1971-04-01

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-12, an Act respecting Central-Del Rio Oils Limited, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF DELEGATION REPRESENTING NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Mr. Speaker:: May I bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery of an important delegation representing the National Assembly of Czechoslovakia. This delegation is under the distinguished leadership of the President of the National Assembly of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Hanes, who, being a very renowned, well-known, highly respected and distinguished member of the legal profession and professor of law at the University of Bratislava, has acquired in his country and in Europe a fine reputation as a very distinguished parliamentarian. Hon. members welcome Dr. Hanes and his delegation to Canada and to the Parliament of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sf. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I propose to ask unanimous consent to move a motion on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity. Students and graduates throughout Canada are having difficulty in getting accurate information about the Opportunities for Youth programs. Their prospects for earning money are prejudiced
by late information, vague information, and closing deadlines. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan):
That this House urges the government to extend the deadlines for the youth programs and simultaneously initiate crash programs using all forms of mass media appropriate to the various regions of Canada, to inform and guide students and voluntary bodies about these programs and, in particular, with respect to the policy for submitting project proposals.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member. By virtue of the terms of Standing Order 43 this motion requires unanimous consent of the House.

I must therefore have unanimous consent of the House. [English.]
Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The hon.
member's motion cannot be put at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour relating to the announcement by the locomotive engineers that they will be going on strike at the first of the week, which I know is a matter of great concern to the minister as it is to all Canadians. Has the minister anything he can report on this problem?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. First of all I would like the House to note in a positive vein that at six or seven o'clock this morning the non-operating unions, representing 55,000 railway workers, signed an agreement subject to ratification, and that the engineers, with whom I met last evening, are resuming negotiations with the CNR and in all probability with the CPR as well later this afternoon, probably about 2.30.

April 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that all elements for a settlement are in place, and I can only remind the railways, as well as the unions, of their obligation to the people who are not directly represented at the bargaining table, the farmers and the other people affected by the slowdown or wildcatting who could be detrimentally affected by a long strike. The responsibility now lies on the railways as well as on the men to realize their obligation to the Canadian people.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the optimism of the minister, has he approached the representatives of the engineers' union or, if not, would he do so with a view to examining the possibilities of a postponement of a strike in any event, since the minister seems to suggest that some settlement may be worked out? I ask this question in view of the very disastrous effects such a strike would have on the economy.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think the suggestion is a reasonable one. It is one that has already occurred to us, but it would only be fruitful if between now and Sunday there are some obvious signs of progress. When I say I am optimistic, I mean I am optimistic in the sense that both sides are resuming negotiations. This thought had occurred to me and I shall repeat it to the union later today.



IMPENDING STRIKE BY LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS-NUMBER OF VESSELS WAITING FOR GRAIN AT VANCOUVER

Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister who reports for the Wheat Board how many vessels are waiting on the west coast for the loading of grain which the elevators are unable to provide to them?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Vessels are still loading at the west coast, Mr. Speaker. The report I had on yesterday's situation was that seven vessels were loading, eight were waiting and three more were expected to arrive soon. Stocks, of course, have been reduced quite remarkably at Vancouver.



IMPENDING STRIKE BY LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS- POSTPONEMENT OF DEADLINE

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. All members and all Canadians will be very pleased that the minister has been able to persuade the representatives of both the railways and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers to resume negotiations. I should like to ask the minister if he has urged that the deadline for the strike, which is called for twelve o'clock noon on Monday, be postponed if the deliberations today and tomorrow indicate that a settlement may be in the offing?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes Mr. Speaker, I have urged this in a very gentle and persua-

sive way, I can assure the House. In addition, we have the problem of the engineers who are already on strike on the west coast. I think the House can appreciate that in so far as farmers on the Prairies and the people of British Columbia are concerned, in a sense the strike is already in progress. I would hope that that particular group of engineers, who will be meeting again at two o'clock this afternoon in Vancouver, will show their good faith and their concern for what could be a very serious emergency by returning to work in the interim. This would hasten the possibility of postponing the deadline.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the meeting being held on the west coast with those who are already out on strike, I should like to ask the minister who is representing him at this meeting with the locomotive engineers in Vancouver?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: At the moment, Mr. Speaker, Don Tyso, head of the Department of Labour branch office in Vancouver, is there as well as my parliamentary secretary who is acting in his capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. Both are on the scene in Vancouver and are working as closely as possible with the engineers to reassure them that everything possible is being done by the negotiating team in Montreal.



IMPENDING STRIKE BY LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS-WAGE INCREASE OFFERED BY CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Labour could advise the House what increase in wages has been offered by the Canadian National Railways?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I just cannot divulge that. I think the hon. member should understand that in the negotiations it is not simply a question of money but also a question of work rules and safety in certain parts of the country. While money is important it is not the only consideration.



IMPENDING STRIKE BY LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS-POLICY ON KEEPING VANCOUVER GRAIN STORAGE CAPACITY FILLED

Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that most types of grain stocks in store at Vancouver terminals are presently depleted and that if storage facilities had been filled at Vancouver loading could have continued for another week or ten days and all the ships in port could have been filled regardless of the strike, is the minister prepared to reassess his position with regard to keeping terminal storage filled?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the position of the Wheat Board has been a most reasonable one. Their objective
April 1, 1971

has been to maintain stocks at Vancouver as close to 15 million bushels as possible. In their judgment this figure allows for the maximum efficient use of the terminals in order to get the high throughput that is required with the record loadings which are going on and are anticipated. The stocks remained at 15 million bushels until early in the year. At that time the beginnings of labour difficulties reduced the efficiency of the transportation of grain and lost, in the opinion of the Wheat Board, effectively one week's unloadings at Vancouver. But even as late as March 10, and notwithstanding these difficulties, stocks were at 12.3 million bushels of grain, apart from screenings, at that terminal. I think the Wheat Board is to be commended for doing what they have done in keeping stocks there and in keeping the terminals operating as efficiently as possible in those difficult circumstances.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister who reports for the Wheat Board whether any extraordinary measures were taken to replenish and, indeed, to increase stocks of wheat to full capacity at Vancouver and west coast points in view of the difficulties with regard to railway negotiations which must have been apparent to the minister?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As difficulties occurred during the earlier months of this year, the Wheat Board, operating through the block system, alternated orders to the opposite railroad as required in an attempt to keep stocks up. This created some difficulties, however, and made it more difficult to put the required grain in place. Some particular kinds of grain are handled, by the nature of things, more by the Canadian National than by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and this creates particular difficulties. The Wheat Board tried in every way to adjust its shipping schedules to keep stocks as high as possible and to have the right stocks there to meet the vessels which were expected.



IMPENDING STRIKE BY LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS-AVAILABILITY OF BOXCARS FOLLOWING SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 ask the minister whether he has a crash program to be put into effect immediately after the strike is settled in order that all boxcars available may be directed toward Vancouver, inasmuch as there has been a delay in the opening of the seaway, so that ships will not need to be diverted or delayed in loading?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is a very large number of boxcars actually under load for the western region now, so that the determining factor in building up stocks again at Vancouver will be the capacity of the terminals to unload those cars rather than the supply of cars. I think I can assure the hon. member about the supply of cars available and already loaded for that movement.
Inquiries of the Ministry



IMPENDING STRIKE BY LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS-SPOTTING OF GRAIN CARS ALREADY IN VANCOUVER YARDS

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Labour. It also concerns the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Since more than 1.5 million bushels, or over 700 carloads, of grain are on hand in the yards at Vancouver and since the strike is slated to commence at noon, Monday, would the two ministers concerned-and I specifically ask the Minister of Labour-endeavour to persuade the engine-men involved in yard services at Vancouver and the railroads to make every effort to spot those 700 cars between now and next Monday so that an additional 1.5 million bushels may be unloaded?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very progressive suggestion and I will contact them immediately. I wonder if I might also be allowed to say that in my efforts to get the men back to work in Vancouver I have been ably assisted by the hon. member for Moose Jaw and the hon. member for London East, both of whom are members of that particular union. Their efforts have been greatly appreciated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



IMPENDING STRIKE BY LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS-POLICY RESPECTING UTILIZATION OF VANCOUVER GRAIN STORAGE CAPACITY

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister in charge of the Wheat Board a supplementary question. Am I to understand from his answer that it is the settled policy of the Wheat Board and of his department to keep 10 million bushels of the 25 million bushel capacity on the west coast vacant or as working space? Is that what the minister said?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. I should first of all point out my reference to screenings, which is not an inconsiderable quantity. Sometimes some millions of bushels of capacity can be taken up in that way. The objective of the Wheat Board is to assure that stocks are at such levels that boats can be met and also in order that the terminals themselves can operate with maximum efficiency. We are facing a period of months, and have been, when we will be testing the capacity of the terminals to put grain through them, and it is therefore extremely important that stocks do not rise above levels which allow the most efficient operation of those terminals. In the opinion of the Wheat Board, that would be about 15 million bushels of grain.



IMPENDING STRIKE BY LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS-GRAIN SALES LOST BECAUSE OF LABOUR UNREST

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: have a supplementary question for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Can he inform the House as to the amount of sales that have been lost because of the
4808

April 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
unfortunate labour unrest on the west coast and does he anticipate any further losses in grain sales due to this unfortunate situation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have been continually heartened by the extremely effective work of my colleague, the Minister of Labour. I share with him the optimism that the threat of a strike for any long period of time across the country may yet be avoided. The difficulties in the west, through what is effectively a strike, during the past week or so have certainly inconvenienced the flow of grain, but there is no evidence yet of any lost sales. Of course, the effective operation of the port of Vancouver is a part of our over-all position in promoting sales of grain in that direction out of Canada. This is why I share the concern and hope of the Minister of Labour that the parties come to an agreement so that we do not face additional difficulties.



