1970-10-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada-Mr. MacGuigan.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the critical atmosphere of doubt and uncertainty created by the conflicting statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), the Premier of Quebec and the Mayor of Montreal regarding the nature of the threat to the democratically elected government of Quebec and the administration of Montreal which led the government to proclaim the War Measures Act.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South has filed the notice prescribed under Standing Order 26. His proposed motion deals with a matter which is, of course, of extreme importance. Because the application of the War Measures Act has such far-reaching effects on individual freedom, the matter has to be of prime concern to Parliament. This is why very special care must be taken to ensure that all reasonable opportunities for debate must be afforded.
In this regard, it will be noted that the exhaustive and earnest debate which took place in the House following the proclamation of the Act has provided one such opportunity. Since then, debate on the Speech from the Throne has continued and has given hon. members further occasions to consider the many aspects of the matter. In
addition, the daily question period has been concerned principally with the situation created by the proclamation of the War Measures Act.
The fact that these opportunities have been provided by ordinary daily procedures does not mean that a special debate might not be held under the terms of Standing Order 26. I suggest to hon. members that while this may be very useful the Chair cannot overlook the provision in the Standing Orders that in a given session there can only be one debate about a particular matter. If we are to have at any time an emergency debate I would think that hon. members would want the Chair to exercise extreme caution in selecting the circumstances under which such debate should be undertaken.
The motion proposed by the hon. member focuses on suggested discrepancies between ministerial statements dealing with the circumstances which have preceded proclamation of the Act. The hon. member charges that these statements have resulted in what he terms a "critical atmosphere of doubt and uncertainty". To my mind, the proposed motion is more in the nature of a censure motion which might well be presented to the House by other procedures.
Standing Order 26 and the practice which has evolved in the application of the Standing Order require that the Chair should take into consideration the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means. The Minister of Justice has indicated to the House that legislation to be substituted for the regulations under the War Measures Act will be introduced soon. Of course, I cannot commit the minister to any timetable, but my interpretation of an answer he gave earlier this week is that the legislation will be introduced next week.
In the circumstances, and taking into account the relevant procedural requirements set out in Standing Order 26 and in our practice, I must come to the conclusion that the hon. member's motion cannot be put.
o (11:10 a.m.)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Solicitor General whom I thought I saw a moment ago.
736

October 30, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Baldwin:: Jumping George.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will defer my question until his arrival, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Get that roster system working, will you?


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for York East.


David Lewis: I think I see the minister arriving, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, as it is now two weeks since the War Measures Act was invoked and there seems to be no report about James Cross, and in view of the fact a spokesman for the Quebec Provincial Police is reported as having said sadly that there is absolutely nothing to report on the investigation and everything is dead quiet, can the minister give any explanation of the lack of success which is very disquieting to the people of Canada, and can he tell the House, perhaps not in a specific way, whether any additional or expanded measures are going to be taken to capture the murderers of Pierre Laporte and the kidnappers of James Cross to secure his liberty?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I assume that in the preamble to the question the Leader of the Opposition takes responsibility for the anonymous spokesman to whom he refers, but I cannot accept that part of the preamble to his question in any way. To begin with, I do not know whether there was such a spokesman or not. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition bases his question on that kind of anonymous statement. As to the substance-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Take your soapbox and go.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Muir:: We expect more than that from you, George.


George James McIlraith: The hon. gentleman is very good at interrupting. If he will be responsible for a few minutes and try to keep this very difficult situation in perspective, I will give him all the information I am able to give at the moment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: We don't need a lecture from you. Try to get down to the basic facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Muir: If you were alive this probably wouldn't have happened.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. After the debate we have had we might at this point return to the question period and allow the minister to reply to the question.


George James McIlraith: As to the substantive part of the question with regard to what further measures we propose to take, that will have to await the passage of time because I have no measures that we expect to take to announce to the House at the moment. As to the details of why there have been no results it would satisfy, I am sure, the feelings of all of us if the criminal aspect of this matter were brought to a successful and rapid conclusion. I can only remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that this is a situation which very often develops in criminal investigation work and in pursuing the investigation of criminal activities. We always come to that period in the investigations of criminal acts. In these two particular cases, it is admittedly of very great concern to every Canadian that the solutions come quickly and satisfactorily, but I cannot be in the position of reporting from day to day concerning what leads are being followed and whether they are good or bad because, as hon. members will appreciate, it would cripple the investigative work. Not only that, but many of the leads do in fact turn out to be from improper tips or information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am a little at a loss to know what the applause is for. I received the same answer a week ago. I should like to ask the Solicitor General what authority is now accepting responsibility for these investigations relating to James Cross under the War Measures Act and in his capacity as a British diplomat. Is the government of Canada accepting the responsibility?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the legal responsibility for investigating the criminal acts as such is and must remain primarily that of the Attorney General of the province concerned. In addition to that, because of the nature of the crimes in this matter, the federal authority is going out of its way to support in every way possible and assist those investigations. That has been made clear to the House by the action taken in respect of making the army available when requested and the other steps that have been indicated in this House from time to time. There is in addition an element peculiar to the one kidnapping in this case in that it involves a representative in this country of a foreign government.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: A foreign government!


George James McIlraith: I believe that to be the correct designation of the government of the United Kingdom representative. Perhaps if the former Leader of the Opposition would let the present Leader of the Opposition get the answers-

October 30. 1970


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe we have been sidetracked for a moment and also that the Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary.


An hon. Member:: Senior or junior?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to see that the people on the government side of the House seem to think this is a subject of some frivolity. I sincerely plead with the Solicitor General to exercise his responsibilities on behalf of the Canadian people and particularly to Mr. Cross, however he is described, because, hopefully, he is alive. I plead with the Solicitor General to exercise the responsibility of leadership that the Canadian people expect of him at this time.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Leader of the Opposition for that statement and request. I appreciate it very much and would ask him in return to somehow control his followers when he asks responsible questions and permit me to give the answers which I think his questions deserve, as I have tried to do today and on earlier occasions and I have been cut off by his followers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are a number of supple-mentaries. The hon. member for York South.



WAR MEASURES ACT-ARRESTS, RELEASES, CONTINUING DETENTIONS AND CHARGES

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he can give the House the latest information with regard to the number arrested, the number released and the number still in jail. I would also ask him whether he has any information concerning any charges laid.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to do so. The total number arrested, as I have it, is 405. The number released is 273 and the number still being held is 132 as of last night. I do not have the figure as to the number charged.


David Lewis: Has anyone yet been charged, and if a formal charge has not yet been laid does the Solicitor General have any information as to charges that are being prepared?


George James McIlraith: I do not know whether anyone has in fact been charged as yet. As to charges that are likely to be laid, I do not think it would be appropriate to give such information as I have, and also it is fairly limited at the moment.



APPREHENDED INSURRECTION-REPORTED SUPPLYING OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO LIBERAL MEMBERS

["Mr. Speaker, I do not have the report yet. The coroner's inquest was to proceed, I believe, on October 26, and the police investigation will not be completed until alter the coroner's inquest has been completed. Perhaps it would be better if I were to wait until the two reports are in before making a reply."]
David Lewis: May I direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister arising
Inquiries of the Ministry
out of a report of a statement alleged to have been made by the hon. member for Don Valley that he and other members of the Liberal party had information from ministers of the Crown which is not known to the public. Has the Prime Minister or any other minister in his cabinet given information to members of the Liberal party in caucus or otherwise which has not been given to this House?


An hon. Member:: Oh, that is a touchy one.


Robert Muir: The Prime Minister is sulking again.


David Lewis: Just keep quiet a moment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: When hon. members interrupt the Prime Minister they merely give him an excuse to sit down and not answer.


An hon. Member:: He will not answer, anyway.


David Lewis: I want to repeat my question and ask the Prime Minister whether members of his party in this House were given information by him or any other minister in his cabinet which has not been given to this House?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for other ministers. I myself know of no information given to members of this party which I have not given in the House or they have not given in the House. It is conceivable, of course, that some ministers may have said something to members of my party of which I do not know. If I had more details I might be able to track down the suggestions of the hon. member. For my own part, I did deal with this matter in our caucus. I gave to our caucus the same information I have given to the House. In describing the state of confusion in the province of Quebec I may have gone a little further in that secret assembly than I did in the House, but this was done in describing the circumstances which I termed in this House the state of confusion and threats of violence in the province. I may have elaborated on that somewhat.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I please follow that up. Since the Prime Minister's reference to confusion in Quebec and threats of violence is obviously important to other members of the House as well as to the people of Canada, would he now feel free at some appropriate time to inform the House of the points on which he elaborated to members of his party, since for the life of me I cannot see why members of the government party should be privy to information that other members do not have.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The latter part of the hon. member's question is obviously an argument. I am sure he will agree with that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I may be able to answer it if you want to consider it as a form of question, Mr. Speaker. In elabo-

October 30, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
rating on what I call confusion in the province of Quebec I gave no secret information to any of our members. What I am telling the House is that I spent a little longer in describing the situation in the province of Quebec which, incidentally, I also described to the leaders of the opposition parties at the private meetings I had with them. But these facts are not secret facts. They are facts that are known by the people of Quebec. They are known by every member of this House from the province of Quebec, whether those members are in our party or in other parties which supported the government's proclamation of the War Measures Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Mr. Real Caouelle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question in view of the statement by the Solicitor General to the effect that the province of Quebec had requested the proclamation of the War Measures Act as well as the services of the Canadian armed forces.
Two days ago, in reply to the hon. member for Joliette '.Mr. La Salle) who was inquiring whether the province of Quebec would have to pay for the services of the armed forces in Quebec, the Prime Minister stated, as reported at page 658 of Hansard, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, the matter is a legal one, but If I can reply, I believe the National Defence Act provides that, when a province requests the assistance of the armed forces in the form of civil assistance, the expenses of the operation are borne by that province.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know precisely what the Prime Minister means when he says that the province must bear the costs.
Last night, the premier of Quebec stated that the federal government had never-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is making a speech. He could perhaps ask the second part of his question later as a supplementary and allow the Prime Minister to give an answer to the first part.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, to complete the first part of my question, I shall ask the Prime Minister if it is true that Quebec will have to pay for the use of the armed forces in the province?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, which enables me to shed some light on the matter. First of all, I will say that the answer given in the House the other day was correct and that it is based on Section 227 of the National Defence Act. I did say that the cost of these

services will be paid by the province which asked for the intervention of the armed forces. The reason for this is that when members of the armed forces go to a province at the request of the attorney general of that province, they act as peace officers not as soldiers. Right now they are not in Quebec under the orders of Canada's commander in chief but under those of the provincial authorities and I think that this is what the people of Quebec want, that is to have the initiative of maintaining peace in their own province. The federal government is certainly not going to get involved in this aspect of their business.
Given the foregoing, I must point out that the regulations adopted under this legislation provide that only additional expenditures must be paid by the province which requested the services of the armed forces. In other words, the province will not be required to assume the costs of the soldier's regular pay or rations, only the extra expenses incurred as a result of provincial authorities requesting the members of the armed forces to do this additional work.
If I may continue, Mr. Speaker. It might be better for me to wait for supplementary questions and I hope there will be some.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he is aware of the serious objections now being raised in Quebec about our double taxation. In other words, is the Prime Minister in a position to guarantee the people of Quebec that there will not be double taxation and, therefore, injustice regarding the application of Section 227 of the National Defence Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that when the city of Montreal asked the armed forces to intervene last year, the request was made by the Attorney General of the province of Quebec and Quebec authorities paid for the additional work done by the armed forces.
I could further say that whenever armed forces are sent to other provinces to bring assistance in cases of flood, for instance, although the situation is not exactly the same, the federal government usually sends the bill to the provincial authorities concerned.
This being so, Mr. Speaker, it is true that 12 hours after the province of Quebec had asked for the support of the armed forces-and this for the first time in peacetime-the War Measures Act was enforced. It is therefore possible that from thereon, it should be necessary to make other arrangements for that payment. I have already spoken to Premier Bourassa to that effect. I told him that we should settle the matter together. It is not a financial matter between Quebec and us, but we have to know what are the provisions of the legislation and what was the past practice. What happened last week is quite unusual. There is no precedent for this in Canada in peacetime and consequently, we are ready to discuss the matter of settlement with the authorities of the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 30, 1970


RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADMINISTRATION OF WAR MEASURES ACT REGULATIONS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the Prime Minister's answers on this serious matter and I would like him to give serious thought to this question. Would the Prime Minister advise the House why, as his government proclaimed the War Measures Act, the administration of justice under that Act is not being carried out by the federal Department of Justice as it was in the war? Why was this responsibility thrust on the provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, for a very simple reason, Mr. Speaker. The National Defence Act is written in this way: it is at the demand of the Attorney General of a province that the army is brought in as an aid to the civil power. This law has been debated many years ago by Parliament and we did not see any reason, in this particular case, to do anything which was contrary to what was done in the past. On the contrary, we feel that the province of Quebec should be supported in its determination to establish law and order in that province, and when they acted as they did under the National Defence Act we responded in the way in which governments have responded in the past.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask one further question, Mr. Speaker? Under the War Measures Act there were certain new offences created. In view of the fact that during the war the War Measures Act, following implementation, was administered by the federal Department of Justice, why was the change made in these circumstances and the responsibility thrust on the provinces so that they are taking all the evil and bad effects?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a view of events which does not correspond with ours, of course. The House probably knows that the argument in the province of Quebec is that the federal government is running too much of their own affairs, and we as a government which believes in federalism think, on the contrary, that the province should be running its affairs in all areas which in normal times are under its jurisdiction.
As the hon. member knows, under the Criminal Code the responsibility for administering the Criminal Code is that of the provincial Attorneys General. That is why, in the regulations under the proclamation, we stated that the regulations would be administered by the Attorney General of the province, and it is these regulations which were voted upon by the house and which had the unanimous support of the Conservative party as well as other members of this House.


Gerald William Baldwin: Only when we pushed you into bringing in a new Act in 30 days.


KIDNAPPING OF JAMES CROSS-NUMBER OF RCMP ENGAGED IN INVESTIGATIONS-OFFERING OF REWARD
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, arising out of statements made this morning by
Inquiries of the Ministry
the Solicitor General I have a couple of questions because of the situation in which Mr. Cross presently finds himself. How many members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are engaged at the moment in active investigations concerning, particularly, the Cross case? Second, in view of the fact that Mr. Cross occupies a quasi-diplomatic position, why is it that the government of Canada has not offered a reward? I brought this up some two weeks ago and it is supported now by Mr. Kelly, a very distinguished retired member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to deal with the two questions separately. As to the numbers of RCMP directly and immediately involved, if the hon. member is relating that to the active work of the joint anti-terrorist squad in Montreal, the number is 300. Incidentally, I should add that they are all bilingual. In addition, there are other members of the force in that province doing other individual items of supplementary work-a very large number, probably the same number. In addition, there is a very large number in headquarters who are checking certain records, the kind of thing that has to be checked out by way of identification, finger-prints and so on. In addition, there are others in other parts of the country who from time to time may be checking on individual items or leads affecting one or two of the persons for whom warrants have been issued.
As to the second question on the subject of a reward, that matter has been under continuous consideration for quite some time by the government. A reward has not yet been offered for reasons that were considered carefully and which we thought were good and sufficient cause for not offering a reward at the particular time. The situation at the moment is that no reward has yet been offered.


John George Diefenbaker: If the government does not intend to offer a reward, why was the offer of $50,000 put up by certain Toronto businessmen not accepted?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that the right hon. gentleman did not listen to my earlier answer to his second question. I made it very clear that the government had not yet offered a reward.


John George Diefenbaker: When? How long?


George James McIlraith: I suggest that the hon. member is
attempting, in placing the supplementary question, to misinterpret that and say that the government has not the intention of offering a reward. I was very careful not to say that and I point out to him that Hansard will substantiate me.


John George Diefenbaker: How long, oh Lord, how long?


WAR MEASURES ACT-COST OF PROTECTING CERTAIN MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.

