1970-03-05

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
21774-li
Queen's Printer for Canada, Ottawa, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 5, 1970

SPRING!
Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of utmost urgent importance. It has to do with a meteorological and horticultural phenomenon occurring at this very moment on the west coast of this nation, in the province of British Columbia. Evidence of this approaching event was delivered into our hands today as British Columbia members, aided by the Greater Vancouver Visitors and Convention Bureau, provided each and every member of this House with his own sample for study and contemplation.
What I am about to announce, Mr. Speaker, will bring joy to all our hearts, locked as we are in the apparently inexhaustible grip of winter. Spring has shown itself on the Pacific coast! There is absolutely no doubt about it. Daffodils and crocuses are blooming in profusion in greater Vancouver, Burnaby, the Fraser Valley, in the Islands of the Gulf of Georgia and in the gardens on Vancouver Island. If this can happen in British Columbia, it can happen in the rest of Canada. Let us not lose hope.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member also rising on a flowery point of order?


Mr. Caoueite:: If things are so nice in British Columbia, it is because they have a Social Credit government.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather unserious setting for a serious piece of business. I rise on a question of privilege. I intend to follow my few brief remarks with a motion. On Thursday, February 26, I directed a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding a trade dispute between Canada and Mexico which threatened to have a very grave economic effect on the newsprint industry in the riding which I
represent. I was assured by the minister that negotiations to resolve the dispute were to take place and that the House would be kept informed.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
At 2 p.m. yesterday, March 4, the Secretary of State for External Affairs tabled in the House an announcement of a settlement of the dispute, and copies were quite properly provided to the Press Gallery after it had been made. However, the announcement was released to the Newfoundland press by the Minister of Transport at approximately ten o'clock yesterday morning, four hours previously.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: The Minister of Transport acted quite improperly, in my opinion. He used his office to obtain information which, for political reasons, he released some four hours before it was made available to this House. I, and a number of my hon. friends, continued to deal with the numerous expressions of concern from my constituents right up to the opening of the House yesterday, with no way of knowing that the question had been resolved. A minister of the Crown was aware that a settlement had been reached and had announced it publicly four hours previously, extracted his pound of political flesh and clapped his hands gleefully.
There are a number of other serious implications in the fact that this news was released in one province of Canada four hours before it was released in the nine other provinces; I need not go into detail as to that aspect. My motion, seconded by my hon. friend from Gander-Twillingate, if necessary, is that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador has filed the notice required by the Standing Order. The Chair has thus had an opportunity to consider the circumstances on which the hon. member's question is based.
As he has explained, there had been an undertaking by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that the House would be kept informed of developments concerning
4402	COMMONS
Settlement of Trade Dispute with Mexico the imposition of a surcharge on certain textiles entering Canada. Such information was conveyed to the House yesterday, pursuant to the minister's undertaking. The difficulty stems from the fact that prior to the tabling of the press release on the subject, the Minister of Transport had made an announcement outside the House.
In so far as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned, his undertaking seems to have been met by the tabling of the announcement at the opening of yesterday's session. The question is whether the prior announcement by a minister constitutes a breach of privilege.
I have on occasion referred hon. members to Citation 113 of Beauchesne and also to the views expressed by Sir Erskine May at page 45 of the 17th edition of the author's book on parliamentary practice. Without going into the details of these citations, I would remind hon. members that parliamentary privilege is the sum of the fundamental rights of the House and of its individual members over and above the common law rights of other citizens. Seen in this light, parliamentary privilege or the breach thereof cannot be claimed lightly. Indeed, Citation 113 of Beauchesne states specifically that a question of privilege ought rarely to come up in Parliament.
In the same citation, Beauchesne suggests that such a question should be dealt with by a motion giving the House power to impose a reparation, or impose a remedy. What reparation or what remedy would result from a referral of this question to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections or any other committee of the House is difficult to see.
It seems to me that the only action which could be taken would be to condemn the action of the minister, and this, I suggest, can only be done by way of a substantive motion. Again, there are many precedents to support this suggestion. My conclusion is that although the hon. member may have a grievance, or may wish to question the propriety of the minister's early announcement, there is not a prima facie case of privilege which should be investigated by a committee.
I should add that perhaps the kind of situation or circumstances to which the hon. member has alluded might very well be the subject of debate under the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition which will be considered by the House later today.

DEBATES	March 5, 1970



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA First report of Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada-Mr. MacGuigan.
[Stage Direction]
TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS Fifth and sixth reports of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in English and in French-Mr. Lessard.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports see today's Votes and Proceedings.']


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay before the House the report of the Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament concerning salary revisions for certain employees of the Library of Parliament, and regulations with relation to the operation of the parliamentary library.



FISHERIES


Mr. Speaker:: I also have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk has tabled the fifth report of the Clerk of Petitions.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes of the time of the House in order to welcome an historic development marking the most important achievement to date in the field of arms control. I refer to the ceremony in Washington this morning and to the similar ceremony in Moscow today during which instruments of ratification of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty are being deposited by the United
March 5, 1970	COMMONS
States, the Soviet Union and a sufficient number of other states to bring the treaty into force.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: This convention is the culmination of more than five years of negotiations in which Canada played a significant role. Canada ratified the treaty on January 8, 1969 and was in fact the first nation with a technological capacity to produce nuclear weapons to renounce this weapons option by ratifying the non-proliferation treaty. We shall continue to stress the importance of adherence to the treaty by those states that already have or are close to attaining the technological capacity to produce nuclear weapons-the so-called "near-nuclear" nations.
Canada welcomes the coming into force of this treaty and urges all countries to make it an effective means of counteracting the dangers inherent in the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We hope that those nations which have signed the treaty but not yet ratified it, as well as those which have not yet signed, will proceed to ratification and to implement its safeguards provisions designed to preclude proliferation. Finally, we hope and expect that, in accordance with Article VI of the treaty, this substantial step forward will inspire renewed efforts to curtail the arms race.


Hon. Roberi L. Sianfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This is a very significant day. While we must, of course, bear in mind, as I am sure we will -indeed, this announcement constitutes a reminder to us-how much yet remains to be done before we can feel that we really have effective control of nuclear weapons or their proliferation in the world, nevertheless this is a step about which we can be very pleased.
I think it is appropriate, as we welcome this development, to bear in mind not only the effort made by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs but also those of his predecessors, going back to the days of the Hon. Howard Green, all of whom were concerned about atomic weapons and their proliferation. Neither must we forget the efforts of the devoted officials of the Department of External Affairs. As I say, I am happy today to associate myself with the remarks of the minister.
DEBATES	4403
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, it is, of course, true that every citizen in every part of the world will be happy to hear that the non-proliferation treaty has at last been ratified by a sufficient number of states to bring it into force. I join with the Leader of the Opposition and the Secretary of State for External Affairs in greeting the importance of this event.
I am sure I am not saying anything more than is in the hearts and minds of every member of this House when I warn that we should not become too complacent about this treaty, first, because it touches a matter which is not as basic to the problem of the nuclear arms threat as some other matters; second, because important nations in the world have not ratified the treaty, one of them being France and another China, so that the family of nations under this treaty is still very dangerously incomplete and, third, this treaty, like the test ban treaty, only touches the periphery of the problem of the threat of the nuclear destruction of humanity. It merely indicates the need for further steps and discussions in SALT and at the disarmament conference in Geneva.
In brief, while I join everybody else in greeting the importance of this day, I am conscious of the fact that it is a small and relatively less important step toward relieving the world of the danger of nuclear destruction, than the very important and much more difficult steps that lie ahead.


David Réal Caouette: We
are glad to endorse the comments made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We rejoice at this historic event which is the most important accomplishment so far in the field of arms control.
We are certainly glad to see that Canada, which ratified the treaty in January 1969, was in fact the first nation to ratify this treaty, because we were the first nation with a technological capacity to produce nuclear weapons to renounce this weapons option by ratifying the non-proliferation treaty.
Mr. Speaker, Canada stands as a shining example for humanity, because this treaty will certainly help men refrain from killing each other, as could easily have been the case.
It is with pleasure therefore that we join the government and the leaders of the other parties in welcoming this achievement.
March 5, 1970
4404	COMMONS DEBATES
Unemployment Insurance Office Conditions [English]


[Stage Direction]
A Message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (B) for the financial year ending March 31, 1970, was presented by Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by Mr. Drury, pursuant to Standing Order 59:
That, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order (58)15, the Supplementary Estimates B for the year ending March 31, 1970, tabled in the House this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: On Monday, Mr. Speaker, at the suggestion of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings and the hon. member for Greenwood, I agreed to make a statement in the House today to ascertain whether or not there was any delay in the servicing of unemployment insurance claims in the Toronto area. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings mentioned that such a delay would be due to the rapid rise in unemployment in Metropolitan Toronto, while the hon. member for Greenwood was concerned about the long delays and queues which have accumulated in the Toronto office. He suggested special measures including a larger staff and more interpreters.
The answer, as supplied to me by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, is very detailed and very lengthy, and in view of the fact that the estimates of the Unemployment Insurance Commission will be before the appropriate committee in a very short time I would like to reserve this lengthy statement until that time. Nevertheless, I think it is fair to both hon. gentlemen that I touch briefly on some of the contents of this statement.
The Unemployment Insurance Commission points out that the volume of payment of
[Mr. Caouette.l
unemployment insurance tends to increase during the winter months because of seasonal lay-offs in various industries. As the pattern is a repeating one, the Unemployment Insurance Commission plans its workload accordingly and it is wrong to imply that increased workloads in winter are unforeseen and unplanned. Since January, 1970, the increase in new claims over the comparable months last year was under 700. The active claims increased by a little more than 8,000. In anticipation of this increased work load the Unemployment Insurance Commission increased its normal complement of 330 regular employees by 130 seasonal employees. This is approximately 50 more than last year.
The hon. member for Greenwood pointed out the inconvenience and the hardship of queues in long lines at the UIC office. In order to reduce these long line-ups the UIC recently added a telephone service in order to avoid the necessity of people coming to the office, sometimes at great inconvenience to these people. There are at present 16 telephone lines to handle incoming calls only and an additional 10 lines to handle outgoing inquiry calls. There are also 80 other telephones in the Toronto office. It may be useful to note that the total inquiries by telephone and in person are in fact lower this January than a year ago.
In the case of the line-ups, members may recall that before the UIC introduced service by mail the larger Toronto offices would handle 6,000 to 7,000 personal callers per day necessitating line-ups that extended out onto the street and around the corner. Now, under the postal system, calls to the office number 500 to 600 on peak days, or approximately 70 to 80 per hour. Last week when a press photographer called at the office to take a picture of people waiting in line, he left without photographs because there were fewer than ten people waiting in line, and he felt that this did not dramatize it in the way intended.
The necessary forms that must be completed by claimants have been greatly improved and more than half the questions on the forms are questions related to identification of the claimant. Furthermore, the commission has recently revised a great number of form letters in order that the language be made less technical and more easily understandable to everyone.
Most inquiries arise because claimants fail to qualify because of insufficient contributions
March 5, 1970

or employment in non-insurable employment and not because of commission delays.
In short, people are now able to deal with the UIC by mailing in their forms which, if properly filled out, result in speedy payment, also by mail. In addition, callers no longer have to come to the office to make personal inquiries. Those who report to the office do so voluntarily to obtain general information.
Forms are available at the Post Office, Canada Manpower Centres and in some union halls.
I should like to shorten this statement. Statistics kept by the commission indicate that claimants are paid consistently within three weeks of the date of initial claim for 97 per cent or more of claims. This is an even higher proportion than last year. For example, on January 12 only 2.8 per cent of the claims filed in the third previous week were still pending and only 12 claims of 4,458 were still pending from the fourth previous week.
I have other similar statistics which I shall skip over. On February 23, the last total I have, only 1.6 per cent were unsettled at the end of three weeks and 6 of 6,407 were pending from the fourth previous week.
Both official languages are available to claimants in the Toronto office. In addition, several of the employees speak a number of the more common languages in the Toronto area. Efforts will be made to identify these employees in order to facilitate the problems of new Canadians who are not yet fully conversant in either of the official languages. It is not unusual for 10 to 12 languages to be spoken at one time or another by claimants, admittedly creating a problem in communication. Nevertheless, the commission has always been ready to do what it can to secure help in interpretation as required.
Several information publications are now being written in several languages to assist in educating insured persons concerning unemployment insurance requirements and how to go about filing and receiving unemployment insurance.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
The Toronto office is presently located on Dufferin Street in temporary premises. It is the intention of the commission to split into two separate offices in the area of Toronto, one of which will be located on St. Clair Avenue and the other in the west end of the city. This will be done before next winter.
Unemployment Insurance Office Conditions
I have already arranged for the physical facilities of UIC offices across the country to be made more comfortable for applicants and the general public visiting these offices.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize again that the UIC is perfectly capable of coping with current workloads of claims. Both its staff and its systems are such that they can meet any emergency which may arise because of particular circumstances in an industry or an area. There will always be cases where for lack of complete records or particular circumstances, such as for one claim following a previous claim, a longer time is required to process the payments. These cases are serious for the people affected and everything possible is being done to minimize this problem.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the statement the minister has just made concerning conditions in the Unemployment Insurance Commission office in Toronto. I also thank the minister for sending me a copy of the statement.
The very fact that there is an increase of 700 new claims and of 8,000 active claims over the figures in the same month a year ago illustrates the serious unemployment situation in Toronto. I cannot understand nor, I am sure, can the people of Toronto, why a city the size of Metropolitan Toronto has only one unemployment insurance office and that a temporary office on Dufferin Street. Surely a city the size of Toronto needs at least two offices, and I am glad the minister is making arrangements to open a second office. However, here we are locking the door after the horse has been stolen. This should have been done long ago for a city the size of Toronto.
The office of the UIC is doing much to relieve the serious situation. We are glad to hear that more telephones have been installed and we are pleased to learn that new forms have been introduced. The forms which claimants have had to complete in the past could only be figured out by a Philadelphia lawyer. Too many questions were put in too small a space poked full of holes for computers purposes. In many cases the holes went through the words printed on the cards, which made questions difficult to understand. No wonder people had all kinds of trouble in filling out these forms. I am glad the minister has revised them.
The minister said that only a small percentage of applicants have not had their unemployment insurance claims paid. The percentage may be small but the number of people is
March 5, 1970
440S	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance Office Conditions very large, and the very fact that a person with a family of five or six children to feed and clothe has to wait three weeks for his unemployment insurance is intolerable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Baldwin:: Thirty-buck Benson.


Alfred Dryden Hales: The new office which Toronto is to have will not be ready until next year so that the unemployed in the area will have to manage with just one office for the rest of the year. It is regrettable that the Unemployment Insurance Commission did not have sufficient foresight to prepare itself for the present situation. I am glad to hear that the minister is doing the best he can under the circumstances.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am naturally delighted at the minister's announcement which indicates a sensitive reaction to the criticism by members of the opposition of the situation which has developed in regard to unemployment insurance in light of the very substantially increased numbers of unemployed. I think the figure is over 30 per cent in Metropolitan Toronto, which indicates a much larger increase than the usual seasonal one.
It seems to me it is of the utmost importance in this as in other fields where the individual citizen confronts the state or its representatives that he be assured that his rights and his feelings are being treated with respect. Justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done. Employment in today's world is so important, both to the maintenance of income and to the maintenance of self-respect, that unemployment is a traumatic experience.
In the past, as I know very well myself and as the minister's statement indicated, unemployed people have been subjected to delay, frustration and discomfort because of their difficulties in completing forms, in attending inadequately staffed offices and in having to wait in line and often to return from time to time. There are other problems such as transportation which may seem small but are serious when there is only one small office for a vast area like Metropolitan Toronto. These problems will have to be considered.
I am very pleased that steps have been taken and are being taken to remedy the


situation, and I sincerely hope they will be effective.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, we are also pleased with the measures that have just been announced by the Minister of Labour who is responsible for Unemployment Insurance offices.
Many members have been aware of the problems concerning unemployment insurance for a long time. We are happy to learn that the minister is ready to take the necessary steps in order to make the application forms for benefits understandable to citizens of various ethnic groups who have to deal with Unemployment Insurance offices.
However, the statement made me realize as it did for the previous speakers that the problems about unemployment insurance are increasing because of technical reasons, but also because of the present economic conditions in Canada. In fact, the Minister of Labour can improve the methods, personnel and working conditions in the Unemployment Insurance offices with a view to providing better services to the claimants; however, if the economic conditions deteriorate before the department has been able to achieve the proposed improvements, we will keep on losing ground.
I must also recognize that the Unemployment Insurance Commission, the subject dealt with by the minister just now, has installed long-distance telephone systems in some cities, in order to allow the claimants to describe their problems more readily to UIC officials.
Besides, UIC officials have told us that the Department went too fast in establishing a Canada-wide system of computers in regional offices, particularly in larger centers such as Montreal which covers the whole province of Quebec.
They say also that the computer system was initiated prematurely and in too many places at once, instead of limiting it to one region in order to detect its flaws and then confidently establishing it in the other regions.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister to see that the computers operate as soon as possible in order that the thousands of claims which have been pending for weeks or months may be settled.
March 5, 1970

[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



TABLING OF REPORT ON PARLIAMENTARY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to lay on the table of the House a report on parliamentary retirement allowances prepared by Dr. C. A. Curtis, Emeritus Dean of Queen's University, and delivered to my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, while we are still on motions, I would ask the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) if he could not avail himself of this opportunity to make a statement concerning the postal situation, with regard to both the G. Lapalme Inc. case and the postal union which would permit hon. members to ask questions in due course.


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I will be ready to answer any kind of question.



STATUTE LAW (SUPPLEMENTARY RETIREMENT BENEFITS) AMENDMENT ACT, 1970 MEASURE TO SUPPLEMENT PENSIONS

Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-194, to provide supplementary retirement benefits for certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to amend certain Acts that provide for the payment of those pensions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I had a question or two for the Prime Minister, but I really could not expect them to be within the knowledge 21774-25
Inquiries of the Ministry of an Acting Prime Minister, so I would ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am at a complete loss to understand how anybody could take any offence at that. It is a simple statement of fact-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: To make it clear, Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to cast any aspersion on the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I simply meant to state the information would be peculiarly within the knowledge of the Prime Minister.
I would like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether his department proposes to take any steps to assure the continuance of the operations of the plant owned by E.M.I. Cossor in the Halifax region? I ask this question not only because of its regional significance but because in the closure of this plant, along with the closure of Fairey Aviation, the Department of National Defence would seem to have a very acute interest.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Acting Prime Minister would be the most competent one to answer, but if the Leader of the Opposition would be satisfied with a less informative answer I can inform the House that a few departments here in Ottawa are negotiating right now with the government of Nova Scotia, and we hope we can keep this plant in use.
Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Darlmoulh-Halifax
East): Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Let us find out whether the Acting Prime Minister can answer as intelligently. Can the Acting Prime Minister
indicate-


An hon. Member:: Have you got an intelligent question?


Mr. Forresiall:: I do have a fairly intelligent question, Mr. Speaker. I think it is fairly intelligent. I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether or not the government is taking any steps to protect Canada's financial investment on research, development, modification and sophistication of the variable depth sonar? Has the government taken any steps to protect that expertise for Canadian use?
March 5, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister would say what I am going to say, namely, that is the sort of question that might be put on the order paper.


J. Michael Forrestall: You don't know the facts. I wish to direct a further supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Development. When will the minister be in a position to make some announcement to the House, and to the people of the metropolitan area of Halifax-Dartmouth, about the intentions of Bell in connection with their takeover of the Fairey plant?


Mr. Marchand (Langelisr):: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any date.


J. Michael Forrestall: As a final supplementary question may I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration what in God's name he is going to do with the 1,200 or 1,400 unemployed people there?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN-NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion related to negotiations with the provinces. Inasmuch as the minister was not sure yesterday what was taking place with respect to Saskatchewan, could he explain to the House the progress of the negotiations with that province with respect to making the facilities of his department available to northern Saskatchewan?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are negotiating with the ten Canadian provinces to determine special areas in connection with development programs. We expect that operations will start on April 1 next. I do not have the details of the proposed agreements which the provinces will have to sign, but even if I had them, I would not make them known before signature of the instruments by the provinces.


Frank Howard: Another supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker. The minister, as I understood him to say, indicated there are agreements in existence with some provinces-from his gesture I take it he did not really say that.
[Mr. Forrestall.)



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. What is the purpose of the negotiations between the government and the Roman and Hudson's Bay interests? Is the purpose to enable these two corporations to consummate the arrangement which they originally had in mind despite the policy announced by the Prime Minister the other night?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, would the minister inform the House why the government considers it necessary to negotiate with a corporation seeking to sell an interest in another corporation to still another corporation? Why is the government involved in this kind of matter?