IMPENDING STRIKE BY LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS-STOCK OF GRAIN ON HAND AT VANCOUVER-NUMBER OF SHIPS THAT CAN BE LOADED

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: My supplementary question is also for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Can the minister indicate how much stock there is in Vancouver at the present time and how many ships can be loaded with the existing stock?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not have an up to the moment figure. According to yesterday's figure, I believe stocks had been reduced to something in the order of five million bushels. There were seven boats at berth still taking on grain. Some boats were waiting for which no grain was available in the Vancouver terminal at that point in time. The type of grain for which they were waiting was not available in the terminals. Until further unloadings take place, those ships cannot be loaded.


Mr. Speaker:: There are still a number of hon. members who want to ask supplementaries about this same matter. I realize how important it is, but perhaps at an early moment we might give consideration to going on to another subject and eventually returning to this very important matter. I will recognize supplementaries for a few minutes, beginning with the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Now that there seems to be some success in the strike negotiations, is the minister having Information Canada prepare five-foot, glossy photos of himself for distribution to union locals?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This may be the moment at which we should go on to another subject.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the fact that since November 1970, feed grains in Montreal's harbour cost twice as much to eastern farmers as they do to their western counterparts, does the minister or his department consider taking steps to improve the situation in order to achieve cost parity between eastern and western producers?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minisier of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no significant change in the cost of transportation. There has been an increase in the price of feed grains all across Canada, perhaps more in western Canada than in eastern Canada. If the hon. member is addressing himself to whether or not we are going to do something about this, I do not think that we are intending to take action that would reduce these prices because until recently they have been at very depressed levels.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Could he at least commission a study by officials in his department to ensure that eastern producers are not penalized with respect to production costs while western producers are in a privileged situation in this regard?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise on which that question is based.



UNITED NATIONS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I wish to
direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in connection with the reported consideration being given to the matter of having the United Nations Assembly meet in Geneva. What is Canada's attitude in this regard? As the United States will be facing a presidential election next year, has it taken a stand that if removed from the United States it would be more conducive to arriving at an agreement in the assembly on the Israeli-Arab question than would otherwise be the case? What are the reasons this change is being considered?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Like the right hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I heard the report on television last night and on the radio this morning. It was the first report I had heard of this possibility. It has not been considered or brought before

April 1, 1971

the Canadian government or, so far as I know, before the United Nations. Personally, I would not accept the reasons given for the change of venue because I believe this would do damage to the United Nations.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I say I am inclined to agree with the minster's view, I would ask him whether the spokesman, for the CBC, if I may use that expression, spoke with the authority of a representative for our country in New York, and has any member of the establishment in the Department of External Affairs communicated with him to find out why the CBC representative has better sources of information than the minister himself?



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
In view of today's Canadian Press report to the effect that the member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) has said that the government should as soon as possible revise its regional development policy which is bound to fail because nobody wants to pay for it, does the hon. minister intend to revise the orientation of his regional development policy in order to invest more money in the underdevelopped areas of the country with a view to fighting unemployment and poverty more efficiently?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I shall meet with the hon. member and inquire as to his exact words before making any comments.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State arising out of a report that the CBC had handed over to the police in Montreal some film taken of an altercation between two labour bodies in the city of Quebec a week or more ago. Is the minister aware that this was done by the CBC? If not, would he look into the matter and also find out whether it has become the policy of the corporation to give film taken of people who were not aware of the purpose of the film to the police?


Hon. Gerard Pellefier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of those facts, but I shall inquire in order to give the hon. member an answer.
Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether there has been any discussion with the government of Quebec on the question of the establishment of special security agencies in that province to anticipate terrorists and to gather inside information on terrorists, and does the government consider such proposition to be constitutional?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, we are in constant communication with Quebec Provincial Police authorities and when they ask us to help them in their work, we do the best we can within this framework. It is not up to us to decide what their structures will be and what kind of organization they will set up.


Gerald William Baldwin: Have the government of Quebec complained to the minister or to the government of Canada that the traditional law enforcement agencies are not adequate and for that reason they are contemplating these new measures?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that in the area of internal security, the provinces are responsible for law enforcement within their territory. As far as we are concerned, we have to collect all useful information to keep the government advised of what is going on in the country.



FINANCE


Mr. Rene Emard (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Following the decision of the Finance Department to let the Canadian dollar fluctuate freely on the international market, the minister stated that if some industries were hurt, they would be helped through special measures. Is the minister ready to tell us what measures he intends to take?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, if one looks back at the statement I made at the time one will see I indicated that there were measures within the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to help industries of this sort.
24081-24J

April 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
tTranslation]



FREEING OF CANADIAN DOLLAR-FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES OF PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY

Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Yesterday the Minister of Finance stated in the House that the difficulties of the pulp and paper industry do not arise only from the unpegging of the Canadian dollar. Could he tell the House if his officials or himself are aware of the other known factors bearing on the present financial difficulties of the pulp and paper industry?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that it was not the sole reason. I think part of the difficulty might be explained as well by the 30 per cent wage settlement that they reached last year.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that there is a large quantity of unexploded ammunition scattered over several areas of the Meaford tank range and that this is a constant danger to people wandering over the property which is unguarded, would the minister give early consideration to using some of our unemployed people, under proper supervision, on the job of cleaning up this menace?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the method suggested by the hon.
member does seem a little drastic. However, I might inform him that the Defence Research Board has under way a study of processes by which ammunition might be searched out of the ground and made harmless by somewhat less dangerous methods than the hon. member suggests.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In light of the statement by officials of the Cape Breton Development Corporation on March 8 that they would be presenting the minister with their future plans and recommendations for an economic blueprint for Cape Breton on March 31, may I ask the minister whether he has received such report? If so, how soon will it be made public?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have not received the report yet and I must receive it before I can decide when it will be made public.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question. Is today's date of any significance since the minister has not received the report?



INCREASE IN FUNDS TO COMBAT ALCOHOLISM

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I want to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Having in mind the approximately $1 million a day federal tax income from the sale of alcohol and the almost total absence of any federal funds to combat alcoholism, may I ask the minister whether he is giving consideration to increasing the funds for that very necessary purpose?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I believe on the health side the Department of National Health and Welfare is funding various programs, not only generally but with particular reference to the Indian community, who themselves have submitted projects for financial support. On the welfare side, through the Canada Assistance Plan we are assisting the provinces in the treatment of alcoholics, and so on, who fall within the category of needy persons.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-SUBMISSIONS OF APPLICATIONS TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Referring to his answer yesterday to the hon. member for Roberval with regard to the right of veto of the province of Quebec in the case of youth programs, the minister said that the information of the member for Roberval was incomplete and erroneous. In the meantime, the Quebec government, through Mr. Bourassa, stated that the province had secured the right to veto any federal initiative in the field of student employment.
In view of those contradictory statements, I ask the minister specifically whether the federal government will have the final say with regard to any student program?


Gérard Pelletier: I want to stress above all, Mr. Speaker, that the two statements are not contradictory, as the hon. member claims. I will read back what I said yesterday:
-that the federal and provincial governments had agreed to make joint decisions which do not adversely affect the priorities of the one or the others.
Whether the hon. member wants to call it having a say in the matter, or veto rights, or whatever he wants to call it, I repeat that what is actually involved is making joint decisions compatible with priorities of both governments.


Roch La Salle: In view of this reply, Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us whether the federal government, should it decide to implement a project, would need the agreement of Quebec to do so?


Gérard Pelletier: I have said before and I say so once more, that an official will be delegated to take decisions jointly with us and the federal government's final course,

April 1, 1971

lacking agreement of Quebec or another province, would be to cancel any project about which there was no agreement.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Would the minister then give an explanation concerning Mr. Quenneville's statement to the effect that Quebec would have the last word in this matter?


Gérard Pelletier: I do not see how, Mr. Speaker, I could be asked to interpret the statements of all provincial ministers in Canada. This would be quite difficult and would require a great deal of work.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can he bring the House up to date on the present state of the unemployment insurance fund?
Hon E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would have to get up to date figures for my hon. friend.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. As the heavy withdrawals from that fund have been considerably added to by the additional unemployment caused by the serious drop in retail sales, export sales and freight car loadings which has taken place since the first of the year, has the government given consideration to slowing down these very rapid withdrawals from the fund by stimulating the economy and thereby reducing the unemployment which is causing these withdrawals?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, that was a pretty good speech. I am sure my hon. friend is upset that all signs are that the economy is turning upward.


George Harris Hees: A further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary but we are running short of time again and there are a number of members who tried to ask questions yesterday who are still trying today. I would invite the members of all parties on the front benches to give a chance to their distinguished colleagues at the back of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's answer I should like to ask him if he would advise the House just how high unemployment must rise before the government snaps itself out of its monolithic lethargy and does something to halt growing unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry



PROTESTS BY TEACHERS AGAINST INCLUSION IN NEW PROGRAM-COST-BENEFIT RATIO

Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to a question my colleague on the front bench addressed to the Minister of Labour in respect of unemployment insurance. Would the minister indicate to the House how many letters he has received from teachers and teachers' groups protesting the inclusion of the teaching profession in the new unemployment insurance program? Also, in researching the legislation, was a figure arrived at in respect of the cost-benefit ratio for teachers in contributing to unemployment insurance unde rthe new program, and what was that figure?


Mr. Speaker:: The member is asking for what obviously is statistical information. This kind of question should be placed on the order paper. As an alternative, the member knows that the bill to which he is referring will be before the House in due course and I would think that would be the time to seek this kind of information.