October 30, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
Could he tell us who will pay the cost of detailing members of the armed forces to protect members of Parliament here in Ottawa or elsewhere?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not understand the hon. member's question.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know who will pay the cost of detailing members of the armed forces to protect members of Parliament here in Ottawa or elsewhere.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if members of the armed forces are substituted for RCMP officers, the Solicitor General of Canada may be billed for it by the Department of National Defence. The Solicitor General hopes this will not occur; you see, it is a matter to be settled amongst ourselves.
When troops are substituted for policemen in the province of Quebec, the answer would normally be the one I gave a short while ago.


EARLY REMOVAL OF FREEZE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE BUDGET
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmoulh-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Prime Minister, because there is a lot of concern about the cost involved, whether or not the government has given any consideration or had any discussions to date about the removal of the freeze on the Department of National Defence budget earlier than 1973?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is certainly not urgent. The budget is frozen for three years and we will consider in due course whether in the application of the four priorities established by the federal government in its statement of April, 1969, the defence department should have a higher budget, a lower budget or the same budget.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette has a supplementary question he wants to ask?


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: No, Mr. Speaker, this is not a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall recognize the hon. member in a moment.

For the moment the Chair will allow a supplementary question to the hon. member for Egmont.


WAR MEASURES ACT-INSTRUCTIONS TO PERSONS RELEASED FROM DETENTION NOT TO EXPRESS VIEWS THEREON
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: I have a question for the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister advise the House whether police officials in the province

of Quebec have been instructing persons released from detention not to talk to the press or to express any views in regard to their detention in order not to risk further detention? If such advice has been given to people formerly under detention, what is the view of the government and what action will be taken?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have no information on whether or not the Quebec provincial police have been instructing detained persons as they are released.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will recognize that we have just about reached the end of the question period. It may be the wish of hon. members that the whole question period this morning be reserved for the very important matters that have been raised, but we will have to consider within a very few moments whether to give an opportunity to hon. members with other questions. For the moment, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Egmont on a supplementary question.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: For the purpose of clarification, I wonder whether the minister would agree on behalf of the House to investigate this very important question of civil liberties and report back to the House at the first of the week?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite follow the hon. member as to what civil liberty is involved if someone tells some one else what the regulations under the War Measures Act contain. I am not quite clear as to the inference to be drawn from the question. If the hon. member wants to clarify it-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this clarification may be arranged between the hon. member and the minister.


SUBSTITUTE LEGISLATION FOR WAR MEASURES ACT REGULATIONS-PROVISION OF BILL TO MEMBERS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Justice. Have the provincial Attorneys General been shown a draft copy of the government's proposed legislation to replace the War Measures Act? If so, can the Acting Minister of Justice tell the House when Parliament will also be granted this privilege?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the Attorneys General of the provinces have not been shown any such draft bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Just a moment, now. That is not correct.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Solicitor General whether he can now
October 30. 1970

answer the question I asked in his absence more than a week ago? I asked whether Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers were censoring university newspapers and, if so, whether they were doing this with the authority of the government?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I did not answer that question earlier. RCMP officers are not censoring university publications.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wonder how the minister can square that answer with news reports last week that before the Carleton University newspaper could be published the RCMP-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and tell him how pleased we are to see him back in the House after the many question periods he has missed. Is he in a position now to answer the questions which were posed to him earlier? One was about the Banff Springs Hotel and the other had to do with the Department of Transport and the employment of Indian and Eskimo people in the Territories. Also, while I am on my feet may I ask him whether he has made recommendations to the Prime Minister with respect to the possibility of appointing Indian people to the Senate?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it would take quite some time to answer the three questions, but I can-


Mr. Speaker:: The minister might perhaps answer the first two questions. I do not think that the third one is in order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I was not here two or three times during the question period. Indeed, I was in western Canada and in the Yukon. I met Indians from Saskatchewan and Alberta. I even went to British Columbia-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister might perhaps answer the question now.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, about the incident in Banff, we inquired from the management of the hotel in question. It was a mistake by the manager who thought that these Indians were there as artists. They had signed no contract with the management of the hotel.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Following discussions between the Indians and the Association of Architects, the Indians were allowed to hold their display of native art without being considered professional artists for all that.
With regard to the situation in Resolute Bay, the interpretation mentioned by the hon. member was arrived at by mistake. Yet the matter is quite clear. The Department of Transport itself hires over half the available Eskimos to do specialized work. The company was informed that it should not expect a great many specialized employees because they were already working for the Department of Transport.
There has been no discrimination whatever. The Department of Transport is simply interested in hiring them first.


INDICATION OF TAR AND NICOTINE CONTENT ON CIGARETTE PACKAGES
Mr. Oza  Telraull@Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, I intended to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but in his absence I shall put it to the Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister expect the adoption in the near future of measures compelling Canadian cigarette manufacturers to indicate on every package the tar and nicotine content of their products, as has recently been undertaken in United States?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me this question was asked a while ago. I would not want to be unfair to the hon. member, but, if I am mistaken, the minister might answer this question in due time.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Solicitor General a question.
In view of the fact that a member of the government said yesterday at the University of Ottawa that Paul Rose, who is now wanted by the police, was the chief organizer of a PQ candidate at the last elections and in view of the fact that this statement may be a blow to the reputation of the Parti Quebecois, could the minister tell the House whether this detail appears on Paul Rose's record and, if not, could he report to the House as soon as possible?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, 1 was not aware of any member of the government being at Ottawa University yesterday and I have no knowledge-
742

October 30, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the question was asked of the Solicitor General. Even if the minister is the one who made the statement outside the House, the question would have to be asked of the Prime Minister.

Perhaps the hon. member could direct his question to the Prime Minister.


Roch La Salle: Shall I repeat my question, Mr. Speaker?
I was asking the minister whether he was in a position to confirm the statement of a government member to University of Ottawa students yesterday to the effect that Paul Rose was chief organizer for a Parti Quebecois candidate from the Montreal area during the last provincial elections? Can the minister tell whether Paul Rose's record-


Some hon. Members:: Not chief!


Roch La Salle: All right, not chief. I should like to know whether Paul Rose's record contains this information, since such a statement is in fact detrimental to the Parti
Quebecois. Could the minister give us some more information on this?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of the alleged statement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is replying to the question. I am not sure that we are getting anywhere in trying to elucidate the very important point raised by the hon. member for Joliette.

It might be advisable for the hon. member to secure this information through another channel rather than by asking a question at this stage since we have only two minutes left before the question period ends. The hon. member might ask his question again on Monday.


FINANCE
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Following his discussions with the presidents of the various chartered banks, who in effect thumbed their noses at his request for a reduction of interest rates, does he plan to take any action by way of legislation or otherwise?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Toronto-Dominion Bank has lowered its prime rate. I am also informed that this morning the Royal Bank of Canada lowered its prime rate by half of one per cent.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fears of many parents about incidents tomorrow, on Halloween, especially in Montreal and Ottawa-I except heavily guarded Rockcliffe from Ottawa-can the Prime Minister say whether the government is giving any special consideration to the taking of precautions under the War Measures Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of any. I know that local authorities have taken special precautions. If they need our help or if they need the assistance of the army, we will be glad to assist.


Thomas Miller Bell: Perhaps the Solicitor General, who has a very special interest in Ottawa, can give us one of his helpful replies. Will he consider imposing an early curfew at least for Halloween under the War Measures Act?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I understand the concern behind this question. I do not believe it would be an appropriate use of the War Measures Act to declare this kind of curfew in the several cities across Canada on Halloween. However, I should add that the authorities in several municipalities to my knowledge have been quite concerned about this and have taken action within the authority they already have to quieten the activities of very young people on Halloween.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General. On October 20 the minister said his department was investigating the incident of a 15-year old youth being shot to death by an RCMP officer near Saskatoon. Has the minister completed his investigation? If so, can he inform the House of the results?
October 30, 1970


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the report yet. The coroner's inquest was to proceed, I believe, on October 26, and the police investigation will not be completed until alter the coroner's inquest has been completed. Perhaps it would be better if I were to wait until the two reports are in before making a reply.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Greene that Bill C-4, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Oza Tetraull (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I was saying last night that I do not understand why the government offers western farmers subsidies for not producing wheat while it is considering the possibility of cancelling the subsidies to gold mines.
Mr. Speaker, these subsidies insure employment to many people as well as the development of areas with inexhaustible resources. I believe that before long northwestern Quebec will no longer depend on gold mines, but in the meantime the government should extend its program in order to insure the survival of the communities involved.
In closing I would like to remind the minister that since the government is subsidizing new industries in designated or special areas, it should also subsidize industries already in existence.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I feel some obligation to speak on Bill C-4 because I come from an area to which the provisions of this act apply.
The bill under study is entitled "An Act to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act", and is introduced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene). It contains the following recommendation:
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House the present measure to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Act to extend its application to June 30, 1973.
This new bill proposes four changes which, on the whole, merely authorize an extension of the assistance to gold mines up to June 30, 1973. The first change provides for an extension of the application of the act until 1973; the second provides for an increase of 25 per cent in assistance.
According to clause 2 of the bill, this Act will not apply to mines that were not in production during the month immediately preceding August 7, 1970.
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
Mr. Speaker, there may be reasons why certain mines did not produce during the month preceding August 7, 1970. Perhaps they did not because they had not received enough assistance to produce or maintain their operations. The explanatory notes of clause 3 are as follows:
The purpose of this amendment is to require a person who receives any payment under the act to agree to hire any new employees through the facilities of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, to give four months' notice of the closing of his mine to the minister-
This is a rather important clause because, not so long ago, we witnessed the closing of a mine in the area of Cadillac. No notice had then been given and hundreds of workers were laid off without anyone guaranteeing them any security whatsoever or helping them in any way to find other employment.
And mining authorities of the province of Quebec are still faced with the problem of the Cadillac-Molly mine that closed its doors without notice.
I continue quoting the explanatory notes for clause 3:
-and to use the services of the Department of Manpower and Immigration for the purposes of finding employment for the former employees.
Mr. Speaker, the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act adopted in 1948 seeked to help gold mine operators to overcome economic difficulties caused by increased production costs and a stable gold price. The purpose of this legislation was to extend gold mining operations and to give people in communities where their living depends on such operations a chance to gradually adapt themselves to the reduction of financial support.
An amendment to the legislation in 1967, that is 19 years later, extended its enforcement for a 3-year period, that is up to December 31, 1970.
The number of reef mines eligible for assistance provided by the legislation has decreased from 87 in 1948, to 44 in 1960 and to 35 in 1968.
Five reef mines which received financial assistance provided by the legislation put an end to their operations in 1968 and it is expected that four or five others will do the same before the end of 1971, if they do not receive any assistance.
The Wasamac mine No. 2 in the Rouyn-Noranda area remained the only mine in operation in 1968.
The amounts paid to gold mine operators as of March 31, 1969, for the years 1948 to 1968 inclusive amounted to $261,293,250.09 for a production of 57,166,704 ounces of gold sold in accordance with the provisions of the legislation.
The total amount of assistance payable for gold produced and sold during the calendar year 1968 is estimated at $14,300,000. As of March 31, 1969, the total assistance paid for 1968 amounted to $11,430,163.02, that is about 90 per cent of the assistance granted as a result of applications already received. The remainder is payable following an audit of the applicants' books.
I have here a table showing the amounts of assistance paid from 1948 to 1968 to all the gold mines in operation in Canada. I also have a table which shows the produc-
744
October 30, 1970

Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
tion of bullion in Canada from 1948 to 1968. For the year 1968 I can see a production of 2,748,333 ounces of gold.
In northwestern Quebec, the Horne mine was to prove the richest in Canada. This discovery was but the first of several others which helped make this mining area the most important in all the province of Quebec for a good number of years.
From 1922 on, the Noranda Company has developped into a major concern and is today an internationally known company which has the facilities here in Quebec to process copper ore and to manufacture finished products.
The operation of the Horne mine opened the way for the Noranda foundry-the biggest in the world-and later for the Canadian Copper Refiners plant in Montreal East, the most important copper refinery in the world.
Since the first delivery made by the Horne mine to the Noranda foundry, 54 million tons of ore have been extracted from that vein and this ore has produced nearly 1,200,000 tons of copper and 8,300,000 ounces of gold. In 1967 the production of that operation amounted to $24 million. The foundry of the Horne complex has handled since the beginning more than 17 million tons of copper concentrates originating from other Quebec mines and other provinces. In 1967 the deliveries of the foundry amounted to $227 million. The Horne complex, including the mine, the concentrator and the foundry, provides 1,600 jobs and pays each year $9.5 million in salaries.
The Noranda Mines Company reinvested a part of the profits in the exploration of the area in the immediate vicinity of Noranda and of the whole territory of the province. With the years, this company discovered or acquired a participation in several concerns already existing in Quebec, as for example, the Quemont mine which has been working for 20 years a copper-zinc-gold-silver-pyrite deposit. This concern has extracted, since the beginning of its operations, 14 million tons of ore; it employs 350 persons and pays each year $2.5 million in salaries.
The situation is about the same for the Normetal Mining Corporation Ltd., located some 75 miles north of Noranda, near the Ontario border.
The Noranda group, although it is dominant is not the only one active in the area: Lake Dufault Mines Ltd., a branch of Falconbridge, has been operating since 1964 a copper-tin-gold-silver lode which, although of limited size, has contributed more than $75 million to Quebec mineral production. In 1968, metal deliveries reached $13 million and some 250 persons were employed.
Wasamac mines operate two small gold lodes in the Noranda area; one since 1965 and the other since May 1968.
The ore treated at the Noranda foundry is routed to Canadian Copper Refiners in Montreal East, which supply work for 1400 persons, whose salaries total $9,000,000 a year. Moreover, each year, more than $8 million are earmarked for the purchase of materials and supplies. Part of this refinery production supplies in turn the
Noranda Copper Mills plant built in Montreal East in 1942. The latter employs 950 people and pays salaries that amount to $6.8 million.
On the other hand, the mining industry in Noranda gave rise on the site to related industries, such as Quebec Iron Foundries, a plant that manufactures crushing agents used mainly during the first phase of ore processing. Quebec Iron Foundries owns a chain of foundries throughout Canada, two of which in Quebec, one in Noranda and the other in Mont-Joli.
Those are but a few examples of the great natural resources potential to be found in our area, that is in northwestern Quebec.
Since the start of the mining industry in the Abitibi area, all levels of government have made tremendous investments to allow newcomers to live as full-fledged citizens or, at least, as close as possible to the minimum standards of the twenteth century.
In the fields of roads, education, hospitalization, social services, technical services, communications, radio, television, and so forth, local structures have been established at considerable expense to allow the Abitibi people to develop normally, at the same speed as the inhabitants of other areas; anyway, directly or indirectly, all levels of government, with the help of the Canadian taxpayers, have footed the bill.
Following such efforts and such investments, we would hate to see some municipalities turn into ghost towns because the industry which was the backbone of their economy, could no longer operate.
There is no need to cavil about the causes of the difficulties encountered by the gold mines as they are well known. Moreover the federal authorities are aware of the problem that is to be faced not only by the operators of the gold mines but also by the civic authorities, municipal councils, school boards and especially the workers directly involved in those operations.
For some years now we have been witnessing something new in our area; owners of gold mines have to close down their operations not because of a depletion of ore but because extracting costs are too high and grants too small. Such conditions are a cause of alarm to us and one must expect, should those conditions remain, that they will get worse to such a point that other industries will have to close down also.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Villeneuve (M. Tetrault) was right when he said a while ago that the government subsidizes western wheat producers for not producing any wheat but that it will not subsidize gold production at a time when we would be sure of using or exporting the whole of our gold production, while we are not sure of exporting the whole of our wheat production. Since we are not sure of being able to export our wheat, our farmers are paid for not producing and while we are sure of being able to export the whole of our gold production, payments for producing gold are being refused. To me that is an irresponsible behaviour on the part of the government and that is what my colleague from Villeneuve was pointing out a while ago when he