John James Greene: Well, Mr. Speaker, these corporations and their officials wished to see us after the announcement by the Prime Minister, and as with any citizens we are always happy to see them about their problems.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he can now, and if he cannot now whether he would at an appropriate time under motions, tell the House what he meant by the statement that it may be possible for Roman and Hudson's Bay to carry out their intentions so long as the uranium remains in Canadian hands? Exactly what is it the minister was aiming at in that suggestion to the people of Canada?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think the statement of the Prime Minister speaks for itself. The government has announced its decision that this vast deposit of uranium should remain in Canadian hands, and if there is anything we can do to assure that continuity certainly the government will be very glad to be helpful in that regard.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
March 5, 1970

Since he has recently shown his interest for wheat growers by assuring them grants totalling $100 million, would he tell the House whether or not he is now urging the Canadian government to give back to milk producers the $10 million cut from their subsidies?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked a number of times.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why not answer it, then? This is supposed to be a question and answer period.



DAIRYING-DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF POLICY

Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary.
Does the Minister of Agriculture think he will be in a position to announce the dairy policy for 1970-71 by March 31, 1970?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It will be announced before the new dairy year begins on April 1.



DAIRYING-PAYMENTS TO PRODUCERS TO CURTAIL PRODUCTION

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the serious problem of overproduction in the dairy industry, is the government going to follow a policy for that industry similar to the policy of payment for not planting as announced for wheat producers and initiate payments to dairy producers, to curtail production instead of letting the dairy industry suffer the present penalties for overproduction?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Dairy Commission and the Department of Agriculture are completing their discussions with the various marketing industries in the provinces as well as with Dairy Producer Representatives to find a better way of keeping production and consumption in balance.


Gerald William Baldwin: No doubt so that the minister need not make a statement.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government going to give the $10 million to the dairy producers on condition that they do not milk their cows?


Gerald William Baldwin: Or the taxpayers.
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



FINAL PAYMENT ON DURUM WHEAT

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio who answers for the Wheat Board. Because of the concern of the Durum wheat producers of western Canada, will the minister inform the House if it has been decided that the board will make a final payment to the producers from the surplus now in the Durum wheat account?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minisler wilhout Portfolio):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The estimates tabled earlier today show that the government proposes to allow a sufficient amount to make up the deficit in the wheat, oats and barley accounts in last year's pool in such a way that the surplus which has accumulated to the Durum account will be payable to the Durum producers.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise whether the amount of money available for the Durum wheat producers will be the $6 million the producers are expecting.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it should be in that order or perhaps a little more.


An hon. Member:: Should it not be $48 million?



CLOSING OF SPRING-WHEAT POOL

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate on what date the pool for spring wheat will be closed?


Otto Emil Lang: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Mackenzie on a supplementary.


Stanley James Korchinski: It is a related question, Mr. Speaker, and not necessarily a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe quite a number of hon. members wish to ask supplementaries and they ought to have the opportunity of asking them. The hon. member for Peace River.

March 5, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry ALLEGED HARASSMENT OF ALBERTA FARMERS



MAKING DELIVERIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, will the minister consult with the Wheat Board and also with his colleague, the Solicitor General, and inquire into allegations that the RCMP is harassing farmers on the Alberta side of the Peace River who have licences to deliver and are attempting to deliver grain on the British Columbia side of the river?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into the hon. member's suggestion.



WHEAT-CONGESTION AT MEADOW LAKE SHIPPING POINTS

Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Wheat Board. Has anything been done to alleviate the difficulties experienced at some shipping points in the constituency of Meadow Lake? I have received a letter today which says that the elevator has been filled to congestion since December 18 last and since then only one car of grain was loaded to make space for turning elevator stocks-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member should not read the letter but ask his question directly. I believe he has already asked his question.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: The point is that these farmers are on a unit quota and many have not been able to haul even one load in this crop year. I wonder if the minister has looked into the seriousness of this situation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing this point to my attention. We try to bring to the attention of the Wheat Board all those delivery points where difficulties seem to be occurring, and the board tries to draw up a program for moving grain from those points where it has not been moving.



WHEAT-REVISION OF ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the proposals made and the problems raised in the debate on Monday on the government's wheat acreage reduction program, what steps is the minister taking to deal with these matters? Will 
he be making a further statement announcing any revisions to the program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member he is inviting the minister to make a general statement. Perhaps the minister should indicate simply whether such a statement might be made on motions.


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to make a statement at present on motions. Of course, regulations in connection with the plan are being developed. We had taken into consideration before the debate most of the points which were raised the other night.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the widespread confusion on the Prairies as a result of the minister's statement-


Gerald William Baldwin: And in the government.


Stanley James Korchinski: -how soon will the government make clear to the people concerned what is to be done?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, an outline of the program is being prepared and should be available for mailing to permit holders in the near future. This will counteract the confusion which has been spread by hon. members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not deal with one part of the question I asked previously. I was inquiring as to what steps the government is taking, in response to certain proposals made and certain problems which were raised in the debate on Monday. Is the government considering making any changes in its announced program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understood the hon. member's question in the first instance and suggest again that it ought to be answered by way of a statement on motions. I understand the hon. member for Mackenzie has a supplementary.


Stanley James Korchinski: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the inspectors to be employed in connection with the acreage reduction program be made available by manpower offices, or will the government appoint them under a system of political patronage?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
March 5, 1970



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of the Privy Council.
Is he in a position to tell the House if the government will allow the House to consider the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture before the Minister of Agriculture officially announces the dairy policy for the year 1970-71?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I stated last Thursday, I believe, Mr. Speaker, the government feels that the subject has already been discussed at length a few weeks ago, therefore, it does not intend to resume this debate.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Does this mean that the government intends to ignore completely the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Gaspe.



FISHERIES


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry.
Could he give confirmation of the presence of many foreign fishing boats in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence and would he say what action is being taken by his department and by the coastguard in order to drive these ships out of Canadian waters?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, there are foreign, commercial fishing vessels from European countries inside the Gulf of St. Lawrence. We have informed their officers and crews they are not welcome and have been in touch with their governments, through the Department of External Affairs, and told them that as well. We cannot evict them because we still have not completed our system of fisheries closing lines around Canada's east coast. Until we do we are not in a position to make sure these ships leave.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Alexandre Cyr: I want to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister tell us which countries these ships belong to?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, France, Spain, Portugal, Norway and Denmark.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: May I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In order to settle the struggle to control our boundaries, would the minister suggest to the government of France that it offer us St. Pierre and Miquelon in payment for the bases at Marseille and Metz in France?



IMPLEMENTATION OF 12-MILE LIMIT

["No, Mr. Speaker. The deliveries under the deferred delivery permits form part of this year's pool. Of course, those people delivering on those permits will be eligible to share in any final payment for the current pool."]
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister indicate how much more time he thinks will be required to implement the 12-mile fishing limit authorized by the House in 1964?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have legislation which is scheduled for this session. Once it is passed, we should be able to complete our fisheries closing lines.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: wish to ask the Minister of Fisheries if he has received any reports of numerous foreign vessels in Newfoundland waters and other Canadian waters inside the three-mile limit? If so, can he indicate what action has been taken?


John (Jack) Davis: Not recently, Mr. Speaker. However, as the hon. member knows, the treaty rights which France, for example, enjoys and have not as yet been phased out, enables their fishing vessels to come right up to our shore.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: As was mentioned before in a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries, legislation passed by this House over six years ago gives the government the authority to police the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence where, as the minister has admitted, foreign vessels are carrying on fishing operations. Why can the minister not use his authority to clear the fishing grounds?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena.

March S, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald MacInnis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If legislation has been passed by this House, why has the government not used it to protect our fisheries?


Frank Howard: A supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries. I ask the minister if he will ignore the provision in the petition presented yesterday by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, the effect of which would be that the continental shelf would be inside the 12-mile limit?


John (Jack) Davis: This would be quite an exercise in geography, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member knows, the continental shelf extends 400 miles off the coast of Newfoundland.


Mr. Anderson:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member in a moment. I suggest to hon. members that perhaps we should proceed to another subject. The hon. member for Sainte-Marie has been seeking the floor for a long time. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich is rising on a question of privilege.


David Anderson: The petition I presented yesterday would not have the effect which the hon. member has suggested.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question of privilege.



Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I would ask the minister, in connection with the answer he made to the House yesterday to the effect that he intends to give a very special role to the Quebec delegation to the Niamey conference, whether he could state more precisely the role he intends to give to Quebec.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which is under discussion with the government of Quebec. I can assure the hon. member it would be a very prominent role, recognizing the position of Quebec as one of

the principal centres of our French speaking population.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a supplementary question.
Would the minister be prepared to tell the House whether the province of Quebec has agreed to participate in the Niamey conference even if it should not act as a delegate of an official government? In other words, did that province agree or refuse?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member feels as I do, that the Quebec delegation will be there as a part of the Canadian delegation.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the minister's recent statement in Ottawa during a question and answer period at Carleton University, is it government policy to legalize the use of marijuana if the government finds that there is a significant minority of Canadians using this substance?


Mr. Speaker:: The question as asked does not seem to be in order. The hon. member cannot ask for a statement of policy in this way.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Your Honour, if I am out of order I will be happy to rephrase my question. Is it government policy to legalize the use of marijuana if the government finds that there is a significant minority of Canadians using this substance?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems that the second question is very much like the first one.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I thought perhaps Your Honour was going to object to it.
INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF LeDAIN COMMISSION


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norih):: wish to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question. According to the reply I received the last time I asked this question, I thought we would have had the LeDain report by now. Can the minister say when the LeDain Commission is going to
March 5, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry
submit its report? Will there be a statement serious disease in view of the fact that the by the government at the time the report is federal government is responsible for the con-presented to Parliament?	trol of anthrax?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the first part of the hon. member's question, I cannot say specifically when the report will be in our hands. I anticipate it will be some time within the next two weeks. As to the second part of the question, it is premature to say what disposition will be made of the report as far as Parliament or public statements are concerned. I will have to wait until we have the report.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question. Will the cabinet be considering the report before it is tabled in the House of Commons?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt if it is in order to inquire whether the cabinet will be considering any particular matter.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: wish to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In light of the previous answer concerning payment for the Durum pool, can the minister advise the House if any consideration is being given to a matter of even more serious consequence? Is the government considering, or is the minister recommending to the government, the payment of 20 cents a bushel to those who did not complete delivery of their five-bushel quota the previous crop year and are on a five-bushel deferred quota this year?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. The deliveries under the deferred delivery permits form part of this year's pool. Of course, those people delivering on those permits will be eligible to share in any final payment for the current pool.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister been advised by the Saskatchewan veterinary officials of the outbreak of anthrax in southeastern Saskatchewan? What action has his department taken to eradicate the outbreak of this very


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, but I will check into it at once.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, may I have a few moments in which to supplement the answer I gave to the question asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain regarding an outbreak of anthrax in Saskatchewan? This case has now been confirmed and the health of animals division of the department has begun control measures.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO WHITE PAPER Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whilby): I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister inform the House when the promised white paper-I am not sure the minister is following the question. He is following it. Can the minister inform the House when the promised white paper on the Unemployment Insurance Commission will be made available?
['When the Canada Grain Act comes to the House for revision there will be an opportunity for doing so. Whether or not a completely new grading system could be worked out in time for the new crop year, should the new act be passed, is still a good question.']
Bryce Stuart Mackasey: As mentioned in the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to bring forward a proposal or white paper on unemployment insurance in this session.



David Anderson: have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On February 3 I asked the minister whether his department had received from the United States data on the results of the United States first nuclear test at Amchitka so that we Canadians could judge the desirability of the second series of tests. Is the minister now in a position to inform the House whether this information has been received?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe my department received such information. If received, it would come through the Department of External Affairs.
4414	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. A. Moore (Weiaskiwin):: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the minister's indication of an early announcement of the government dairy policy, will he give an undertaking to make this announcement in the House before it closes for the Easter recess?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I hope that can be done, but as the hon. member and other members who are keenly interested in the dairy industry know, there are a number of points outstanding that have not been resolved between the various sectors of the dairy industry. I would like to go as far as I can in resolving and reconciling those differences. It is hard to put a specific date on it.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion-East Richmond):: I want to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture in order to clear up the confusing answers which the government is providing. In answer to the original question on dairy policy, the minister said he would make a statement in the House before the end of the month. In answer to the last question, he said he hoped to make it before the 25th. Inasmuch as the Easter recess is due to begin on March 25 and we shall not be back until April 6, how can the minister explain his statement?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There is no confusion, except in the mind of the hon. member. I said in reply to the first question posed to me that I would be making a statement-I did not say it would be in this House-before the end of this month. In reply to the second part of the question, I said that if there was reconciliation of the various legitimate viewpoints within the industry I would make an amiouncement somewhat sooner. I certainly hope hon. members opposite are not asking me to make a unilateral decision before there has been adequate and complete consultation with the industry.


Donald MacInnis: Do I not recall the Minister of Agriculture saying on another occasion that he would make all statements in the House, and not outside this chamber?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: supplementary question to the Minister of

DEBATES	March 5, 1970
Agriculture. Will we have an opportunity in the near future to give consideration to the grading of wheat by protein content?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: When the Canada Grain Act comes to the House for revision there will be an opportunity for doing so. Whether or not a completely new grading system could be worked out in time for the new crop year, should the new act be passed, is still a good question.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


J. Michael Forrestall: I should like to direct a question to the Government House Leader. In light of the tremendous enthusiasm for the Queen of Canada shown on Monday last, would the government consider separating its consideration of the Royal and the National anthems and bringing in a separate bill to deal with the Royal anthem, further legislation being deferred until such time as the difficulties the government is having with the Weir descendants can be resolved?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we would be prepared to give that suggestion serious consideration. It would certainly be preferable to deal with both subjects at the same time and we hope to resolve the current difficulty. But I will give the hon. member's proposal serious consideration.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Did the minister and his department drop the family planning program which the Family Planning Federation of Canada had prepared for the department at the hon. gentleman's request?
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National
Health and Welfare): No, Mr. Speaker.



SALE OF ATOMIC ENERGY PLANT TO ROU-MANIA-CONTINGENT CONDITIONS

Mr. Rod Thomson (Bailleford-Kindersley):: have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the success experienced in the "on-power" refuelling of the Douglas Point Candu reactor, will the
March 5, 1970

minister tell us whether this was a contingent condition for the sale of an atomic energy plant to Roumania?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think this question could be placed on the Order Paper. If there is urgency about the matter, it could be debated at the time of adjournment.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Albert B. Douglas: I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Since the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act comes under the minister's jurisdiction, and since the PFRA has embarked on a large-scale project of clearing land in Indian reserves on the prairies, and bearing in mind the recently announced program to take farmland out of production, can the minister advise whether or not these projects are to be discontinued?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker. That is not the intention of the department.



HOUSING


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. Has the government advised the province of Ontario formally of its decision with regard to building societies, and, if so, what was the decision?
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without
Portfolio): I understand that a letter has been sent by my colleague the Minister of Finance to the minister of trade and economic development of the province of Ontario. Perhaps when the Minister of Finance is in the House he could give a more definitive answer to the hon. member's question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In the light of the alarming decrease in building starts particularly in evidence in the province of Saskatchewan and in the cities of Toronto, Hamilton and Halifax at a time when the interest rate has reached an unprecedented 10.1 per cent, is the minister giving consideration to the creation of new lending institutions pursuant to the thought he expressed when he said that if the money lenders were not co-operating he would have to consider such a move? Is he considering
Inquiries of the Ministry the establishment of new lending institutions? On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, will call the question out of order and the minister will not have to answer. What else is the minister waiting for?


Mr. Andras:: Why doesn't the hon. member answer the question? He seems to have all the answers.


Donald MacInnis: Any time you like.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald MacInnis: Take your marbles home with you.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, I know the Minister without Portfolio is as interested in this question as I am-as we all are-and I would hope that the Chair would allow him to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair did not prevent the minister answering. The minister had ample time in which to answer had he wanted to do so. For the moment, the Chair has recognized the hon. member for Gloucester.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of my question, and its relation to the present housing situation, I feel sure the minister would wish to reply. Since he was not prevented from doing so by the Chair, may I express the hope that he will answer my inquiry this afternoon?
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without
Portfolio): I appreciate the opportunity to reply, Mr. Speaker. We are considering all the options available to us in this matter of making a flow of mortgage money available for housing. The building society proposition did not, after thorough examination, seem to promise to provide more mortgage money. But we are looking at other options and I will be glad to report on them as they unfold.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucesier):: Can the
Minister of National Health and Welfare advise the House when New Brunswick will enter medicare?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

March 5, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Since Information Canada will use the services of television stations to make government policy known, will that body also get the people acquainted with the reactions and views of the opposition parties concerning government policy?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this quite interesting question could be put on the order paper.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: should like to direct a question to the great conciliator, the Postmaster General, and ask him whether, after all the weeks of poor service or no service, anything close to normalcy is now returning to the postal service of Montreal?


Eric William Kierans: The situation is normal in Montreal for the moment.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I want to give the minister an even break. Can he advise us when the backlog of parcels is expected to be delivered?


Eric William Kierans: If all proceeds normally, within about two days, Mr. Speaker.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications.
Since he has already answered a question from one of my colleagues on the matter of mail distribution, can he indicate to the House what stage the discussions with the Union of Postal Employees have reached?


Eric William Kierans: The discussions are still proceeding, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Speaker.}



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? In view of the assurance he has given several times this session and the hope he expressed yesterday that the white paper on social security will be tabled this session, could the minister tell us whether legislation based on the white paper, particularly with respect to old age pensions, will be introduced this session?
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National
Health and Welfare): It is very doubtful, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister whether he is giving favourable consideration to the representations being made to him in this regard by Liberal Members of Parliament?


John Carr Munro: The representations have been made, and they contain considerable merit. They are being considered within the over-all context of social policy as set out in the white paper.



POLLUTION


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the minister's pessimism yesterday with regard to a clean air act, after his brave words in recent speeches, will the minister say what the government is doing in the meantime about air pollution caused by federal agencies such as Air Canada, and by federal government buildings in well-known places like Saint John?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It appears to me that this information should be given to the House by the minister in the form of a general statement and not by way of an answer to a question at this time.



CANADA COUNCIL


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
March 5, 1970



Could he indicate to the House whether the Canada Council has taken positive steps under its subsidy policy to check the exodus of Canadian scientists, whose education would have been paid by the Canadian taxpayers?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question of a very general nature, and I believe that it could readily be put on the order paper.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a more specific question.
Would the minister state to the House if the Canada Council intends to establish a subsidy program to help the less fortunate universities, mainly those of the Maritimes, set up research centres in social sciences?


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to point out to the hon. member that his supplementary question could also be put on the order paper.



WHEAT-FILLING OF THUNDER BAY TERMINAL FACILITIES

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that the St. Lawrence seaway will be open within 25 days, could the minister assure the House that the terminal facilities at Thunder Bay will be full at that time?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform hon. members that the schedule that had been set up to fill the terminals prior to the opening of navigation has not only been kept but, indeed, exceeded. As a result, the target amount should be in the terminals well before the opening of navigation.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that the government of Newfoundland has announced a regional development program to commence April 1, is the minister now in a position to tell the House on which day such agreement will be signed so that those of us who are interested will have a chance to examine it?
Business of the House


Jean Marchand: I have not read Mr. Smallwood's statement, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister's reputation for evading questions is well known, so I will put my question to him directly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary or his question should not be preceded, I suggest, by this kind of statement or allegation. The hon. member has the right to ask a supplementary.


James Aloysius McGrath: With great deference, Mr. Speaker, had the minister answered my question, my premise would not have been necessary. The minister never answers questions in this House and this makes our role very difficult.
My question to the minister is this. On what day will the agreement with the government of Newfoundland in connection with a development program alleged to commence on April 1 be signed?