COMMERCIAL CARRY-OVER OF WHEAT-MENZIES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION-DISCUSSION OF REPORT WITH FARM ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Is the government accepting the principle that there be no commercial carry-over of wheat in excess of 200 million bushels as outlined in the Menzies report on grain marketing?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly be examining very closely with the Wheat Board the view of the Menzies committee. The Wheat Board itself had drawn some conclusions about the amount of wheat which would be required in commercial storage positions and is satisfied that 250 million bushels is adequate. They may review the situation further in view of the Menzies committee's recommendation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It would seem to me that we are to some extent returning to the original question. There are again eight, nine or ten supplementaries sought on this subject. Perhaps hon. members would want to finish the question period on this subject. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Vegreville on a supplementary.


Mr. Mazankowski:: This is not a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lisgar on a supplementary.

April 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Is the government considering holding any form of hearings in western Canada to discuss the Menzies report with farm organizations and particularly producer organizations?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly be interested in having consultations with these organizations as we have in the past in respect of various proposals and measures that have been put forward. I personally will look forward to receiving the views of these organizations on both formal and informal occasions.



SUGGESTED USE OF GIRLS AS PAGES

Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council as Government House Leader. In view of the progressive attitude taken by the Ontario legislature in including girls as pages in the Legislative Assembly, can the Government House Leader say whether consideration is being given to including girls as pages in this chamber?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that that is a responsibility of the Speaker.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has his department reached a decision on the future use of the Rivers air base and, if not, when can Manitoba expect an announcement?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are in contact with the Manitoba government with regard to the two bases of Rivers and Gimli. As soon as an agreement is reached with the Manitoba government, I will be happy to inform the House.


Donald Craig Stewart: Mr. Speaker, as Rivers is facing slow death as a result of no action, is the minister's department assisting the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in its negotiations for the base and what is the state of these negotiations?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is the one most involved in the Rivers base. I do not know what the situation is right now but I will get the information from that department and I can supply it to the hon. gentleman.



NATURE OF NEW PROGRAMS FOR PRAIRIE PROVINCES

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In light of the fact he has announced that there will be new programs under his department assigned to the Prairie provinces, can the minister indicate whether these programs will take the form of extensions to existing designated regions or will take the form of extra special areas as was announced last year?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to know to what statement the hon. member is referring.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am referring to a Canadian Press article of March 30.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



USE OF FULL CAPACITY OF VANCOUVER TERMINAL ELEVATORS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister who reports for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of his intimation that perhaps as many as 10 million bushels of the capacity of the Vancouver terminal grain elevators cannot be used in association with maximum efficiency in terms of loading, has a study been undertaken concerning what would be involved in enabling the total capacity to be used efficiently, has that study been completed, has a decision been made to implement such a program, and what would it cost?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think one should appreciate that, in the nature of grain handling operations, when you are handling many grades of grain at many stages from unloading through clearing to loading on ships, it is inevitable that you must have additional apparent capacity compared with the usable capacity to have the terminals operate at peak efficiency. This is universally true and not something that exists specially in the Vancouver region.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to take it, Mr. Speaker, that the minister regards the effective capacity of the elevators and the loading system at Vancouver as amounting to some 15 million bushels and that no plans are under way to adopt a program to enable increased use of the storage capacity which exists there?


Otto Emil Lang: The point I was making is that the terminals are designed essentially to serve the function of putting grain through rather than holding it. The important factor is the quantity of grain which can go through. We have in the months of January, February and March put through Vancouver a record quantity of grain, more than ever before in those months in our history.
April 1, 1971


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me we are at this point entering the field of debate and running short of time as well.



WELFARE


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compion):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
As the Minister is preparing for the second provincial conference on social welfare to be held shortly, would he tell the House what kind of measures he intends to submit in answer to the numerous complaints made by the Canadian Welfare Council?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the question as notice on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: My question is to the Secretary of State who reports for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In view of the fact that great concern is being expressed that the farm radio program known as "Radio Noon" is now to be withdrawn, can the minister tell us whether in fact this is about to take place?


Gérard Pelletier: I have not been informed of it, Mr. Speaker. I will inquire and report to the hon. member.


William David Knowles: Since this program enjoys one of the highest ratings, both rural and urban, across Canada, would the minister use his good offices to see that this program is retained?
sfe %



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the need to establish uniform international standards for the purity of both air and water in the Great Lakes area, is the minister giving consideration to the recent recommendation that the International Joint Commission set these standards and enforce them through its respective federal jurisdictions?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The report of the International Joint Commission on pollution in the Great Lakes is under study by the two governments of Canada and the United States.



COMBINES


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: I have a question for the Acting Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who may be the Solicitor General. Can he tell us whether in fact the offices of the daily newspapers in Saint John, Fredericton and Moncton were raided by the RCMP and officers of the combines branch yesterday and, if so, for what reason?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the fact, but I will surely look into the matter and give a reply to the hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. Would the minister, when looking into this matter in order to reply to my hon. friend from Saint John-Lancaster, also ascertain whether or not these proceedings are the consequence of a vicious vendetta conducted by Senator McElman under parliamentary protection in the Senate?



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR APPLICATIONS IN ISOLATED COMMUNITIES

Jack Marshall: direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It concerns the Opportunities for Youth program. In view of the lack of time remaining generally, and the lack of any information going to remote and isolated communities, is the hon. gentleman's department considering extending the deadline as it applies to these areas in order that they may participate in the Opportunities for Youth program?


Otto Emil Lang: This program comes under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State.


Jack Marshall: May I redirect my question to the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker? I will repeat it. In view of the lack of time remaining generally, and the lack of information going to remote and isolated communities, is the hon. gentleman's department considering extending the deadline as it applies to students in such areas in order that they may participate in this program?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are looking into this matter.

April 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: This question is also directed to the Secretary of State. Taking into consideration the ruling of the CRTC with regard to "Sesame Street", can the minister tell us whether or not this program will be entertained by the CBC?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any specific information from the Corporation in that connection. As soon as I obtain some details, I will convey them to the hon. member, if he states again his question, since Your Honour does not allow us to answer questions unless they are put a second time.
* * #



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to ask the President of the Privy Council about the business for the rest of this week and next week, and whether or not there is any change contemplated in the date for the beginning of the Easter recess in light of the situation in western Canada?


Mr. MacEachen:: The present plan is to adjourn for the Easter recess on April 7, next Wednesday, and to return on Monday, April 19. It may be that developing events will influence those dates; I cannot say.
We shall continue with the government organization bill after we have completed the three veterans bills, which will be called first today. I have the textile bill very much in mind also and, hopefully, will confer with the House leaders as to the manner in which we might dispose of items of business before the Easter recess, keeping in mind that after we have disposed of the government organization bill as the next major item I should like to call one of the labour bills, probably the unemployment insurance legislation.


Mr. McGrath:: In view of the fact that 12 standing committees of the House are meeting today, requiring the presence of more members of the House than, I suspect, are present, and in view of the fact that some of those committees are meeting without a quorum and hearing evidence, and also bearing in mind that the House is sitting in Committee of the Whole on an important measure, the government organization bill, is the leader of the House giving consideration to revising the whole system of committees with a view to reducing the number of committees which are sitting and making them more omnibus in their nature?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have under very active consideration the difficulty which is posed when the Committee of the
Whole is sitting at the same time as a large number of standing committees. As the hon. member knows, on the last occasion a large number of these committees were meeting while this bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole, several of the sittings of other committees were adjourned because the attendance of members was required in Committee of the Whole. It might be necessary to do that later today if we complete the veterans bills while the standing committees are in session.


James Aloysius McGrath: Since the fact that these 12 standing committees are meeting makes it impossible for hon. members to attend to their duties in a practical way, do I understand that these committees will not be required to function today if the House is to meet in Committee of the Whole to consider the government organization bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is not necessarily the conclusion. If we do reach the government organization bill while these committees are meeting and members are required in the House, then it might be possible to make arrangements of that kind.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Why does the leader of the House not undertake now to have the textile bill considered first and then proceed with the organization bill?


An hon. Member:: Your party is against it; that's why.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am very keen on getting the textile bill completed but we have made arrangements to begin this afternoon with the veterans bills.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENT TO INCREASE PAYMENTS [Translation]
Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that Bill C-232, to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: that the bill be read for the third time and do pass.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

April 1, 1971

Jean-Eudes Dubé: that Bill C-233, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jean-Eudes Dubé: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