October 30, 1970

showed the government the foolishness of their protection measures, for not producing wheat on the one hand and not stimulating gold production on the other hand, and yet gold is a product that permits us commercial exchanges with the United States, that are ready to absorb the whole of our gold production.
Mr. Speaker, the government ought to improve greatly the assistance to gold mines. The gold producers are not asking for a handout from the government, on the contrary, they want it to encourage the development of new mines in that area, if only to meet the needs of the people.
It is therefore of vital importance to the cities in our area that the mining industry be maintained and developed.
To all those who live where gold mines are being exploited, as well as to those who from one end of the country to the other supply goods and services, that act has been a source of great benefit in the past; this is no time to repeal it nor to let it stagnate. It must be improved with a view to contributing even more to the economic development of our area, as well as that of north western Quebec and north eastern Ontario.
The act has played an important social role by protecting the family and society where gold mines are being operated. It has helped, up to a point; but it has harmed, for instance, the development of new mines.
Has any thought been given to those citizens who, after working in gold mines for 20, 25 years, and building a little house at Val-d'Or, Malartic, Noranda, Rouyn, Amos, La Sarre, or Normetal, have been forced to go into exile, to work at Thompson in northern Manitoba, or Sudbury, or in other Canadian provinces, and to leave their homes and what they own behind, in the community in which they have lived for so many years?
o (12:10p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, the government is responsible for this situation. It does not have the right to tolerate, to bring about this situation as it is doing now. As I said, the act played a significant part in protecting the family, but did not fulfil this role to the extent that we could keep our fellow citizens in our area by enabling them, through some assistance, to work at the development of new mines.
Thanks to this act, many workers continued to live decently, when otherwise they would have been forced to go. Some actually had to, because the act was not generous enough. They were able to raise their children, to provide them with adequate food and clothing for 35 or 40 years, whereas had it not been for the act, they might have suffered from poverty, although they are not very rich.
Finally, thanks to that act, an important group of taxpayers-companies or individuals-have kept on paying federal, provincial and municipal taxes. Does the government, by providing assistance to gold mines, not get back a great part of the money through various taxes, hidden or official, in many different ways, such as income taxes, pension plans, etc.? The government turns again to the taxpayers for money. Consumers are left with no pur-
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
chasing power after all the governments have helped themselves to the workers' pay envelope.
Not only companies' stockholders but also a whole segment of the population live directly or indirectly off the gold mining industry.
The present policy towards laid-off workers under which part of the cost of relocating these people in other mining communities is paid, might of course have adverse effects later on other manufacturing sectors because of a drop in population. It must be realized that most miners being married and having lived in these cities for many years, it is inconceivable to claim that only the head of the family will have to move. This would mean, in short, if 100 miners were to leave, a loss of at least 500 individuals who might, in several cases, fill a position with other industries.
In a short while, other gold mines will have to shut down because of a lack of manpower and of exhorbitant operating costs. A generalisation of this situation would obviously result in a business slump that our cities will not be able to stand. It is easy, therefore, to foresee the slow but certain disappearance of all other industries.
Considering the present needs and the new commitments to be assumed in a changing society which requires more public services, particularly in education, we think it is the right time to adjust the grants to gold mines to enable the management-and that is one of the main objects-to give their employees wage increases similar to those granted in other industrial sectors.
I am urgently asking that those who work in gold mines get the same treatment as those who are employed in other mines or industries. Today, there is an obvious difference between the salaries paid to gold miners and those paid to workers in other industries.
Despite the considerable mechanization which contributed to ease the inflationary pressures on costs through manpower reduction, the mining industry has always depended on a significant human participation. Wages make up from 55 to 60 per cent of production costs. Therefore, the mining industry provides openings for the labour force.
Each dollar of assistance protects about $5 in salary and $2 in supplies obtained from different localities in Canada. That consequence, in human terms, has some importance.
The firms and the men who keep on working, thanks mainly to the act, have paid back to the federal government, in the form of taxes, almost 50 per cent of the aid received, including sales taxes, and even close to 75 per cent, if taxation at all levels of government is taken into account.
On behalf of a worried population who wants to save whatever can still be saved, not only in order to maintain the production of gold, but to promote a certain development of that industry, so that other mines may begin production, if their owners have the certainty that the operation is at least a profitable venture, the urgency of such an act providing for assistance to the operation of gold mines leaves no doubt and is in short a most humanitarian measure.

October 30, 1970
Emergency Cold Mining Assistance Act
Additional grants would not be a burden to the Canadian economy unduly because they would come back for the most part, if not completely, to the federal treasury in the form of income taxes, or direct or indirect taxes. Thus by helping industries of prime importance to survive, the prosperity of many areas would be ensured, which would allow to maintain the production of gold.
It is therefore very important that immediate action be taken, if we want not only our cities to survive, but to prosper and expand.
If we want northwestern Quebec to survive, a promising area with an almost unlimited potential but to which governments have not given enough importance, it is necessary to act immediately. Indeed, the population of that area, in 1959, was 51,800, and in 1969, it was 56,000. The gold mines employed 2,360 people in 1959 but only 1,930 in 1969. Their dependants, in 1959, totalled 5,900 and, in 1969, 5,000.
Mr. Speaker, those are the remarks which I wanted to make in connection with gold mines. On behalf of those citizens of northwestern Quebec, and of those of northeastern Ontario, who are in the same situation, I say again that the government can export to the United States the entire gold production of Canada. Indeed, we have a very important trade with that country. And I maintain that the government would then have at least the certainty of keeping its balance of payments with the United States within more reasonable limits than if it put an end to gold production.
On behalf of northwestern Quebec, in the name of the miners and especially of their families, I ask the government to be more generous. I am not begging but I ask the government to give assistance to the development of new gold mines in our region by encouraging prospection and getting the companies to invest there to save from stagnation an important proportion of our population and give our citizens the right to live in their country, Canada, and mainly in this part of the province of Quebec.


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


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. members for describing some very important aspects of the problem to the House and to assure them again that the government and the committee will sincerely take their views into account.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has closed the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


John James Greene: that Bill C-5, to authorize the making of a grant to the province of Nova Scotia for the purpose of providing assistance to Deuterium of Canada Limited, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), I am pleased to ask the House to approve second reading of this bill. I am sure members in all parts of the House appreciate that the heavy water plant at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, was planned a number of years ago and was to start production in 1966. It failed to do so because of faults in design. A massive investment by the province of Nova Scotia has been rusting away.
Consequently, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on April 10 of this year announced that the Government of Canada would provide to the government of Nova Scotia the substantial assistance necessary to rehabilitate the plant and get it into production.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
The bill now before us will provide part of that assistance. At the time when the project was started, the area development agency approved the company's application for assistance to the maximum of $5 million under the legislation then operative. Under that legislation, the grant would have been paid only when the plant was in production. Moreover, the legislation under which ADA operated sets a termination date. To receive an ADA grant, a plant must be in production by March 31 next year, that is to say, some five months hence. This will not be possible in the case of Deuterium of Canada Limited. Parliament has given the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) authority to grant time extensions, but only when the reasons for delay are beyond the control of the people establishing the plant.
In the Deuterium case, the failure to meet the deadline is due not to external factors but to technical difficulties which clearly must be regarded as the responsibility of the people putting up the plant. Accordingly, the Area Development Incentives Act cannot be used to make the intended $5 million grant.
All members will agree that this has been a difficult and financially burdensome problem for the government of Nova Scotia. That government believes the plant can be rehabilitated, but substantial further expenditures are required. Opposition spokesmen, as recorded in Hansard for April 10 last, welcomed the Prime Minister's announcement of the federal government's intention to help the government of Nova Scotia with these expenditures. We, in this House, all recognize that it would be tragic if the large capital investments already made had to be abandoned. One way to save the government of
[Mr. Caouette.l
October 30, 1970

Nova Scotia from that situation is to pay the $5 million which was expected when the project was launched with the aim of being in production long before the legislative deadline for ADA grants.
Since special legislation would now be required to make this payment, we propose to take the opportunity to ease Nova Scotia's financial problems to a further extent by asking Parliament, through this bill, to authorize payment of the grant in instalments as the rehabilitation of the plant proceeds. This is more advantageous than the normal ADA provision for paying the grant only after production has started.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the substance of this piece of legislation. I believe hon. members on both sides of the House regard it as a necessary contribution to the economy of Cape Breton. On behalf of the minister I, therefore, ask approval of the bill to authorize a grant to the province of Nova Scotia for the purpose of assisting Deuterium of Canada Limited.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he intended to leave the impression that with the passage of this bill only a maximum of $5 million would be available to Deuterium of Canada.


Mr. O'Connell:: No, Mr. Speaker; that is not the intention. The role of the Parliament of Canada would be to authorize the payment of this $5 million grant. The Government of Canada has already authorized, as indicated by the Prime Minister on April 10 last, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to make other financial assistance available, namely, the pre-payment of one year's production being valued at $16.4 million and an increase in the price per pound of heavy water over the lifetime of the contract of approximately $20 million, being roughly $2 per pound. So, those two additional aids have been committed, not through Parliament but through Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, under arrangements with the Province of Nova Scotia.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, in presenting the bill to the House on behalf of the minister the Parliamentary Secretary has outlined the difficulties that were experienced at the Glace Bay heavy water plant. I can only add that I believe I speak on behalf of the citizens of that town when I say they are grateful for the fact that the assistance is to be made available and, as the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated, that the Nova Scotia government, which has changed hands in the last couple of days, apparently has expressed to the federal government its intention to rehabilitate this plant. This is a question which has been uppermost in the minds of the citizens of that town and, I might say, the citizens of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia as a whole. The arrangements that have been made concerning the advancement of moneys by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited will certainly be helpful in respect of the first year's production.
I think the question that has been uppermost in the minds of most people for some time concerned the availability of the new management, now under the
Deuterium of Canada Assistance Bill direction of Mr. R. B. Cameron and Mr. Nazzer, who is considered to be one of the outstanding authorities in this field. Under their direction the rehabilitation of this plant should be successful. We are grateful that this bill has been brought forward at this time so that the rehabilitation will get underway as quickly as possible. Despite statements to the contrary, the Nova Scotia government of Mr. G. I. Smith worked long and faithfully on this case, and under the direction of Mr. Cameron and Mr. Nazzer I believe the situation has been brought to a point where this financial assistance will get this plant off the ground. Under the management of these two very capable persons the rehabilitation will take place. This, of course, will be a great source of aid and comfort to the people of Cape Breton and, as I said, Nova Scotia as a whole.
Again I should like to emphasize that I am delighted to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that the government of Nova Scotia, which of course today is a Liberal government, has every intention of going through with the rehabilitation of this plant. I express my gratitude.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, many of us have long been concerned about the development of this heavy water plant in Nova Scotia, particularly because, despite the planning done many years ago to ensure that we would have a plant that would produce heavy water, as yet none of that commodity has been produced. Many of us are aware of the difficulties the Maritime Provinces are having. We are aware also of the fact that much of their hope for additional development in that area stems from the production of this plant which would have a number of by-products. Hopefully, this should be the basis for the creation of a totally new industry in this province which would make it much more self-sufficient.
Some of us will be reluctant to pass this bill at this time. I say that because of the events that have taken place in the past few months, particularly the statements made by one of the cabinet ministers in that area who said, in effect, to the Conservative government that until it brought forward new plans that would indicate some hope of success in the development of this plant, the $41 million the federal government had tentatively agreed to provide would not be provided. It is very interesting to note that that cabinet minister now seems to have no objection to the paying of this $5 million grant to the province, partly because of the change in government. I certainly give the government credit when I say that that is not the reason for proceeding with this bill. This bill was prepared originally some time ago. I have checked it and find it to be identical with the bill that was before us much earlier. In fact, it was first dated June 15, 1970, so this bill is not new and it was not brought in because of the change in government.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
It is not entirely in keeping with the facts that plans are being formed now in such a way that an assurance can be given this plant will go into operation and will

October 30, 1970
Deuterium of Canada Assistance Bill produce heavy water on schedule. If there were evidence of political patronage and the federal government were going to play around with the $5 million for election purposes, I would be opposed to the grant. I am sure, however, the cabinet minister was carried away, and I think, knowing the situation during an election, that his statement was probably not entirely correct.
The previous speaker indicated that the management of the Deuterium plant had changed for the better, and I think that this is something for which we should give credit to General Electric. There seems to be a desire on the part of General Electric to produce a heavy water plant in the Maritimes. It will certainly not be nearly as large as this one. If the Deuterium plant is going to be totally successful, we will have to improve the type of atomic energy reactor we are using rather than use the enrichment type of reactor that is being used in the United States. So, we find that General Electric is cooperative in this regard because the success of its plant will depend on the number of reactors that are sold. Since Canada is selling atomic energy reactors, it is absolutely necessary for us to have the facilities to produce the heavy water which is essential for the atomic reactors that we are attempting to sell.
Therefore, I think we should make a much more formal arrangement with the province of Nova Scotia than we have in the case of the Deuterium plant. I believe that Atomic Energy of Canada is largely responsible for the mess that has developed in that province. I think the advice that has been given by Atomic Energy of Canada has been poor and unresearched. In Ontario, where we have started to use atomic energy for the production of electricity, we have been able in most cases to build small reactors that have been tested before we put money into building large reactors. We have developed to the stage where hydro has now reasonably large reactors operating in the field of electrical production. Atomic Energy of Canada has been able to make a considerable contribution in that field in terms of developing a small pilot reactor, and they have applied their knowledge to a large operational unit. I do not believe this course was followed with regard to the Deuterium plant in Nova Scotia and much of the fault lies, not only with the management hired by Nova Scotia, but also is due to the poor advice and lack of co-operation of Atomic Energy of Canada.
I think the Canadian people have an interest in the plant. If it is not successful, the Canadian people will have to make arrangements for other assistance to be given the Maritimes. It seems to me that now this plant has been developed, and that it has taken almost the total cash assets of Nova Scotia to bring it this far, we as a nation cannot allow it to fail. We will have to supply not only this $41 million by way of assistance, but we will also have to supply a number of other assets to the province of Nova Scotia to make this venture a success. I think that Atomic Energy of Canada must be requested to provide Deuterium with the know-how which they have developed. We should be appreciative of the help of General Electric, but we should also be able to make a contribution to ensure the success of this plant.
I think the contribution by Nova Scotia of $140 million to the development of the Deuterium plant is a major contribution by the province toward the development of a totally new industry in the area. Certainly, the change of government is an indication that the people of Nova Scotia are aware of the fact that all the eggs are in one basket, and that the success or failure of the plant will depend entirely on the federal government. I think more contributions will have to be made by the federal government than have been made up to now. We are subsidizing the production of heavy water to the tune of $20 million, and we are making available $16 million in the first year of production. Now, we are making $5 million available for development. It has been estimated that it will cost upward of $20 million to $30 million to enable the plant to produce heavy water. The necessary money will be hard to come by.
I suggest that the federal government go into partnership, through the regional development department, with the Nova Scotia government. The Nova Scotia government will have no pride in having developed this successfully by themselves. Their pride will lie in the ability of this new industry to provide employment in the area. The people will be proud of their contribution toward providing employment and not necessarily in providing the physical facility of Deuterium of Canada. The federal government can contribute by participating directly in the successful development of this plant.
I agree with the previous speaker that the change in management and the hiring of Mr. Cameron and Mr. Nazzer to operate that plant will go a long way toward assuring the federal government that any contribution they make will not be wasted. I think it is unfortunate that an election should have come at this time in Nova Scotia giving rise to a suggestion of patronage by the federal government. There was a suggestion that if one government was not elected there would be no contribution but that if another government was elected a contribution might be made. If the plans for the choice of management and for the plant of Deuterium of Canada had to be submitted to the federal government before this grant could be made, then I suggest that the new government is no more capable than the old one of providing those plans because they have not had the time to develop plans. So, the timing of the contribution by the federal government may be unfortunate in that it gives the appearance that the promise of the federal minister to make a contribution to one government and not another hinged on the outcome of the election.
We have not heard the end of this unfortunate project. It seems to me that more money will be necessary to bring it to a successful conclusion. The Canadian public has an interest in this plant because if it is not successful and we have to go abroad for every atomic reactor that we need, and as well as for heavy water to operate them, then that would indicate other countries which built another form of atomic reactor were right and we were wrong.