Jean Marchand: Soon, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I did not hear the minister's answer. He mumbled something halfway to his feet. I think the House is entitled to an answer to my question.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister said "soon". I have to inform hon. members that it is now time to call Orders of the Day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, perhaps the President of the Privy Council, the Government House Leader, would indicate to the House the business the government proposes to place before the House for consideration during the next week.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I thank the hon. member for his question. Tomorrow the first item of business to be called will be government order No. 67, Bill C-183, to be followed by government order No. 76, Bill S-14.
For the week commencing Monday, March 9, the first item will be government order No. 46, Bill C-161, with regard to the Dominion
March 5, 1970

Government Administration Coal Board. The second item will be government order No. 75, Bill C-190, with regard to the National Energy Board Act. The third item will be government order No. 49, Bill S-5, with regard to the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act.
On Tuesday, we will call for second reading debate the pensions bill to which we have given first reading today.
For Wednesday, an announcement will be made when the progress to that point is noted.
On Thursday next, we will call for the first item government order No. 47, with regard to the Standards Council of Canada, Bill C-163. This will be followed by government order No. 78, the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, Bill C-193. I would remind hon. members that the business on Thursday next, March 12, will be interrupted at eight o'clock for the budget speech by my colleague the Minister of Finance.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, with regard to today's debate, I should like to make a suggestion for the consideration of the House. After the first four speakers representing the parties in the House have made their speeches in the time normally allotted to them, would the House be agreeable to limiting the following speeches to 15 minutes each so that more members will have an opportunity to take part in the debate?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We would be most agreeable to that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered. Orders of the Day.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That this House condemns the government for Its arbitrary actions and destructive policies of secrecy and non-disclosure including its attitude towards parliament which deny the right of citizens in this [Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) .1
country to be informed and to participate fully in the government of Canada, particularly through their elected representatives, and which endanger the balance between the two structures of government-the executive and the representative.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is out of the city today because, by the very nature of things, this resolution touches the Prime Minister closely as head of the government. I think I should begin by quoting one of the Prime Minister's favourite authorities in politics. In the 16th century Machiavelli wrote:
-our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft, and in the end have overcome those who have relied on their word.
It is in light of this quotation that I wish to consider some developments that have taken place in Canada during the past year or two, developments which, taken together, I suggest are quite alarming. It seems to me that all the talk that there has been about participatory democracy has been only a screen to hide the effort to concentrate power in Canada and to weaken our traditional safeguards against the abuse of power.
Over the past couple of years there has been a gradual but quite radical change in the system of government in Canada, with an almost invisible and ad hoc amendment of our constitution, so as to build up the power of the office of the Prime Minister and of the cabinet of Canada and to break down institutional safeguards designed to protect the individual Canadian. While not wishing to be in any way an alarmist, I do suggest that a pattern has emerged which requires the attention of the Canadian public, certainly the attention of Parliament, and not least the attention of private members on the other side of the House in whose name the cabinet is accumulating this power.
I ask this House to consider some of the elements of this dangerous, and I think undemocratic, concentration of power at the centre of government in this country. The changes in Parliament are well known, and they are very crucial. They are well known because Parliament must always be the ultimate protection of the individual against an arbitrary government. The issue goes way beyond Parliament and should be discussed in its broader terms as well, that is, in terms broader than Parliament, important as that is, because Parliament is the most important
March 5, 1970	COMMONS
safeguard of citizens. They have other safeguards which have lost a lot of their clout during the last two years.
I have suggested that the talk about participation is simply talk. After all, there is a big difference between genuine participatory democracy which is, on the one hand, to send up trial balloons to sample public opinion and, on the other hand, an exercise in public relations designed to condition the public to a change that the government has already decided to make. There is also a difference between participatory discussions and shouting matches with extremists; the latter may very well be designed to suggest that all of those who disagree with the government are also extremists.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is a well known technique which was not invented by the Prime Minister, (Mr. Trudeau) but employed to a considerable extent by him.
During the 1960's, governments representing both parties established various new agencies and new programs genuinely designed to broaden the base of government and participation in government, to broaden the opportunity for citizens to express their views or draw attention to their demands. These were genuine examples of participatory democracy. It is very interesting and noteworthy to consider that their fate is in the hands of this government.
The ARDA program, with its emphasis on community involvement in decision making, is certainly being pushed out. Perhaps the best example of its replacement was the Prince Edward Island development plan where the effective control is highly centralized here in Ottawa.
Then there is the Company of Young Canadians. Certainly, it has been "co-opted" and turned into what looks like a tamed creature of the government. We all agree about the government's role as an agent. We, on this side of the House, would have wished the government to start afresh. Certainly, Sir, we never agreed to an agency designed to be participatory being simply taken over and operated by the government. The mandate of this agency now is to be an agent of the government among the young, and not an agency of youth in governmental matters. This distinction is generically the same as the distinction between propaganda and information.
DEBATES	4419
Government Administration
There are other examples. It is clear that at the same time the government is talking about making democracy work, it is changing or restricting or closing down those few federal agencies which have allowed some form of genuine participation. These programs have been replaced by tokenism; for example, naming regional representatives of the poor and flying them occasionally to Ottawa for discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I suggest there has been quite an alarming increase in the recourse of this government to arbitrary procedures. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has left the House, and I am sorry he has. According to reports, that minister directly threatened to impose or continue certain policies against copper companies unless they agreed to limitations on price increases. We can all understand the desire to curb price increases or to limit them if they cannot be avoided. The suggestion is that the minister concerned boasted of the big stick he holds over the producers by way of copper export permits.
There is also the whole question of sanctions and the government's proposed voluntary restraint program. I favour this program and I have been advocating the use of guidelines. I must say that I am concerned about the cloak and dagger methods the government seems to be resorting to in order to obtain compliance with this program. It is one thing to have a law which prohibits something and to provide penalties which are to be suffered by those convicted of a violation of that law. That is part of what we consider to be the rule of law. It is a very different thing when you try to attain a very valid aim-an aim we can all support-through very vague threats. It is a different thing when you ask provincial governments, for example, to be prepared not to buy from a company because the Prices and Incomes Commission says that the company has violated this program. The government seems to feel that the end justifies the means and that this sort of thing has to be done in the national interest.
I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that most of the atrocities in history actually have been committed in the name of the public or the national interest. I say our democratic system requires more specific safeguards, and that we must take the rule of law seriously if we are going to preserve respect for the law, and if we are going to
4420	COMMONS
Government Administration preserve freedom. This kind of approach has serious implications for Canada because it can be very popular. A member of the government can appear popular if he seems prepared to bang somebody around, particularly a big business man or even a small one sometimes. You can be popular, but it is very dangerous. I do say if the government is prepared to use weapons such as this for good purposes, that is bad; but if the government is prepared to also use arbitrary actions to achieve something that is improper in itself, that is very bad indeed.
This brings me to the question of public information and the media. This is a delicate area in which Information Canada seems to pose a most direct threat, since the press has been proven a better judge of what in fact is information than the government has proven to be, whether by accident or design. We have had a succession of threats; a lecture to the press in London, a threat to have the mounted police look into the private lives of journalists, and a threat to lock the door at Radio Canada. These things reflect an attitude to the press which certainly makes me uncomfortable, and I think makes many journalists in Canada uncomfortable. This sort of thing may be popular. The vice-president of the United States, as well as the Prime Minister of Canada, has apparently found that the road to popularity lies in attacking the press and the media in this way. Just as the VicePresident of the United States, if I may say so, is creating great uneasiness there, the same sort of thing is creating uneasiness in our country.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
We should bear in mind the great power that governmental agencies have to control certain forms of the media. Radio stations and television stations are licenced only for short times. Therefore, the owners of these licences are bound to be nervous when anything that seems like a threat is involved. I think it is worth observation that this discomfort is not relieved by the convening in the other place of an inquiry into the media under the chairmanship of a former national director of the Liberal party. I believe he is known as the "Rainmaker". It is in this context that we have the suggestion, or at least the declared intention of the government, to establish Information Canada which I fear will be in fact "Manipulation Canada". In this context this is a very dangerous proposal. There is also related to this, the matter of the access of the government to the media. I 
DEBATES	March 5, 1970
think it would be useful for the CRTC to spell out the ground rules governing the conditions under which government statements should be allowed to preempt other programming on television, for example, by beating the audience to its knees. There seem to be no l'ules about this at the present time. Perhaps such a rule is particularly necessary in view of the new ruling regarding Canadian content and in view of the establishment by the government of a central propaganda agency authorized to use such vast and sophisticated techniques to tell the story on behalf of the Liberal government.
Perhaps the CRTC would consider some means of setting a rule concerning not only a minimum in respect of Canadian content but a maximum regarding government content or propaganda content. Mr. Speaker, propaganda and secrecy in this regard are two aspects of the same thing. They both relate to efforts to control public opinion. Both are methods which are always used by genuinely dictatorial governments. On the one hand, we have Information Canada coming along and, on the other hand, we have the virtual unlimited access of the government to networks. In addition, we have the secrecy and the refusal to give information. Then, there is the use of a vast number of task forces, the reports of which are kept secret. Of course, there is the well-known refusal to give information here in the House.
What is happening in respect of other institutions which traditionally were capable of standing up to the federal government? The provinces in Canada traditionally have provided some balance. After all, that is what the federal system is all about.
During recent years there has been some concern perhaps as to whether the federal government is strong enough to discharge its national responsibility. But there can be little doubt now concerning the direction in which we are headed. There can be little doubt now -and I say this advisedly-that the government is trying to beat the provinces to their knees by a fiscal squeeze. There can be little doubt that the government of Canada, through the white paper and other methods, is trying to create a preferred financial position for itself. It is one thing to ensure that we have a federal government with adequate powers to discharge its national responsibilities. It is another thing to create a situation in which there is a very real risk that an increasing number of provinces may become unable to discharge their constitutional responsibilities effectively and in which an increasing number
March 5, 1970	COMMONS
of provinces may be beaten into subserviency. Is there not a real danger in Canada today that fiscal restraint will turn into something like fiscal terrorism. I mentioned the white paper. If anybody thinks the federal government is above throwing its weight around in its relations with the provinces, he should ask himself how much real authority is left today to the legislature of Prince Edward Island.
It is against this sort of background that the playing down or downgrading of Parliament becomes even more significant. The things I have mentioned may seem to many people to be isolated instances, but really they are all part of a pattern. When we start to discuss Parliament in this context, we should recall the conception of Parliament apparently held by the majority of my friends opposite. This conception is that we have an election periodically; that following that election the government has a mandate and that between elections the only proper role of Parliament is to process whatever business the government may choose to place before Parliament. As I said before, and as I say again, the role envisaged for Parliament by most of my hon. friends opposite seems to be not very different from the role envisaged for the Chamber of Deputies by General de Gaulle.
At this point there is no need to review the rules debate except to note that the government was so intent on exercising authority that it used closure to bring in a rule that it cannot use.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is a pretty good indication of the mentality of the members of this government and their attitude. In the discussions about Parliament, there has been much emphasis on efficiency and on the need for getting business done in this modern day. A great many rules that were formulated here to enable the opposition to dig in, and insist upon getting information, have been removed in the interest of getting the business done. I want to see Parliament efficient but I do not want to see it emasculated in the process. Parliament has been downgraded in a number of ways. There has been an increased volume of legislation which delegates very extensive powers to the Governor General in Council. This increased volume of such legislation has been a matter of concern for some time.
As a result of that concern, we had a report by a committee of this House on statutory
DEBATES	4421
Government Administration instruments. To my knowledge nothing has been done about that report. Not one step has been taken. Not one recommendation contained in that report has been implemented. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) keeps shaking his head. He looks quite natural when shaking his head in that direction. I do not know what he would look like if he shook his head in the other direction, because I have never seen him do that.
Another trend which seems to be gaining momentum is the trend to remove very large areas from public debate, so to speak, that is outside the effective surveillance of Parliament, by resort to the technique of creating Crown corporations. We have always had some Crown corporations engaged in commercial business in Canada. But now we have the use of this technique in connection with the national parks. There is an indication there will be resort to it in connection with the Department of Transport, and so on. This is a great way to move large chunks of public concern a long way from the effective surveillance of members of this House. Then, we have the roster system. I have no doubt other members will mention this. I want to say this about it again, that it was introduced to this House without any consultation, in an entirely arbitrary manner.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is not so.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: 
An hon. Member:: Or ignored.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The report of the Committee on Transport and Communications was ignored. We know what happened to the recommendations of the Committee on National Defence with regard to NATO, and of course we know what happened more recently to the recommendations of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The President of the Privy Council still has them tucked away somewhere in his back pocket. I presume we are not likely to see them again before the House.


Mr. MacEwan:: They are in the privy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is perfectly true that a grant has been made to provide research staff for the opposition parties. This has been done for the first time to my knowledge both for the government caucus members and for members on this side of the House. This is helpful, but one would have to be pretty Machiavellian to pretend that this measure offsets the vast increase in the power apparatus of the government.
My time is almost up. Let me say in conclusion that I understand the desire of Canadians to see things get done. I understand the desire to have problems tackled vigourously, and I understand the occasional impatience with discussion and debate. But I must ask the House to express its concern regarding the growing centralization of power in the federal government, concern over the demonstrated willingness of the Prime Minister and the government to use this power arbitrarily, concern over the increasing efforts of the government to manipulate public opinion by the use of both secrecy and propaganda, and concern over the efforts of the government to beat down and weaken the institutions in this country which have traditionally stood prepared to fight abuse of federal power.
It is because of this concern about the magnification of the power of the government, the

DEBATES	March 5, 1970
manner in which this power is being used and the breaking down of institutions provided for public protection that I call upon the members of this House to vote for the resolution that you have read, Sir.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I rise to support the resolution, perhaps not for all the same reasons that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) mentioned-he and I have basic disagreements about some of the things which he stated-but in the 20 minutes that I have at my disposal I want to make a few comments about the subject which the Leader of the Opposition has placed before the House. I appreciate the fact that he has done so.
I want to suggest if I may, without appearing professorial but with great seriousness, that what we are discussing is nothing less than the adequacy of our parliamentary system to deal with the complexities of the modern society and with the fact of increasing government intervention in various phases and facets of modern life. It was relatively simple a century ago, or even half a century ago, to speak as the Conservatives and Liberals used to speak about the place of Parliament because Parliament had relatively little to do and government was required to do less in order to govern best. That was the concept.
Today, of course, we live in an entirely different kind of society. The issues which face us in Parliament and in the country are always complex and serious. They are not easy of solution and they are not even easy of analysis. In the solution of all the issues that touch the daily lives of people, governments at all levels are required by the increasing consciousness of our society to take the initiative and to participate in the solution of the problems. It is no longer possible in modern society to think of solving any of the major problems by leaving them in the hands of private enterprise, private corporations or individuals in society. In every case, whether it is pollution, the quality of life, or the environment in which we live; whether it is the problem of education or of regional disparity, the question of bilingualism and national unity, the public authorities in the country, federal, provincial and municipal and the public treasuries of the country are necessarily and importantly involved.
March 5, 1970

0	(4:00 p.m.)
It is in this context I suggest that members of this House and the people of Canada must look at the activities of a government which attempts to deal with this kind of complex, modern society. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what we have in this government, and in the Prime Minister of this country, and what leads to the concentration of power without any of the safeguards that one can have confidence in, are, the following characteristics among many:
Ever since the Prime Minister was elected Leader of his party he has, it seems to me, been persuaded that style is much more important than substance. Ever since that time he has played a role almost like a studied actor, showing a certain image, taking a certain attitude towards Parliament and Members of Parliament, taking certain attitudes when he appears in public before students and others, attempting to suggest something that I cannot quite define, but is quite irrelevant to the substance of the matters that concern the lives of people in Canada.
I informed the members of this House some time ago that in a short telecast interview, I think a day before the Liberal leadership convention opened in this city in the spring of 1968, I described the Prime Minister, then a candidate for the leadership, as a suspended brain, an impression which I have had ever since I have had the pleasure of knowing him.
1	have the impression that here is a mental machine functioning in a vacuum without any of the electrical cords running to the hearts and feelings and sensitivities of human beings.


An hon. Member:: That is what Judy LaMarsh said.


David Lewis: This is the kind of thing that has characterized the right hon. gentleman's and the government's callousness about the growth in unemployment, their callousness about the increase rather than decrease in regional disparities, their callousness about certain international matters such as the escalation of the nuclear arms race in ABM's, the callousness about pollution, whether east or north, and the acceptance of the fact that you can have a tanker go through the northern waters, a tanker which had been damaged and which the company concerned is refusing to reinforce, and you take a chance again on having the same kind of calamity as you had on the east coast.

Government Administration
And all of this callousness, this lack of sensitivity about matters which concern people, derives from the conviction the government has that so long as it is able to engage in a certain style, and to give a certain image, and to titillate a certain proportion of the Canadian people, people will be fooled into thinking that the government is doing something.
The second characteristic of the Prime Minister and this government, Mr. Speaker, is a technocratic approach to the solution of the problems. The government has been in power now-this government, let alone the previous Liberal governments-for almost two years. And without being too partisan-it would be stupid and dishonest and insincere to say I am not partisan, but without being too partisan- every time I sit back I ask myself, what has this government accomplished in two years. This government has been led by a man who said to the Canadian people that there were going to be tremendous changes-"I have a feeling of the inevitability of changes-there are problems and we will meet them," without saying what the problems were or how exactly they were going to be met. For the most part, there are some exceptions, I find myself enumerating to myself the appointment of task forces, the production of white papers, the tabling of reports, and the continuing promise of something yet to come, although you do not quite know when or what. Even today, the very excellent person in the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand)-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I did not say the excellent minister. I said the very excellent person in the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, on being asked a question with regard to certain plans, answered, "I cannot give you any date yet on any point on which these things are going to be accomplished." And he now nods his head in agreement.
There are certain problems that Canada has had for years. It does not require any of the long studies in which the government is engaging in order to deal at least with some of them.
But the technocrat approaches things entirely differently. He is not concerned with solving a problem which he and everyone else can see. He is concerned with finding himself a precise technocratic framework in which the particular item might fall. He is satisfied, because that is the nature of the technocrat, if he can show structures, if he can persuade
4424	COMMONS
Government Administration you he has frameworks, that he has appointed task forces or can table white papers and reports, if he can tell you he is continuing to study the matter, because no person with that approach is as much concerned with solving a problem as with being satisfied that he has technocratically analysed it.
This is what happens every day with this government. When you have that kind of approach, if you are concerned more with style than with substance, and if you have a technocratic approach to problems why should you pay any attention to Parliament? Style is of no consequence here. The Prime Minister and his colleagues in cabinet are not likely to persuade many members of the opposition. Style is important outside. It is important at the university, important in front of the camera. It is of no importance here.
Why should the Prime Minister waste his style on the floor of this House, on Parliament? Why should he waste his great acting talents on the desert air of the Members of Parliament of Canada? If you take a technocratic approach to the analyses and solution of problems, why should you bother with Parliament? Indeed, if you take that kind of technocratic approach it is obvious that Parliament, its procedures, the admitted relative inefficiency of the democratic processes, are a matter of great impatience to you.
Anybody who has studied political science and history, knows perfectly well that if you have a dictator, if you have an arbitrary dictatorial person in charge, you can do things a great deal more efficiently than the parliamentary process does them. There is no doubt about that. Whether you do it for the benefit of the people, whether you enable the people to feel that they are part of a society, that is a different question.
But Stalin and the present leaders of the Soviet Union do things a great deal more efficiently than the democratic world does them. They can decide today what they will do tomorrow, and not be answerable to anyone except members of the Politburo or perhaps the larger body in the Central Committee. Democracy and the democratic process are by design a little less efficient in that sense of the term than the technocrat has patience for, because the democratic process means you have to listen to what people have to say. You have to hear what they have to say. You have to think about what they have to say. You have to present yourself to the criticism of the opposition. You have to