William David Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are very pleased to see the high priority which has been given to this piece of legislation. It is important that it should be passed now, and I shall take only three or four minutes so as not to impede the progress of the bill.
First, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs I would like to say how much we missed the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Legault) who has been hospitalized as a result of a coronary. We hope he will soon be restored to good health. The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), as vice-chairman of the committee, was able to substitute in a very commendable manner and to maintain the same decorum, the same spirit of co-operation and of non-partisanship that characterizes that committee.
The object of all members of the committee, as always, was to improve the lot of our veterans. After all, they are the people who gave of themselves in the cause of our country. The very best evidence of the correctness of the decision which Your Honour made when you suggested that these items be taken out of the estimates and introduced as three specific pieces of legislation, came when a very useful amplification of the legislation was given to the committee. The committee hearings provided an opportunity for the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) to clarify some of the rather hazy clauses, and the results which their passage would have upon veterans. A lot of us did not know what was involved, and I am sure a great many of the veterans did not know either, at least to judge by the number of letters which all hon. members received from them.
The minister's presence was much appreciated. His statements were also greatly appreciated, particularly the one relating to veterans allowances. It was on that matter that a great deal of confusion originally existed. Veterans are now being asked to apply for old age security pensions and guaranteed income supplements. We wondered how this would affect their status as veterans. The thing that bothered a lot of people was that a veteran may now be forced to pay income tax on his old age security pension and supplement, whereas he was exempt from income tax on his war veterans allowance. In the committee the minister was not able to say whether, in fact,
War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952 this would be the case. He said it would be up to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) to decide whether or not this portion of a veteran's income would still be exempt from income tax.
One other small point which was raised concerned the fact that under the proposed new arrangement a veteran cannot live outside Canada for a whole year. For example, if he happens to have good friends who are able to take him away for a long holiday, say to the southern United States, he must return to Canada to qualify for pension, as do all people under the old age security pension scheme.
There were some other minor benefits about which we were also concerned, but again I say that Your Honour's decision meant that specific legislation had to be introduced and this enabled members of the committee to be enlightened further on the subject. Having made these few comments, may I add that we in this party are more than willing to give third reading to these important pieces of legislation. Our only regret is that it took so long to have them introduced. Since it took so long, we think the proposed benefits should be made retroactive to January 1, 1971, instead of coming into force on April 1, as is now the case.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I join with my namesake, the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), in expressing our regret at the illness of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Legault). We all wish him an early and speedy recovery.
Your Honour will recall that on Wednesday, March 10, when you ruled on a point of order having to do with the use of dollar items to effect certain kinds of legislation, you expressed the hope that although your ruling was going to make it necessary to have three separate bills introduced, nevertheless, since these matters related to veterans, the House would expedite the handling of this legislation. I can assure you that you expressed at that time the view of members generally. We dealt with this legislation expeditiously in Committee and are most anxious that there be no delay whatsoever in putting into effect the three bills, third reading of which we are dealing with this afternoon.
As the House is aware, we have already given third reading to Bill C-232, to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, without debate, and unless somebody upsets the understanding the same will happen to Bill C-234, the bill to amend the Pension Act. But some of us feel that with respect to the War Veterans Allowance Act amending bill, there are a few things that should be said. Since I have indicated that we are not debating the other two bills, perhaps I might be permitted just to say that we welcome the 10 per cent increase in disability pensions provided in the next bill. We wish it were more, but we know that at this stage of the game the chances of getting an increase are not enhanced by further debate. That is why we are giving our approval to the other two bills without debate.

April 1, 1971
War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952
However, with respect to the changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act, although we welcome the increase of 15 per cent in the amount that can be paid as an allowance to war veterans allowance recipients, there are some ancillary things that have been done which we do not like and some things that ought to have been done which are not before us. What is happening is that the maximum amount that can be paid in the case of a single war veterans allowance recipient is being raised by 15 per cent from $105 a month to $121 a month. In the case of a married recipient, it is being raised from $175 a month by 15 per cent to the new figure $201 a month. In the case of these increases, it is roughly 15 per cent or it is 15 per cent, in round figures.
When it came to adjusting the ceilings on permissible income however, remembering that these allowances are under a means test, the government did not raise the ceilings by 15 per cent but only by the same dollar amount as the increases in the allowances themselves. The result is that the increase in the permissible income for a single war veterans allowance recipient is only 11 per cent and for a married recipient it is only 10 per cent. I should like to point out also that the amount of other income that a war veterans recipient can earn and still draw the full war veterans allowance is less than it was a number of years ago. We do not like that; we think the move should be in the other direction.
When the minister announced the changes on December 2, 1970, I pointed out that one of the effects of the new ceilings on the war veterans allowance payments, and the new provisions under the guaranteed income supplement, is that the preferential position of veterans on the war veterans allowance as compared with civilian pensioners has been narrowed. Under the former legislation a single war veterans allowance recipient could have, as a combination, $145 a month. At that point the ceiling for a person on the guaranteed income supplement was $105 a month. In other words, the single war veterans allowance recipient enjoyed a preference of $40 a month. Now, however, the ceiling on the income that a single war veterans allowance recipient can have is $161 a month, and the maximum under the old age security and guaranteed income supplement is $135 a month, so the difference is only $26 a month. In other words, the single war veterans allowance recipient who is unable to work and has no other income now has an advantage, and most of us in this House think he should have an advantage over the non-veteran, of $14 a month less than was the case before these two pieces of legislation were changed.
Under the former setup the married war veterans allowance recipient could receive $245 a month; under the guaranteed income supplement it was $210 a month or a spread of $35. That has been reduced. Now, the maximum permissible income under the War Veterans Allowance Act will be $271 a month as opposed to $225 a month combined old age security and guaranteed income supplement. In other words, the married war veterans

allowance recipient's preference has been reduced from $35 a month to $16 a month. I think I am quite justified in saying that in these cases veterans are being short changed. They are being given $14 less preference if single and $19 less if married. I do not think the people of Canada feel that we should short change our veterans that way.
These matters, Mr. Speaker, relating to the income that war veterans may have and still receive the war veterans allowance, are not covered directly by statute. The Statute permits the war veterans allowance board to deal with them by regulation and many of the changes to which I object have been made by regulation. I protest that the new ceilings were not made higher, and I protest that the preference for veterans was not at least maintained. Many of us in this House would like to go much further, but I think it is unfortunate that this change for the worse is being made. I know there are some on the government side who will ask what we are complaining about since veterans are going to get more money. But other people are getting more money, too, and I think we have a duty to our veterans that is not fully discharged by short-changing them in this way.
My friend, the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) has already referred to some of the results flowing from a decision made by the war veterans allowance board and concurred in by the Governor in Council. This is something over which we have no control in Parliament. The decision was that war veterans allowance recipients from now on must apply for the guaranteed income supplement if they are aged 65 or over. Some may ask if there is a law that forces people to apply. The fact is that a regulation has been passed to the effect that if they do not apply for the guaranteed income supplement they will be regarded as having applied and their war veterans allowance will be cut back accordingly.
Some may argue that it makes no difference, that in the end the ceiling is the effective figure, that a single war veterans allowance recipient ends up with $161 a month and a married war veterans allowance recipient ends up with $271 a month whether it is made up of OAS and WVA or OAS, GIS and WVA. That is quite true; the ceilings in the War Veterans Allowance Act are the determining factors on how much income will be received. But there are a number of other factors that veterans do not like and I share their point of view.
Perhaps the first factor is psychological, but a psychological factor can be very real. Veterans like to feel that what is being done for them, if it is not a matter of right as it is under the Pension Act and if there has to be a means test proposition as there is under the War Veterans Allowance Act, at least is being done under war veterans legislation. For them to be told to move over to the kind of legislation that is general welfare is not what they were led to believe would be their lot when they enlisted in the armed forces. I do not think it is right to tell these people that they must move over to the welfare side, rather than getting what is their due under veterans legislation.
April 1, 1971

In addition to the psychological disadvantage that veterans feel flows from this change, there are a few other things. The previous speaker has already referred to the income tax situation. I know that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) is not in a position to disclose income tax secrets, not even in a meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. He could tell us what is in the white paper on taxation with which we are all familiar but, in effect, he asked us to believe that when it becomes legislation veterans will not be taxable because they have been moved over to the guaranteed income supplement. I say that is a pig-in-a-poke. We do not know what is going to happen in terms of income tax reform; we do not know what the figures are going to be. Certainly for the month of April the income tax law is such and the exemption levels are such that veterans, having been put on old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, will find that their income is subject to income tax, and their net income will thus be reduced. On the other hand, if a reasonable portion of a veteran's income were made up of veterans allowances, that would not be taxable income. Until such time as the income tax law is changed, this will be the picture and veterans will face the possibility or probability of paying income tax, and thus receiving a reduced net income, as a result of this government's action in forcing them to apply for the guaranteed income supplement. This I do not like.
Another element came out in the meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs yesterday. I think, in this respect, that I must say the minister met our point. When he asks the House to believe something that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will do, he is asking us to buy a pig-in-a-poke. But when he tells us what he will do, I feel that he is speaking for himself. I refer to the fact that we complained that the benefit of the 2 per cent annual escalation that has taken place in the guaranteed income supplement which has been given to war veterans allowance recipients was being stopped. The minister said at the end of that discussion that there was no reason to believe it was stopped for all time. I plead that he make that a commitment. He and I already have made a bargain, to the effect that if he does not keep that commitment he can expect questions and late show debates next year to see that it is done.
At present the married veteran, let us say, gets a total of $271 as a result of getting the OAS and GIS, plus a little bit of the war veterans allowance. One year from now he can have his old age security and guaranteed income supplement increased by 2 per cent; but as the law now stands, unless something is done, the amount that he would get by way of an increase on the one hand would be taken out of the other. It would be taken away from his war veterans allowance, because the ceiling is $271. I say, quite readily, that the minister asked us to believe yesterday that he would not let that situation obtain next year. 1 accept his assurance in that matter. The law does not help us at this point. I plead that there be no cases next year of veterans having their war
War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952
veterans allowance payments reduced to offset the increase that they get by way of an escalation in their old age security and guaranteed income supplement payments.
There was another area about which we had a good deal of discussion in the committee yesterday. Possibly hon. members will remind me that we went around in circles. We cannot do that in the House of Commons because we are only permitted to speak once. I am thinking of what is being done in respect of widows of war veterans allowance recipients. As the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) pointed out, there has been considerable confusion concerning benefits that veterans lose when they come off the war veterans allowance. It does not take very much extra income to make a veteran ineligible for war veterans allowance. A veteran may be getting the old age security pension and guaranteed income supplement. The war veterans allowance he can get, if he has nothing else, is only $26 a month in the case of a married veteran and only $16 a month in the case of a single veteran. Any veteran who has other income, say a small civil service pension, a pension from some other source, an annuity or what have you, may become completely ineligible for the war veterans allowance.
We were concerned about this, and concerned that this would result in the loss of all ancillary benefits available to a veteran being paid the war veterans allowance. The minister made it clear in a statement yesterday that there are two benefits which will not be lost. One of those would be the benefit under the treatment regulations and the other under the burial regulations, if you can call that a benefit, which you do not lose. The minister made it clear that if a veteran required treatment, he could get it, just as if he were in receipt of the war veterans allowance. If he is not on the war veterans allowance because he is getting the guaranteed income supplement, he will get the treatment, and that benefit will be available to him as long as he lives. That is good. He also made it clear that if a veteran is not receiving war veterans allowance because he is receiving the guaranteed income supplement, and that veteran dies, no matter whether that is one year from now or 20 or 30 years from now, he will be given the benefit of the burial regulations just as if he had been on the war veterans allowance. That is good, too.
Now, we come to the position of the potential widow. We were informed yesterday-and all this, I point out, has been done under the regulations governing the War Veterans Allowance Act-that if a veteran, who is not in receipt of war veterans allowance by reason of his being on the guaranteed income supplement, dies within a year of the time when he went off the war veterans allowance-and I emphasize that deadline-the widow will get the same consideration that she would have been given if the veteran had been in receipt of war veterans allowance. That brings to her one very important benefit, the married rate for a full year. But if he dies after a year has passed from the time when he went off the war veterans allowance, then she does not get that benefit at all. She may still have the rights that all other widows of