October 30, 1970

[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
The success of the heavy water reactor which we have developed and sold around the world depends, to a large extent, on making this plant a successful operation. It also seems to me that the federal government has been playing around with the type of grants it has been providing, such as ARDA grants, grants matched by production, and grants provided as subsidies to cover the cost of the product. I believe the answer is direct participation by the federal government in the development and management of this plant.
If the federal government makes its contribution in a direct manner then I am sure the new government in Nova Scotia will be as willing, as I presume the previous government was, to enter into partnership with the federal government to make the plant a success. This plant has the potential to end many employment problems in the Cape Breton area, and to solve some of the problems that Ontario and other parts of Canada may experience in the operation of reactors that are demanding heavy water now, not in three or four years from now, and which can only be produced by plants having the capacity of the Deuterium plant in Glace Bay.


Mr. G. W. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, the assistance provided by the federal government to the government of Nova Scotia under this bill was negotiated by the previous provincial government of the Hon. G. I. Smith, and was announced in this House by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on April 10 last. At that time I had an opportunity to make a few remarks on the general problem, and now I am pleased to note that the new Nova Scotia government has confirmed the correctness of the previous decision to proceed to bring the plant into production of heavy water.
There is no doubt about the fact that power sources in Canada are gradually diminishing. They are certainly falling behind projected requirements. New sources of water power are becoming scarcer. The use of coal in the production of power is also diminishing to a considerable extent, and so we must turn to nuclear energy to provide electric power for Canada's future needs. To keep our nuclear power plants operating, it is necessary that heavy water be produced in Canada. The decision to proceed with the establishment of heavy water nuclear plants in Canada was made many years ago because it seemed that Canada had the best source of uranium, and to that time had done the most extensive work undertaken in connection with the peaceful use of atomic power.
I was a member of a special committee of this House, I believe it was in 1960, which examined research in Canada, when the government's decision was discussed by a great many eminent scientists. At the end of very extensive hearings, the decision was confirmed that Canada should continue to develop heavy water nuclear power plants. In the light of this history, the only possibility left is to proceed with this plant at Glace Bay, providing the engineering is successful. I presume that the engineering problems have now been mastered, or that at least the engineers see the possibility of being successful in bringing the plant into production. The
Deuterium of Canada Assistance Bill sooner that happens the better it will be not only for the people of Cape Breton-East Richmond but also for the whole of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. members who have spoken in this debate for the support which they are giving to the bill. I would say no more, except that I do feel it is important to correct an impression which may have been left unintentionally by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) as to the role and responsibility of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. I think it is my responsibility to try to set the record straight.
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is in no way responsible for and had no role to play at all in the design of the Deuterium of Canada Limited plant.


William Arnold Peters: That is the problem.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Heavy water is a product that can be made commercially. There is no radiation, nor atomic aspects connected with it. It is only confusing to compare it with the role that Atomic Energy of Canada might play in advising on the design of atomic reactors, as was the case in Ontario.
This is not an atomic reactor; it is a heavy water plant. Canadian General Electric is producing it as a product, like any other product. It is just water that is 10 per cent heavier than usual. Therefore, it is not correct to associate Atomic Energy of Canada with the problems that have been experienced. It had nothing to do with the difficulties being faced there. Atomic Energy of Canada only underwrote the sales of heavy water. It had to enter into a contract for that, but the responsibility for production of heavy water was the responsibility of the private company that began the operation, and it became the responsibility of the province when it assumed that responsibility from the private company.
The only other point on which I wish to comment was that raised by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) in connection with the engineering. We want to make it clear in this bill that the grant does not begin to flow to the province until Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, which is acting as the agent of the Government of Canada, is satisfied that there is a remedial program and that the new operator who has been selected for the plant has the powers and responsibilities, and in fact has such a program. Then, this grant will flow in terms of the phases of that program as they go into operation.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
The grant is therefore subject to the engineering being satisfactory, in the sense that it would be reviewed by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, but Atomic Energy of Canada would not take responsibility for the engineering or the work itself. That is the responsibility of the owners. The task of the federal government agency, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, is to be satisfied by reviewing the plans that there is a major chance of

October 30, 1970
Public Accounts
success but it does not take responsibility lor the plans. I think it is important to make that clear, Mr. Speaker.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary? Is it not true that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, in looking over the plans and recommendations to decide on behalf of Canada whether it has sufficient potential of success, could have supplied that same expertise in helping to develop the management of this plant?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, that is a hypothetical question. The role of the owner was to produce heavy water. In terms of the contract, it was not the role of Atomic Energy of Canada to give advice, in fact, advice was not sought. The hon. member will recall that Mr. Jerome Spevack, who was the owner of the process, held it as a secret process. It is not a situation in which one could give advice to the owner; it is a situation in which the contract was let to provide so much water and it was the responsibility of the owner to do that. Other owners are meeting their responsibility but we have to make it clear that the government of Canada, through its agent, does not accept responsibility for the operation of the plant.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to	the Standing Committee	on	Regional
Development.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: One o'clock.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I think that, under the
War Measures Act, when looking at the clock the Minister of Justice can say it is one o'clock!


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, why don't we introduce the next item and then call it one o'clock?


Gerald William Baldwin: It has already been called.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. John	N.	Turner (for the	President	of the PrivyCouncil) moved	that the Public	Accounts	for	the year
ended March 31, 1969, and the Auditor General's report thereon, and the evidence adduced by the committee during the past session in relation thereto be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, it is one o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The House will resume debate on the motion that was moved by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), for President of the Privy Council and seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). Is the House ready for the question?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, is the Parliamentary Secretary not to give us his words of wisdom on this very interesting and complicated motion?


Mr. Jerome:: Mr. Speaker, I thought I would hear first what the House Leader of the party opposite has to contribute.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I can only hope that this degree of moderate wisdom will be, by a process of intellectual osmosis, carried over to those occupying the front benches opposite so that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his colleagues will learn to listen to the opposition before doing some of the stupid things they do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You mean, that the opposition do.


Gerald William Baldwin: This very interesting motion, Mr. Speaker, gives members of the House an opportunity to deal with several aspects of a matter to which reference has already been made. The motion reads:
That the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 1969, and the Auditor General's Report thereon, and the evidence adduced by the Committee during the past Session in relation thereto be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Of course you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members of the House, will notice that this motion is included on the Order Paper as a government order. This is the result of a policy which has been announced by this party and, hopefully, supported by my friends who sit on my left, to this effect: that, with regard to the appointment, the operations and the terms of reference of committees generally, we are not prepared to be as free and easy as we have been in the past. This matter was discussed and the issues were referred to in the debate this House embarked upon at the time of the establishment of the joint committee of this House and the other place to deal with the constitution.
At that time, on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I made certain points. I did so in a very friendly way and I propose to be reasonably friendly today. The points I made then were these: that we were becoming very concerned about the operation of committees and about the impact they were having on the capacity of this House to function efficiently and properly as a forum wherein could be debated the affairs of the people of Canada. It was because of our experience with committees last year, not only of this House but of the other

October 30, 1970
place-we have a vested interest in the operations of committees in the other place because we are both part of the Parliament of Canada-that we made it quite plain that from that time on, all motions dealing with committees would have to be placed on the order paper; that unanimous consent would not be given; and that it would be essential that there be at least an opportunity for discussion. Pursuant to that policy, the government placed on the order paper the terms of reference for the appointment of a number of committees, including this one.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
A short time ago the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) placed on record his consent on behalf of this party to the establishment of some of these committees, but consent was deliberately withheld with respect to this committee so that it would provide a vehicle for discussion and an opportunity to renew the interesting debate we had earlier on this subject.
I might say in passing that there are a number of areas of concern to us. One is the question of cost. We are concerned about the cost because the people of Canada are much concerned about the level of taxation. They want to know what Parliament is doing, what its operations are costing and whether all of them are necessary. It is with this in mind that I called into question the extent to which the joint committee on the constitution was proposing to become involved in a travelling program of a substantial nature in accordance with the power sought, and granted, of journeying from place to place.
I should note in passing that the report filed by the co-chairman of the committee this morning makes provision for travelling all over Canada during a period of 45 days from the time the session began until the end of June. The cost involved here might well be substantial. However, I shall go no further on these lines, because I would not be allowed to do so. I draw attention to this matter, however, because we entered a caveat at the time we first held our discussion on this subject. We made our views known at that time, but no notice has been taken of them. Since then, some interesting information has come to us from the other place, information which emphasizes the desirability of providing means whereby this House would have some degree of control after committees have been appointed on motions of this kind. These things should not be left to the committees themselves or to the good offices of Mr. Speaker, who is sometimes left in a difficult position.
The evidence indicates that well over one million dollars has been disbursed so far with respect to two committees of the other place, and more will yet be spent. As was demonstrated by the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales), who spoke in the last debate on this subject, the possible costs of the committee to which 1 have been referring will be an amount of similar magnitude. For this reason, whenever there is a motion before us to set up a committee, we intend to bring our concern about these matters to the attention of the House. When a
Public Accounts
million dollars is being spent, I want to know, and my hon. friends want to know, that good value will be obtained for it in the circumstances which prevail today.
Another area of our concern is the extent to which the multiplicity of our committees is reducing the operations of this House to a nullity. I know there are problems. I know we are learning as we go along. The other day I was reading a report brought in by the new leader of the house in the United Kingdom, Mr. Whitelaw. Some members of this House, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) had an opportunity on one or two occasions both here and elsewhere to meet members of the United Kingdom Parliament and discuss our experience with them. Members of the British Parliament were very interested in our committee system, but they warned us: do not go too far or too fast or you will remove all the emphasis from the House and place it on the committees, and the chamber of the House of Commons will cease to be what it has been for so long, the central pivot of our democratic system.
1 notice that at Westminster they have gone moderately along the path we have taken by setting up specialized committees to deal with some of their work. I intend, later in my remarks, to commend in the highest terms the Public Accounts Committee. It has carried out its function in an admirable and non-partisan way, and what I have said so far does not apply to that body. But I am using this motion as a peg upon which to hang words of warning to the House, and to the government, with respect to possible abuse of the committee system. When I see only a score or so of members in this chamber, as happens every day of the week, I know there are large numbers of our members who are engaged in committee work or engaged on their constituency duties. But 1 believe it is incumbent upon us to pattern the committee structure on the basis that this House is the central point around which all the activities of Parliament should revolve.
We ought to examine every proposal to set up a committee in the fight of this responsibility, and I can assure hon. members that I intend to do this from time to time in the hope that the government will take up the suggestion I made at the time of the last debate on this subject, a suggestion which was echoed by other opposition members. The time has come, in the fight of our experience during the past one and a half years, for the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to review the operations of House committees so as to ensure that the difficulties and the faults which have been so obvious, and to which attention has been drawn time and time again by my hon. friends on this side of the House, are removed and that necessary reforms are introduced. If this is not done, the committee structure will collapse and bring down with it much of the value of debate in this House.
The Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Jerome) was a valuable member of the special committee which was the forerunner of the present standing committee, so I am sure he would be the first to acknowledge that the system

October 30, 1970
Public Accounts
which we introduced was experimental in nature. The stage has now been reached at which many of the reforms we brought in then need to be modified in the light of our experience. I am not suggesting that the committee should meet tomorrow and bring forth changes the following day. I recognize that the committee has other responsibilities. But there is no reason why a sub-committee should not be set up to deal with this matter. One has only to hear the outpourings of dissatisfaction and annoyance coming from private members, particularly those on this side of the House, to realize that something ought to be done by way of improvement. But this warning is by way of a preliminary to what I have to say about the particular committee we are being asked to consider this afternoon.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
I am glad to see that the public accounts committee is going to be re-established. This is one committee in which, certainly over the last 12 years-with one exception last year with which I propose to deal later-there has been a sort of non-partisan, objective approach on the part of a number of Members of Parliament operating on behalf not only of their constituents but of all the people of Canada. They have examined, scrutinized and challenged the cost of government under capable leadership and brought to the attention of the people of Canada details of extravagances, aided by the Auditor General and the officials of departments who have appeared before them.
Ever since 1958 when the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), as Prime Minister of the day, re-established the committee as a viable and useful entity with a member of the opposition to chair it-now a member of the other place-the committee has had a very effective and useful life and has done yeoman service for the people of Canada.
For that reason, I am glad to see the committee being set up under terms of reference embracing the report of the Auditor General. I think we are lucky to have a very valuable and useful occupant of that position today. It is interesting to note that there have been, I do not know how many Prime Ministers, 15 or 16-there may be some scholars on the other side who can tell me the exact number we have had-yet there have been only six Auditors General.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The number is 15.


Gerald William Baldwin: I thought at times the number might have been 13, but I am now told it is 15. However, there have been only six Auditors General in the same period. The present occupant brings a lot of useful character and knowledge to the position. It is of interest to note that during the last few days he was unanimously recommended for re-appointment as Auditor General of the United Nations, this being his third term. I think this inures to the benefit of Canada and it is of some satisfaction to us to realize the value of the present Auditor General. However, I would not be fulfilling my duty in
speaking to the House today if I failed to point out that by an anomaly, as far as salary is concerned, which is one of the matters dealt with in the evidence that the motion asks to be referred back to the committee, the Auditor General receives substantially less than his assistant.
In the area of the accountability of governments for spending, I think this is a shocking condition. I hope that when the committee is appointed under its terms of reference, as I am sure it will be, the committee will turn its attention to this particular problem. Some recommendations were made by the committee. I agree with some, I disagree with others, and I must say that there were some that could only be compared with the perverse verdict of a jury in the face of overwhelming evidence before them. However, as I say, one of the matters that must be dealt with by this committee is this salary situation. The qualifications of the assistant Auditor General are very high, and I have great respect for him personally. Yet under the terms of the statute that now governs the operations of the Auditor General and his office, we find this very ridiculous situation prevailing. When the committee is established, I hope it will see fit to turn its attention to this particular issue.
The need today for this committee in terms of the examination made by the Auditor General is very high. This is an age of bureaucrats, and we have a government of bureaucrats. I am not against bureaucrats; indeed, we have to have them today, though we have a particularly invidious group sitting opposite us who are well schooled in the art of being a bureaucrat. However, it is helpful to know that in order to meet the challenge of bureaucracy it is essential to have a public accounts committee, and that it is essential to have terms of reference that permit the closest and most detailed examination of the operations of the bureaucracy as it is spread throughout each department. This, in turn, involves some examination of the changes made in the functions of the Auditor General. This is one reason that the terms of reference to which I have referred included the requirement, as an integral part of the motion, that the evidence taken before the committee last session should be referred to the present committee.
On this issue, as well as on the issue of the relationship of the committee to the Auditor General and of the Auditor General to the government, it is fascinating to read in the evidence, evidence that is quite relevant in this context, some of the statements that were made by Professor Norman Ward, probably the outstanding and acknowledged authority on the public purse, the operations of the Auditor General and the public accounts committee. His credentials are impeccable. He is objective and non-partisan. He is the author of several books and was apparently the last witness to appear before the committee last session. I should like to put on the record before I conclude some of his evidence in the hope that what Professor Ward said will commend itself to members of this committee. When they come to deal with this particular aspect of the functions and duty of the Auditor General, and to deliberate thereupon, I hope they will not