DEBATES	March 5, 1970
permit the opposition to know what you are thinking, what you have done, what you propose to do.
But if you are a technocrat you don't have to tell the opposition what you propose to do. You clothe your obscure generalities in mountains of white papers, and you give the impression of a kind of frenetic activity when in fact there is no activity at all, because all that counts in that context is to give the impression of something rather than the reality. If you are that kind of Prime Minister and this kind of government, all you have to do is give an appearance of change. You don't have to do any real changing in any real sense, but you have to give an appearance of change. And you have to have a stance from time to time.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I give you an example, Mr. Speaker, I happen to be totally in favour of the government's action with regard to the proposed takeover of Denison Mines. I am worried, as my questions earlier this afternoon to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) no doubt suggest, about what is taking place in the talks going on between ministers and representatives of the corporation involved. I am worried about what is being cooked. All this is a perfect example of something that has no importance in reality. Of all industries in Canada which are foreign owned, the uranium industry has least importance as far as ownership is concerned in Canada. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because, under the British North America Act it has been declared as being of general advantage to Canada. As a result, strict and complete controls have been established under the Atomic Energy Act and regulations to govern the operations of this industry in Canada. The industry cannot export a single pound, a single ounce of uranium, without obtaining permission from the relevant agency of government. So, the question of foreign ownership is less important with the uranium industry than with almost any other industry in this country, because the controls over the industry are so far reaching.
I favour its being Canadian owned and grieve that as of today we have permitted 50 per cent of our uranium resources to be owned by foreign corporations. Of course, I am glad that the government made the previous announcement and hope from my heart that the discussions now taking place will not change the policy announced by the Prime Minister the other night. What I am saying is
March 5, 1970	COMMONS
that this government and this Prime Minister chose an industry in which foreign ownership is least important to make a grandstand play and show how determined the government is to retain the industry under Canadian ownership, whereas it is the other resource industries which are foreign owned and controlled from outside that affect employment in this country, affect our exports, and possibly interfere with our national planning. These things are not true of the uranium industry. Therefore, the government is making a grandstand play about the uranium industry to satisfy those who support it in the party and country, and who demand greater attention to Canada's national identity and independent national future.
Here we have a recent and important example of what I mean when I say that you only need to bring about an appearance of action and an appearance of change; you need not do anything else. This government and this Prime Minister have remained perfectly traditional and orthodox in almost every area but have presented us with an appearance of change and an appearance of action.
It also follows, if I am right, that the Prime Minister will necessarily increase his powers.
I do not think it is intellectually honestly possible for me to say this is the first time a prime minister has been powerful. I do not suggest that. I think under our system of government a prime minister inevitably is very powerful. The Office of the Prime Minister is a very powerful office and has always been powerful. Because he has final authority over the appointment and dismissal of ministers and other people in the service of the government, the Prime Minister is necessarily a very powerful figure. In this age, with its more complex and difficult issues, the power of the Prime Minister, as I have said, is necessarily greater even than it has been in other ages. But in the present case even more is involved.
In the nature of things, as I said, the Prime Minister is very powerful, and his office is a very powerful office. In the present case where style counts for more than substance, the appearance of change for more than the reality of chance and the technocratic approach to the solution of problems overrides any real attempt to attack those problems, the Prime Minister must be all powerful. He cannot permit ministers to have any influence which might detract from his power, because style means that one person rules. When you have a technocracy you have one leader. You
DEBATES	4425
Government Administration cannot have more than one. So, collective leadership becomes impossible. In the context of that theory and practice of government, it was inevitable that the Prime Minister should increase his staff and make himself more powerful than prime ministers traditionally have been.
I see that my time has almost expired. I want to say that I support the resolution moved by the Leader of the Opposition because I see in the present trend a danger to the people of Canada. As I have explained, they may be misled by an appearance of change, by an appearance which has no counterpart in reality, and by the concentrated power of a government which is concerned with holding on to orthodox, traditional programs and policies which have choked the Canadian people in the past.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, after saying that he took exception to what he regarded as the tendency of this government to relegate all its opponents in the community to the positions of extremists in political doctrine, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), in rather fanciful speech, tried to draw a picture of dictatorship enclosing the Canadian people. I must say I have some difficulty in taking the Leader of the Opposition seriously on that one, and I think most people will not take him seriously. May I also make one or two comments about some other matters he referred to, and I particularly wish to confine myself to certain comments and misleading statements he made about parliament, this House, its rules, and the facilities which have been provided to private members.
In his diatribe concerning information and the creation of Information Canada we heard an interesting contradiction. On the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition said that the government evolved task force papers and whitepapers which it refused to make public; yet a few minutes before that he had been very critical of the government for establishing Information Canada. Well, Information Canada was the result of just one such study. It was the result of this process of having the serious problems in government studied, making the conclusions on those studies available for consideration and taking administrative action on proposals in that regard.


Gerald William Baldwin: On those portions the government liked.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I hope the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) will
March 5, 1970

Government Administration not mislead the House. The two documents produced by the task force on information were published. They were very critical of the government and of agencies of government. For all that they were published. Perhaps we might recommend that the Leader of the Opposition and his lieutenant do a little more reading instead of talking in the course of their parliamentary duties.


An hon. Member:: They would not know how.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The Leader of the Opposition said that the creation of Information Canada is some means of controlling the press. I remind him that in a province such as Ontario, which has a government of a political persuasion not far removed from that of the government of which the hon. gentleman was leader, there are centralized government offices the purpose of which is making government information available. The press has not been controlled or downgraded in any sense by that.
The only other comment I wish to make about his very fanciful statement pertains to his allegation that there was some squeezing of the provinces and that we were trying to take away a further counterforce in Canadian life by virtue of our putting a financial squeeze on the provinces. Well, may I recommend that the Leader of the Opposition read the report of the tax structure committee on taxation resources and expenditures by Canadian levels of government. He will notice that in 1952, after transfers, the federal government took 67 per cent of that part of the gross national product devoted to the public sector. This federal-provincial committee estimates that by 1971 the share of the federal government will go down to 40 per cent. In other words, far from the federal government's putting a financial squeeze on the provinces, it may be said that the financial squeeze is coming from the other direction.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I want to direct myself specifically to the allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition with regard to Parliament and to what he says is the downgrading of Parliament. He said there is a decline of debate in this chamber; I want to debate his assertions.
First, I want to make it clear on the record that the Prime Minister is not in Ottawa today. His absence from the House was well publicized in advance and should not be misconstrued. It has been known for some time by all hon. members in this Chamber and, I

presume, the Leader of the Opposition, that he would be absent. For reasons known only to the hon. gentleman, he put forward this motion. On the other hand, it might be useful to have this debate in the absence of the Prime Minister. It will avoid the embarrassment of having him present while we discuss his role in this Parliament. We now have an opportunity to discuss the events of this past Parliament.
I make the contention without qualification that under no previous government has there been such a devolution of responsibilities to the private members of this Chamber and, at the same time, in no other Parliament has there been so great an increase in their facilities to enable them to carry out their responsibilities. It may be useful to remind the Leader of the Opposition in detail of the manner in which this devolution and increase of facilities have taken place. The hon. gentleman referred to the figure of almost $400,000 per annum which has been made available to the opposition parties and the private members on the government side for the purpose of enabling them to engage in a study of government legislation.
The Leader of the Opposition suggested that the committees were under-staffed, that they were lacking in research staff. This may be true, but perhaps I should introduce him to the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) who has been a perennial complainer when committees recommended that they be entitled to retain counsel for the purpose of enabling them to carry on their work. Which voice from the other side are we to believe, the Leader of the Opposition or his follower? Do we have too much staff or too little?
I am prepared to say that committees are in an emerging role within Parliament as are the use of research and assistance that will be available for committees. I am prepared to acknowledge we are at present in a situation where we are feeling our way to find the best manner in which staffs can be used.
It was the government which took the initiative, in connection with the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, to establish as its advisor the new institution of the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs and foreign trade, which was created with the general blessing of the Chamber, and to have Mr. Dobell and his associates operate with the Standing Committee of External Affairs and National Defence. It can be said that in no other Parliament of Canada has there been as extensive a study and deep a knowledge of external
March 5, 1970	COMMONS
affairs as there has been on the part of the members of that committee and on the part of private members. This, I may say, is as a result of initiatives taken by this government.
The experience gained in that committee has been particularly valuable. It has not only been experience in developing the substance of those questions with the members of the committee, but it has also been a very useful experience in how a non-partisan adviser may carry on duties. They are a partisan and adversary body just as much as this House is a partisan and adversary body, and problems arise in relating his role to such a body.
I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that in this Parliament there have been extensive changes in the responsibilities of the committees, extensive changes in opportunities for hon. members to participate in legislation, many of which did not exist before. For example, in the case of legislation there is now the opportunity which did not exist before on all bills, to examine at length the minister and officials responsible for policy and technical advise and also to call outside witnesses. I refer to the Canada Water Act which is now before the committee and on which extensive hearings are now taking place; the Canada Corporations Act in which respect similar hearings are taking place, and the hate literature bill on which there has been extensive discussion and debate.
As the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) will acknowledge, there are far greater opportunities now to engage in the prosecution of these particular questions than was available in the past.


Georges-J. Valade: What about the possibility of amendments?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon.
member asks about amendments. Hon. members opposite feel in some kind of an arrogant way that their point of view must automatically be accepted in committees. I say that is an adversary body just as is this House. If they can make a good case, let them do so. I think the experience is they have not been able to make a good case for changes in the laws when in committee.


Harold Warren Danforth: What a misrepresentation!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There have been exceptions to that. I recognize the contribution of the hon. member for York South in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal

Government Administration Affairs and in the special committee on official languages. In other words, we have moved into a situation, the end of which we cannot predict, which is far from having a concentration of power in the hands of the government. We are bringing a situation into the committee system where there is taking place a greater decentralization of power. From the government's standpoint, I do not expect this to be without pain or incident, but I think it is totally false to suggest, in light of the changes made in this Parliament, that there has been a centralization of power.
With respect to the spending estimates of the government, there is a far greater opportunity for them to be studied. We no longer have the charade that formerly took place in this Chamber. We have the situation now where members could go after the officials responsible for a particular department asking for information and policy. Further, I think it is fair to point out that the office of the Leader of the Opposition has been strengthened by this government during the course of this Parliament. I think it is fair to make a comparison with the past with the decision made some months ago by the Commissioners of Internal Economy with respect to the gentleman's own office. The decisions were made after a request was put forward by him to the commissioners. In addition to Mr. Speaker, there are four cabinet ministers who are commissioners. The requests of the hon. gentleman for additional staff were met by the decision of members of this government.
A rather striking contrast can be drawn between the situation when I was first a member of this Parliament in 1962 under the leader of the Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, as Leader of the Opposition. The government of that day allowed only two very distinguished positions in the office of the Leader of the Opposition and a very small staff. I think the point can be fairly made that the capacity of the Leader of the Opposition to deal with the responsibilities of that office has been greatly enhanced by this government. Every reasonable request that he has made has been met by this government.
May I also emphasize the amenities made available to members in general. I am prepared to acknowledge the fact that I am not satisfied with the amenities now available. I agree with my colleagues who seek additional facilities which would better enable them to discharge their responsibilities. However, within the area of administrative decision which is available at the moment, I think it is
4428	COMMONS DEBATES	March 5, 1970
Government Administration fair to point out the expansion of secretarial facilities available for members of all parties, the expansion of telephone facilities by way of long distance lines and second lines and with regard to certain of the transportation costs which are of assistance to members.
I am happy that the Beaupre Commission will be looking into the conditions of the Members of Parliament and considering additional suggestions to enhance the role of members of this House that have been made, such as providing constituency assistance and better facilities here. We have been concerned about the office facilities in the House. The hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) has been participating with us in this. We have been looking for further means to provide better space so that members on both sides of the House may be in a better position to carry on their responsibilities from an office standpoint.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The Leader of the Opposition made some reference to the roster system. If he talks to his hon. friend from Peace River or with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I think he will find it is not true this system was introduced without consultation. I will not say that hon. members opposite were in agreement with it, but then they were not in agreement with many of the other changes which we felt were necessary for the improvement of government. But this question was extensively discussed in the late summer of 1968, and it was certainly not introduced without knowledge of the intentions of the government before the change was put into effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: would agree that it was not done without our knowing it would be done, but it is not quite fair to say there was consultation. We objected, but the government had decided to go ahead with it, anyway.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If the hon. member had the opportunity of objecting, he must have been consulted. As he knows, he was consulted by me. Whatever hon. members may say in this regard, the fact of the matter is that the question period has not been cut down in any way. The consent of the House generally was given to placing a time limit on the question period, and I think it is correct to say there has not been a question period since the roster system was introduced when the number of questioners wishing to ask questions of ministers did not

exceed the number which could be heard during the time available. In other words, the opportunity to raise questions was available. The absence of ministers has not slowed down the question period, though perhaps the absence of relevance and succinctness on the part of the questioners has done so.
May I refer briefly to the allegation by the Leader of the Opposition that there has been a failure to provide information? I would remind him of a remark which I believe can be attributed to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-in essence that the question period is not an information period but a form of political warfare. Any objective person examining the questions asked, examining the performance of, for example, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) or of the Leader of the Opposition himself, would agree that the extent to which they were seeking information as opposed to making points for the record, or appearing to do so, seems very slight.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Let nobody be fooled about what is really happening during the question period. The fact is that it is a form of political debate.


Georges-J. Valade: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon I addressed a specific question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), asking him how he defined the special status he intended to give the Quebec delegation to Niamey, but the minister refused to give this information. This proves that the Leader of the House is mistaken in his understanding.


Mitchell William Sharp: On the same question of privilege, may I say I have never refused to give information. However, the Chair has on a number of occasions turned down requests of the kind made by the hon. member on the ground that I am not supposed to be asked questions seeking an opinion. I interpreted the question as indicating that the hon. gentleman believed in the fragmentation of Canada.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There could be no better illustration of the point I was making than the intervention of the hon. member. I will leave it there.
The subject of replies to written questions has been raised. The figures in this connection are significant. With the exception of two sessions during the history of this institution- one of them was nearly twice as long as the
March 5, 1970

present session and the other nearly three times as long-more questions were placed on the Order Paper during the first session of this Parliament than was ever the case previously. And 100 per cent of those questions were answered, after taking into account that hon. members consented to withdraw certain others which, because of their wording or some other consideration which appeared reasonable to them, appeared appropriate to withdraw. In other words, during the last session the government answered 100 per cent of the questions which were left standing on the order paper.
I will concede right away with regard to notices of motion for the production of papers that the government has concluded that it cannot answer all the demands which have been made. This is a position which has been taken by governments of many complexions in this House over the years. I am sure it was the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition when he was premier of a province, and I am sure it was the position taken by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) when he was in a similar office.
It is only fair to point out that there are occasions when the government feels, for the sake of harmonious foreign relations, or because confidential memoranda are involved preceding the development of policy, that documents should not be made available. Then again, it has been clear that hon. members have been putting notices of motions on the Order Paper even though the material given to them in past sessions covered the requests made. This was obvious as recently as yesterday in the case of the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman). Hon. members put these motions on the Order Paper but they do not read the material when it is sent to them.
Since January of this year, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg), the hon. member for Waterloo, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad-bent) sought the production on six different occasions of documents which had either been produced in previous sessions or were already on the public record. It seems to me that what is required with respect to information is not that more should be brought into this House but that hon. members opposite should spend a little more time studying what is already available to them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Government Administration


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I shall close, now. Some of my colleagues will be making their views known with regard to the speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition. I have said virtually nothing about what the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) had to say. It seems to me the comments he made expressed his personal view of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau); I do not think they require an answer from me at this point.
I return to my central theme. In no Parliament has there been a greater opportunity for private members to participate in or help develop public policy and legislation in this House. In no Parliament have greater facilities been made available to hon. members for this purpose. If there has been a downgrading of Parliament it is because this institution is founded upon an adversary system, and an adversary system assumes not only a strong government but a strong opposition; it assumes not only an able group of members on this side of the House but an able group of members on the other side of the House. If this Parliament is a duller place, it is because of the incompetent leadership which the other side has got from the Leader of the Opposition. The adversary system will not work with mediocre infantry led by an incompetent general with bad judgment, and that is what I say of the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: was pleased to hear the balanced, impartial and well-reasoned arguments of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). As I listened to him I wondered whether the question period, already emasculated, is now about to be reformed out of existence altogether, taking account of his gratuitous and condescending lecture on the way in which questions should be asked.
We are engaged today in a very serious debate on one of those fundamental questions. Today we are not asking what the government is doing-and, God knows, that is a question which surely needs to be asked-but how the country is being governed. It is unfortunate that since this government took office the House has had to spend so much time diagnosing the ills of this institution. We do it because there is widespread anxiety among members on this side, a feeling that the institution is in fact in danger. This being the case, we try to buttress the institution against encroachments which would erode its capacity and functions. When a moderate man like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. 4430	COMMONS
Government Administration Stanfield), a man not given to being an alarmist or crying wolf, presents such a motion as this in strong terms it is an indication that something is amiss, and it behooves us to become aware of the gravity of the problem.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Part of the problem, indeed I think the essence of it, is that this institution, the heart and centre of our democracy-if it is not that, it is not anything-is endangered not from without but from within. It is the Prime Minister of this country, next to Mr. Speaker himself, who should be the chief champion of the rights of Parliament. That is within the measure of his responsibility. However, even with all the great acting ability attributed to the Prime Minister by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), 1 am sure there is 'no one in this country who can envisage him playing the role of the protector of this House and of the fullness of its rights and liberties. That is one act that he has never even endeavoured to put on.
Efforts to denigrate Parliament have been the earmarks of this government's dealings with this Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has discussed the fiascos of the allocation of time debates. During recent months we have heard about what has happened to our committees: the government ignore their recommendations, pre-empt their recommendations, as when with undue and indecent haste they killled the Prince Edward Island causeway before the members of the transport committee have returned to Ottawa from making an on-the-spot investigation. The final stage was the directing of committees beforehand as to what to recommend, as in the case of the 18-year olds franchise.
Contempt of Parliament has been escalated, and is still escalating. Questions are ignored; the government refuses to disclose documents; questions asked by hon. members are evaded. Today, we have had scorn heaped upon the whole institution of the question period. It is clear that the asking of questions by opposition members is not something that is viewed by the government with pleasure, not something that they regard as important. It is conceivable in this era of the Park Avenue approach, an age when the image is the thing and manner is more important than matter, that something else may be substituted, that some process may be developed whereby questions as well as answers are manufactured in some sophisticated and costly way.

DEBATES	March 5, 1970
There is reason for thoughtful people to be concerned about what is taking place. Time was when governments actually appealed to the people in regard to what they were doing. Today the approach is what the Canadian people may be induced to believe that the government looks like or that the Prime Minister appears to be.
We are passing through a phase of austerity. But in the very midst of this we find that with lightning speed comes the announcement that the costly apparatus of Information Canada must be established forthwith. More millions and further regiments of public relations men will be hired to join the hundreds already employed in ministers' offices and at the Prime Minister's regional desks to disseminate news. When I asked the prime Minister a question about Information Canada some weeks ago, he indicated his relief in the importance of proper information. That is a very important adjective, and leads me to wonder who will judge what is proper and what is not proper. It is inconceivable to believe that it will be anyone but some government expert on public opinion management.
I do not think it is unrealistic to suggest that the glitter and glamour of 1968, the charisma of that exciting period, may have worn off or worn out by the time the next election comes, and so something else has to be ready. Information Canada and all the other intentions and manipulations referred to by the Leader of the Opposition in connection with the media are important matters. It is a strange thing that at a time when so many important operations of government, such as the Economic Council of Canada and many highly qualified people in the public service of Canada, even in the professional echelon, must be given the axe, we must rush with precipitous haste into the manufacture of government information.
We already have a situation where I believe there are more regional desks in the Prime Ministers office than there are seats in the House of Commons. That may be an exaggeration; perhaps they are not all desks but merely bureaux. We are told that in this new phase of participatory democracy the question period is to be diminished. Ministers have been told to stay away from the House. The caucus of the government party has been diminished in effectiveness, government members being told to meet not once a week but twice a month.
March 5, 1970
We have heard in recent weeks discussions, academic and otherwise, about the virtues and values of the presidential system. The Leader of the Opposition is very wise to get the point across that the presidential system that is conceived is not that of the United States, where the legislative arm is powerful, healthy, respected, and well able to discharge its duties in representing the people. Rather is it to be something that can be likened to the chamber of deputies under General de Gaulle. When I very carefully read the ministerial and prime ministerial statements about the kind of parliamentary body envisaged, I think it will be something much weaker even than the body that functioned in the third, fourth or fifth republic of France.
Therefore, it is important that we look now before it is too late and take stock of those measures, movements and intentions that would weaken this place. We are all accustomed as individual members of the House of Commons to being derided, to being made the butt-end of popular jokes. But when this institution itself is demeaned before the public, when more and more it seems to be irrelevant, it is time for us to take stock.
You do not have to be an evil man to destroy things that are good. All that is needed is a man with a distorted sense of values, to have a situation where precious things can quickly and perhaps imperceptibly disappear. Democracy, as we have discovered through the ages, is a frail flower. It cannot flourish in adversity; it has to be nurtured, it has to be nourished and it has to be protected. When he whom the people have given the greatest power and responsibility looks upon it as something that should be cribbed, cabined and confined, rather than enlarged and made more effective, then we are entering a climate in which it could wither and perish, a fate that none of us wants to see. Therefore, I appeal for support of this very perceptive motion so eloquently pleaded by the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, this debate could be one of the most significant this session because it relates to the way in which we handle our business in this chamber, not only from the standpoint of efficiency in dealing with the heavier and heavier work loads of legislation, but also from the standpoint of carrying out our mandate to the people of Canada who elected us to Parliament to legislate on their behalf in a free and democratic way. So, the proposition contained in the resolution of the Leader
21774-3J
Government Administration of the Opposition that this government has arbitrarily denied to citizens the right to keep themselves informed through their elected representatives is perhaps not the sense of the debate in which we are now engaged.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Lest we forget some of the formal measures taken by this government to keep members and the public informed, let me review them. The story about them is pretty well told by Professor Denis Smith of Trent University, of whom hon. members opposite will no doubt have heard. He was the author of a paper entitled "President and Parliament" which he prepared for the Progressive Conservative Conference on "Priorities for Canada" held in Niagara Falls, in October, 1969. Here is what he said about the revision of the rules of December, 1968, all of which, you will remember, were unanimously adopted by this House:
The reforms of December, 1968, while extending some of the principles first outlined in 1965, were notably more radical. They reorganized and simplified the manner of passing legislation in the House; they diverted detailed debate on all estimates and virtually all legislation from the floor of the House to the specialized committee; they established an annual timetable for the consideration of spending estimates; they created a special committee on Statutory Instruments; and they reduced to twenty-eight the number of days in an annual session controlled by the opposition for debate on topics of its choice. Again, the nice balancing of concessions to the House against concessions to the Government brought the agreement of all parties to the proposal. (In November, 1968, in addition, the Prime Minister had announced that the estimates would contain annual grants to the leaders of the opposition parties to finance research offices.)
These were the words of Professor Smith as he addressed the Conservative conference in Niagara Falls on what this government, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), had done in respect of the organization of this Parliament.
What was the effect of these reforms? Did they, as the resolution states, bring about an air of secrecy and non-disclosure to Members of Parliament? Here is what Anthony Westell says on the subject as reported in the Ottawa Journal of January 22, 1970:
Although the complaining MP's make it sound as if their difficulties are new ones, and thus make themselves appear useless and ineffective, they have in fact made remarkable progress in adapting" the Parliamentary system.
Commons committees are tackling major issues today with a zest and freedom from party and. parliamentary restrictions unknown just a few years ago. When they are not complaining about the

4432	COMMONS
Government Administration mselessness of their parliamentary lives, MP's are protesting that there is too much work to be done in too many committees.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition has been *out stumping the country to give comfort-I am glad to see him back in his seat in parliament today-to people in the higher income brackets because of their fears of the tax proposals. Does he want to tell this House or the Canadian people that there is secrecy and non-disclosure in Parliament or in the committee in relation to tax reform? Is that what he told the people in the upper income brackets as he wandered around the country?
I want to suggest that the resolution fails to touch the real problems affecting Parliament, and I want to suggest we-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: How many letters did you get this morning?