April 1, 1971
War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952
veterans have, the right to a widow's allowance under the War Veterans Allowance Act, but the particular right giving her one year's benefit at the married rate is taken away from the widow of a veteran who went off the veterans allowance more than one year before he died.
Today is April 1, the day when the new legislation comes into effect. Therefore, effective as of today, many veterans will no longer receive the war veterans allowance. Many of those veterans are married. If any such veteran dies during the next 12 months, his widow will get the benefit of one year's allowance at the married rate. If however, one of those veterans who is to come off the allowance today were to die 13 or 14 months from now, his widow would not get the benefit of the married rate for the full year. Granted that the allowance is only a stop-gap for one year, it is a right which has been of great assistance to many widows. Granted that she has the other rights, and so on; I know all the arguments we went into yesterday about putting people over 65 in the same position as those between 60 and 65, and so on. The fact of the matter is that we are taking something away that existed for years. We are taking away a right that was good and I do not think that should be done. It will not be necessary to bring in legislation to make this change. It can be done by regulation. I hope that one year from now, when complaints start coming in and other hon. members start asking questions, the minister will reconsider this whole matter and change the regulations to maintain for widows the same benefits that are available to them now.
I confess that the whole operation is one I do not like, and I have already said so. The operation of pushing veterans from the War Veterans Allowance Act to the guaranteed income supplement, which I think could quite properly be defined as being in the area of general welfare, I do not like.


Mr. Francis:: The war veterans allowance is welfare.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) says that the War Veterans Allowance Act is a welfare measure. That is quite true. But it is a welfare measure for veterans, whereas the other is a welfare measure for the general population. As I tried to say when making my first point, it means something to veterans, even though some of them may have to go on welfare, if they are covered by their own legislation instead of by the general legislation.
I believe we should be moving in the other direction. In these days of unemployment all sorts of suggestions are being made. One of them is that, in order to permit more employment opportunities for young people, older people should retire earlier. In my view, this idea is sound, and I think we ought to make a start in the area of veterans and make it possible for veterans, because they are veterans, to retire early. A war veterans allowance program or special pensions for veterans at 55 or even 50 is the direction in which we should be moving. Instead, we are
narrowing such welfare benefits as are already provided and I register my protest.
Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldi-mand, I am glad to see this 15 per cent increase in war veterans allowances. I wish it were more. I am glad to see the 10 per cent increase that will come in the bill that follows, which we do not plan to debate at the third reading stage. But I plead with the minister to do a great deal more in recasting these regulations to give our veterans the full benefits that I believe the Canadian people would like this Parliament to give to them.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on Bill C-233 now before the House which deals with war veterans allowances.
I fully agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). As a matter of fact, he has dealt with this matter in a very detailed manner with the adroitness of a master.
Mr. Speaker, we are very happy to find that the government has yielded to the pressures of war veterans and is giving them a little more justice, because they certainly have rights and prerogatives which must be considered in order to take the required decisions.
I fully appreciate the decisions of the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) and I should like to congratulate him heartily for his courage and his openmindedness in doing justice to this oppressed social class.
We are happy that the government should grant these pension settlements which represent an approximate amount of $43 million, part of which will be absorbed by old age pensions.
Mr. Speaker, this is money just the same. Money paid out as old age security pensions even if it does not come out of the budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs, is still money. So, this will cost the Treasury $43 million more.
It is not the veterans' fault nor the hon. members' fault; but that of the system if the cost of living has increased and pensions and grants have to be increased again and again. There is no end to this. Everything increases, and eventually taxes have to be increased too.
I am glad that veterans' pensions are being increased, but I am dissatisfied that we have to increase taxes accordingly to pay our veterans what is rightfully theirs.
However, I agree concerning our veterans and all those who have given much of themselves, who have made countless sacrifices, and who have forsaken part of their existence to save the nation and to establish a certain priority with respect to justice and freedom in our society. They are the ones who fought for that. I still wonder though whether they were justified in doing so but, in any case, it was for the sake of freedom, of civilization, of Christianity, that they sacrificed part of their lives and

April 1, 1971

it is for the sake of all that also that we have increased their pensions.
Such increases cost money but still there are other groups of citizens in Canada who have needs that ought to be fulfilled, who would require increases in pension or income but there are only tax increases for them.
We must be fair and ensure equal opportunity in all of this. The increase in pension which is offered the war veterans by the minister of Veterans Affairs will draw their gratitude, all the more so since other citizens who also have the right to live are victims of certain disadvantages forced on them by the economic system.
I would like once again to state my admiration for the wonderful work done by the minister, and also by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knnowles) who fights so well for the rights of the veterans, of the oppressed and of all those who are in need. I support him in his demands, even though we live in a system where we must often limit ourselves.
I believe, therefore, that the veterans will understand the situation and will be that much more satisfied with what the government grants them. We hope therefore that with higher pensions they will be a little happier, because while receiving a little more from the state, they will see that the latter saw their problems and decided not to forget them.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: As the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) have said, there will not be a protracted debate on these three bills. I join with the two hon. members in wishing my colleague, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Legault), a speedy recovery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I stated yesterday in committee that I visited the chairman of this committee in hospital when he was quite ill, but it was not possible to go into his room. Notwithstanding this, he sent out the message that there were three pieces of veterans' legislation that he was most anxious to see passed. That is the measure of the hon. member for Nipissing.
Some of the points made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre are well taken. The fact that the minister has brought forth these splendid pieces of legislation speaks well of him. The nitty-gritty attacks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, some of which I support, must not serve as a smoke screen to hide what is, in effect, three splendid pieces of legislation. I believe they will put an additional $40 million to $50 million in the hands of these veterans.
I was very pleased yesterday to receive a letter from the Royal Canadian Legion asking that this bill be passed as expeditiously as possible. I thank the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand for his kind comments on the manner in which I chaired the committee yesterday. My job was
War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952
made much easier by having been a member of this committee under two former capable chairmen, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) and the hon. member for Nipissing. I was also assisted by the fact that these are three pieces of good legislation. More important, we received the complete co-operation of the opposition members sitting on that committee.
This piece of legislation should and will be passed expeditiously because all members of this House want to ensure that the veterans receive justice. I say to the veterans, do not rest on your laurels because of these three great pieces of legislation. Be ever vigilant and keep our committee informed of the improvements you would like to see in this and new legislation.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I only propose to make a very few brief remarks on this important piece of legislation because, although I do not like to admit it, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has already made most of the speech I would have made under these circumstances. We have similar views on a number of subjects which I find important and the hon. member has covered them carefully and accurately, so I do not propose to be repetitive.
However, I do want to say that all members of the Veterans Affairs Committee regret the fact that our very capable chairman, the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Legault), was unable, for health reasons, to be present while these bills were being considered. We wish him a rapid and complete recovery. At the same time we express our appreciation to the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) for filling in so capably as chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee.
I have been a member of this committee from time to time over the last 20 years or so, and I might say it is a committee that has functioned on a non-partisan basis. It is one that recognizes, regardless of party affiliation, one mutual concern of all its members, and that is that the veterans of the country who have fought in World Wars I and II, the Korean war and some other minor military engagements should be treated in the way that Canadians generally felt they should be treated at the time of these crises.
I regret one aspect of consideration that is given to the war veterans allowance legislation. It is true there is a philosophy that because of their service veterans age prematurely, and that war veterans allowance is, in fact, an old age pension that the veterans receive at an earlier age than is the case with civilians. However, as years go by it seems a grateful nation-if that nation is accurately represented by this government-wants to forget its obligation to the veterans as such. There seems to be a tendency to hope that the veterans will fade away into the general age group to which they happen to belong, and that their needs will be looked after by the general benefits available to all citizens within that age group.
I think this is a very unfortunate attitude to adopt. We are seeing the relative benefits that our veterans have

