is not far off" when federal and provincial government officials will have to discuss with Canada's universities the abolition of tuition fees, health minister MacEachen said last night.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Later on in the report I note this:
This being so, can we continue providing free education in that segment of the educational system which only lays the basic foundation for a space-age career, while maintaining the financial barriers in the higher education levels from which an increasingly greater percentage of our work force must come?
Then later these words:
Education is a responsibility of the provinces, Mr. MacEachen said. But the Federal Government had a responsibility to see that the "privilege" of higher education is transformed into "a right."
That indeed was a significant statement made by the minister with which I am sure all of us agree. He went on:
With the co-operation and understanding of all concerned, I think it will be possible for the Federal Government to fulfil its national obligations without eroding provincial prerogatives and without transgressing on academic freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed reading the speech and I was pleased to see it so well reported in the Montreal Star. The sentiments were noble. What is the federal government doing about them?


Mr.   P.-E. Trudeau@Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some bewilderment to the statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North
May 31, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Centre (Mr. Knowles). He was asking a question of the Prime Minister concerning a statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I listened with interest to the statement, as reported by the hon. member, but I did not see with much clarity in what way the minister intended to exercise this federal government's intention, as expressed by him.
We all know that education primarily is the responsibility of the provinces. I should say that is is totally the responsibility of the provinces, except in very limited cases concerning protection of certain minority rights. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is perfectly right in asking this kind of a question. Personally I should like to see him ask it of the minister who made the statement rather than of the Prime Minister.
I am in total agreement with the people who feel that a technological society such as we have in Canada should lend great importance to the area of education, and certainly the state should want to see that education becomes as universal as possible. The state, however, in this circumstance is the provincial state. The federal government, by way of bursaries and other aids to individuals, certainly can help the educational process; but stated in the way the hon. member asked the question, in other words in the way of acting towards the abolition of fees, this certainly is not a matter which is within federal jurisdiction. The federal government cannot in any way legislate toward the abolition of fees.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then what did the minister mean?


Mr. Trudeau:: I am asking myself, sir, what the minister meant. Obviously he had in mind some way of helping, probably through bursaries, grants or loans to individuals engaged in the educational process. If by this he means in effect that fees in some way will be erased, then I am satisfied. If he means more than this, then I am not satisfied. I feel that perhaps the minister was hoping the day would come when all parties in government in Canada would look at section 93 of the B.N.A. Act concerning education to see whether in some respects perhaps a constitutional amendment is required. But on this, of course, the New Democratic party also would have to ask its own supporters in Quebec what they meant because, as the hon. member knows, their view on this is somewhat at variance with the views expressed in other parts of Canada. Reform of any section of the 
constitution cannot be obtained without complete agreement.



HEALTH AND WELFARE-GRANTS FOR RECREATION CENTRES FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

James Elisha Brown: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 27, I asked the following question:
Can consideration be given by the Department of National Health and Welfare to recommending grants for the construction of social and recreational centres for senior citizens equal In amount to grants by any province under an act of the legislature for such purpose?
The reason I asked this question was that at the present time the senior citizens club at Brantford, Ontario, is starting out on a campaign to raise funds to build a social and recreational centre for senior citizens of Brantford. The land has already been purchased. It is a very desirable piece of property, located very close to the centre of the municipality of the city of Brantford. I believe the club should be congratulated on the site it has chosen for this centre.
It is hoped that a start will be made on the building for the new social and recreational centre very shortly. An architect has been employed, the plans have been drawn for the new centre, and there is no doubt that a building of this kind is greatly to be desired and would be an excellent thing for all senior citizens of Brantford and vicinity who would desire to make use of such a centre.
For the information of the house I would point out that I have been in contact with various officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare and have been told that there is no basis for making a grant of this nature for the construction of a social and recreational centre for senior citizens. I can scarcely believe this to be true. However, Mr. Speaker, I do know that the federal government is being asked for grants for all sorts of beneficial projects from one end of Canada to the other and it is very difficult to start allocating money in this way.
At the same time I should like to point out that the municipality of the city of Brantford has agreed to pay 20 per cent of the cost of construction of this building and the province of Ontario has agreed to pay 30 per cent of the cost of construction. All I am asking is that the federal government agree to pay 30 per cent of such cost in order to match the provincial grant. The provincial grant is made possible under the elderly persons social and recreational centres act of Ontario, 1961-62 revised statutes of Ontario, chapter
May 31. 1966	COMMONS
37. Under this act the province of Ontario, as I have said, has agreed to pay 30 per cent of the cost. Under the act the province will not make this grant unless the municipality has agreed to pay 20 per cent of the cost. This has been done, and it becomes a question of whether the federal government will see fit to make a grant in this regard.
I know that such a centre would benefit large numbers of senior citizens in my constituency. It would be for their general health and well-being, and there is nothing I would like to see happen more than a contribution made by the federal government. I am sure the senior citizens of my constituency would benefit substantially by such a grant.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest and concern to the remarks made by the hon. member and I must say that in my constituency a similar home is being built, so I share his concern in this most important matter. However, since the inception of the fitness and amateur
DEBATES	5811
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion sports program in 1962 there have been many inquiries and requests for financial assistance toward the construction of sports facilities for the aged, for municipalities, schools and colleges across the country. While all these requests have been considered and given the utmost attention by the officials of the department and the government, it has been impossible to accept them because of the limited funds made available to the advisory council which was set up under the authority of the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act. While we agree that there is a definite need for this type of assistance in Canada, regretfully it is impossible to announce any change in the policy of the government at this time.
I want to assure the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown), however, that we will continue to look at this whole question in a sympathetic manner with the hope that action along the lines he suggests may be taken in the not too distant future.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Wednesday, June 1, 1966