Grant Deachman: I see I am beginning to touch a nerve which results in chirping by members opposite.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Get me a typewriter so I can answer the objections to the white paper.


Grant Deachman: We could never confine ourselves to the narrow theme of secrecy and non-disclosure in this debate. The real theme, and the one we all going to deal with here, and which even the Leader of the Opposition dealt with when he raised the subject, is the theme expressed in the last words of the resolution, "the danger to the balance between the two structures of government-the executive and the representative".
If Mr. Westell feels that the committee system is playing a more vital role in Parliament, he and others have little good to say about what they see going on in this chamber. In concluding, the column from which I just quoted he says:
Above all, there is not much point in permitting broader scope, and in encouraging MPs to conduct their investigations with enterprise and independence, if the full House of Commons cannot keep up with the rising output because it insists on staggering along in its tiresome, time-wasting old way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Grant Deachman: In an earlier column on January 3, Mr. Westell spelled out in detail what he meant by "staggering along in its tiresome, time-wasting old way". Here are his words:
Conservative House Leader Gerald Baldwin-
1 am glad to see that the hon. member has just come into the House and that the crowd is beginning to thicken up as I speak.

DEBATES	March 5, 1970


An hon. Member:: They are thick all right.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Westell said: Conservative House Leader Gerald Baldwin denies there is any political strategy of holding up government business, but he frankly admits that the opposition feels no responsibility to help speed the legislative program.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Grant Deachman: To put it in other words, the whole legislative program is staggering along in its tiresome, time-wasting-


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order or a question of privilege?


Gerald William Baldwin: I am rising on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am glad fate decided I should come in here this afternoon to hear this inaccurate statement that is being made. Had I known the hon. member was going to speak I would have been sure to be here to listen to his inaccuracies. What I said was that we had no responsibility to speed up legislative programs that are out of date. We have a responsibility to see that the legislation that is passed is good legislation. Certainly, on the basis of this government's record in relation to the legislation it has passed, very obviously this is going to be a very slow process.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, let the hon. member deny what the press has said about him.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What would you do without that article to read from?


Grant Deachman: I am just about to read the hon. gentleman another little piece. A little later in the same column, this is what is said:
So now the Commons is back in the familiar and frustrating position in which there is only a minimum of co-operation between the Government and the Opposition to keep the wheels turning-slowly.
The House Leaders of the four parties meet fairly regularly to discuss the timetable in the Commons, but they rarely make an effective agreement.
That is how the meetings of the House of Commons leaders work. The article goes on to state:
Even when the Opposition leaders are willing to make a deal with the government to put through an item of business, they are often repudiated by their own backbenchers who see no reason to limit debate.
March 5, 1970


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What was that again?


Grant Deachman: I have some more, Line; just hang on to your seat.


Gerald William Baldwin: What would you do without Tony?


Grant Deachman: I will tell you what I would do without Tony. On January 30, the Ottawa Journal had this to say in an editorial, and this is not by Tony:
Of course the opposition is not without sin in the delays the House endures. The Government's impatience with progress in the present session is made more intense by the Opposition's leisurely and meandering discussion of, for example, the CNR financing bill earlier in the session.
That is what this Tory paper had to say. These remarks and dozens more like them appeared in papers across Canada in response to the information released in January by the Government House Leader showing how much work had to be accomplished in the present session and how little willingness there was to accomplish it. Noting that the House took five days and part of a sixth day to put through the CNR bill, our friend Westell concludes:
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
So when the Government and Opposition-


An hon. Member:: A real friend, isn't he! That is the first real truth.


Grant Deachman: -next clash on control of the House and its business, the public might ask not which is right in the particular circumstances, but whether Parliament itself can serve the national needs in the Seventies.
That is the real meat of today's debate. That I presume is the reason for the debate initiated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). That is what raises in many minds the whole question of the adequacy of this system.
Well, if this nineteenth century institution is inadequate in the last half of the twentieth century, we should be nrepared to admit it and to search for valid alternatives rather than wait until events overtake us. I do not think the Tories believe their own stuff-nor do I think the public believes it-when they tell us that the new closure rule is too severe; that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is too presidential; that ministers are not all in the House during the question period; that efficiency is smothering democracy; that the House leader is too tough; that the work program is too heavy for one session; that the
Government Administration committees are hamstrung; that the backbenchers are powerless and that the government is contemptuous of Parliament. I do not think the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), who spoke in this debate, believes his own stuff when he says that the Prime Minister is an actor; that he functions in a vacuum; that he is callous toward the people; that he is callous toward Parliament and that his government is too technocratic.


Gerald William Baldwin: What does Perry Ryan say?


Grant Deachman: Ask him. He is closer to you than to me.
I believe the public wants us to get on with the nation's business in a modern and systematic say. I think the public is ready to see changes made in this old institution to accomplish those aims, provided we do not lose the sense of democracy which this institution preserves. I do not believe the public is fearful of examining parliamentary systems or even presidential systems, as the Leader of the Opposition calls them, in an effort to find new systems and new ways of keeping pace with the needs of Parliament. Here in Canada, in this House, we should be concerned only with finding the best system in the interests of all.
Let me dwell for a moment on some things which I believe we should be doing in this place. The government believes, and the government in England and members of Parliament in England believe as members of the parliamentary committee which went over there were told, that the government must have the right to have a reasonable program of work considered in a session.


Gerald William Baldwin: Who is the judge of what is reasonable?


Grant Deachman: You were there. The hon. member was a member of the committee and helped write the words in the report. When the report was made to the House he voted for it. I will tell the hon. member just precisely what was said.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was the one who put in the word "reasonable".


Grant Deachman: All right, good for you. The government must have the right to have a reasonable program of work considered in a session and, quid pro quo, the opposition must have reasonable time to examine the government's program before voting on it. My hon. friend agreed to all this but, in my opinion, he would be the last man in this House to co-operate with the House Leader in seeing
March 5, 1970

Government Administration that the things that might make this House function more successfully are made operative today in this House.
Committees must organize and plan their own work in such a way that their members are able to cope with their House and committee assignments. This must be done. An increasing number of study papers, prepared with expert professional help and investigation, must flow from committees and party caucuses so that there is an increasing input of ideas into the formation of government policy-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, I could conclude in about a minute or two. I wonder if I might have the indulgence of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I am
sorry but there is not unanimous consent.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I believe under the rules to which we have agreed the hon. member can finish his sentence. This is permitted, but we are not going to listen to this guff all afternoon on our own time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Deachman).


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, although I am allowed to finish a sentence, as all hon. members know it is extremely difficult for a member of Parliament to construct a grammatical sentence. I hope you will indulge me. We must recognize when we come here that we do so to deal with a government program in order to see that we have the best possible program in the interests of the people; further than that-


An hon. Member:: Period.


Grant Deachman: -we must bring to Parliament new ideas from which modern and beneficial legislation may flow. This requires a much higher degree of co-operation than we

have witnessed in this current Parliament and it requires a much higher level of discipline in the management of debate. It requires better organization of committee work and it requires many improvements in our staffing and working methods. These are real challenges for hon. members on both sides of the House.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution put forward by the official opposition is a far-reaching one. It seems to deal with several things. Sometimes the motions brought forward by hon. members to the right seem to be rather double jointed, something like the title of their party. Although the title of my own party contains two words, at least its name is not a contradictory one. However that may be, I intend to confine my remarks to the part of the resolution which condemns the government for its arbitrary policies of secrecy and non-disclosure. We, for our part, also think the government is secretive. We have a proposal which we have already put forward as a means to cure part of that secretiveness.
I suppose the reason that I am speaking for our party at this moment is that I have a bill which deals with government secrecy, and how to avoid it. I refer to a bill in my name in respect of public access to government information. Of course, I am very much interested also in government information. It seems to me sometimes that government information and government secrecy are interchangeable terms. The Liberal government has been spending approximately $3 million a week on government information, for the most part so far as I can judge on publicity. It spends this money through the various departments and agencies of government, many of which are staffed by good friends of mine. They are very good fellows who, for the most part, are very anxious to do a good job in their fashion, but what a fashion to operate under! We have the report of the task force on government information. This is not the report of an opposition committee; it is the report of a government commission. That report strongly criticizes the government for its failure to provide government information sought by members of Parliament as representatives of the people of Canada.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It is a fact that at this moment there are scores of motions for the production of papers on the Order Paper of the House, and we are
March 5, 1970

all familiar with the recital or the set phrases used by spokesmen for the government in denying members access to those papers. The aim of these motions which we and other members put forward is to gain access to the information which will reveal the basis of the decision of the government on matters of vital interest to the Canadian public because these decisions affect the lives of the people. To the extent that we are denied that information, there is a great degree of government secrecy in that area.
The task force report-again I say it was the report of the task force appointed by the present government-was most critical of the government on this point. It pointed out that while the government is spending an estimated $148 million a year to provide publicity, largely to say how good the government and its agencies are, it withholds the very basic facts which the public's representatives want to learn.
We think that government information is desirable when it helps the public. We do not think it is desirable when it is intended to help the government. We think that government information is useful when it is information such as is needed by veterans, pensioners or health and welfare recipients. We do not think it is needed in fields such as the competition between sections of the armed services. We do not think it is needed when it is used in such advertising, for example, as was recently indulged in by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, largely, it seemed to me, to glorify the UIC.
This is not the time to go into the matter of Information Canada, but may I say in passing that I very much doubt whether the addition of this new layer of government publicity apparatus to the existing layers in the departments is going to do much to clarify, make efficient or reduce the cost of what government information should do.
As to that part of the task force report dealing with government secrecy, which is contained in pages 25 to 34, it deals with a detailed examination and criticism of the hush-hush and secrecy now observed by the government. There are also some excellent comparisons between Canada's outmoded procedure in this area and those of other countries, notably Sweden. I should like to quote very briefly from the report which indicates the difference between the Swedish method of handling government information, that is allowing the public and opposition
Government Administration members access to governmental facts, and that of our country. It reads:
A full appreciation of the impact of the principle of open access can be gained only by giving some examples of the extensiveness of its operations. It applies, for example, to public documents kept by all sorts of administrative agencies, from government departments to police officers, administrative tribunals and local governments. Even parliament is under the rule; for instance, a citizen can demand to see the minutes of its committees. Moreover, anybody is entitled to ask for documents; he does not have to show that he has a legal interest in seeing them nor is he obliged to say for what purpose he wants them. To make sure that agencies do not purposely delay in answering a request, the Constitution of Sweden provides that a requested document shall be "made available immediately or as soon as possible", and the courts of Sweden in their judgments have taken this rule seriously.
A few months ago, the Southam news service, in making a survey which delved into government secrecy and the lack of access by the public to government information, said this:
Creation of a freedom of information act such as the one on the statute books in the United States would be a way to greater access of the public to government information.
The United States act of 1966 requires federal agencies to make available for public inspection and copying all final opinions, views, statements, policies and interpretations, staff manuals and the like. The act gives to the American people the right to challenge public officials in the courts if access is refused. Such an act for the Canadian scene has been proposed by me, and without burdening the House with any of its details I will simply say that I believe the adoption of some such measure would be a step toward ending the high degree of government secrecy which now prevails. We should do this mainly by making the House, through its committees and individual members, privy to almost everything which is going on in the government. We in our party prefer that course to what the Prime Minister appears to be doing at this time in dominating the cabinet, the caucus and Parliament and making his own direct line to the public.
May I say in conclusion that we support the motion of the official opposition, not that we really believe they would do differently from those in power whom they criticise but because we oppose what is being done now.


Mr. John Roberts (York-Simcoe):: For a few
moments at the beginning of the speech of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) I thought we were going to have a discussion
March 5, 1970

Government Administration on a theme worthy of that hon. member, and indeed worthy of serious discussion and debate in the House. At the beginning of his remarks he put forward very precisely and perceptively a problem which is a continuing one in the development of governmental institutions, that tension which exists between any opposition and any government on the allocation of time, that tension and that balance which exist between the opposition's right to discuss and the government's right to present its legislation. He spoke about the difficulties and the necessity of adapting the traditional system to the needs of a modern age. This has always been a problem in British parliamentary institutions-it is not a new one. Over a hundred years ago Walter Bage-hot said:
The most imposing institutions of mankind are the oldest; and yet so changing is the world, so fluctuating are its needs, so apt to lose inward force, though retaining outward strength, are its best instruments, that we must not expect the oldest institutions to he now the most efficient. We must expect what is venerable to acquire influence because of its inherent dignity; but we must not expect it to use that influence so well as new creations apt for the modem world-
That is really the problem that faces us as parliamentarians,-the creation or adaptation of institutions to meet the modern world. What a speech the hon. member for York South could have made on that subject because of his experience and his sensitivity to political questions! Alas, he slid off into an easy attack on personalities, a smashing attack against style. I always find it rather puzzling that the hon. member for York South should be so much against style when he is so stylish himself and is married to such a stylish lady.
There were a few words in his speech about technocracy. Of course, nothing has been done in the past two years, he said. Regional development, the Criminal Code, the official languages act-an act on which both he and I worked-the committee system, tax reform, changes in foreign policy,-all this was forgotten; for him nothing has happened in the last two years. And then there was his long, rambling discussion about Denison Mines. I do not regret the speech the hon. member made; I regret very much the speech he did not make and could have made about a subject of permanent and continuing interest to members of this House.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) meandered about the subject, gingerly sidling up once in a while to an argument, as is his wont. I am puzzled by the Leader of the

Opposition. Once upon a time he was the leader of a government in Nova Scotia and there was not a great deal of activity by the independent members of that legislature. It was not so much a question of how closely that government approached parliamentary democracy but what kind of oriental despotism is exercised. I say "oriental" because it was way down east.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
This, Mr. Speaker, is a very curious motion indeed. I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition discussed it with the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I am not surprised to see that that right hon. member is not here, because this motion, particularly in what it says at the end, is an attack on the general theme which has been sustained by the right hon. member for Prince Albert throughout his parliamentary career. This motion scorns the government because it "endangers the balance between the two structures of government-the executive and the representative." Two structures of government, Mr. Speaker, two different functions; one independent of the other, one looking at the other, one checking on the other. This is not a description of what has been traditionally the theme of parliamentary democracy, which regards the executive as a committee of the majority party, a committee of the House of Commons, uniting the representative and governing functions. This motion rejects the fundamental parliamentary principle of making the executive and representative power-cabinet and Commons-mutually dependent. It makes them independent opposed structures. There is quite a simple description for that theory of politics. It is called the separation of powers. That is the system they have in the United States. The introduction of that system is something which the right hon. member for Prince Albert has fought against throughout his parliamentary career, and therefore I am not surprised to find him not here to support it.
Even more curious, of course, is the way in which this motion automatically assumes that the opposition members alone are the representatives of the people. They represent the citizens. They often talk about the arrogance of the government in power. I can understand that. When you don't have power you rather resent those who have it. But what about the arrogance of the opposition? They ignore the majority of the people who voted for the government.
March 5, 1970	COMMONS


Gerald William Baldwin: A minority voted for the government.


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, it was a minority vote, but I suppose that if a party which can collect barely 25 per cent of the vote wishes to say it represents the people, then it must maintain that delusion in its own eyes. Here is a government which has a majority of the members of this House. We have by far the bulk of the population supporting the government through the members of this House. But the opposition says: ignore that. Those government members speak not for the people. They, the opposition, are the representatives of the citizens. The cabinet is not representative of the citizens; they are. They manage to secure just something over a quarter of the vote, but they are the ones who are to speak for the citizens, and no one else. But they are not talking about the rights of citizens. They are merely talking about their own desire to talk, as long as they are interested in hearing themselves talk, whether or not the public is listening.
They, Mr. Speaker, are suffering from poverty. They are a poverty case. It is not a poverty of time, nor a poverty of opportunities. It is a poverty of ideas, a poverty of policies, a poverty of the capacity to communicate, and in the end, a poverty of leadership.


An hon. Member:: They do a lot of talking.


John (Moody) Roberts: Sure, they do a lot of talking but they don't say very much, and that is their problem. Where do they stand? Where do they stand on the problems that young people face in our society? Where do they stand on the constitution? Where do they stand on the problem of drugs?
Go out through the cities of this country and ask the men in the street where the Conservative party stands on these issues, and you will find they are regarded as the grand, original know-nothing party. They wonder why nobody pays any attention to them. It is not because they have no opportunities to speak. It is because they have so little to say. As a result, they have developed a kind of foreign devil theory to describe their own inadequacies. They say it is the mean government which is depriving them of the opportunities to present their points of view.
They seem to say: never mind the funds provided us for research. Never mind each time a minister makes a statement to the press or on television, and tries thereby to 21774-4
DEBATES	4437
Government Administration communicate with the citizens of this country,-we will scorn that as an abrogation of the privileges of this House. And when a minister tries to use a modern means of communication, such as slides, a means which has been around for a long time, we will scorn that. When the government tries to provide information to the people through Information Canada, we will describe it as propaganda. When the government establishes committees of this House for the effective review of administrative decisions, we will downgrade that.
They ignore all these things, and take the attitude that the government is the scapegoat for the inadequacy of their own attempts to communicate to the people that which they do not have to communicate,-ideas and policies. The fault is not in the government but in themselves that they are underlings, and rather than look to the other side for scapegoats they should look into and search then-own hearts for their inadequacies and failures to get through to the people of Canada what their position is. It might help them to do that if only they could find a position to hold, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, we have had a very interesting debate thus far. I found it interesting to attempt to follow the rationale of government backbenchers trying to explain why they are powerless to influence the executive that is running this country today. They did a far-reaching job this afternoon in an attempt to convince somebody, I think really themselves, that they are useless-I mean useful around here.