April 1, 1971
War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952
had under veterans legislation being eroded in several ways. For example, old age pension was payable at the age of 70; war veterans allowance was payable in a general sense at the age of 60. The veteran had a ten-year advantage. The old age pension recipient now receives the old age pension at the age of 65, the age having been lowered from 70 to 65. But there has been no corresponding lowering of the qualifying age for war veterans allowance.
Then, as has already been pointed out, it would seem there is a desire on the part of the government, where the benefit is a similar one, to treat the veteran as a civilian in cases where he has an option between either the old age security and income supplement or the war veterans allowance.
War veterans allowance carries with it a number of subsidiary benefits. But the most important point of all is that the veteran feels he receives war veterans allowance as of right. Even if it is in the form of a welfare payment to which is attached a means test, he still looks upon it as something to which he is entitled because he served in the armed forces in time of war. He receives it only because he served in two world wars, either in Canada or in an actual theatre of war overseas. He may be in receipt of a very small disability pension to compensate him for the deterioration in his health due to illness or to wounds sustained during his military service. But as I say, he looks upon his war veterans allowance with pride, as something that sets him apart from the ordinary citizen.
I think the veteran resents having his pension replaced by old age security and the general income supplement, even if his total monetary benefit is unchanged. There are a number of fringe benefits to which a veteran is entitled. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) listed these so accurately that I will not repeat them now, but I should like to say this: Most of these benefits are either dispensed or withdrawn by regulation. I should like to impress upon the minister, as forcibly as I can, that in cases where a veteran is in receipt of old age security, the income supplement plus some small additional third source of income, which thus disqualifies him from receiving war veterans allowance, none of the fringe benefits to which he would otherwise be entitled should be taken away from him, regardless of what these are.
Further, I strongly recommend that in every case where regulations such as those enumerated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre apply, they be amended so that war veterans are placed in no worse position in receiving the old age security pension and the income supplement than they were when their income was derived from the taxpayers through the Department of Veterans Affairs. I see no reason why the veterans, who have their own department as it were, should not have all their needs met by that department. This would mean a corresponding reduction in expenditure on the part of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I submit the government should refrain from attempting to make the old veterans fade away into the general age group of the population into which they happen to fall.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has very adequately covered the questions relating to war veterans allowance but I did want to make a few points in respect of a problem that is not being resolved in this legislation, namely the lowering of the qualifying age for widows of veterans for war veterans allowance.
It seems to me that there is a very solid principle here, and it is this. The capacity of men who have served in the armed forces in a theatre of war, and have suffered disability therefrom, to earn their own living and to make adequate provision for their families has undoubtedly been impaired. Yet if their disability is not in excess of 50 per cent of their total capacity, or if their death is not due to war service, their widows are ineligible for war veterans allowance unless they are 55 years or over, or unless they are medically unfit. I am not quarrelling with the minister or his department about the decisions which have been handed down, because under the Act and under the regulations, these are the decisions required. But I hope the minister will be prepared to give consideration to lowering the age at which the widow of a veteran would be eligible for war veterans allowance.
Here is an example which illustrates what I have in mind, the case of a woman who is the widow of a Canadian serviceman who served in the Korean war. Her husband, I understand, was the first Canadian to be wounded in that theatre of war. When he returned to Canada he was granted a 15 per cent disability pension. His disability undoubtedly affected his earning capacity and resulted in the deterioration of his health to the point where he was scheduled for reboarding at a hearing which would probably have resulted in his disability pension being increased. He had come to the point where he realized he would have to quit the heavy work he was doing and seek lighter employment. Unfortunately, he was killed in a car accident, leaving a widow and a young son to face the future without adequate means of support.
The department, under the regulations and terms of the act, ruled that this woman was not eligible for a pension unless she was proven to be medically unfit. She was not medically unfit. The case was appealed to the appeal board which pointed out that she was not eligible, first, because she was only 50 years of age, and second, because she was neither permanently unemployable nor incapable of maintenance. It is true, I suppose that in physical terms a woman 50 years of age is not permanently unemployable or incapable of maintenance, but in actual fact, where does a woman of 50 years of age, without any particular training, get a job to maintain herself and her child? True, she can get odd days clerking in a store or do housework for someone on a day to day basis, but it is virtually impossible for her to maintain herself and her child adequately. This means that the particular woman I have in mind will be forced, eventually, to go on welfare.

April 1, 1971

As a Canadian, I resent the fact that the widow of a man who was wounded while serving his country should be required to go on welfare. Given the circumstances of today, there is real justification for lowering the age of eligibility from 55 to 50 or even to 45. If we were in a period when it was easy to get jobs, when there was a demand for labour, this difficulty might not arise. But today there are thousands of young people looking for jobs, and the chances of a widow, 50 years of age, without any particular skills, securing employment, are virtually nil.
If the minister and the government want to face the realities of the present situation, then surely they ought to give consideration to lowering the age from 55 to 50. Not only do we have a responsibility to veterans but we have a responsibility to the families of veterans. The average veteran I talk to is more concerned about the people of Canada discharging their responsibility to veterans' families than they are about veterans themselves. When I talked to veterans in the last war, my impression was they were worried not so much about what would happen to them as about what would happen to their families if they failed to come back or if they came back in an incapacitated condition. I think the widow of a man who served his country in a theatre of war, who suffered a serious disability, deserves something from this nation; we have a responsibility toward her and her children.
The other thing I should like to say to the minister is this. I hope he will be giving serious consideration fairly soon, since he is not going to do it in the legislation before us, to providing for a cost of living bonus in war veterans allowances and disability pensions. We are already accepting this principle in connection with pension plans, superannuation plans for civil servants, the Canada Pension Plan the old age security pension provisions when combined with the guaranteed income supplement. If, in all these programs, we recognize that an increase in the cost of living automatically reduces the purchasing power of a pension, I see no reason why we should not accept the same principle with respect to those who are in receipt of veterans disability pensions or war veterans allowances. I hope this is one of the matters which the minister and his colleagues will take under favourable consideration, so that when this subject is again discussed in the war veterans committee they will be prepared to provide a cost of living bonus to all those in receipt of these pensions.


Mr. Jack Bigg (Pembina):: I am anxious that this legislation should pass, Mr. Speaker, but I think I would be remiss if I did not make a comment or two about the wonderful work the Canadian Legion has done in seeing that this bill of right for veterans was brought to its present state. I should also like to draw particular attention to the work of the Hong Kong veterans organization, on behalf of those who carried the greatest burden during the last 25 years. I should like to put on record on their behalf a commendation of Dr. Richardson for his able work in demonstrating the big difference between the situation of Hong Kong veterans and that of other veterans who served their country. I have in mind, of course, the effects of malnutrition and the tropical dis-
War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952
eases experienced by those confined to Japanese prison camps.
I am pleased that the benefit of doubt rule has finally received full attention. If this rule is followed properly, many of the things which have bothered veterans and the friends of veterans will disappear. The Veterans Affairs Committee has been active over the years. It would be wrong, I suppose, to mention anyone by name. Several people have worked very faithfully in this regard. I might say that the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) carried this particular section; I think we almost got tired of hearing about it, but it must be a great satisfaction to him to be present in this chamber today to see the benefit of doubt rule is now being looked after properly.
You often hear on some corner, not too often but sometimes, the argument that we have done too much for veterans. I am glad to see the minister does not feel that way and that the committee does not feel that way. If there are people who still have this idea, I might mention the fact that the veterans rehabilitation program we had after the war apparently cost a good deal of money, but this money has been repaid to the nation many times over in the form of income tax. Many of these veterans returned to school after they came home. It is true they did so through the generosity of the taxpayers, but they did have a desire to upgrade themselves. They showed us that they did not want to rest on their laurels as veterans but wished to get back into the stream of life. A great many of these veterans distinguished themselves in college. I understand they were the best students the faculty had. They were not busy burning down schools or asking for something for nothing. Through income tax they have paid back the people of Canada many times the full cost of the veterans rehabilitation program. If we traced it through, I believe we would find they have paid back the full cost of the veterans programs up to the present day.
I do not think we have reached the end of the road in respect of veterans affairs. There are still a few untidy corners to be cleaned up. The Committee on Veterans Affairs will have to be kept together and revitalized. This committee has always had fine chairmen. The last two in particular have been outstanding, although they are not alone in this regard because there were very fine chairmen before them. I do not think we have succeeded completely in giving proper attention to those veterans with multiple disabilities. I am pleased there has been a breakthrough, but I am quite sure improvements are required in this regard.
I am not too happy that there has been no change in the attitude in respect of the provisions concerning misconduct, particularly where a widow is deprived of a pension because of some presumed misconduct on the part of the serving member. If the benefit of doubt rule had been properly applied in the old days it would have looked after the situation, but this was not the case. We need not be discouraged about this because with the new system of hearings I understand there will be no such

April 1, 1971
War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952 thing as a closed case. If a veteran feels he has had improper treatment in the past, he will be able to reopen his case. I am sure such people, under the veterans charter, now receive proper attention.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to limit my brief remarks on Bill C-233 to the increase in the war veterans allowance. I regret that when bringing in a bill to amend the act in order to increase the rates, the minister did not take to heart the suggestion I put to him, I thought rather vehemently, in respect of those veterans who I believe are unjustly being denied access to the War Veterans Allowance Act. I should like the Minister to give careful consideration to this point. I refer particularly to those veterans of World War I and World War II living in the United Kingdom who, because they have not put in one year's residence in Canada since the war or since their war service, are not entitled to apply. I cannot think of any greater discrimination than this particular restriction. I have repeated this suggestion time and time again. We have been given the answer that there are administrative or bureaucratic difficulties dealing primarily with Canadians who live in the United States. The benefits to Canadian veterans living in the United States, under whatever entitlement they may have, are in excess of what they might get in Canada or at least that was the case in the past. So, we were given an artificial reason for it being impossible to pay these men.
I invite the minister to really look into the case of those veterans who are residing in the United Kingdom. I am sure he has received briefs and letters from the Canadian Veterans Association of the United Kingdom and also personal representations from persons who had been officers in the department in the United Kingdom as well as from Canadian veterans who were in London and who are aware of the hardship. Yet, for some unknown reason we have had a continuation of the refusal to consider these people as being eligible. I say there is an omission from this bill because it would have been very simple to include an amendment to rectify this situation. My regret is that despite all the good things that have been done, not only under Bill C-203 but under these three particular bills dealing with an increase in the rates, the minister has failed to do something for these people. There are other cases in respect of which I could make suggestions, but in this particular case I say there has been a very serious omission and I would hope we could see our way clear before long to make the change.
As we all know there is the difficulty that once both the Pensions Act and the War Veterans Allowances Act have been amended in a major way, the administration will have a closed mind with regard to re-opening these acts. We will be put off for perhaps another five years before any change is made. I can think of circumstances under which it might happen much quicker, but if one follows the present thinking any further changes will take that long. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, this is one point on which I can tell the minister I will keep dogging him until I see some hope of improvement in this situation. I hope it is not the position of the department that by just hanging tough they will wear out this category of veterans through the passage of time, because many of them now are on in years.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed at the outset to join with the hon. members who just spoke, in wishing a speedy recovery to the most capable chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Legault). There is no doubt in my mind that he carried out his work with distinction.
I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate his successor, the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen), who was also equal to the occasion and succeeded in conducting the committee's proceedings promptly and efficiently.
I would not forgive myself if I failed to mention the first of those three chairmen, the one who presided over the committee at the beginning of the proceedings which are coming to an end today, namely the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), who also showed not only ability, but also patience and great comprehension during those lengthy proceedings.
I also feel it is my duty to thank very sincerely all the members of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, whatever their political party may be. They are all good fellows friendly, pleasant, which made the work very interesting not only for themselves and the officials, but also for the minister who had to appear on many occasions and try to reply as well as he could to the very relevant questions that were put to him. Most of the questions and issues brought up during the proceedings were raised again today, first by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as well as by his namesake from the Progressive Conservative party, the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), and other members.
I tried when I gave evidence and during my previous statements before the Committee on Veterans Affairs, to reply to most of the arguments and objections and I was under the impression that I had succeeded in convincing the committee members, but I know it is their duty to remind me again of all the things that they would like to see done for veterans.
Of course we have a high opinion of those bills but I know that nothing is perfect in this world. The generosity of any government must necessarily include limitations determined by the country's resources. However, we have recently passed a number of laws which I find quite generous and justified and which are to the credit of Parliament and proof of the gratitude of Canadians towards our veterans.
For example, the 15 per cent increase in the disability pensions will cost the country more than $22 million. The increases contemplated in this bill will also cost $22 million more to the government. These two bills and the