October 30, 1970

fail to remember what Professor Ward said and to bear it well in mind.
I was speaking about bureaucrats a few moments ago. There is no doubt that there was on the part of government members opposite, and certainly on the part of every member of the administration, a quite obvious and demonstrated attempt to cut down the functions of the Auditor General. The Auditor General had annoyed them: they did not like his criticism. If I ever found an Auditor General who said things that appealed to the government, then I would say he ought to be fired on the spot. No government, particularly one of this size, can fail to make errors of judgment, to over-spend, to be guilty of being improvident, to engage in non-productive payments. That is part of the game and we must expect it. This is why we must have committees, and officials like the Auditor General, who function on behalf of the taxpayer, who will be breathing down the necks of departments, bureaucrats and deputy ministers and saying to them: "Hold on a minute, you are going the wrong way. What are you doing here?" Report must then be made to the House in elaboration of their findings.
When we see, as we saw last year, the then President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), who has now gone forward into a higher echelon of bureaucracy, and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) making statements that constitute an obvious attempt to relegate the Auditor General to the performance of functions that were subservient to those he had exercised before, it must serve as a warning to all of us, particularly to members of the opposition. This will not be tolerated.
Let me put on the record at this stage the statement that if this government attempts to bring in new legisla-ion of a kind envisaged by the former President of the Privy Council and eagerly supported by some of his colleagues, this legislation is going to run into the toughest kind of opposition there is from members on this side of the House. I give that warning to the government right now. Having said that, I leave my few remarks in, I hope, a spirit of amity and friendliness. I hope the hon. members who serve on the committee will take these remarks very much to heart.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
I have before me the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee on public accounts, number 33 dated June 16, 1970. These proceedings took place just before the committee brought down its recommendations to the House. This is part of the evidence that is now being sought to be placed before the new committee. Let me read some of the things Professor Ward said. I should love to put it all on the record, but it will be on the record of the committee.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Speaker, that is quite a lengthy report and I wonder if the page number could be given just to assist the members?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, I had intended to give the page number, Mr. Speaker. I hope the hon. member will take
Public Accounts
this report home, read it and cogitate on it over the weekend. I read from page 33:6 from Professor Ward's evidence:
I am aware, and I think it is to the eternal credit of the present government, that for the first time in Canadian history the opposition parties have been given small sums of money-
I emphasize that word "small". He continues:
-for research purposes as parties. I have not yet been able to find out, particularly because I have not had time, how they are using the money and what for, hut I hope to. This is, I think, an enormously important step in the right direction, but when you consider that the total amount of money made available to the three opposition parties is around $225,000, as I remember, and the government on its side has behind it a civil service of over 300,000 people altogether, counting the Crown corporations, spending a budget which is now running into the dozens of billions of dollars, $225,000 or so for the opposition does not even qualify as a drop in the bucket as ammunition with which to prepare cases to criticize the government.
Those are Professor Ward's views, not necessarily mine, but I think the comment he makes is interesting. On the next page, 33:7, which is the seventh page of the 33rd volume, the professor is reported as follows:
I am disallowing here any kind of partisan interest-
I could use those words myself of Professor Ward; I am not disallowing any kind of partisan interest. He continues:
-from the point of view of a particular party, but it is a fact of life in Canada that for the past half century for all but 12 years, Canada has been governed by a party which never bestows its leadership on a seasoned parliamentary veteran. Without exception every single leader of the Liberals since Sir Wilfrid Laurier have been chosen in convention. Every one of them has beaten far more experienced parliamentarians for the leadership. This, I think, is probably one of the secrets of the party's success, perhaps-
That word "perhaps" is the professor's word. To quote again:
-but it has as far as Parliament is concerned the rather curious by-product that for prolonged periods the Prime Minister of Canada is not himself a man experienced in sitting on committees such as this. I have not had time to check out all the committees in existence during all the years of the four people I have mentioned: Mr. King, Mr. St. Laurent, Mr. Pearson, and now Mr. Trudeau. To the best of my recollection I have never encountered any of their names in the proceedings of a Parliamentary committee. They have had no experience.
I could add that there are one or two of them that have not had too much experience in Parliament either, Mr. Speaker, and certainly their records since they have become leaders show it. The professor goes on to say and I quote from the same page:
This again enormously enhances the importance of this Committee and the Auditor General who is Parliament's servant or particularly working with this committee. This is I think a uniquely Canadian phenomenon. I do not know of any other free country in which the leadership of a major party is in power most of the time is given not occasionally or even regularly, but all the time to somebody in effect who opted from outside. That, I think, is again one of the fundamental considerations that has to underline any consideration of the role of Auditor General in Canada, that he occupies a most

October 30. 1970
Public Accounts
peculiar position through no fault of his or anybody else's. The facts of Canadian party life just have worked out that way now for half a century.
I do hope the committee that is appointed for this year will give more serious consideration to those statements. There are so very few really effective and potent weapons available to an opposition party under the kind of system and statutes we have, which permit the government the right to operate in so many cases by Order in Council. To meet the vast forces of government and its supporting bureaucracy, we must have an official like the Auditor General working with a reinforced committee such as the Public Accounts committee.
Finally I have two more quotations from page 9 of the same issue. The first one reads:
This raises the question-which I presume will come up again later but I want to make sure that I put it on the record now because I wish to say something about it-whether or not the Auditor General should simply coniine himself to commenting on the legality or otherwise of expenditures or whether he should get himself involved in commenting on what is in effect policy from the point of view of the government.
I pause here because this is the crux of the argument which has developed between the cabinet on the one side and the Auditor General on the other. I am convinced that the two ministers whose names I used, or whose positions are used, did not speak out as they did in criticism of the Auditor General and his role without having behind them the full support of the government and the Prime Minister.
I think the words of Professor Ward must be engraved on the hearts of the members of the committee when they come to examine this problem. What are the functions of the Auditor General? Must he be confined within strict terms, as has been suggested by ministers on the other side, or should he have a degree of freedom which permits him an opportunity to go into other matters, which I submit is so essential? Let me continue with what Professor Ward said:
My general position on this, which I really have held for many years, is that there is no conceivable way in which you could limit an Auditor General to commenting only on the legality of expenditures-none. The reason I say that is that it is his duty, clearly, to report what he considers are extravagant or improvident expenditures.
I pause here to say what a great field he has when he serves with the gentlemen who sit opposite us. Then, to continue:
But they could be perfectly legal. I could be paid by the government $1,000 for $1,000 worth of work quite legally, but under the same kind of contract I could be paid $5,000 for doing $1,000 worth of work and it would be perfectly legal-and I think, it would be the duty of the Auditor General to point out that I had in fact been paid five times as much as the job is worth.
Just as simple as that in those clearly expressed terms, Professor Ward has pointed out the nub of the problem regarding the conflict between the government and the Auditor General. When we see the committee bring in recommendations, as they obviously attempted to do, which would take the government side, then I think

probably-I will not say there was a hatchet job because I think I would not be right in saying that-it is time to take stock. There were a few times when the committee obviously attempted, through government members, to carry forward the views of the then President of the Privy Council and to incorporate them in the terms of the recommendations of the committee.
I would like to see the committee review this, too, and the other evidence which was given last June. By reviewing and changing some of those recommendations in light of the clear warning uttered by Professor Ward, they would show themselves to be honourable and distinguished Members of Parliament.
[DOT] (2:40 p.ra.)


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question.


Gerald William Baldwin: Delighted.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and 1 gather the hon. member is referring to the recommendation in respect of a new Auditor General's act. I may be wrong, and if so the hon. gentleman will correct me, but as I recall it those recommendations in the committee were passed unanimously by all members on the committee. I suggest that if there is any criticism of those recommendations, that criticism I presume would apply to the members of his party as well as to other members.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have never been an obsequious member of this House. If members on our side of the House in my judgment are mistaken, I would have no hesitation in saying so. This is a policy I would recommend to members opposite. It would be much better if members on the other side would stand up and criticize the government, especially when there is so much to criticize.
The quotation continues:
I hasten to add that this never has happened. But it could happen perfectly legally and it would certainly, I think in a case like that, still be the duty of the Auditor General, whether it was legal or not, to comment on what seemed to him to be an improvident expenditure.
I think this is extremely important, Mr. Speaker. I am just about finished. I hope I have excited other hon. members to get up and defend themselves and contribute to this very important debate which I believe is of great consequence to the people of this country who are saddled with a heavy burden of taxes which will become even greater if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has his way. Then, there is this paragraph on page 10:
I do not really know of any way either in which you can prevent the Auditor General from straying over, sometimes at least, even inadvertently, into the field of policy, because policy nowadays is not that clear-cut a thing that you can distinguish the purely financial aspect of policy from policy itself. One only has to consider for example how many of our major expenditures of government today-this again is very unlike the way things were in 1878-are substantive expenditures, like the family allowance, in which the actual administrative cost
October 30, 1970

is a tiny fraction of the total cost of the program. The Auditor General, if he confines himself solely to the purely legal administrative aspects of running this enormous program, in a case like this is simply going to have to neglect things that conceivably might be worth looking at because they are involved in some kind of policy. I will return to that point later.
Then, finally:
But my general view of this is that the Auditor General really cannot be narrowly confined to a purely legalistic view of his job if he is to do his job properly. Of course he is going to make mistakes-he is human, and of course he is going to aggravate the government-they are human.
I sometimes doubt that statement.
And he should make mistakes and aggravate the government rather than overlook things that ought to be drawn to the public's attention. It is far better that he should be free to make mistakes in the same way that the Supreme Court judge is free to make mistakes than that he should be hampered so that he is afraid to make mistakes.
With that, I shall leave my comments before the House. I say again that in the kind of world in which we live, and with the kind of governments we have in this country and in the United States where the Congressional elections will be held next Tuesday, one of the major issues is the very issue of government expenditures and taxes which are reflected in the cost of living. Any attempt to curtail or limit the powers and functions of the Auditor General or of the Public Accounts Committee would be a great mistake. I urge the committee when it commences its deliberations to bear these things in mind.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to use any further time of the House on this somewhat routine measure but, as we had anticipated, some of the things the House Leader of the Opposition has said certainly require some comment from this side of the House. I am only too happy to make those comments. 1 assume I am eligible to reply to the hon. member because, not having risen as high as the ministry and not being in the civil service, I am not subject to that very wide designation of his of being a bureaucrat, which seems to cover just about every one who has views opposite to his. In any event, I think the very subject of this motion, to refer certain matters to the Public Accounts Committee, leads us to a consideration of some of the fine work that was undertaken by this committee during the last session. I think it is significant that co-operation between the parties in this House has led to this vehicle being on the order paper.
We learned that the hon. member had some comments he wished to make in this connection and, accordingly, this matter was held over until this time in order to give him an opportunity to deliver the comments he has delivered today. We are prepared to have these matters discussed because the committee system is an extremely important part of the operations of this Parliament so far as the government is concerned. However, I think the references made by the hon. member to the Auditor General's Act are entirely unfair. I think anyone would
Public Accounts
agree that last year, regardless of what I think was a very unnecessary political attitude on the part of many members of the House-the most unfortunate atmosphere possible-the whole subject was considered. I think the hon. member will agree with me that, despite the political connotations, legitimate progress was made in respect of that very important statute. I see that the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales), who was chairman of the committee at that time is here, as is the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg). I am sure they and other members who were members of the committee will agree with me that, notwithstanding the extremely difficult and strained atmosphere, the work of the committee progressed very well and that, in fact, there were great accomplishments.
Therefore, I take great issue with the hon. member's reference to this subject because it would seem to be a condemnation of the work of the committee. I take it as the very strongest commendation that even under such difficult conditions the committee made great progress and accomplished many things in much less time than would have been possible under the former rules of the House.
Before leaving this subject, I should like to refer to one other matter pertaining to the same Public Accounts Committee. I refer to the time when very considerable tariff concessions to the Ford Motor Company were debated by members opposite.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You gave them $10 million.


James Alexander Jerome: The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) is again off the subject. This matter was extremely political, in view of the stand taken by members opposite, when it was discussed by the Public Accounts Committee. I am sure members opposite will agree that the kind of investigation that was carried out in the committee would not have been possible if the matter had been dealt with by the Committee of the Whole House. These tariff concessions were discussed with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and members of his staff, as well as senior representatives from the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Finance. If any question involving tariffs comes up in the course of the debate on estimates or in the course of the debate of a subject that is before the Committee of the Whole House, a minister has the opportunity from time to time to evade questions by saying that that area of questioning should fall to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) or else to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). That kind of escape is possible here in the House. But the kind of examination that took place in the Finance Committee would not permit that type of escape. The resulting detailed examination that was available through the Committee procedure gave all hon. members on both sides of the House, an unparalleled opportunity to examine that important question in detail. So, I think that the importance of the committee system is self evident. In addition, one should remember that last year some 1,200 hours were spent collectively by the standing committees on the examination of

October 30. 1970
Public Accounts
legislation, in fact about twice as much time as was spent by this chamber.
[DOT] {2:50 p.m.)
So, there is certainly a very clear case for the work that is being done in the standing committees and for the entire committee system. When hon. members opposite question the cost, I think it is fair to examine these things because it is not just the cost but the value received that has to be considered. When one sees the number of hours spent in detailed clause by clause examination of legislation and of departmental estimates, in the sort of detail that is possible in the committees but not possible here, one realizes the importance of the committee system. We are in conflict at all times on at least two counts: first, this House is a debating society in the true sense of the word and second, it is important that everyone has time to speak in this chamber on subjects of their choice.
At the same time, we already sit in this chamber as many hours in the day and days in the year as it is possible. The schedule to which we adhere at present cannot be stretched much more. This means that we are in conflict in so far as efficiency is concerned. This place cannot go on maintaining the respect of the citizenry if it does not do its business efficiently. We are using all the available time and we must keep up with the business. The result is that the committee system presents a golden opportunity to make the procedures of the House more efficient, because the matters that have to be discussed can be discussed in the House as well as in several standing committees at the same time. The item of the most fundamental importance is to ensure that through participation in the affairs of the standing committees the whole system is made to contribute and to complement the function of the House, not to compete with it. That, I think, is the problem.
In addition, we are in another conflict which I think is very important because we, who are directly involved in the affairs of this chamber, become knowledgeable about what happens here. We are all elected representatives; we are very much involved in politics and in government, and consequently we tend to think that everyone in the country knows and cares about these matters as much as we do. In fact, they do not. In fact, the great majority of our citizens not only do not know a great deal about the political life of the country or the function of their government, but they do not care.
It is an important function of Parliament as a whole to fulfil an educative role, to take the government, at least to some extent, to the people; to get out to the country and function in other centres than the very much confined space of these buildings. The committee system can do this. When a committee travels to Vancouver or to Halifax or to any of the smaller or more remote centres-and here I am addressing myself to hon. members from the areas outside the major metropolitan centres- the government is brought closer to the people. Hon. members know that they represent people who feel they are very much out of the main stream of events; they are
away from provincial capitals and from the national capital.
I think it is a very important duty and function of Parliament to attempt to bring the government to those people and, so far as possible, to let those people participate in and see government functioning in their own centres. The committees that travel about the country, as well as working at the time that they are there, fulfil that very important function. So, we have the conflict of efficiency as opposed to the debating society approach which enables everybody to hold up the work of this House and carry on until everyone has had a chance to speak. We also have the conflict of centralizing the government in Ottawa as opposed to bringing it to the people.
These are the conflicts that have to be borne in mind when hon. members say that the committee system is detracting from the business of the House and from the importance of this chamber. I will go along with the hon. member in attempting, as he was, to be non-partisan because I do not suggest for one minute that what I am about to say here does not tar us and hon. members opposite with the same brush. The plain truth is that in theory the committee system at present is not bad.


James Aloysius McGrath: Nonsense.


James Alexander Jerome: What can make it bad is the failure of members of this House to participate in it and make it function. That is where the indictment should lie, not on the system itself but the manner and the extent in which hon. members participate in it and make it function. Again I say I am not attempting to lay criticism at the feet of hon. members opposite that does not tar us with the same brush, because the performance of some of the hon. members on our side is no better.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do not become a statesman because of your recent appointment; just carry on as you did before.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary has the floor.


James Alexander Jerome: Of course the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) holds himself out as a paragon of virtue so far as his participation in the committee system is concerned. I am sure that if we examined the record we would find that his attendance at committee meetings is such as to be exemplary to other hon. members. However, I wish he would concentrate on other members to make sure they do as much as he does, because at present that is not the case. I am not speaking as a statesman, I am stating a fact.
The fact is that members of this House do not show up at committee meetings and do not participate in the way they should. If the hon. member for Calgary North thinks it is funny that I am talking as a statesman, that is too bad.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the Parliamentary Secretary answer a question?