An hon. Member:: You were right the first time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will come to that later. This debate centres around the efficiency of the government. We have seen newspaper articles indicating that the government is efficient. But the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been making snap decisions. Is this efficiency? We saw a snap decision made on the Estate Tax bill, and it pretty well had the country in an uproar. We had a snap decision on the white paper on reform of taxation, and another uproar, with the result that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) does not know whether he means all that is in the white paper or not. The Prime Minister says he wants the people of Canada to tell him whether they like the white paper or not. Is this a proper kind of efficiency?
4438	COMMONS
Government Administration
This is a democracy. In a democracy, the executive must be responsible to the elected representatives. Mr. Speaker, we have seen the roster system in operation. Nobody minds a minister being away from the House on government business, when he goes to Vancouver or overseas to study some problem. This is understandable. Every elected representative understands that point. But when Ministers deliberately stay behind the curtains, or run up to their offices, afraid to come into the House and answer questions about their responsibilities, that is not responsible government. That is not discharging the responsibilities of their office.
We hear members of the government talk about the fact that they were given a mandate. They were given a mandate to run the country-yes-but to be responsible in running it, to answer questions. We in the opposition have a mandate also, a mandate to scrutinize and to determine how legislation will be applied across the country. We heard some criticism this afternoon of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for going across the country and attempting to explain the application of the White paper. Certainly, this is correct. He has a mandate to watch. He has a mandate to examine, and to examine very carefully how the government's proposed legislation will be applied across the country. He has a mandate to inform the people.
Some hon. member opposite quoted the press a great deal this afternoon. The press have a role in democracy. Their role is to be critical, to examine closely so as to inform the people of the exact application of the legislation and how the people will be affected.
The press, of course, today are groping and grasping for more and more power. They want the complete opposition out of the House. This is the way it is in the presidential system. The Leader of the Opposition isn't around. He is not in their debates. This is the way the press want it in Canada today. They want to take over the official role of the Official Opposition. That is their aim. That is their game.


Raymond J. Perrault: Oh, marshmallows.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hear some comment from that great wizard down there. He has been pretty quiet lately. He must be discontented. Debate in this House must at all times reflect the mood of the country. If it does not, democracy has failed somewhere along the line. If the country is stirred up over the white paper then this House, in which are the representatives of the people, must be stirred

DEBATES	March 5, 1970
up over the white paper. If the country is stirred up over the lack of housing in our cities and small towns, then this House must reflect that mood and be stirred up over the question of housing.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Did the government, during the election campaign, tell the people of the country it would bring in the new estate tax legislation and implement the Carter report? Did it say it would out-Carter Carter, so to speak? It did not, and it should be made to answer for hoodwinking the people.
The restlessness of the country ought to be expressed in the House, but hon. members cannot do that because they are thwarted by the rules and the skilful manipulation of those rules by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). We all know how the committees system works. If the chairman does not turn in a report which the government favours, he is dismissed, jerked off that committee. That is what happened to the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) who served on the Transport Committee; he was jerked off the committee and someone more receptive to the government's ideas was appointed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Mahoney:: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) ought to be more precise in his allegations. He is not, and therefore I cannot really respond to him. However, no such incident as he alluded to occurred so far as I am aware.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I am allowed only 15 minutes and will not waste time arguing. The hon. member knows very well what I am referring to in connection with the Great Slave Lake Railway contracts. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas), who also served on that committee and also favoured a position contrary to the government's on this matter, was dismissed from the committee. There were three such hon. members, and I shall remember the third in a minute. Those three hon. members were dismissed for not following the line laid down by the government.


Gerald William Baldwin: Shame.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What do the backbenchers feel about their role here? The Prime Minister's right-hand man from Toronto, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), resigned from the cabinet because he could not stom-
March 5, 1970

ach the way this government was acting. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) left the government side of the House and came to this side to sit as an independent. What did he have to say about the rules and opportunities for participating in debates? And what did the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) have to say? I will read an excerpt from the Toronto Star of January 19:
Givens said this makes MPs 'about as useless as an udder on a bull.'
His meaning is pretty plain. What did the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) have to say about our committees system?
He said, as reported in the Globe and Mail of February 20:
-the government has told Its backbenchers they are not to amend bills or estimates in Commons committees.
Did the people of this country give this government that kind of mandate?


An hon. Member:: It should resign.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member for York East also said, as reported in the Telegram of February 20:
Although committees have been given a great deal of work to do, the government members of the committees have been instructed to make no changes to the bills coming before the committee, and to vote exactly as they are told by the government.
I will not read what opposition members are reported to have said. The hon. members for Trinity, Spadina, High Park (Mr. Deakon), York West and York East have at one time or another expressed complete dissatisfaction with the system which denies them an opportunity to participate in House of Commons debates. There you have five members representing one of Canada's major cities who completely reject the way our Parliament has been operating and who think they are about as useless as udders on a bull.


Gerald William Baldwin: Other government members feel the same way, only they have not the courage to say so.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Only if ministers are in the House during the question period and answer questions can the government be made aware of the country's problems. Ministers are not here; they hide themselves during the question period. Then, too, some behave as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) behaved when he announced the reorganization of his department. Instead of announcing the reorganization in the House and answering hon. member's questions, he appeared on television 21774-41
Government Administration at ten o'clock in the morning and made his announcement.
Other ministers behave similarly and then come to the House and table reports without giving the people's elected representatives a prior opportunity to examine them and ask meaningful questions. I have said repeatedly that behaviour such as this is unacceptable because in this way ministers are evading their responsibilities to the democratically elected representatives of the people. Sometimes I wonder if we are adopting the presidential system of government, but at least under that system there are checks and balances to the executive power. United States government committees exercise real power and check the power of the executive. Under our system we seem to be moving toward a presidential form of government without adopting the checks and balances that offset the president's power.
The motion before the House is timely and expresses clearly to any backbencher the danger Canada faces. Our parliamentary system is changing for the worse because although our Prime Minister may make snap decisions which are not always in the people's best interests, he need not answer to anyone for those decisions. The President of the Privy Council complained that the question period has become a sparring match for political points. Perhaps that is how the cabinet sees it. We try to ask our questions earnestly and obtain information on government policy, only to be met with smart replies and quick quips. For instance, if one were to check the record one would see that 90 per cent of the Prime Minister's answers are smart, political quips which contain no information. Is that what the people of Canada told him to do when they elected him? Is that the way a government responsible to its people behaves?
Our system of government is founded on the principle that the government is responsible to the elected representatives of this country. The Prime Minister has not accepted that responsibility, and until he does the agitation and unrest throughout the country will continue. Let's not fool ourselves: if a government shows no concern for its people you will see burnings, lynchings and all kinds of destruction. Just look at what has been happening south of the border. Under our system of government we reflect the country's angry mood in our debates and by demanding that the government show responsibility toward the democratically elected representatives of the people. This government has not accepted
March 5, 1970

Government Administration
that responsibility; it has made no attempt to even become interested in it. It is no wonder the country is completely agitated and concerned. I see my time has expired, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). I would like to remind him of some facts concerning the Great Slave Lake Railway case. It is one I was interested in and participated in to some extent. I spoke to the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) to see if he was in fact yanked off the committee. He informed me he was not; he voluntarily took himself off the committee to take a trip to his constituency. I recall that the original draft report which dealt with that case was turned down by the committee. The report that was adopted was drafted by the hon. member for Crowfoot. There has been a certain amount of non-partisanship in that committee's deliberations.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? The report to which the hon. member is referring which was drafted by me and unanimously accepted, was it concurred in by the government: has the government acted on it yet?


John Mercer Reid: I understand the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) has been in consultation with the railway and the people making the claims to set up a proper tribunal to adjudicate the claims.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why does the government not concur in the third report of the Transport Committee? That is the report to which you are referring.


John Mercer Reid: I forget the number of the report, but the report on the Great Slave Lake Railway recommended that an investigation be made under the Inquiries Act. They are now trying to determine the type, number and quality of people to carry it out. It seems this is as reasonable an approach that any government could be expected to take.
We are discussing a rather long, rambling and very unprecise resolution:
That this House condemns the government for its arbitrary actions and destructive policies of secrecy and non-disclosure including its attitude towards Parliament which deny the right of citizens in this country to be informed and to participate fully in the government of Canada, particularly through their elected representatives, and which 
endanger the balance between the two structures of government-the executive and the representative.


Gerald William Baldwin: Read it again it sounds good.


John Mercer Reid: I am not one of those members who speak very often in this Chamber. I have not had the opportunity to develop a speaking style and do not feel at ease when speaking in the House of Commons as do members of the opposition. It seems that when we are talking about the powers of Parliament, what we are really talking about is the quality of debate and the impact Members of Parliament can make on the general public: that is where the real power lies. This institution is not here for us to exercise power as our own right. We are here to exercise power as delegated by the people who elected us. If we are to have good debates and make our points clearly and forcibly to the public at large, the whole process must be dependent upon the exchange of ideas by members of the opposition and members of the government.
I came to this House in 1965, and it seems to me that the quality of debate has fallen off sharply since the election of 1968. The personnel on the government side have remained relatively constant; the personnel of the opposition, including the leadership, have changed. A logical analysis would lead one to believe there has been a decrease in the ability of the opposition to even oppose effectively, let alone initiate new ideas and concepts of government.
There has to be a two-way street. The House of Commons is not a forum for the government; it is basically constructed to provide a forum for the opposition. One of my frustrations as a backbencher is that the opportunities for me to speak in this Chamber are extremely limited because of our antiquated rules and the limited opportunities under those rules for members such as myself to participate. Until we have a sensible allocation of time rule in this House, government backbench members will have to pay the price; we will be unable to participate as much as we would like. It is necessary for the government to rule. For the government to do that, legislation must be passed and discipline exercised by the backbenchers in order that the greatest good can be accomplished.
I wish to say a few words about the committees system, which has been derided as a voice of the House of Commons by reason of the rules and attitude of opposition members. I get satisfaction from my committee work. I have been rather fortunate to be involved in
March 5, 1970

a number of issues in which there has been a great deal of excitement and the committees have had an opportunity to make genuine contributions.
I will use as an example the experience of the Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts Committee when dealing with the Company of Young Canadians. We held extensive hearings over a six-week period. We drafted a report which was submitted to the House of Commons. After considering the report, the government introduced legislation which in the main followed the recommendations which an all-party committee had made. I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) that very few party lines were drawn in that committee. The reason for this was that no party had given instructions to its members that they must take this position or that: the members were able to evolve the policy which was later accepted by the government. Certainly there were differences in detail; the members of the official opposition wished to wind up the CYC and some Liberal members voted with them, but the majority of the committee recommended that the operation should be continued under a new structure.
The Leader of the Opposition said something about removing participation from the council of the CYC. This is so, and the suggestion was included in the report but not as a strong recommendation. The report indicated that the system of participation of the CYC, by volunteers on the council, had not worked and was not likely to work in the future; therefore, if the Company was to be continued some other form of governing system had to be worked out. The government came up with the concept of a Crown corporation. This is a concept which has worked well in the past. Any Member of Parliament who has tried to get the CBC, the CNR, Air Canada or the Canada Council to change its mind once it has been made up under the Crown corporation system knows that these agencies have as much independence as they care to exercise.
I can think of one example which was raised some time ago in committee when the Canada Council had the temerity, according to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), to award Mr. Stanley Gray of Montreal a $5,000 scholarship. The members of the official opposition on that committee did everything they could to get the minister and the officials of the Canada Council to revoke the award. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition knows it was not done.
Government Administration
There are great powers available to members of committees if they wish to exercise them-which of course is the biggest risk of all. Many members on both sides of the House do not want to take this risk: it means1 exposing themselves, going out on a limb and taking your chances with the public. I feel the committee system that we now have is stronger than it has ever been. It is still evolving and getting stronger. Standing Order 65(8) sets out the powers of a standing committee. It reads:
Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as-may be referred to them by the House, and, to>
report from time to time, and, except when the House otherwise orders, to send for persons, papers and records, to sit while the House is sitting, to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned, to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by them, and to delegate to sub-committees all or any of their powers except the power to report direct to the House.
Any fair-minded person reading that Standing Order will realize that committees have a great deal of power and authority. It is a question of how much will and desire there is to exercise those powers. We have real problems in the committees system; I do not think anyone doubts that. At the present time there are 24 committees of the House of Commons; 19 standing committees, four joint committees and one which the House approved a few weeks ago, a Special Committee on Pollution comprising 15 members. This committee has yet to be established. This gives a total of 24 committees. They require a total of 595 Members of Parliament to staff them. There are 264 members in the House. Deduct 30 cabinet members, 16 Parliamentary Secretaries, 20 members for chairmen and 20 members on the opposition front benches who do not participate continuously in committee proceedings, and one is left with 178 members who are available for active committee duties-about 3.25 to a committee.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Therefore, it seems to me that to ensure a much stronger committees system, three things should be done as a first step. The size of committees should be reduced to 12 members. We have experimented with this idea in the case of several special committees, such as the committee to consider the official languages bill. At present there are two committees of this size among our standing committees. This, it seems to me, would be a useful reform.
Second, we should reduce the number of committees from 19 to 14 or 15. Third,
4442	COMMONS
Government Administration research facilities should be made available to committees from the Library of Parliament research staff on a better basis. At present, members of this staff are being seconded to committees by reason of a somewhat dubious procedure. The problem is that once a committee obtains the services of a research person, it rarely lets him go. If the staff of the research section were increased, or if a separate division were set up, it would make it largely unnecessary to employ outside persons, often at considerable expense.
One of the things which might be changed is the method of appointment to committees, although I have no particular quarrel with the present method. It is my experience that no member has ever been pulled off a committee for voting against the government or for exposing weaknesses of administration. Tenure is always accorded. The government is well aware that if any member was yanked out of his place there would be a tremendous outcry. So members have as much freedom in committees as they want to take. That, of course, is the key phrase. Very often, though, members who might be doing useful work in [DOT]committee do not perform this work because they would prefer to see their names in the media. To be named by the media means to be spectacular and, to some extent, irresponsible because of the competition for media space among Members of Parliament. If we could forget the joy of seeing ourselves through the media we might be far better committee members and even far better Members of Parliament.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke about government hiding information. Anyone who looks at the amount of information being dredged up by committees cannot take such a charge seriously, particularly when under the current system officials of the departments, together with ministers, for extensive periods of time, are available for questioning. In addition, of course, it is possible for committees to send for papers and outside witnesses in connection with almost every subject which comes before them.
It is my opinion that Members of Parliament do not yet sufficiently appreciate the possibilities which the current rules provide. For some reason we are not prepared to do the necessary work in committees, though this would lead to greater knowledge and would obviously make us more effective Members of Parliament. It is not so much lack of information which concerns me; it is .the inability of members to make good use

DEBATES	March 5, 1970
of the information already available to them. This may be because our office facilities do not permit us to spend the time on this work that is necessary; the library research staff is overloaded. Nevertheless, in my opinion members do not take advantage of all the opportunities which now exist.
The House of Commons, and to a large extent the committees, are really a forum for the opposition. The government can take no blame or credit for a sparkling House of Commons, because the initiative must come from the opposition. The opposition has to provide the alternatives, the new approaches. I regret that when the record of this debate is read tomorrow it will probably be seen that the best speeches were made by members on the government side and not, unfortunately, by Members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.


Donald MacInnis: With the time so close to the dinner recess, may I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I intend to open my remarks this evening by quoting a few excerpts from the press. When quoting passages there is always a danger, of course, that you are repeating the words of somebody who has referred to the same quotation; but even if repetition is imposed on the House, this is absolutely necessary so that the government is made to see the error of its ways. I should first like to quote an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail:
At the time the article was written there were 45 task forces in existence compared to four royal commissions, and some 60 per cent of these were using surveys. About 18 of the task forces came directly under the Prime Minister's office or the Privy Council office.
There are significant differences between task forces and royal commissions; perhaps the most important is that neither statute or convention requires task forces to make public their reports.
There is a real danger in the secrecy which surrounds the surveys done by task forces.
Those who were just surveyed do not know what the reports contain, the public does not know, parliament does not know.
March 5, 1970

When the government makes its policy decisions, it uses these reports. The public and Parliament cannot know on what facts the decision was based. It may be on factors known to all; or on secret information in the reports.
The public and Parliament cannot even know if the information was valid.
In one case it was not. After the Hellyer task force on housing reports, the government put a freeze on large public housing developments. It claimed that it did this because studies had shown that such projects had serious social, psychological and economic defects, and required further study.
It turned out later that the particular study involved had been only a pilot project designed to discover how such a study should be made. It has not surveyed a statistically meaningful group, just 100 public housing residents . . . the study was not nationally, provincially or even municipally representative. Of its use, its author said, "it's a good study-
Yet on the basis of that study the freeze was established.
This is far too dangerous a way to run a country. It opens the possibility-which cannot be checked by parliamentary opposition-that the decisions are made on inadequate or faulty research. It was another, quite unjust, effect; it provides masses of research, some of it undoubtedly of value, to experts outside government who may use it for their own purposes. This could be grossly unfair to persons and businesses surveyed, who do not have the information themselves.
Participatory democracy, if it is not to be cynical, must include feed-back as well as feed-in. The public and Parliament must be as well informed as the government if they are to challenge the government policy effectively. Never should private individuals have private use of government commission surveys. I
I should like to refer to a report which appeared in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of October 24, 1969, entitled "Open government ahead":
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Mr. Trudeau, through the Throne Speech, leads us to believe he too is striving to capture that spirit (participation), however, the performance of his administration so far has been dismal in this respect.
In one breath he talks about participatory democracy and in another he refuses to reveal government deliberation and findings, even to members of his caucus.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) refuses to reveal information to his own caucus I am reminded of the set-up within the committees which were supposed to be so useful during this Parliament. There is no doubt that the committees themselves are a farce. I say this now because in essence I am quoting an hon. member of the Liberal party, a member of this House, who made a statement to the effect that Liberal members were
Government Administration instructed not to make any changes whatsoever in the legislation placed before committees.
If I were saying that on my own, no doubt I would be challenged on a question of privilege by someone on the other side of the House. In the end I might even have to stake my seat on that claim. I am repeating the remark made by a Liberal backbencher to the effect that the committees were useless. The government is completely ignoring the work of committees. We have had several examples of that recently. Again I say that if I were to make that statement on my own I would be challenged immediately by a member on the other side of the House and would probably have to stake my seat on that claim.


An hon. Member:: Oh no; it is not that important.


Howard Russell MacEwan: You are waking them up, Don.