April 1, 1971

legislation based on the white paper and passed by the Senate last Tuesday represent a yearly expenditure of $50 million. Such an amount is an indication of the generosity of the government, but above all of the Canadian taxpayers. I am sure that the Canadian people will not resent our spending that money in order that those who served their country in the Armed Forces can enjoy an honourable old age and end their days with dignity.
Some objections that were raised a while ago might if not confuse the recipients at least give rise to some doubts in their minds. I do not intend to counter them once more today, since this was done in committee. However, we shall take the necessary steps to have the periodical Legion publish a special page explaining exactly what steps the veterans should take to get their pension increase. I myself can assure them, as they will be assured in the announcement published in that periodical, that there is no question taking privileges or rights away from them; but only of increasing the amounts already available to them.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I consider that these two bills, like the previous one, are true memorials from the Canadian Parliament expressing the Canadian nations' gratitude towards its veterans. They will ensure that our legislation respecting veterans is actually the best in the world, and we are right in being proud of it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the minister allow me a question?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. minister to elaborate on the subject which I raised concerning veterans living overseas and who are not eligible for allowances, since the regulations provide that the veteran must have resided in Canada at least one year between his period of service and the time of his application. It is known that at the present time there are thousands of veterans in Europe.
I have often raised that point and I was hoping that the hon. minister could answer it. Would he indicate what is his intention at this time?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: The thing is this, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to start answering all the questions because we would find ourselves exactly in the same position as during the sittings of the Committee on Veterans Affairs and I have no intention whatever to kill my own bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is not the first time that that happens.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: But the point raised by the hon. member has already been raised in the past. It is not a requirement which the present minister has imposed, for others before him could have abolished it had it been so burdensome and cruel. Actually, it is a matter of allowances which constitute a social measure and any social measure has its limitations.
Government Organization Act, 1970
I think that the requirement to reside one year in one's own country is not a very heavy one to impose on somebody who wants to benefit from Canadian taxpayers' money.

Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
[DOT] * *



PENSION ACT


Jean-Eudes Dubé: that Bill C-234, to amend the Pension Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, be concurred in. Motion agreed to.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION ACT, 1970 PROVISIONS RESPECTING DEPARTMENTAL REORGANIZATION, MINISTRIES OF STATE, PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, March 31, consideration in committee of Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Richard in the chair.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Order. When the committee rose yesterday clause 14 of the bill was being considered.
On clause 14-Establishment of Ministries of State.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, when this bill was introduced for first reading one could definitely hear the strains of that old Liberal theme song being played in the background, a song we are all so familiar with, "Roll out the barrel." There is no doubt what that barrel contains. It is the old-fashioned Liberal pork barrel, because this clause we are dealing with is nothing more or less than the introduction of patronage on a grand scale.
We are being asked, under the provisions of this clause, to authorize the establishment of five ministers of state. This means that if the clause is passed, the government would be quite justified in establishing, without further reference to Parliament, five new departments, and without demonstrating any need whatsoever for any one of them. When you realize that the cost of doing the work which these new departments will do, over and above what it is costing now to do that same work in the existing departments, will be untold millions of dollars each year, untold millions that the taxpayer must pay,

April 1, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
then you have to look very carefully at what we are being asked to approve in this clause.
When you establish a single new department you establish a new minister, deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, associate deputy ministers, and a whole host of directors at high salaries. Then, there are large public relations staffs employed as image makers, many of whom are lured from the press gallery. Heaven knows the image of the ministers needs building up but not at public expense. As well, you have private secretaries, associate private secretaries, assistant private secretaries, executive assistants, parliamentary secretaries and all the paraphernalia that goes with a separate department. We know from experience that these things cost the taxpayer millions of dollars, and in the end exactly the same amount of work is done.
We must ask why this proposal is being made at this time, Mr. Chairman. I say it is being made for one reason and one reason alone. The government will not wait until the need for a new department can be justified, rather it comes with this proposition now in order to provide opportunities for the Liberal faithful, the elected and the party workers.
A good example of how this works, Mr. Chairman, happened in 1963. The chief organizer of the Liberal party, Mr. Walter Gordon, had promised that he would provide jobs galore to the Liberal faithful so he set up the Department of Industry. There was no more need for that separate department than there was for a hole in the head, Mr. Chairman. The work had previously been done by the industrial section of the Department of Trade and Commerce. A brand new department was established in its own separate building with a minister, deputy minister and all the other paraphernalia costing the taxpayers many millions of dollars.
Before 1963 the work of this new department had been looked after by the industrial section of the Department of Trade and Commerce in a most satisfactory and efficient manner, as will be obvious to anybody who has talked to the businessmen of Canada. It took three times as many people to staff the new department, however, as had run the industrial section. A great many of the new staff members were high priced directors from every facet of industrial life-they were recruited in hordes. The new department cost untold millions of dollars each year to operate.
Then, why was this new department finally disbanded and put back exactly where it had been prior to the election of 1963? It was for a very simple reason. The businessmen of Canada became so frustrated and furious with the confusion of having to deal with two departments instead of one that they demanded this nonsense to be stopped. The government had to swallow its pride and put the Department of Industry back into the Department of Trade and Commerce.
As any businessman knows, Mr. Chairman, firms which export also produce for the domestic market and most producers for the domestic market also sell to the export
market to help cover their overhead, to increase profits and sometimes to reduce their prices. Anybody knows that. You do not have one group of people producing for export who want to deal with an export department, and another group producing only for domestic consumption who want to deal with the Department of Industry. All companies of any size want to deal with just one department. Prior to 1963 they were able to do this and were happy about it. I challenge any member of the House to tell me one incident of a businessman who was not extremely happy with the operation of the Department of Trade and Commerce, both from the point of view of export sales and domestic industry. The division of this department into two was done solely to provide patronage jobs for the Liberal faithful.
We in the opposition are doing everything we can to persuade the government to stop this nonsense at public expense. Even when a department is split in order to provide jobs for the party faithful and then is brought back to the original position, the waste does not stop. It did not stop when the Department of Trade and Commerce was divided. When the businessmen of this country forced the marriage of these two departments again, this government did not let out a single employee of the Department of Industry. Since that time they have been falling over each other and getting in each other's way, causing inefficiency and confusion. The businessmen of the country are not as happy with the operation of the department as they were prior to 1963. You cannot right a wrong by bringing the two departments back together.
This government, Mr. Chairman, has no right to ask this Parliament for a blank cheque to create five new departments for which it cannot justify the need. If it could justify the need, the government ought to come before Parliament and say what that need is. Instead, it is asking Parliament for a blank cheque. The government wants to spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars of the taxpayer's money on changes that are not justified. They are not needed and they are only excuses for providing jobs for the faithful. As another election approaches, we see the old pork barrel coming out again. The government is saying, "Boy, we are creating five new departments and all sorts of jobs for you if you get elected. We will make you parliamentary secretaries; we will make you ministers; we will make you almost anything you want; but run and win. Come in and join the Liberal party. Help us to win, because we love power and we want to enjoy it."


An hon. Member:: And the hon. member does not?


George Harris Hees: That is what the government is doing. Mr. Chairman, we feel that this is completely wrong, and I say that because we have a responsibility to the people of this country in the supervision of the spending of their tax dollars. We see this proposal as a colossal waste, justified only by the government's great desire to expand its patronage and the power it has in its hands. That is the only reason for this measure. So I say this expansion should be stopped here and now.
TMr. Hees.]
April 1, 1971

If the government wants to establish new departments, it ought to come before the Parliament of Canada and explain why it wants them. The government has come before the Parliament of Canada and asked for a new department of the environment. That part we will pass, Mr. Chairman. We of the opposition think that a department of the environment would be a good department. We think we need it, and therefore we would pass that part.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: If the government were to bring forward suggestions for establishing departments that could do a good job, just as that department could, we would say, "Yes, establish your new department; appoint the new minister and all his staff. This expenditure is justified." Until the government can do that, it has no right to come before Parliament and ask for a blank cheque with which to establish five new departments at one time and do anything else that pleases it. I say to the government, you have no right whatever to do that. You know it, and there is not a minister sitting in his seat today who can stand up and say that the government has that right. I challenge any of them to do that.