October 30, 1970


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member for Peace River seeking the floor for the purpose of asking a question?


James Alexander Jerome: The question probably refers to the member's suggestion to review the committee system by referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. He said that in order to precipitate this course, if necessary, he is prepared to debate every routine motion for reference to a standing committee until he has made his point about expenses. We are quite prepared to examine, with a very careful eye, the proposed expenses of the committees.
I am speaking from personal experience as the immediate past chairman of the special committee on election expenses, which sat for a very short period in the last session. One of the first subjects that we discussed-and opposition members who were on that committee will support me on this-was whether that committee needed to travel. Because there is a system in the province of Nova Scotia that would have been of interest to the committee, because there is one in the province of Quebec, because there are different electoral systems in various provinces throughout the country and, in fact, in other countries throughout the world, there would have been every justification for the committee applying to the house for permission to travel. The subject was discussed and I think hon. members opposite will agree that, as chairman of the committee, I expressed the opinion as forcibly as I could that the right thing for the committee to do was to stay here, unless members felt there was some worthwhile work that could be done.
I am happy to say that members of all parties were agreed. I submit that as an example of the proper attitude taken by committee members of all parties with respect to the expenditure of money on committees.
[DOT] (3:00D.m.)
It is all very well for the hon. member opposite to suggest a review by the Procedure and Organization Committee, but it is only fair to put on record that at the end of last session the government was anxious that some arrangement be made whereby that committee could review all the rules of the House, and do it on a continuing basis. We still stand in support of that proposition. The hon. member opposite knows that his party has taken a position opposed to that. We have been anxious to give the committee not only the power, on an ad hoc basis if necessary, to review the rules governing committees but also, if it is preferred by the House, to give it a standing reference covering all the rules of the House. In our view this would be a sensible arrangement.
That suggestion has met with opposition from the other side of the House. Again I say we submit that the proper thing to do is to have the committee not only discuss the rules pertaining to committees but have it constantly discuss, and consequently recommend, changing and updating of all the rules of the House. Participation by members of this House is what will make the committee system function as it should. I repeat that we are perfectly prepared to have the committees' rules, along with all
Public Accounts
the rules of the House, placed under constant review by the Procedure and Organization Committee.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to say concerning the motion to refer certain work to the Public Accounts Committee. Speaking as a past chairman of that committee, there are one or two observations I would like to make. I compliment the government for calling this motion at an early stage in the session, as a matter of fact on the seventeenth sitting day. I have seen sessions which have gone on for months before any work was referred to that committee. This raises another point. The Public Accounts Committee recommended to the House that its members should be appointed for the duration of a Parliament. That recommendation was acted upon and now members are appointed to the committee for a whole Parliament. Members appointed for a whole Parliament provide continuity of work and research.
We also suggested that the Auditor General's Report be automatically referred to the committee when tabled and that it should not be left to the whim of the government when to refer the report. As yet that recommendation has not been acted upon and the committee only functions at the whim of the government. As a matter of fact, if the government does not want the committee to examine the Auditor General's Report, it does not have to refer the report to it. This is one of the committee's recommendations that should be acted upon by this Parliament.
We should stop and take note of the very inadequate way in which the Public Accounts Committee must function. For that committee we have one clerk. That is the extent of our staff. This is no reflection on our clerk. We have been fortunate in the Public Accounts Committee in that we have had excellent clerks, but for example when we were investigating expenditures in connection with the Bonaventure, the shipping company which did the refit came before us with its whole staff and also legal counsel. We did not even have legal counsel although we were dealing with a very intricate problem.
In the United Kingdom the public accounts committee has a staff of 10 or 12 people. They do not work just while the House sits. That committee functions the year round and is equipped to do the job for which it is established. So far as our Parliament is concerned, we are only scratching the surface and I strongly urge that our Public Accounts Committee be given better facilities, better accommodation, better staff and be set up for a year-round operation.
Any government that has an expenditure of about $13 billion a year certainly warrants a good, strong Public Accounts Committee. I believe the Public Accounts Committee functions as well as or better than any other committee of the House simply because we have done our best to keep it non-partisan. Granted, at times this was difficult, but all members of the committee, regardless of party affiliation, realized they were dealing with the expenditure of taxpayers' money, be they Liberal taxpayers, Conservative taxpayers or others. Members of

October 30, 1970
Public Accounts
the committee had one objective-that the money be spent wisely and properly. After all, Mr. Speaker, what other control have we in this House except when the departmental estimates are before us? I am sorry to say that under present arrangements, when departmental estimates are referred to committees they are not getting the close supervision that they should be getting and the publicity that should accompany them.
Once this House passes the estimates, the various government departments are given authority to spend the money granted by the House, and we must depend upon experienced civil servants to spend that money wisely and justly. When they do not, it is the responsibility of the Public Accounts Committee to call the civil servants before it and inquire why the money was not spent in a productive way. We in the Public Accounts Committee must deal with non-productive items. "Non-productive" is a hard word to define, but the committee has asked the Auditor General to list what he considers non-productive expenditures.
The House Leader of our party has called attention to the very fine report that Professor Ward made to the committee, and I recommend that all hon. members read it. The Public Accounts Committee has functioned well for the past 13 years under its present system. I sincerely hope we will able to continue on that basis, in a non-partisan way, dealing with the issues that the Auditor General brings to our attention. If the Auditor General does not have a good Public Accounts Committee to answer to, we will have a poor Auditor General, because the two go together. The committee, as it were, is his right arm. If we are to have a strong, viable Auditor General we must have a strong, viable, energetic Public Accounts Committee.
When the proposed Auditor General of Canada act comes before us, Mr. Speaker, I shall have only one plea to make. I hope this House will not do anything to curtail the powers of the Auditor General. In business, if you call in an auditor to audit the books of a company you do not say to him, "I just want you to look at that and that" and tell him what you want him to do. You do not lay before him a list of things you want him to do. You say, 'There are the books. Audit them and bring to our attention anything that is not correct, any place where there has been non-productive spending, and show us what we can do to improve the operation of our business." So it should be with the business of the federal government.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I am sure that other hon. members wish to say some words on this subject. This has been a good opportunity for the House to comment on the operations of the Public Accounts Committee. I close by saying, as I did at the beginning, that I am pleased the government acted so quickly in calling the motion to refer this matter to the Public Accounts Committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this debate has ranged over a very wide area,

and I wish to make it clear that I do not intend to touch on all the aspects of the matter that have been discussed by those who have preceded me. As a matter of fact, I rise to deal with one particular point about which I feel rather strongly; but I admit that before I get to that main point there is one temptation that I really cannot resist. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), when talking about committees and how much they cost, referred to the fact that two of the committees of the other place had expenses during the last session, or at least over whatever period he was quoting, totalling $1 million. Four hundred and ninety-seven thousand dollars were spent on the Committee on Poverty. Some poverty! Also, $515,000 was spent on the Committee on Mass Media. If you add to that $442,000 for the Committee on Banking and Commerce, and $435,000 for the Committee on Science Policy, you are reaching a figure of almost $2 million.
Since suggestions are being made about steps that should be taken to save money, there is one obvious suggestion which I thought the hon. member for Peace River would make, namely, abolish the Senate. There is no use beating around the bush; let us deal with these things directly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The last NDP member who said that went to the Senate.


John Napier Turner: You should be with some of your own up there, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is asking about some of my friends up there. All their lives they have been in favour of abolishing the Senate, and I trust they still are. After they have been there a while they will probably be even more in favour of doing so.
The main point I want to discuss is what I regard as the increasing importance that attaches to the work of the Public Accounts Committee. The thoughts which I have in mind I have already expressed in other ways and on previous occasions. Let me say that in my view we have not yet solved the problem of parliamentary control over government expenditures before they are made. We used to have the committee of supply. One hundred years ago Members of Parliament thought that through the committee of supply they did control the public purse, and perchance they were right. In recent decades that has not been true. As a matter of fact, we have more or less recognized that fact by abolishing the committee of supply and we now send all the estimates to various Standing Committees.
I think that most of the committees do a very good job and in some respects I think their work has been improved. However, it would be a wild and foolish Member of Parliament who would assert that the committees that examine estimates are scrutinizing public spending as the public feels it should be done. We just have not been doing the job and we have not solved the problem of how to do it. In fact, it is the one aspect of
October 30. 1970

the massive rules changes that we have made in the last two or three years which I think is still unfinished business.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want what I am going to say now to imply that we should let that go by the board. I think we should still find some way, in advance of the spending of money, for Parliament to check on it. But until we do find the way it becomes all the more important that we have this ex post facto check by the Public Accounts Committee. Sometimes it is argued that it is too late, that the money has been spent. The fact of the matter is that turning the searchlight on illegal or extravagant expenditures does have a salutary effect. I think that function must be stepped up, and I agree with the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) that the staff and assistance to the Public Accounts Committee ought to be increased.
There is something else we ought to consider, Mr. Speaker. Often we are told that the Auditor General does more than just give a report after the fiscal year is over, more than just lay it before us on the basis of what happened after the event is all over, but that he does a running audit right throughout the year. We are frequently told that he finds many things that need to be corrected and which are corrected right on the spot. It has also been suggested that sometimes he finds things that he thinks are wrong and has arguments with those in charge of the various departments. He may or may not win the arguments.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we might step up the process by which the Public Accounts Committee gets at these matters by making provision for the Auditor General to appear before the Public Accounts Committee on a current basis and to report to that committee some of the difficulties he is encountering. I adopt the language of the hon. member for Wellington when he said that the Public Accounts Committee is the Auditor General's right-hand man. I think it is true that you have a good Auditor General if you have a good Public Accounts Committee, and vice versa.
I strongly urge that we give some thought to this matter. Let us face the fact that what we used to do in committee of supply is not being done. Let us face the fact that the only effective check on expenditures before they are made is that which is made by the Treasury Board before we ever see the blue book of estimates. I am not satisfied with that, but such is the situation. That being the situation, I think that the kind of checking done by the Public Accounts Committee has to be stepped up. There has to be more of it, and there will have to be arrangements such as I have just suggested by which the Auditor General could report to the Public Accounts Committee on a current basis.
I am repeating myself, Mr. Speaker, but let me put it this way. Precisely because we do not have the kind of parliamentary control over the purse-strings that we think we have, or at least think we ought to have, the work of the Public Accounts Committee becomes all the more important. I am glad that we have this institution of an opposition member being appointed chairman of
Public Accounts
that committee. I certainly support those who express the view that the committee has been doing better work in the last decade than used to be the case. Let us strengthen it in every way we can, because it is pretty important in this massive expenditure operation that is modern government that there be a reasonable check on that expenditure by those of us who represent the people of Canada.


Mr. Mac T. McCulcheon (Lamblon-Kenl):: Mr. Speaker,
I shall not delay the business of the House very long but I have one or two thoughts which I should like to put on the record. For many years I have been particularly concerned about the escalating costs of our committees.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
As I see the responsibilities of members of this House, they fall into two main categories. The first, I suppose, is to speak up and to be heard in the presentation and passage of legislation. The second-I am not at all sure that I have these in the proper order-is that I think the people who elected me to represent them here consider that one of the duties of a member is to scrutinize government expenditures. I think that if we do not wholeheartedly carry out that part of our function, we are indeed derelict in our duty.
I should like at the outset to congratulate the members of the Public Accounts Committee. I was a member of that committee for part of the previous session and am quite familiar with its work. Its members were a pretty level-headed group of individuals. Their chairman acted in an excellent manner. In that regard I am referring to the cost of operating the committee. It is one of the few committees of this House that travelled far afield. It travelled to Halifax to look at the famous Bona-venture, and incurred minimum costs on the trip.
I was delighted to hear the Parliamentary Secretary expound on the benefits of the committee system. I agree with him, up to a certain point. Examination in detail, as he suggested is good; who can deny that? Here I am thinking of another committee of which I was a member last year, the Committee on miscellaneous estimates. That, too, was very well chaired and conducted a good deal of examination, although I am afraid it did so superficially. According to a report in the Toronto Telegram of last week that committee passed expenses of $2 million. When the matter came before this House only one voice spoke about it, that being mine. What I resent and take exception to is that-the previous speaker alluded to this matter-before you get a chance to look at these expenditures, the matter is fait accompli: the money is spent; it is gone.
The previous speaker mentioned the $1 million spent by the Committee on Poverty and the Committee on Mass Media.
What concerns me deeply is that the Committee on the Constitution, I am told, spent $32,000 on a trip to Manitoba. It has advertised 34 more forays that it will make. Mr. Speaker, they moved into the city of Halifax a short

October 30. 1970
Public Accounts
while ago, 16 strong I am told, with a supporting cast of 16 translators, reporters and what-have-you. They listened to briefs presented in that fair city. Seven people attended the hearing, including the janitor. Two briefs were presented to them by two junior students of a college. The professor who coached them in their presentation did not think it was worth his while showing up. This sort of thing must stop.
On October 23 I directed the following question to the government House Leader, as reported at page 516 of Hansard:
In order that the House may have better control of its activities and expenses, will the Government House Leader bring in a motion referring to the Committee on Procedure and Organization for report the need of all committees of the House to file a complete report of the expenses incurred-
The House Leader replied:
This subject was touched upon in our debate on the establishment of the Constitutional Committee and I believe there was general agreement that we should look at this question. How we do it is a matter that I will be happy to consider.
In view of the minister's remark, "How we do it is a matter that I will be happy to consider", I wish to make a suggestion to him. Instead of sending this matter back to the Committee on Procedure, we ought to send it to the Public Accounts Committee. I have great confidence in that committee. It seems to me that there would be better ventilation of the whole affair in the Public Accounts Committee as opposed to the other committee. I say that with all respect for the Committee on Procedure, which is also a very good one.
In his remarks the Parliamentary Secretary commented on attendance at committees. I agree that in some instances the attendance at committees is not good. I have been a fairly regular attender of committee meetings. I resent going to committee meetings, participating in the examination of all matters coming before the committee and then finding, on the day of the vote, that the government has picked up a roving squad and brought it in to vote. The votes are all rubber-stamped and passed through in a very few minutes.