Donald MacInnis: Don't offend the lads sitting to your front and left. Prior to the supper hour we heard the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) talk about the responsibilities of opposition in this House. I should like to know what he knows about responsibility, when he does not know what it is to sit on this side of the House seeking information and not knowing where this government is going. Is it any wonder that the opposition does not know where the government is going, when its own backbenchers do not know where it is going?
We have heard Liberal members outside this House complaining about the committees' structure; we have heard them complaining about the caucus because they cannot put their views before the caucus, and we have heard them complain that they are only allowed to speak in this House with permission.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Donald MacInnis: The hon. member says "Oh, oh!" Speak to your House leader. It follows that they are not only caucusbroken and com-mitteebroken; they are also Housebroken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald MacInnis: Getting back to the question of what members of the opposition are faced with, I would refer to the question period. The question period has turned out to be a complete farce. We have a roster system. When I raised a question of privilege on the
March 5, 1970

Government Administration roster system a couple of weeks ago, it was accepted by Mr. Speaker; it was not ruled out. I asked for a ruling as to whether the roster system was in keeping with the qualification put on questions that are asked orally in this House every day. I say this is a violation of the question period. I can refer to precedents by a former Speaker of this House who ruled on the urgency of a question raised. It did not involve a matter of days, hours or minutes. Now, it involves a question of seconds: a question must be qualified as urgent before it can be asked in this House.
I say to the government that the practice of predetermining the absence of ministers and keeping them out of this House-they are kept out of the House, because we had the example of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) who wanted to come in and answer a question but had to get permission to do so, and on that day permission was denied him-is wrong. My question of privilege was not ruled out, and as yet there has been no ruling on it.
The roster is a complete violation of the question period, as are the qualifications placed on questions asked during that period. Let us take today, for example. The Minister of Fisheries sat dumbfounded in his seat when asked what he was going to do in respect of legislation passed in this House six years ago. He was asked what he was going to do to protect our fishermen and our fishing industry. There is no denying it-this House passed legislation six years ago that gave the Minister of Fisheries authority to protect the fishing industry and fishermen. He sat mum today; he could not, or would not, answer. Why? What is this practice doing to the question period? It is making a complete farce of the question period. In fact, Parliament is being made a farce of.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald MacInnis: We have had any number of examples of this. We have had the Prime Minister rise in this House and say, in answer to a question in respect of the Manhattan project, that it was not in any way, shape or form involved in any question of Canada's sovereignty in the north. Two days ago we heard over the radio from Newfoundland a statement by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) saying there must be a joint effort between his department and the Department of National Defence to protect our north because of the question raised by the Manhattan project in respect of Canadian


sovereignty in the north. This was a complete denial two days after the Prime Minister made his statement.
While we are talking about denials let us take another look at the Minister of Fisheries. He sat mute in his place despite the fact that legislation passed by the House provided him with the means of defending and protecting the Canadian fishing industry. This is the same minister who has gone around the country condemning his own government. The Prime Minister said not too long ago that there were going to be no loose-lipped statements made across this country by ministers. At one time it was an accepted principle that if a minister made a statement outside the House, unless he said he was speaking personally and on his own account, any statement he made outside the House was, in effect a statement of government policy.
Let us look at what the Minister of Fisheries has done to his own government. He has completely denied it. He has criticized and condemned his own government; yet he sits here and enjoys a seat on the executive of this country. He sits in the government with a Prime Minister who maintains he is going to maintain discipline within his cabinet. He is maintaining discipline all right! He is shoving the backbencher down, to use his own phrase, to a nobody. That is what he said we were, and that is what he is saying you are over there. You are nobody outside the House; you are nobody inside the House; you are nobody at caucus, and you are nobody in committee.
The Prime Minister is allowing the Minister of Fisheries to get away with a condemnation of his own government. Let me quote from a remark he made in British Columbia not too long ago:
I don't believe all that I read about dying lakes and sickening seas. Most of it is poppycock-written by novices who are reaching for headlines-
That is, anybody who questions pollution in this country or says anything about it is just a novice reaching out for headlines. That is what the minister said in British Columbia. Let me now read what the government has said-and the Minister of Fisheries is part of the government. I quote from the Throne Speech:
The evidence of past failure to rehabilitate our water resources is there for all to see-befouled water, despoiled beaches, rotting marine vegetation, and diminished fishing.
If this is not a complete contradiction by the Minister of Fisheries in respect of his own
March 5, 1970	COMMONS
cabinet and government, what is it? Where is this Prime Minister with his discipline? Where is he now in respect of his statement that no minister will go around the country making loose-lipped remarks about government policy? Here we have a minister completely condemning his own government, the members of which sit in silence when legislation of his House provides them with ways and means of protecting our fishermen. They do not answer. They contradicted their own Prime Minister two days after his back was turned.
Then we have the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) with his concern about the recognition of Red China. This is a dandy! Red China must be recognized. Why must we recognize Red China? The minister says it is so we can bring influence to bear in respect of peace in the world. Let me tell you that nations with far greater influence than Canada have recognized Red China, and they are 'not influencing Red China in any way, shape or form. This is a lot of poppycock, using the words of the Minister of Fisheries. This is a lot of nonsense. Twenty million Canadians will not influence 700 million or 800 million Chinese. They will make up their own minds. The minister of external affairs is wasting an awful lot of the Canadian taxpayers' money and time in trying to bring about this recognition. I am reminded of what one old philosopher said about Red China. He said-and this should be given considerable consideration-that he thinks it would go well with a white tablecloth.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
When asked if Canada would maintain its boycott against Rhodesia, the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not take a better line on the colour problem. He said we would maintain the blockade on Rhodesia rather than give recognition, in order to bring about a more satisfactory solution. He cannot solve the problem in that country, yet he wants to go to work on 800 million Chinese.
We have the Prime Minister going about this country taking chips off the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans). He thinks it is great sport to make fun of the mail service of this country. No doubt there is reason to take chips off the Minister of Communications because the mail services are fouled up. But what does the Minister of Communications do-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
DEBATES	4445
Government Administration


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this debate I heard a very precise quotation from Machiavelli by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). But had he examined the book a little further he would have found that a worth-while prince, having encountered opposition to his plans, shall take good advice and shall continue his course of action in such a way that will make him loved and revered throughout the nation.
No one in this House would dare accuse me of ever kow-towing to either government edict, the Prime Minister's edict or anyone else's edict. I have always spoken however I thought right. I do not deny the statements I made 18 months ago. Hon. gentlemen opposite do not consider what is the great privilege of the House that they so fondly protect and want back again. One would imagine that prior to this administration this House was a most powerful body. It was not. It was a club. It was a luxurious and very exclusive club, but nevertheless it was a club. The committees had no meaning and this House had no meaning. We talked, not to each other but at each other. It was sad.
We discussed estimates, for example, and when the estimates were before us we could discuss any subject we desired. An hon. gentleman not now with us, from Fort William, regularly moved that the estimates be reduced from $700 million, $800 million or $100 million to $1. It was a vote of non-confidence. We were expected to be able to examine the estimates, but this was not the case. I do not deny for a minute that when this administration took over-and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does not deny it either-the amount of policy decision-making was nil. It was recognized that government policy by and large was dictated by the elite, whether administrative, financial or other economic elite. It was the Prime Minister's determination to change the course of this Parliament.


An hon. Member:: So he could do it himself.


Steven Otto: No. It was his determination that more voice should be allowed in respect of policy decisions made in this House or in committees. The introduction of the regional desks was an idea. It has not developed as had been expected, but on the other hand I think it was a good idea. The regional desks are now helpful to members although they are not a substitute for this House of Commons or the members who sit here.
March 5, 1970

Government Administration
The committees system about which I spoke was confined at one time, but I can assure the House that this situation no longer exists. Indeed, members of the committee are free to alter legislation. As an example, a suggestion that went before the Committee on Indian1 Affairs and Northern Development came forth in this House directly contrary to government opinion and yet it was accepted. Recently the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) had to bring forward an amendment in respect of the Research Development Corporation bill which was not to his liking, but it was the decision of the committee which put it forward.
If, indeed, there is not enough input into committees by members, it is our own fault because we have the opportunity to digest, examine and carefully go over all legislation. We do not do this because we have still ingrained in us the idea of opposition in the House. Every innovation is immediately contested by the opposition who think that the rights of Parliament are being abrogated. In fact, on one occasion the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) and I decided it would be worth while to go over to the opposition just to show them how to oppose. They have not taken advantage of the news media to form an effective opposition. Instead of taking advantage of all the powers the committees now have and all the opportunities to contribute effectively and knowledgeably, they sit here and complain about the good old days-but the good old days were not the good old days.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr.   Olio@: I will answer questions after my few remarks. Some mention was made of the question period. One would imagine, and we and the people of Canada are supposed to imagine, that members who ask questions are really seeking information. That is nonsense. They know the answer, otherwise they would not ask the question. Now we have a committees system whereby members can ask questions until they are blue in the face. Members need not pass estimates or legislation until they are satisfied.


Harold Warren Danforth: That is wrong.


Steven Otto: It is not wrong. There has been a great complaint that this House has lost its power and that the Prime Minister is somehow deemed to be a dictator. We have a system in caucus whereby all members will


be consulted first, as the caucus chairman can tell you, on policy decisions. Now there must be approval by the elected representatives before policy decisions are considered by the committee of cabinet. I say this with all respect and without partisanship. There is an avenue that I would like the House leader to consider, because opposition does not generate from the Prime Minister to giving committees the right and the power to examine and scrutinize the estimates and make recommendations which the government will accept.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I am sure that if we showed responsibility -and judging from this motion and the speeches made in the House I cannot see that we have yet shown it-and if the opposition did an effective job in accordance with the new procedures, we would have as backbenchers and representatives of the people some say with regard to the estimates, the money which the administration so badly needs. If indeed we exercised the power to control the estimates and made recommendations as to how much money the administrators would have, you would be surprised how important the backbenchers would become.
I think that day will come. But we cannot and should not blame the Prime Minister for not trying to get more input from Members of Parliament. He has done everything. He has made changes in the cabinet structure and in the caucus; he has allowed members to bring in new ideas and new legislation, at times to the embarrassment of ministers; he has allowed amendments to be made and he has allowed everyone to speak up. Now the responsibility is ours.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) wishes to rise on a question of privilege.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from the statement just made by the hon. member. I will qualify my question by stating that I have in my hand a newspaper clipping in which the hon. member's picture appears and in which he is quoted as saying:
The instructions were that bills are to leave the committees in exactly the same form as they enter-
The statement as quoted is in direct contradiction to what he just said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 5. 1970


Mr.   Olio@: There is probably one member in this House who will not admit there is a change when he sees one. I am not that member. The hon. member who just raised the question of privilege may hold on to his views until the end; however, so far as I am concerned, when I see a change I recognize it and I give credit to the Prime Minister who made the change.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harold Warren Danforth: Yes, sir, Mr. Prime Minister, sir.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I ask the member whether he has completely withdrawn the statement he made in respect of the committee hearings.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: That is not a question of privilege; it is an interruption.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have grave doubts whether this is a question of privilege. It seems to me the member raised a point of debate between himself and the hon. member for York East and I do not see how this constitutes a question of privilege.


Donald MacInnis: It is a question of privilege if any hon. member tries to impose an untruth on this House. I do want to know whether the truth is in his statement which I quoted, or in what he said just now.


Steven Otto: The hon. member is obviously not rising on a question of privilege. However, I will say right now that obviously the Prime Minister paid attention to what I and others have said, and considered it carefully. He thought there was some truth in it and he changed his idea and said, "Go ahead, fellows".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: Yes, sir, Mr. Prime Minister, sir.


Steven Otto: There is a big change, a very radical change in the composition of Parliament as it is now. The committees have a lot of power.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You must be going to the Senate.
Government Administration


Steven Otto: But, of course, with members such as the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Homer) it does not matter how much power the committees have, they will never get anywhere. Indeed, sir, I rose to my feet without attempting to deny what I had said. I was trying to point out in all seriousness that the committees can be very effective. I am sure that with the research assistance and the greater facilities we now have, we can contribute a great deal to the policy decisions of this government and take them out of the hands of the administration and the elite.
However, what worries me is that as long as this situation goes on, the elite and the administration will continue to hold power because we have not shown responsibility. We have to accept these changes because other changes may not be all to the good. By and large we now have a system that can work. It needs only our desire and our willingness to make it work. It is no good looking back to the old days: the old days were not that good.
If hon. members examine the old days carefully, they will discover that the House was unable to work effectively and that this disgusted and frustrated most new members. The House became a club to which one had to become accustomed. Now there is a new avenue. I plead with all members to make use of it, and I guarantee that the Prime Minister will not oppose it. He wants contributions from members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid the hon. member's time has expired.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to direct a question to the hon. member?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired. The question can be put at this point only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to thank the House for being so generous to me. Is it not true that under this change, the hon. member's party in fact only meets in caucus every two weeks, that government members have to file notice before raising a question-


An hon. Member:: Oh, no!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -and in fact they are given only three minutes to speak? Is it not true, also, that the hon. member is a member of only one committee at present, which happens to be the Committee on Miscellaneous Private
March 5, 1970-

Government Administration Bills and Standing Orders, which is a very innocuous committee and studies little of the affairs and the economy of the country? Is this not a fact, and is this the reason for the great change we see in the hon. member?


Steven Otto: I can say that every statement is untrue. First, the caucus functions very well-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I take it the hon. member for Crowfoot is now rising on a question of privilege.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My question of privilege is this: The hon. member stated that every part of my statement is untrue. I point out to you, sir, that I have before me Votes and Proceedings and a list of standing, joint and special committees in alphabetical order appended to Hansard. I have checked the membership of every committee, and I see the name of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) under only one committee, namely the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders. We all know that under the rules of the House it takes three minutes or less for the name of an hon. member to be put foward as a member of a committee.
I defy the hon. member to say that he is on more than one committee at present. According to the list of members of committees as recorded in Hansard, the hon. member's name appears only once. He is on one innocuous committee that studies very little of the affairs and the economy of the country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
wonder if we are not on a matter of debate here.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We are, but it is fun.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am prepared to hear the hon. member for York East, but I would remind hon. members to keep to the matter under discussion. I would prefer to recognize the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau).


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I attempted to answer the hon. member calmly, and I am still trying to do so, but if he checks carefully he will find that I am also a member of the Committee on Health and Welfare and Social Affairs, a meeting of which I attended today. I also sat
[Mr. Homer.1
on the Finance Committee this morning, and in fact I did not sit on the other committee at all.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, on that very point of order I say-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. As I said before, I think we are entering into a debate. There seems to be a consensus that each hon. member has 15 minutes. Since there are a number of hon. members who wish to speak, I now recognize the hon. member for Shefford.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that I have before me the latest Hansard available, for Wednesday, March 4. The hon. member's name is not shown on the Health and Welfare Committee and it is not on the Finance Committee. I am not denying for one minute that he sat on those committees, but as far as the record goes he did not participate in them. I can only assume he must have had the consent of his party in order to participate as a full, voting member. But according to the record, which is the only thing I can go by, he was not participating in those committees today as a full, voting member.


Harold Warren Danforth: So there!


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I will wait until order is restored so as to be heard. I am pleased to be able to express my views on the motion presented by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), motion that is being discussed in the House today and deals with the government's policy of secrecy and non-disclosure of information they owe first to the House and secondly to the Canadian people.
We have noticed for a certain time that many ministers are absent from the House. Such absences may be motivated but it seems that the ministers of the most important departments are mainly the ones who are not in the house. In fact, I have not been able during the last four days to direct a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) because he was not in the House. I think that since this roster system was established, the order of attendance has not been respected. I suggest the ministers have been too often absent from the Houses during the last few days.
March 5, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	4449
When the ministers are in the House, especially following a federal election, they give us fairly good answers, for they work zealously, as I have noticed since 1968. However, for the last six months, sound and valid replies are getting ever scarce and we can rightly complain about the information we have received to date.
For instance, when we ask questions about the C.B.C., the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) takes pleasure in saying that it is a crown corporation and that he does not want to interfere in its business. Yet, we know full well that the C.B.C., even taking into account the services it gives, spends ten times what a private concern would spend. In fact, the C.B.C. spends money extravagantly; this would not be tolerated by the most spendthrift, the richest private enterprise. Yet, the minister responsible for it has never brought up any of those problems.
It must surely come to this, as it did in the case of the Company of Young Canadians: some public man, such as the mayor of Montreal, or the chairman of the executive council of that city, or someone else who has nothing to do with federal politics, will levy serious charges against the C.B.C. or the federal government, based on information obtained from its police force or other sources of information. But, if damning evidence is produced, as in the case of the C.Y.C., the government may deem it advisable to take the necessary steps to hide the problem, to work its way around is, so that the accusers might not be proved right.
We notice that information is not given first in the House. In fact, we often get it from sources other than the legitimate one, that is the House of Commons.
I should also like to say a word about the committees. There is some talk about democracy in the committees, but the government in office as well as the other parties, would have a hard time convincing the government members to attend the sittings of the committees. Why? Because, in spite of the fine promises made by our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) advocating democracy, the members cannot play their part as representatives of the people because no information is available to them.
The government makes use of its majority to eliminate witnesses, as it happened with regard to certain suggestions which I had made. At the time my witnesses were not allowed to appear because the government was afraid of them. In that instance, the
Government Administration majority was used to conceal as much information as possible and which is worse, on two occasions, committees adopted a report which the government refused to accept later on.
There is an increasing tendency to conceal facts, figures, in short everything. I would not want us some day to become totally useless in the House and in the committees. That is why I thought it advisable to say a few words on the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition.
Every time Parliament has been faced with a problem, instead of asking hon. members to study it in detail, to undertake research in order to solve it, the government has deemed necessary to appoint royal commissions. In so doing, several problems have been removed from the authority of Parliament and their solution further delayed.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
On July 17, 1969, the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), put on the order paper question No. 2685 which read as follows:
1.	How many study or investigating boards and commissions were appointed by the Canadian government since 1950?
2.	(a) What was the cost of each such commission?
(b) What were these commissions and what were the names of the members of each?
The answer was as follows:
As for the cabinet of the Prime Minister and the office of the Privy Council-
-it concerns two ministers only, the Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council-
-the answer is as follows:
1. 50 royal commissions and 3 task forces.
The setting up of each of these commissions has cost the Canadian people millions of dollars since 1950. What happened to the information collected by these royal commissions and presented to Parliament in the form of recommendations? Apparently, not even 5 per cent of them were ever implemented.
We kept on the old tracks just as if those commissions had not been set up. It seems that they were used mainly to reward the commissioners. They were on very friendly terms with the party and were paid handsomely. That was the only tangible result.
Mr. Speaker, what I think is strange and has been especially so for some time, is the fact that the government, in order to inform the public, builds a political smoke screen,
4450	COMMONS
Government Administration dreams up political information and generates invisible enemies.
After the 1968 election, the federal government undertook a fight against poverty. What solutions did it bring in to solve the problems of poverty in Canada? Let us ask the businessmen, especially since they got to know the white paper. Nothing was done. However, the people were told that we were preparing to fight poverty. Recently, we undertook a fight against inflation.
The Canadian people is provided with illusions and false information.
The federal government claims that it will solve the problems of poverty and of inflation.
It indulges in a witch hunt because he cannot solve either of these problems. Instead of attacking the real enemies of our economic system, it creates enemies for himself. It cannot act otherwise because our economic system is perverted. Instead of doing something to change the system, it strikes at its results, it misinforms the Canadian people, feeds them with illusions and gives them false hopes.
The Prime Minister said in the House, on Tuesday, February 10, 1970, about the establishment of Information Canada, as reported in Hansard at page 3406, and I quote:
The organization will be divided into four branches: one for planning and research; one to produce and distribute information; one to gather and publish information on the views of the public; and an administrative branch.
When we see the government acting this way, we conclude that such information will serve at the very most to sell a policy which the Canadian people refuse to accept. In fact, the people have lost their illusions, because they have realized in the past two years that the government's promises have not been kept.
Mr. Speaker, Information Canada will be no more than a refuge for some members who will be defeated in the next election, so that they may continue to promote the policy of the Liberal party.
We know the kind of information that the government makes known. One only has to examine the government's publicity budget for last year, which was published today, to know that the government does not hesitate to spend for the purpose of boosting its own image.
Information Canada should exist right here within Parliament. There is no need to set up structures or new agencies, to hire thousands of employees, to spend millions of dollars, in

DEBATES	March 5, 1970
order to inform the Canadian people. It would only be necessary to ask the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to be more objective in its coverage of political events rather than welcoming petty politicians brought in by friends.
That would be the best way of ensuring Canadians a good information service, as long as its structures are established outside Parliament. How are we to assure the Canadian people of objective information, if it is to undergo the censorship of the party in power. How will the Canadian people be made aware of the activities of the members of Parliament, or of the proceedings and decisions of committees, if they have to rely on whatever information the government in office is willing to pass on to them through a body wholly set up by this government who will use it for its own purposes.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the temper of the House has cooled a little in the last 20 minutes and that we no longer have the heat that was generated when the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) spoke. I was absolutely amazed by the hon. gentle-mean's metamorphosis, by his transformation, his conversion which, as one hon. member said, almost equals the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus.
The constituencies of York East and York West are represented here by hon. members who fascinate me. There is the hon. member for York East, who spoke a few minutes ago, and the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens), who at one time was mayor of Toronto. We all know what the hon. member for York West said outside the House some time ago. He roars like a lion in front of the television cameras and newspaper reporters outside the House, but in the Chamber he bleats like a lamb.


Gerald William Baldwin: Or squeaks like a mouse.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: To the press he said this House spends most of its time discussing wet wheat, baby seals and the Newfie Bullet. What utter garbage! The people who talk about wet wheat represent those concerned about wet wheat; those who talk about baby seals represent people concerned about baby seals, and those who talk about the abandonment of the so-called Newfie Bullet are members who represent those concerned about its abandonment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 5, 1970


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: If the hon. member for York West wanted to perform his duties properly, he should have talked about urban problems in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: And he should not have uttered the kind of drivel that sometimes has great appeal to the press. The hon. member for York East has said that things changed during the past year. I agree with that. They have become worse and are getting worse every day. I see no improvement in the committees system. I do not know if the hon. member is to be promoted to the Senate, but something has happened to make him change his mind. Certainly, if he displays such great inconsistency he will not be elected any more. A few months ago he blasted the committees system, but now everything is suddenly much better. I submit that everything is much worse. Now the hon. member is the great defender of committees; everything is fine now. Something is wrong somewhere. It might be, as I have said, that the hon. gentleman is contemplating a Senate appointment, or his discomfiture may have been lessened by the prospect of an assured salary increase.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The hon. member referred to regional desks. He said they were designed for and served the purpose of helping members. I do not know what members he is referring to. I have no idea what a regional desk looks like. I do not have any idea who occupies the regional desks. They are as far removed from members on this side of the House as some of the systems in Washington: we do not have any more access to them. The hon. member remarked that he was not satisfied with the way things are going. I understand there have been a number of innovations in his party. Caucus meetings are now held once every two weeks. If you want to say a word in caucus, you have to give advance notice and state what you want to discuss. Someone then tells you whether you will be permitted to do so. That is a change, although I do not call it a change for the better.
I raised a question of privilege in this House today which was dealt with by Your Honour. The very smooth Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) is building up a reputation in Canada of being a very urbane, suave and smooth operator.