An hon. Member:: That is terrible.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Often they cannot get a quorum.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: One other thing bothers me. Considering the way the government arranges committee meetings and all the duplications that exist, if our committees are to be properly manned with an average attendance of, say, 18 or 20 members, we will face a deficit, so to speak, of 15 members who are required to constitute a quorum in this House. We will not be able to open proceedings in the House of Commons because all our members will be engaged in committee work.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Having said that, I will not delay these proceedings any longer. I suggest that perhaps the

Public Accounts Committee is the committee through which a proper answer to my question of October 23 could be given.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) wants to make a statement on Bill C-174, so I shall be brief in order that he will have time for his remarks. I wish to deal with two points. I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Jerome), and I think he overlooked one thing. There is a difference between the functions of the members who sit behind the executive, the government, and the functions of those who sit in the opposition. We have to scrutinize matters in this chamber.
There are only 72 members in my party and we are always in attendance. The other parties can speak for themselves. I realize this is not a new problem. I realize that the government must keep its members busy and so it has allocated them to various committees. I am not a member merely of one committee. I am chairman of the justice caucus of our party and put a great deal of effort into that committee. I appreciate the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) saying that I attend committees. I do attend committees. But there are times when one has to be in the House. Hon. members must receive more co-operation. For instance, there are times when the Justice Committee is meeting and I have to be in the chamber on another matter.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
On one occasion, I believe it was on the expropriation bill, I asked that the matter be allowed to stand because I was presenting to this House during private members' hour a bill to amend the Criminal Code in connection with persons aged seven or older who might have committed a crime under the Code. I read in the newspaper that although I had been very active in the Justice Committee that afternoon, I was not present when the vote was taken with reference to the particular proposal I had opposed so strenuously. What I am saying is that you cannot be in two places at once.
I do not want to dig back into old history, but I remember Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. Pearson and Mr. Chevrier. When we had 208 members, forming a powerful government, they would not under any circumstances allow a committee to sit while the House was sitting. They realized, and I appreciated their position, that their job was to scrutinize the government's actions very carefully, to attempt, as we did yesterday, to secure amendments to certain legislation. It is very easy for the executive to present the bills. The executive sends its members to the committee.
Here is another thing I do not like about committees. I hear committees chairmen-this was particularly true of the Finance Committee-saying, "You are each going to have three minutes to speak." Isn't that a wonderful thought? If you were defending an accused in a courtroom and the judge said you had three minutes to cross-examine a witness you might barely get started on
October 30, 1970

it. It was a wonderful statesman's speech by the hon. member. These fellows grow to be statesmen. The more power they get, the more statesmanlike they become. This is the symptom of some appointment, some recognition.
We have to deal with this problem. The practical function that I have noticed-I do not mean the idealistic or the academic approach-of government members, basically, is that the chairman will say, "Here is a bill, and we are going to put it through in its present form." The minister hands out a little amendment to make it look as though we are intelligent. We think we are making amendments and changes and say, "This is a wonderful thing; this committee business is so refreshing." Well, gentlemen, let us not fool ourselves. When I am in a committee I do not want the chairman to say to me, while I am dealing with the question of capital gains-as we were in the Finance Committee-that I have two minutes. A number of people who have not done any studying whatsoever also have two minutes, and they are sweeping everything under the carpet while I am trying to get the facts on top of the table.
My job is not to praise the government: I leave that to others; there are enough backbenchers to do that. They all do it very well. My job and my function as long as I sit here-I hope to move over to the government side one of these days, and when hon. members over there now have my function I will listen to them-is to scrutinize very carefully, oppose if I think necessary, and suggest positive changes. So when I hear somebody get up and speak with those ideals, fold their arms and look to the sky and say that committees are non-partisan, I know that is tommyrot. The chairmen are picked; they are chosen by the men in power, the executive. They know when they go in there who is going to be chairman. I can name them before they are appointed. That is the way the committee system has been working.
There is merit to the new rules in some ways. There is merit attached to the committees in the United States. There is some merit attached to all systems and something to be learned from them all. I think the New Democratic Party should have some committee chairmanships. The Conservative party should have the chairmanship of some committees. The Creditistes should have some committee chairmanships. Then we will know that they are not partisan.
When we talk about all the amendments that are accepted, I know what these amendments turn out to be, even in our committee which works pretty well because most of us belong to the same profession. When you get a group of people from the same profession they have a sort of affection for each other aside from their political affiliations; we do work pretty well together. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if I had my way in this party, totally, and if I ran into the kind of thing I am talking about day after day, I would boycott the committees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will tell you why that is not done. The press says, "Oh, it's bad; the Conservatives won't go
Public Accounts
to the committees." I never came to Parliament and, like many other hon. members, gave up my private life just to play games. And that is what is going on. The hon. member says these committees are functioning. If that is the case, let us be honest and make them function.
There is another problem. I really appreciated the action of Mr. Speaker the other day, because he showed what a gentleman he always is in the position he holds. I moved an amendment in the committee, a serious amendment affecting the ability of a citizen to choose whether to go to the court of the Minister of Justice, the federal court, or to a provincial court. However, I do not intend to get into that argument. The committee split on the question. But that amendment was ruled out of order when I desired to move it at the report stage of the bill. I am not breaking any confidences. I said to the Speaker, "If we had had one more person there, instead of having to spread ourselves in the committees so thinly, I might have won the vote in the committee, and I am sure Your Honour would not then have ruled the motion out of order."
That is why Mr. Speaker was so gracious on the argument, and I am not saying he would not be gracious anyway. The Minister of Justice was fair enough to say, "You can have your day in court, anyhow, in the House of Commons." What I am saying is that this only emphasizes the fact that committees are a farce. Until we get independent chairmen and show real independence in the committees, they will function in the way they should.
Now I am going to say something about that travelling circus, as I call it. I know something about the travelling circus I am going to talk about, namely, the Constitutional Committee which at one time I attended and which now I am not attending. That committee is crossing this country for one reason-not for the sake of participatory democracy at all, because you heard what happened in one city, but to build up a political image and aura for the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The constitution is too important a subject to be playing politics with, and I say that if the people of Canada knew how much money was being spent on travelling, and knew what is going on, they would protest. I know of another case where a group of government officials practically went around the world in a jet. I want to know what that cost. They talk about members' salaries. Why, that is peanuts compared with the money being spent today in committees for a lot of nonsense, particularly the travelling circus, the Constitutional Committee. I am serious when it comes to that. I am going to place some questions on the Order Paper. What are these committees costing? Why are these trips being planned? I supposed the reason is that some of them did not get their expected parliamentary secretary appointments. I saw one member jump. He got his appointment. I am glad to see him promoted, because the hon. member has been more silent, since, more statesmanlike.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

October 30, 1970
Tax Review Board Bill


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This travelling is sort of a pay-off. It is not something new which was thought up even by the Trudeau government.


Mr. Perrault:: Shame!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: An hon. member says, "shame". Everybody is afraid of the truth. It is a shame the hon. member will not accept the truth. That is what is going on. When they cut out that nonsense, people on all sides of the House will attend committees-because, I repeat, I did not come here to play games.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
With regard to expenditure and public accounts, I hope that serious thought will be given to the suggestion that the opposition be given the right to choose the estimates of three or four departments for discussion in the House for a few days. I am prepared to give up my Saturdays if there is any question of saving time. This will enable the estimates to be scrutinized by a committee of the whole House. I am not being disrespectful to the press because they have the same trouble as members; there are so many committees sitting that the press has to run around and try to find out what is going on. The only reason this place exists is so that the people are able to be given the facts. This is why the opposition must have a voice in the matter of bringing estimates before the House.
With those thoughts I will sit down, because I want to hear the Minister of Justice speak to his bill. I hope I never again hear a Parliamentary Secretary, one of these new appointees, give us the kind of professorial, idealistic lecture that we heard today. Some of us have been around here long enough to know that that sort of thing is a bunch of nonsense.


An hon. Member:: Too long.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Maybe I have been here too long, but I will let the people of Calgary North decide that.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
# * *


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-174, to establish the tax review board and to make certain amendments to other facts in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not have too much time this afternoon, but I am delighted to have the opportunity of introducing a bill that represents the first major overhaul of the legislation relating to the review of income tax
and estate tax assessments by an administrative tribunal since the Tax Appeal Board was created in 1946.
Persons who are dissatisfied with the tax that a minister of national revenue has assessed against them under the provisions of the Income Tax Act or the Estate Tax Act at present have the right of having the dispute heard either by the Tax Appeal Board or the Exchequer Court of Canada. Since its creation in 1946, the present board has fulfilled a valuable and needed function. Many taxpayers have availed themselves of the right to go before the board in the first instance rather than to exercise their option to appear before the Exchequer Court. Experience has now shown, I think, that changes should be made to improve and to render more efficient the services performed by the board.
The Royal Commission on Taxation, under the chairmanship of the late Kenneth Carter, had as one of its recommendations the creation of a tax court with an appeal to a panel of three judges of the Exchequer Court. It was contemplated that the present Tax Appeal Board would be absorbed into the tax court. Those members interested should refer to pages 165 and 166 of volume 5 of the Carter report. If that recommendation were not acceptable, and the Tax Appeal Board were retained the Carter report recommended as an alternative the removing from it of the close association that it has with the Department of National Revenue, bringing it within the reporting authority of the Department of Justice. Its members should have the title, distinction and tenure of judges. It should have sole, original jurisdiction in all tax appeals, and provision should be made for discovery and production of documents. Again, members interested should refer to pages 164 and 165 of volume 5 of the Carter report.
The government and the House of Commons, by giving third reading to the federal court bill last night have adopted the primary recommendation of the Carter report that there should be a tax court, which in this case will be the trial branch of the new federal court. There will also be an appeal on the record to an appellate court, which will be the Court of Appeal for Canada. In that sense we have fulfilled that recommendation of the Carter commission.
After careful scrutiny of the work that is now being performed by the Tax Appeal Board, the government came to the conclusion that it would not be in the public interest that the board should be absorbed into the new federal court. It is our view that no good grounds can be advanced which would justify stripping the taxpayer of the existing privilege of appealing assessments either to an administrative tribunal like the Tax Appeal Board, with easy access, a minimum of complicated procedure' and no power to award costs in the event that the appeal was not successful or, if the taxpayer so wished, to a court of law, the Exchequer Court or the new trial division of the federal court.
There are many cases-I think hon. members will subscribe to what I say-where what is needed is an impartial tribunal which will, in an expeditious and inexpen-

October 30, 1970

sive manner, hear and adjudicate complaints which citizens, particularly citizens of modest means, have in respect of challenging assessments made against them. In such cases, a court of law, with its formal procedure for the discovery of documents, for settlement and adjudication of issues of fact and law, would unduly hamper and hinder the individual of modest means in obtaining a judgment at low cost, an impartial review with a minimum of procedural difficulty.
In this day and age of increasing bigness, remoteness and impersonality of government, it behooves the House of Commons, I believe, to take steps to see that not only is justice done but that to the public it appears to be done. One of the most significant changes introduced by the legislation now before the House which reconstitutes the Tax Appeal Board as a tax review board is that in future all persons who are appointed as members will hold office, as do judges, during good behaviour until they attain the age of 70 years. Under the existing legislation, members of the Tax Appeal Board can be appointed for a term of 10 years only. As pointed out in the Carter commission report, insecurity of tenure was one of the obstacles to the recruitment of members for the board.
Moreover, the appointment of members to hold office until 70 years of age will, in effect, provide the board with a greater degree of independence than in the present case where members hold office for ten years only, subject to reappointment. I submit that the bill will strengthen the independence of the tribunal because it will come under the general responsibility of the Minister of Justice and will not report to the Minister of National Revenue, as has heretofore been the case. These provisions reflect the recommendations made by the Carter commission.
In other words, having a board composed of members appointed for a limited term and reporting to the Minister of National Revenue, who happens to be one of the two parties to every suit, has given some people the idea that the board is not as impartial as it should be. I am not saying that the judgments handed down have not been reasonable judgments arrived at by reasonable human beings trying to do their best. But when members are subject to reappointment by the Minister of National Revenue and have a limited term of office, and one of the parties before the board is the person who represents the people of Canada and who appoints or may reappoint the member, I think there is the feeling that the board does not enjoy the independence it should enjoy.

Mr. Speaker, the new legislation specifies that the chairman and the assistant chairman must be members of a provincial bar or judges and that one or the other must have practiced law in the province of Quebec or must have been a judge of the Superior Court of Quebec. This last provision is meant to ensure at all times the presence of a chairman or of an assistant chairman who is fully conversant with the Civil Code of the Province of Quebec. This is a major aspect of the legislation, particularly when dealing with appeals about succession duties
Tax Review Board Bill
where the case at issue depends on the understanding of the rights and obligations prescribed in a will or other document whose interpretation is governed by a relevant provincial statute.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)

One of the major purposes of the bill is to provide the ordinary taxpayer with a tribunal that combines accessibility, informality and effectiveness. In other words, it must be what it was originally meant to be in 1946, a taxpayer's court. The bill also provides that no special form of petition or pleading will be necessary to institute a review or an appeal from an assessment, and that the board is not to be bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence. The board is directed by the legislation to see that all appeals are dealt with as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness will permit.
Over the past few years-and the board has been in existence for almost 25 years-there necessarily has been built up a series of precedents, procedures and rules that have tended to make the board more formal and a little more cumbersome than it was originally intended to be. What I would like to do is strip it down again to what it was originally meant to be, namely, an informal board operating in an informal atmosphere where the taxpayer is able to come in-he does not need a lawyer, he can come in with a neighbour or a chartered accountant, representing himself or having anybody's help-to explain his case to the board in an informal way.
In the past, criticism has been made that if a taxpayer won before the Tax Appeal Board, the Minister of National Revenue, if the case involved a matter of interpretation so far as the law was concerned, or an important case that might create a precedent affecting numerous taxpayers, would appeal to the Exchequer Court. In the event the minister were successful in the appeal to the Exchequer Court, the taxpayer would normally be obliged to pay the costs that were awarded against him before the Exchequer Court.
I have felt for a long time that this created an unnecessary hardship on Canadian taxpayers and discouraged many people from taking an appeal before the appeal board. As a matter of fact, I can say there have been times when I was in private practice that I suspected the Department of National Revenue-and I think they will deny this-used the Tax Appeal Board as a method for hearing the taxpayer's case on discovery, that is to say, getting the basis of the taxpayer's case, and if they lost they would go to appeal and would have all the evidence they needed on which to build up their own case. I am not sure I could document this, but I have that suspicion.
I want to ensure that the Tax Appeal Board, or the new tax review board, cannot be used just as a preliminary step for the Department of National Revenue as a way of getting the taxpayer's case on the record. The proposed tax review board bill now before the House

October 30, 1970
Tax Review Board Bill
contains a provision for the modification of the Income Tax Act to provide that in any case where the Minister of National Revenue appeals a decision of the board to the court, and the amount of tax involved in the controversy does not exceed $1,000, the court is required, in delivering its judgment, to provide that the minister is to pay all reasonable and proper costs of the taxpayer in connection with the appeal to the court whether the taxpayer wins or loses. In other words, a taxpayer on an appeal in a matter involving less than $1,000 of tax assessed would have his appeal at the expense of the Crown, if he won in the first place.
Those are the broad areas of concern represented in the bill. I think it has to be read in conjunction with the federal court bill which passed this House last night on third reading, thanks to the courtesy of my friends on the opposite side. If the other place so provides, we will have a new federal court which will also be a court of first instance on tax matters. The taxpayer will have, and will continue to have under this bill, an alternative way of appealing tax assessments against him; an alternative way that will be less cumbersome than a court, less expensive and more informal and he will not need a lawyer.
We believe the taxpayer will be encouraged by the informal atmosphere and the opportunity to lay his case before an impartial tribunal rather than a group of men who are appointed for limited terms, appointed by the minister who happens to be one of the parties to the action. This board would be made up of men or women who may be lawyers, chartered accountants or from other disciplines. The president and the vice-president have to be lawyers, but the others need not. A taxpayer will have the chance to put his case before the board and he will have the right, of course, if he loses, to appeal to the federal court. On the other hand, if the minister appeals the case and the action involves less than $1,000, the taxpayer will not be penalized for having exercised this informal option.
I thank the House for this courtesy, and I thank particularly hon. members opposite who may have wanted to talk at great length on the matter that preceded this item. I am very grateful that I was given the opportunity of introducing the government's case on this bill.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed Bill S-2, an act respecting statistics of Canada, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration of Bill C-6, an act respecting the employment of women in federal jurisdiction before and after childbirth-Mrs. Maclnnis.
Mr. Mahoney:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Parliamentary Secretary rising on a point of order?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, we had the pleasure the other night, in connection with Bill C-3, to hear rather lengthy arguments about requirements for recommendations to the Governor General in respect of bills requiring the expenditure of public moneys.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I perceive that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney), who will correct me if I am wrong, is attempting on his point of order to refer to the procedural correctness of the bill. If the House would permit me, I would remind hon. members that on October 26 Mr. Speaker reminded members of the requirements of our Standing Orders, particularly Standing Order 62, that private members' public bills should not impose taxes without the authorization of His Excellency, which, of course, is not available in such cases. It seems to me-and His Honour mentioned this matter in his remarks-that the bill now before the House does infringe that Standing Order.
I should like to hear argument on the procedural point only, and I would ask hon. members to confine themselves to that point. If, after hearing argument, it is my opinion that the bill is in order, of course the Chair will hear substantive arguments. Having said this, I think it might be in order first for the sponsor of the bill to proceed with whatever procedural arguments the hon. lady would like to make.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, before you give your final ruling I should like to draw attention to some features of this bill. This is the third session in which it has been on the Order Paper. There has been tremendous interest in the subject matter of the bill. This is one way in which the matter could be brought before the House for discussion. I wish to draw attention to the fact that the bill is entitled "An act respecting the employment of women in federal jurisdiction before and after childbirth".
The purpose of the bill is to provide maternity leave for women employed in any work, undertaking or busi-
October 30, 1970

ness within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada. Its provisions are in line with those of the Maternity Protection Convention of the International Labour organization, passed in 1919 and revised in 1952. I would point out that this legislation is of very great concern to women's organizations across this country, not only locally but nationally.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I had cautioned hon. members-I hope the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill, and others, will follow my admonition-that I hoped we would at this point hear arguments on the procedural aspect. I suggest, with respect, that the hon. member has moved away from that topic.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out that the principle of this bill has to do with the protection of women before and after childbirth, and that its provisions are much more elastic and far reaching than any provision we have had so far in federal legislation even within the public service. There are very new and important points covered in this legislation. We are urging, not only that there be maternity leave for women, with two-thirds of their previous earnings, during this time but that their jobs should be held open for them and that there be no infringement of their seniority rights.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With great respect, I suggest that the hon. member is explaining the bill to the House. It is a very important and interesting bill. However, I had hoped I had been precise in directing the attention of hon. members to this point, that what concerned His Honour and what concerns myself relates to clause 6 of the bill and how it can be reconciled with Standing Order 62(1). I shall read this Standing Order so that hon. members will have it in their minds when they address themselves to this point:
62(1) This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
Hon. members are aware that in this case there is no such recommendation. It would seem to be clear that clause 6 of the bill would create a tax or impost if the bill were enacted. I would ask the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) to confine her remarks to that rather narrow procedural point at this time.


Donald MacInnis: Your Honour, I understand the procedural point. I wonder whether it would be proper for Your Honour to allow me to leave out clause 6 entirely, because I believe hon. members would be very pleased to discuss the other provisions of the bill. The bill can stand by itself perfectly well with the deletion of clause 6. I wonder whether this would be possible.


An hon. Member:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member is making a suggestion, which may very well be a reasonable one, she
Maternity Leave Act
might like to address herself to that matter, or if she has concluded her remarks perhaps other hon. members would like to address themselves to this point before the Chair makes a decision.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest to hon. members that it seems to me this bill could stand very well without clause 6, because I understand there is other, prospective legislation in respect of the expenses involved. Consequently, this bill could stand very well without the financial clause in it. I wonder whether Your Honour would consider permitting the deletion of clause 6.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think there would be a disposition to agree with the hon. member. However, I believe the procedure should be that the bill be allowed to stand and that the hon. member submit a motion to alter it. It might be dealt with in that way.


Donald MacInnis: I would be very glad to do that, Your Honour, with your permission.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It would seem that there is disposition to do this. I believe it would be necessary to have the consent of all hon. members. If there is a disposition to do this by unanimous consent, it would seem to be in order.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I believe motions are dealt with on another day in such a situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is a little confused at this point. I wish to make sure that hon. members are ad idem, on this matter. I understand the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway to suggest that there might be unanimous consent that clause 6 be deleted from the bill and that the bill be considered in its new form. I understand, probably incorrectly, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) has suggested that this subject matter, with clause 6 deleted, should be reintroduced in the form of a new motion. I do not know whether I correctly understood the Parliamentary Secretary.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, at the present time there is before us a motion for second reading of a bill. In replying to the point of order raised, the hon. member sponsoring the bill has indicated that she is prepared to make an amendment to bring it within the rules. It would seem that the proper procedure would be that with the consent of the House the bill could be brought before us in amended form. I suggest that this should be done by way of a formal motion, and that it cannot be done in the form of verbal comment. The procedure in respect of amending a bill is much more formal than a member simply rising in this chamber and requesting an amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, without becoming involved in the argument, I wonder
766

October 30, 1970
Canadian Commercial Corporation Act whether we might reach an agreement along the lines now suggested by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis). May I ask if this could be done: Could there be an understanding that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) would reintroduce the bill with clause 6 omitted and that it would take the position on the order paper that it now has? In other words, this would mean that the hon. member could proceed with this bill on the next day on which public bills come before the House. The hon. member probably wishes to proceed today, but I see difficulties and complications. This might be a compromise on which we could reach agreement.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: That is precisely the suggestion I was making. I think there has to be a formal procedure for amending the bill now before the House. For my part, I am prepared to say that this bill should retain its place on the list and come up for discussion at the appropriate time.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, the subject of this bill is of great concern to all members of the House. We are concerned about the subject of maternity benefits, and I for one would welcome a procedure which would enable the House to discuss the provisions of this bill at the earliest possible opportunity. I think we should attempt to remove any impediments which might exist so that the bill might be introduced in the House. I would be very content if this could be done. In other words, if the hon. member would bring in an amendment, I suggest that the bill be allowed to maintain its position at the head of the list of private members' public bills so that at the next opportunity to discuss these bills we could go ahead with it.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If this is agreed, the matter will stand and the hon. member will have the opportunity to reintroduce the bill in such form as she feels would be acceptable under the rules. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. member addresses himself to the matter before the House I would enter the same reservation as I did with respect to the bill we have just dealt with, sponsored by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). The

bill sponsored by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) may be somewhat more sophisticated in respect of the provisions of Standing Order 62; in other words, I do not think it is quite as obvious. But I am prepared to hear argument from the hon. member sponsoring the bill and from all hon. members who would like to address themselves to the point.
It seems to me that the bill will have the effect of creating a charge or impost on the public treasury, and of course the recommendation required is not available. Therefore, I would ask that until I have had an opportunity to hear those members who would like to address themselves to the procedural aspect, the hon. member confine his initial remarks at least to that particular point.


Mr. Stewart (Cochrane):: I shall speak only on the procedural aspect, Mr. Speaker. I am a little surprised that this question is raised at this time, because if anything has been said in latter days regarding private members' bills, or public bills as they are called, certainly one criticism levelled at me was not that it was not procedurally correct.
So far as any charge to the treasury is concerned, of course that is completely out of the question, as is obvious in the bill. It says in very plain terms: "One of the members other than the president may be a Member of Parliament". It does not purport to add another member to the board, and in that case add any expense to the treasury in the event he would have to be displaced from one place to the other and have his expenses paid. Therefore, that Member of Parliament would simply be replacing any other member who may be appointed to the board of directors. So as far as the procedural aspect is concerned, frankly I am at a loss to understand why this question should have been raised.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, having looked at this bill, it seems to me that there are two possible points that can be raised in regard to it. The first is whether an additional charge is placed on the treasury by the terms of the bill. I have heard the explanation of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), who argues that the bill merely seeks to say that within the terms in which any Crown corporation would name its board of directors, one of them would be a Member of Parliament. There would be no increase in the total remuneration paid by that corporation and there would be no additional charge on public funds. In that respect it seems to me that this bill is beyond question within the terms of private members' bills which are permitted to be considered by the House.
The second question which should be raised is the possible conflict between the Senate and House of Commons Act. As members of the House are perfectly aware, that act prohibits members of the House from accepting remuneration in right of the Crown in any other employment or in other terms. These are broad and sweeping terms indeed. The question that has to be decided by hon. members is whether the terms of the bill as it is drafted would in fact resolve any possible conflict with the other piece of legislation.
October 30, 1970

It seems to me that the hon. member has attempted to anticipate this difficulty by stating in the clause "he shall be eligible for remuneration and expenses and shall not, by reason of his being the holder of the office or place in respect of which such remuneration and expenses are payable, be rendered incapable of being elected, or of sitting or voting, as a member of the House of Commons". These are the penalties prescribed by the Senate and House of Commons Act for an infraction of this section.
The hon. member has attempted to anticipate any objections that might be raised and to provide immunity from the penalty provided under another statute. It seems to me that the terms of the bill are within the scope of the kind of legislation that can be sponsored by private members of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the point made by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) when he suggested that this bill should be regarded as in order because the money that would be paid to a Member of Parliament under the bill would not be new money. He argued that it is money that is already provided in a statute, and therefore it is not an additional charge upon the treasury. I am afraid I have to remind him that the rules in this respect do not stop at that point. For example, citation 246(3) of Beau-chesne's Fourth Edition, which is one of the citations that bear on this point, reads as follows:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
The rest of the sentence states that this applies to ministers as well as to private members. The hon. member for Cochrane argued that his bill does not involve any new money, but it seems to me that he is in effect seeking to amend two statutes. One is the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act, which has already laid down the conditions under which money is to be spent, and one of those conditions is the paying of expenses of certain identified people. He changes that condition by adding a Member of Parliament as a person who can be one of these people. The other act that he is seeking to amend is the Senate and House of Commons Act, and perhaps some other legislation affecting us, which says that Members of Parliament cannot get money in this way.
I concede the right of Parliament to pass a bill that would alter that condition, but since it is altering the financial situation in respect of Members of Parliament I submit that it would require the royal recommendation. In other words, it seems to me that on two counts this
Canadian Commercial Corporation Act bill offends the principle that I just read from Beau-chesne that a proposal infringes the financial initiative of the Crown, not only by increasing the amount of money involved but by extending its objects and purposes or relaxing the conditions and qualifications which have been expressed in a royal recommendation. On these counts it seems to me that the argument that it is not new money must fall to the ground.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the point of view put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) with respect to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) in terms of the bill not seeking to provide an expenditure of additional moneys. I submit that the word "additional" has no place in the consideration of whether the bill is in order in accordance with Standing Order 62(1). Your predecessors, Sir, have always been very precise and careful in interpreting Standing Order 62(1) in its broadest possible sense and, as I recall it, Mr. Speaker-when there has been any indication in a bill regarding the expenditure of what is looked upon as public revenue-has always used that to say that the bill should founder on that point. Standing Order 62 provides:
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue-
It is not a matter of any additional part, or anything that has not already been committed; this is a bill that seeks to appropriate some part of the public revenue to pay salary and expenses to a Member of Parliament who may sit on the Canadian Commercial Corporation. For my part, I have always felt that there should be a more lax approach taken by Mr. Speaker and the House in this respect, because I think there is far too much rigidity which generally has impinged upon the desires of hon. members to bring ideas forward.
I am very interested in seeing this bill proceed so that we will be able to examine the concept whereby it is suggested that one group of politicians, namely, the government, should have the right to appoint some other politicians to a corporation such as this. There are a number of other bills on the order paper along this line. This principle should be examined with some care and I suggest, Sir, that if you find after argument that the bill does founder and does not meet the test demanded by Standing Order 62(1), perhaps the hon. member could ask the unanimous consent of the House-the House is its own master in this regard-to waive Standing Order 62 in order that the bill may be proceeded with and considered.
I think the proposal in the bill is one that should be carefully examined in full public light in order to see what other manoeuvring might be involved in this system of allowing the government to appointment its friends to particular boards and corporations.
768

October 30, 1970
Canadian Commercial Corporation Act


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) has spoken once. Is there unanimous consent that he be given the opportunity to address further remarks to the Chair?


Frank Howard: With respect, Sir, I do not think he needs unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Cochrane on a point of order.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the arguments that have been presented regarding the procedural point are at all conclusive. First of all, it is perfectly obvious to everyone that the paragraph that was added to the bill, which will in effect prevent a member from being thrown out of the House of Commons if he should receive expenses for serving on a board, has been added simply to protect an hon. member who is appointed to a board. It is not in there with the intent that any hon. member should qualify for extra remuneration from public funds.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ralph Wesley Stewart: The whole idea of adding that paragraph-and it is required-is simply to follow a precedent that was set when, for example, the bill on the International Development Research Centre was passed. This provision was included in that bill, and it was necessary in order to protect any member who at a future time might be appointed to the board. The same paragraph was included in a motion that was presented by the hon. member from Richmond Hill-


An hon. Member:: York North.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: -who had to be reimbursed for services when he was an executive assistant prior to coming into this House. It was necessary to add this paragraph to protect him so that he would be able to continue to vote and take part in the proceedings of the House of Commons. I think that to base argument on that particular paragraph is a wrong way to proceed, because the object of the bill is simply to place a Member of Parliament on a board of the government, a public board. This is all it purports to do. He would be there as one of the members. There are a number of board members now. He would simply take the place of another member.
There is no question of remuneration other than what already exists in the bill which would go to members of the board. The House of Commons Act is not being contravened in any way, because we have added this particular paragraph which is necessary in these cases. So I submit to Your Honour that there should be no question as to the procedure in this case. There is no

transgression of the rules, and I submit we should go ahead and discuss the subject matter of the bill.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, I may be able to contribute something on this point of order. I think you are on fairly safe ground if Your Honour decides to rule, on the basis of precedent, that the bill submitted is in fact out of order. I might also say that I am basing this argument almost on a reversal of precedent. I would refer you, Sir, and the House to Hansard of May 30, 1966, page 5705, when we proved that there is nothing new under the sun. I sponsored a Notice of Motion on this particular subject and at that time there was no discussion in connection with whether or not it came within the rules of the House. In fact, we had an excellent debate on it. However, it was talked out at that time.


Frank Howard: Oh, no!


David James Walker: Yes, by the other side of the House. But the point I am trying to make is that there is a vehicle already approved by precedent for discussing this very important subject, a subject on which I would tell the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) that I am in complete agreement in principle. That precedent was established through the way in which my Notice of Motion was handled back in 1966. If this is so, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest you would almost be creating a new rule if you decided that what was done then was not the proper way to deal with this subject matter.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, it is, of course, a comfort to have the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on one's side in an argument like this and I will not reiterate the points he made. However, I will say that the suggestion of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), that unanimous consent might be forthcoming from the House, is not acceptable because this proposal flies directly in the teeth of the principle established in sections 10 and 11 of the Senate and House of Commons Act and I do not feel it is a principle that should be attacked obliquely. I think it should be faced up to directly.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I thank all hon. members for their contribution to the procedural point. I shall take a moment to remind hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) who is sponsoring the bill, that His Honour on October 20 gave all hon. members notice that he felt that private members' public bills should conform with the rules and practice of this House. Mr. Speaker at that time said that if he had doubts he would ask hon. members to establish the procedural correctness of their bills before permitting them to argue the substantive aspects.
As indicated in my initial remarks, I have very serious reservations with respect to this bill sponsored by the hon. member for Cochrane. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has referred to Beau-
October 30, 1970

chesne's citation on the interpretation of the relevant Standing Order and the practice of this House. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has pointed out that this practice has been followed rather strictly. I think that should be the case here, particularly in view of the constitutional ramifications of allowing the House to consider a bill which purports to charge the treasury and is sponsored by a private member in the absence of a recommendation from His Excellency the Governor General.
Having said this, I say to the House that because of the remarks of His Honour on October 20, and because of the very good arguments that have been made today, because I still have the greatest reservation about the procedural correctness of the bill I would, if I were going to do so now, rule it out of order. However, I would like the House to permit me to discuss it with His Honour and perhaps the next time this order of business is called, His Honour will be in the chair and my colleague the Deputy Chairman of Committees or myself will have an opportunity to discuss the question with His Honour and make a ruling on the point. Do I have the consent of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is to retain its place on the order paper?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, it will retain its place and will be called at the time of the next similar order of business.



SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD DAY ACT RECOGNITION OF CANADA'S FIRST PRIME MINISTER BY OBSERVANCE OF A HOLIDAY

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-8, an act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day-Mr. Macquarrie.
Business of the House
Gerald William Baldwin: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if this bill could stand and retain its place so that it would be in the same position as the other bill with which we dealt.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, in view of the progress we have made in this hour, and in view of the unexpected moving along of the order of business, I wonder if we might call it five o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we should call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) on a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that, spurred by the opposition, this House has made tremendous progress today, could somebody on the other side please indicate the business for Monday? I presume we will go back to the tax appeal board. But assuming the House makes the same disposition of this matter as it has with the other bills, could some kind soul on the government side indicate what business will follow on Monday, in the way of any change in the order of business as announced by the President of the Privy Council on Thursday? We have already dealt with the business indicated by him.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: No, we have not.


Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Speaker, I understand that Bill C-174 will be before the House on Monday, respecting the tax review board.
On motion of Mr. Mahoney the House adjourned at 4.38 p.m.

Monday, November 2, 1970