An hon. Member:: Slippery.
Government Administration


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: The actions of the minister in the past few days have certainly not been smart. I have been outsmarted many times. I do not object to that. But it is not a matter of being outsmarted; it is that of a minister of the Crown making use of his office to give out information before it is made available to the House. The Minister of Transport took it upon himself, in order to further his political ambitions, to make this information available in the province of Newfoundland four hours before it was available to this House.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I was elected a Member of Parliament and am not embarrassed by such a situation: that is not what bothers me. I want to feel that I am earning my salary. The people who elected me in effect help to pay my salary. I try to do my job. When a member is made to feel impotent by a member of the inner circle of this government, it does not appear too good for the future of this institution. If it continues, I do not mind saying that I will give very serious consideration to whether I want to continue as a member of this institution. I do not want to be here as a figurehead. Members of Parliament have certain responsibilities and the majority accept them. I do not think they should be interfered with by a minister or anyone else. If the Minister of Transport wants to further his political image in Newfoundland, let him go back and enter provincial politics. God knows, there is a big enough vacancy there now. That is where his talents could be put to use.
There are a number of instances of our being treated in a cavalier manner. I am not whining, Mr. Speaker. On April 30, 1969, as recorded at page 1868 of Hansard, I directed a question to the Acting Minister of Transport. I asked him to report on a serious CN bus accident in Newfoundland in which nine people were injured. The bus was completely destroyed. The acting minister said, "I will be pleased to investigate and let you know." That was in the days when that department and its minister were on the move. Within a few weeks the present minister was appointed to that portfolio. On May 20, a month later, I asked the minister if he would investigate that accident, and he said he would be glad to investigate it. I am still waiting for a reply, Mr. Speaker. That is just one example; there are many, many more.
The Minister of Transport, despite the image he is building, is turning out to be one of the greatest procrastinators we have seen

4452	COMMONS
Government Administration in quite a while. He says, "I will be glad to look into it." Everybody is glad to look into it.
I would be glad to get the answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Recently there was a mammoth re-organization of the minister's department. There was a hastily-called meeting of the Transport Committee with less than one hour's notice. We were told, "Come on down; the minister has some disclosures to make." I had no idea what the minister was going to talk about. The fact is that he called us together to take care of the niceties. He then felt everything was fine and gave the whole story to the press. I suggest that with a matter of this importance and the far reaching changes proposed, the minister did not clear himself by calling a hasty meeting of whatever members happened to be around. The chairman was out of town and many other members could not be reached.
It is for reasons such as this that our motion is being discussed. The House condemns the treatment we are receiving at the hands of this government. The government talks about the opposition whining. One would almost think we were supposed to be a cheering section for this government, but we are not -we are the opposition. Surely the government knows it is not our function to cheer them. Our function is to oppose them. God knows, there are enough government members to cheer when they are told.
I would like to see the hon. member for York East now. He is probably busy signing letters answering complaints about the government and its white paper proposals. I would like to see the hon. member justify the position he has taken tonight as compared with the position he took less than a year ago outside this House. It is the old, lion and lamb routine. Maybe he is in fact going to the Senate and is not worried about being reelected. That is what we have to assume. There are times when I get so disgusted at the role of a Member of Parliament under this administration that I do not know what to think.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: There has been a lot of talk about committees. As far as I can see, all that is accomplished in committees is the government succeeding in fragmenting the members. Members cannot attend all committee meetings. Sometimes there are a half-dozen committees sitting simultaneously. This not only

DEBATES	March 5, 1970
fragments the members but it fragments the press coverage, because members of the press cannot attend all the meetings simultaneously.
What about Information Canada? I say it is part of a system to see that Canada gets as little information as possible. The Information Canada program, which is just around the corner, is really going to be a beauty. It should be called Misinformation Canada.


James Aloysius McGrath: They don't need Information Canada; they have the Minister of Transport.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: We were sold a bill of goods in 1968 when this government was elected. I do not think the time is too far away when Canadians will start having second thoughts. I hope that time is not too far away. I will support the motion before the House. I am sure if the members who are present, and some who are not, were allowed to vote according to their conscience and what they know to be facts, they would also support the motion.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, it is usually a privilege to be involved in any of the debates which occur in this chamber. One looks forward to seeing a spark of life from time to time on the opposition benches, so we patiently await an opposition day to examine the subject matter which the opposition itself, as so often happens, has an opportunity to choose for discussion. Today, for a change, we are not talking about grain; we are talking about the proceedings of this House.


An hon. Member:: You don't like the farmers, then.


James Alexander Jerome: I notice that as soon as I begin to make a few disparaging remarks in connection with debates in this Chamber on the subject of grain there is a nervous reaction on the part of members on the opposition benches, because grain seems to be the only thing they know about.


An hon. Member:: We know corn when we hear it.


James Alexander Jerome: You certainly know it well enough to have dished it out here all day, by the bushel; it is all we have been hearing since this debate began. What puzzles me about the subject matter of this motion, if we can understand its terms, assuming it is intended as a general criticism of the way in
March 5. 1970

which the government is conducting itself in relation to the running of parliamentary business, is that the opposition should have chosen to devote their time to it. I say this as a new member of the House, because I had the privilege of being a member of the Special Committee on Procedure set up to recommend changes in the rules of this House.


An hon. Member:: That's what is wrong.


James Alexander Jerome: In this committee, whose membership included frontbench representatives of the opposition, we held what I thought were productive meetings to determine some of the changes which we thought would improve and expedite the conduct of the public's business in this Chamber. After three months had been spent on this work, a debate was begun just before Christmas on proposed rule 16A, as it was called-the rule allocating time in this House. As we all know, the opposition then employed a tactic which they use so well, that of digging in their heels and resisting any change in the rules. That is fine. It suited their political advantage to go to the press and say, "We are resisting these changes because the government is attempting to push a steamroller over us and muzzle us in the House of Commons."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Alexander Jerome: Here, again, the cages are being rattled opposite. What seemed to escape them at the time, and it still does, is the fact that opposition members already take up the majority of the time in this House in speaking-


Donald MacInnis: Yes. You are not allowed to do so.


James Alexander Jerome: What is not apparent to members opposite is that under a time allocation rule the time they take up speaking in the House of Commons will not be reduced. Members of the opposition who every once in a while begin to shout, rattle the tops of their desks and pound, will be speaking for the same length of time as they are now, taking up 65 per cent of the time of the House. The only difference is this: in the same parliamentary year they will have to address themselves to a variety of subjects; they will not be able to enjoy the comfort of spending half their time talking about damp grain, as they do now, a subject on which they all seem to be expert. They will have to consider a number of pieces of legislation, components of a full, dynamic, interesting and intelligent government program.

Government Administration
This seems just too much for them to tackle in the course of an ordinary government year. What do they say? Their theme is: We are the sacred opposition and we defend to the death our right to grind this place down to a slow pace sufficient that we can stand the action. This is their achievement. This was the position they took in the debate over two weeks at Christmas time and during six other long weeks at the end of the session before the summer recess. There is no reason they should not continue to behave like this for the rest of their parliamentary lives.
Today there is a gleam of hope, because we see before us on an opposition day a subject which has to do with the conduct of Parliament. Now we shall have an example of the positive view of hon. members opposite who have arranged for this subject to be debated in order to put forward their ideas before subjecting the government to a vote of confidence on the basis of their contributions. So we know that today we are getting their very best thinking on the subject; we can examine Hansard tomorrow and read it carefully line after line in case we have missed some of the pearls of wisdom they have dropped today. Hansard will stand as a record for all time of the powerful, dynamic suggestions for improvement in accordance with the programs of the parties opposite. Their best talents will set forth their theories and tell us exactly how Parliament should be run.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I say to you right now that without having had the opportunity to read any of the Hansard reporters' notes I shall not be holding my breath until tomorrow, because I have been in the chamber during the debate today and I have not heard one single worth-while suggestion from the other side. And I challenge any of them right now to come up with a single proposal which was put forward today for the improvement of the running of this House.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has issued a challenge and an hon. member rises to respond, but the rules will not allow him to accept the challenge at this time.


Donald MacInnis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, surely when a supporter of the government issues a challenge of that kind he should give up some of his own time in order that the challenge may be accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid the rules do not allow for that.
March 5, 1970

Government Administration


James Alexander Jerome: My point is that during all these hours the party opposite has had time in which to put forward suggestions.


John James Greene: They have not had an idea since Diefenbaker.


An hon. Member:: Who is a windbag now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) has the floor. I suggest he be given the opportunity to try to make a speech.


An hon. Member:: He is trying.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Try
harder.


James Alexander Jerome: Before we leave the subject there are one or two interesting observations I should like to make about the advantage which members opposite take of the way the House is run at the present time. Perhaps the hon. member opposite who was recently on his feet would be interested to know, for example, that in one of the standing committees of the House-and in our committees it seems to be generally accepted that there is good opportunity for opposition members to participate in a meaningful way in criticizing the government-it was suggested by the opposition members present at the organizational meeting at the beginning of the year that the election of the chairman and vicechairman should not be restricted to government party members, but that other parties in the House should be represented. Accordingly, an opposition member was put forward as vice-chairman of one of the standing committees. However, following this decision the attendance of opposition members at the meetings of that committee fell to just about nil.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
\ As if that were not enough, about three weeks ago the same committee met in order to make certain decisions relative to a report that was to be made to this House. I am not passing on information given me by somebody else; I am speaking from my own experience as a member of that committee. I will not specify the names of the delinquent members because it would embarrass them, but they could be named. However, there is a principle involved here. The committee was staffed with a sufficient number of government members to reach the decisions necessary for the report, but after waiting for half an hour the committee had to disband

because no opposition members from any party showed up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Alexander Jerome: If the hon. member from Cape Breton wants to get to his feet and ask me for details, I would love to give them to him. However, I do not see him on his feet.


Donald MacInnis: Surely, Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member has asked me to get to my feet for the second time, you will permit the question to be put?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the hon. member permit me to accept his challenge?


James Alexander Jerome: Delighted.


Gerald William Baldwin: Just briefly, for one minute.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There has to be order in the House. The hon. member is introducing a novel concept in a debate in the House of Commons in suggesting that an hon. member who has the floor may yield to another member for a certain period of time and then regain the floor. I am afraid our practice does not allow that. The hon. member can accept a question, but he cannot say he will yield the floor for a certain period to allow a challenge to be taken up. I suggest the hon. member be allowed to make his speech.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two comments to make and then I will be delighted to receive a question from the opposition House leader. I notice, tragically enough, that although he participated in the special committee that dealt with changes to the rules and contributed many times in a very vigorous way, so far today the hon. member has not seen fit to take part in the debate.


Gerald William Baldwin: Then I will now. Will the hon. member accept a question?


James Alexander Jerome: As soon as I am finished, I will, if that is permissible, Mr. Speaker.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) is rising on a question of privilege.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member has cast reflections on the operations of this House, and therefore is
March 5. 1970	COMMONS
casting a reflection on the Chair. Furthermore, I suggest no member should be permitted to use his time to challenge opposition members and then not accept the challenge when it is taken up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I was only curious to know whether any of the opposition members were ready to get to their feet so I could give them the details of which I speak.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am.


James Alexander Jerome: If any hon. member wants the information, I shall be happy to provide it in a minute. There is one closing observation that should be made, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the way of the House operates. At the present time, out of around 155 to 160 days in the parliamentary calendar, about 40-certainly 25 per cent of the time-are designated as days on which the opposition either control entirely the subject matter of the debate, or are at liberty to discuss as freely as they wish any subject in connection with which they may wish to criticize the government. I refer to the number of days allotted to the opposition on which they control the subject matter of the debate; to the budget debate; and also to the Throne Speech debate in which opposition members participate fully, criticizing the government on a whole range of subjects.
In addition, there is provision for setting aside time for emergency debates, which is always an opposition prerogative. On top of that, there is the time occupied by the opposition during private members' hour. The opposition is also on its feet for about 95 per cent of the time allotted to the question period. Then, of course, there is the system under winch time in any given debate is allotted. As we know, there is always a desire in any given debate to recognize opposition members and consequently there is more participation by opposition members than by members on the government side. Accordingly, as a matter of simple mathematics, the time taken by opposition members in directing themselves to the subjects being considered is perhaps double the time taken by government members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg).


Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
DEBATES	4455
Government Administration


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon.
member kindly resume his seat. I should mention to the House that it has been agreed that the last few minutes might be divided between the hon. member for Moose Jaw and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). Since each member will have but a short time, I hope not too much time will be taken with points of order.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I want to make it clear that I said that at the end of my speech, which is now, I would be perfectly prepared to answer questions, and I stick by what I said.


Mr. Hees:: Yes, on somebody else's time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) has the floor on a point of order.


Robert Muir: The
two members Your Honour referred to are most intelligent, and I shall not take much of their time. The only thing I was going to suggest was that since the previous speaker has said nothing so far, the House give him unanimous consent to continue for another 20 minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Moose Jaw.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, all we have heard today from government members is a defence of a weak government, which weakness has, I am sure, been well exemplified today. When people ask us what kind of government that party over there has, I suggest that we can only reply that it is a mythology government, which means a government on the borderline of philosophy and science. Today we have a straight case of all philosophy and no realism on the part of hon. members opposite.
I suggest that when the hon. member opposite talks about the way members of the opposition deal with issues that are critical to the nation at the present time-I refer to agriculture-he fails to realize that over 50 per cent of the people of this country are, directly or indirectly, connected with agriculture; and when these people become unemployed, the responsibility falls on his shoulders and the government's.
We also heard the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) stand in his place
4456	COMMONS
Government Administration and criticize the members of the New Democratic Party for the number of Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers that they have on the Order Paper at the present time. The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto), as well, unfortunately, as one of the members of the official opposition, criticized our demand that these Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be passed so that the information is made public and all concerned can find out what is going on.
We are also criticized for taking the time of the House. I suggest this situation is an idiotic one, since there is much talk about having an effective opposition in Parliament. In view of the pittance given opposition members to conduct research, how can there possibly be an effective opposition? That is why we must ask for these papers. It utterly amazes me to hear government members stand in their places and ask why we want these returns. Even the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), in one of the debates on a Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers, was very concerned at the number of sheets of paper that would have to be produced if the motion were granted.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I am sure everyone knows they make up copies only for the people who are interested. To add insult to injury, they came up with microfilm a short time ago. After we asked, the minister assured me-as recorded in Hansard for February 5-that these 19 consultant's reports would be available to me and I could see them in his office. I wrote the minister a letter dated February 19 asking whether he could advise me if I could see the 19 consultant's studies referred to in my Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers. I said in my letter:
Of course, I am certain you realize that it would be impossible to spend the time required to pursue these studies in a short period of time. In view of this, would it be possible for me to borrow these reports for a limited time to be studied in my office or residence? At the same time I would appreciate knowing if the contents of such studies are to be treated confidentially or am I at liberty to treat the contents as public information?
Finally, on February 23 I received a letter from the executive assistant saying:
-your request will be brought to the minister's early attention.
Is this what we call divulging the information the public of Canada must have? I suggest the motion introduced by the official
[Mr. Skoberg.l
DEBATES	March 5, 1970
opposition is quite in order. If any member cannot understand the motion, there is something very wrong so far as his intelligence is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about research people being assigned to various parties. How can any member of this House undertake the type of research we need when we do not have research people who are provided with the material needed for such research? At the same time, how can the press of this nation possibly report to the people unless it, too, has access to these papers?
Another short comment, in view of the agreement we have made, is that it is absolutely impossible under present circumstances for members who have small offices and one secretary to undertake the type of research and study necessary to form an effective opposition or to be an efficient member of the House. I offer this as constructive criticism to the President of the Privy Council and suggest that something be done to provide each member with an office of his own. This must be done if we expect to have an effective opposition and effective backbenchers on either side of the House.
When the President of the Privy Council was speaking this afternoon he said that sometimes questions we place on the Order Paper have already been answered. I thought the effective way of operating in this House of Commons was for reasonable people to deal with reasonable people. Unfortunately, the President of the Privy Council does not seem to fit into that category.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leroy Skoberg: A short time ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour did not hesitate to tell me that they apologized for any misunderstanding created by the rather broad interpretation taken of a question. Everybody can make mistakes, Mr. Speaker. All I am asking is that this government realize the position of an opposition which makes the backbone of a good, democratic society. If the government is in fact trying to tell the opposition this will not be the case, of course all we have is a complete breakdown of democracy and an autocratic, dictatorial and arrogant system which means that Members of Parliament will not be able
March 5, 1970
to participate in making sure that we retain democracy in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge my debt to you and the previous speaker for the opportunity of making one or two very brief observations in this debate. It would have been interesting to spend the remaining seven or eight minutes dealing with some of the comments of the last two speakers. Suffice it to say that it is interesting to recall the time spent in this House by the government in forcing upon this nation an iniquitous amendment under the Excise Tax Act dealing with enabling legislation to tax airline tickets, only to have the government a few weeks later crawling back into the House and saying, "After all, fellows, we do not want to do anything about this until next year." Therefore, it means nothing to me to hear people talking about time being wasted in this House.
I want to speak for a minute or two about the type of situation that is evolving and the trend that is developing in this House as it has a direct effect upon the people. I have in mind the people of Canada who sent us here. Apropos of that, it is not necessarily to the backbenchers that we are speaking. They understand what we are saying. We are speaking to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of this country, and he had better listen because the rest of the people of the country have been listening to us and are becoming very concerned.
The point I want to raise in the few minutes I have available to me is the very undesirable consequence of the government keeping unto itself bits and pieces of information that are vital if our economy and our people are not to suffer adversely from policy decisions made from time to time by the government. As much as two years ago I began asking questions in this House, along with my colleagues, about the economic impact of base consolidation and reductions in defence spending as a direct result of government policy. On every occasion these questions were asked there came back assurances from the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) that no precipitate action would be taken without prior consultation and discussion with the economic units involved-the provinces, cities and towns.
Government Administration
What do we have? Without reading them, but going back to July 18, 1969, one can find comments at page 11341, July 24 at page 11537, and as recently as December 8 at page 11697 of Hansard. Let me quote one brief comment. I am not taking it completely out of context, but slightly, without changing the essence of what the Minister of National Defence had to say. He said that so far the intent is that there shall not be any further change in the situation in the Maritime provinces. The minister was responding to questions not only from myself but other hon. members in this Chamber about the economic impact of changes in defence policy.
What do we have as a result of this wide open policy of communication with the civic units involved? What do we have as a result of the policy intention of the government and the direct pragmatic and practical procedures and steps to be followed? We have seen within the last three months the closing of Fairey Aviation without prior consultation; we saw the closing last night of EMI Cosser in Dartmouth without prior consultation; and we have heard rumoured very seriously this week that the Dockyards Trade and Labour Council in Halifax, as a result of the intention of the government, is to start reducing staff by laying off several hundred civilian employees.
If it is necessary to do these things, it is incumbent upon the government to go to the economic units involved and tell them its reasons. If the government will not tell us here in the House of Commons what is going on, at least it should go to the economic unit that is most directly affected, that is to say, the city, the village, the town or the province. The government should talk to the civic and community leaders in those places telling them well in advance what it intends to do. But it has not done that, and it has no intention of doing that. This has been made patently clear.
The tendency to withhold information is leaving, not only the members of the opposition but I am sure many, many backbenchers with a feeling of frustration. Something serious is happening: people are being left with the impression that they can no longer believe what they are being told by the treasury benches of this government. It may well be that the treasury benches of this government are not advised by the Prime Minister of his intentions. I suspect that in no small measure that is the reason for the situation. He advises them in many cases in his office or through the medium of the press.

March 5, 19701

Government Administration
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
One member of the treasury benches employs a student to read the newspapers and tell him what his colleagues and the gov-erment are doing. Is that any way to run the government of this country? If I were that member, I would have long since resigned. I shall come back to one of my serious fears about the tendency to withhold or hide information. We have suspicions in respect of the actions of the government, for instance, under the austerity program. Indeed, a year or so ago we were told by the Minister of National Defence and others that there would have to be extensive lay-offs of civilian employees in the Department of National Defence, probably as many as 5,000.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that not only in the case of these civilian employees but in all matters directly affecting individuals who have wives and families and who live under a threat, belief or understanding that at some point in the future somebody may-not positively will-say to them, "I am sorry; you are no longer required", it is incumbent upon the government to stand up, accept its responsibility and go not only to this Chamber-we are prepared to accept being placed in the background-but to the civic bodies affected, the towns and cities, and lay bare their plans.
Mr. Speaker, I support this motion. The hon. gentleman from Halifax proposed it in all seriousness; it was not put forward lightly. This matter was raised in our caucus which happens to meet in a forum of free expression, unrestricted and unfettered. The motion has been put forward seriously and I suggest to the government and its backbenchers that they indeed take it seriously.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 9.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section 9 of Standing Order 58, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
[Mr. Forrestall.l


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
At 10.12 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, March 6, 1970