Mr. Drury:: I will.


George Harris Hees: They are not standing up, therefore they are agreeing with me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: They are agreeing with me, for the very good reason that they know what I am saying is the truth.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman has just thrown out a challenge. I will stand up and say that I disagree with him. I will say it at the appropriate time, later, in a more logical and coherent fashion. It is quite clear that the hon. member is not familiar, despite his period of service in the ministry, with the sort of constitutional arrangements prevailing in the British parliamentary system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, was that not an outstanding contribution! This minister said as much as might be expected, absolutely nothing. He said nothing to justify the bill that is going through and nothing to justify our giving the government carte blanche to create five new departments. He has confirmed everything I have said. He has nothing to say on behalf of the government to justify what the government is asking us to pass, and the minister knows it.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


George Harris Hees: That is right, you can bet your sweet life. Having said that, especially since there has been no response from the government, and I see that a few ministers across the isle are red in the face because they know that what I say is true, I say, for heaven's sake even
Government Organization Act, 1970
at this late date have the good sense to withdraw this bill. If the government proposes establishing departments that are needed, Parliament will pass those measures, just as we will pass that part of the bill for setting up the new department of the environment. We believe that department is necessary. We say to the government, do not ask for a blank cheque to establish a lot of departments for which you have no need and which you only want for political reasons, in order to provide plenty of jobs for the Liberal faithful in the future.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Shall clause 14 carry?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, earlier today, in an exchange between the hon. member for St. John's East and the government House leader, it was pointed out with great force and accuracy by my colleague that a larger number of committees than usual are sitting today, and that a great many hon. members serving on them wish to be present in this committee to participate in this particular debate. As usual, we find that the members of the opposition are doing their duty in staffing these committees.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: That is not the case with respect to government members.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Look around you.


Gerald William Baldwin: Not as many of our members are present as we should like, because they are doing their duty in the committees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Hon. members opposite are hearing the truth, and do not like it.


Gerald William Baldwin: The government House leader, while giving a firm guarantee, said that when we get to the committee of the whole stage of Bill C-207, and I am paraphrasing what he said, it would be desirable if the committees would then adjourn. I am asking at this time if the government is prepared to do this. Will they not agree to adjourn this debate until the committees have been advised of the situation and have adjourned their meetings so this debate could proceed on the basis agreed upon. This is an extremely important debate and a large number of my colleagues wish to take part.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: I do not expect any contribution from the government side, of course; as I said yesterday, government members are not allowed to get up and speak.

April 1, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


George Harris Hees: That is right, and it they were they would not have anything to say, anyway.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. member for York East spoke, but he might as well not have. I, therefore, wish to make a proposal.


An hon. Member:: We will not fall into that trap, that's for sure.


Gerald William Baldwin: I wish to ask, therefore, if the government will carry out what was the implied undertaking of the government House leader and now adjourn this debate-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: -in order to permit the committees to be recessed so that hon. members attending those committees can attend the committee of the whole as their duty compels them to do.


George Harris Hees: Hear, hear!


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman-


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. The Chair can hardly take notice of this representation at the present time. I understand that an hon. member wishes to speak, and he may do so if the hon. member for Peace River does not wish to speak. As hon. members know, within 20 minutes we shall begin private members' hour.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order-


An hon. Member:: There is no point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Then, I will raise a point of order, with your permission. My point of order relates to the fact that the House is now sitting in committee of the whole on an important bill concerning the reorganization of the Government of Canada, which affects every member of the House. I submit that since the House is meeting as a committee of the whole House, it is clear that other coYnmittees are precluded from meeting.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


James Aloysius McGrath: According to today's Votes and Proceedings, almost all the committees are continuing to sit. I think it would be useful to place on record the numbers of hon. members who are involved in those committees. On the Standing Committee on Agriculture, there are 30 members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: On the Standing Committee on Election Expenses, there are 12 members.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
(Mr. Baldwin.]


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. I think the hon. member for St. John's East will appreciate that it is not necessary to give this information which is available to all hon. members. In any event, in 'my opinion the question which has been raised ought to have been raised before the committee began sitting this afternoon. In about 15 minutes, we shall begin private members' hour. One hon. member has indicated that he wishes to speak. Perhaps, he will speak until five o'clock.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, in order to bring this matter to a head, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West:
That this committee rise and report progress and request leave to sit again later this day.
The motion is in handwriting and may not be too clear. The Chair may have difficulty in reading it.


Jean-Thomas Richard: The question is on the motion of the hon. member for Peace River. All those in favour of the motion please rise. All those against the motion please rise.
Motion (Mr. Baldwin) negatived: Yeas, 12; nays, 30.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday, when I rose-


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. The hon. member for Lotbiniere has the floor.


André-Gilles Fortin: I apologize, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to give my friends an opportunity to say all they had to say so that they might in turn show the same courtesy we apply to them, in other words, listen.
Yesterday I was speaking on Part IV of Bill C-207 concerning the establishment of ministries of state and appointment of the corresponding number of ministers of state, or a maximum of five.
At that time, my major argument was to determine the links between the three separate powers which govern Canada, i.e. the judiciary, executive and legislative powers.
My remarks were rather academic and I was suggesting that when one of the powers wants to arrogate certain rights of the two other powers, serious conflicts occur with far-reaching effects for the powers involved.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw the attention of the committee to more general considerations. For example, I would like to know what the government is trying to achieve in establishing ministries of state. It is said in Part IV of this bill that the government is proposing the establishment of "ministries of state for specified purposes".
Now, upon reading the relevant clauses, one becomes aware that the purposes mentioned in the title are not included in Part IV of the legislation. This is an incomprehensible shortcoming which is greatly responsible for the imbroglio this House is in now.
Now, I wonder, why does the government want to create ministries of state without telling us what fields
April 1, 1971

they will cover? Why not say what these ministries will do, or what problems they will deal with?
Mr. Chairman, the government does not give its reasons. It would like to have the overall authority to create ministries of state at will, for reasons it does not want to reveal. This is a dangerous principle, because the House not only does not know why certain amounts of money are spent, but it does not know if these ministries will endeavour to solve the problems it might want to refer to them.
Thus, the government is asking for a blank cheque, without revealing its reasons, without stating its intentions. It is useless to say that we object to this scheme.
As the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) stated yesterday, when he took part in this debate, Canada is an over-governed country. There is no dearth of directors in Canada! There is a profusion of ministers and parliamentary secretaries who keep themselves busy doing we do not know exactly what. When they are asked questions about what is going on in their departments or about their position or policy in any specific area, their answers are evasive, vague or else facetious. If serious answers are needed to serious questions, the situation is hopeless, they cannot be obtained.
This goes to show once again to what extent this government is making Parliament look ridiculous. For sure, there are departments that are doing a good job. Let us take for instance the department of the Secretary of State. What sort of information can we get out of this department? Whenever a member of the opposition directs a question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), the latter always unmistakably begins like this: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this, but I shall look into it. Mr. Speaker, I am not responsible for this, but I shall inquire. Mr. Speaker, I did not know this, I have not been informed of this problem, but I shall find out and report to the hon. member.
First of all, we always have to wait for the said reports, and then it is inconceivable that a minister of a responsible government should not be responsible for the CBC, for example, to Parliament. It is nonsensical.
Here is an example. Some people ask for the establishment of a commission. I call for the creation of a royal commission of inquiry into the CBC's activities in general. The Secretary of State rises and, as he is the minister responsible for this organization, replies: I am not responsible. The only part I have to play is to run errands between the government and the CBC.
As for parliamentary control, this means that hon. members of any party not only have no influence over the CBC, but must be content with what the Corporation is ready to give them, albeit ungraciously. So hon. members who must report to their constituents on the CBC's administration are unable to do so. They are handicapped in their informatory and participatory duties either because the responsible minister refuses to fulfil his obligations or because he is truly not the master at the CBC. Who then is the master of that Crown corporation that is financed through public funds if it is not the Secretary of State?
Government Organization Act, 1970
Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw the committee's attention to a specific point in the bill before us. If in the case of the CBC Parliament has no direct control over public funds, and if the Secretary of State who is responsible for this corporation does not control it either and does not know how the funds are spent, how can Parliament hope to have a control over ministers of state and ministries that Parliament will not even be asked to establish, or over ministers that Parliament will not be called upon to judge? Moreover, Parliament will be unable to properly assess the work of the ministers because the latter will not have to answer to Parliament.
That is how the executive weakens the legislative power so as to turn it into an ivory tower parallel to the legislative power, in such a way that some day, we will reach the point where parliament will be a tower of Babel where we will do nothing but talk, with no accounts to render to anyone.
On the other hand, there will be a unilateral, dictatorial power which will take decisions while ignoring what can be said in the tower of Babel, that is Parliament, and so our democratic institutions will keep on depreciating in the eyes of the public, particularly of the young people.
We all agree on rejuvenating Parliament and we want the executive power to have all means available to carry on effectively the task that the people have entrusted to it. But from that to squashing one power to the benefit of another, to neglecting to exercise parliamentary control over the various creatures of the government, it does not make sense.
We cannot normally operate with that system. At the present time, it is easier for government members to uphold their position and I understand them. However, if those same members who want to increase the executive power under the pretext of making it more efficient were sitting on this side of the House, they would speak as we do. They would defend Parliament, because for them it would be the sole satisfactory institution to convey the representations of the people to the government. This is one of the basic reasons why Parliament exists.
As for the creation of ministries of state about which we did not obtain any specific information-my hon. friends opposite will admit it-we cannot honestly accept it. We have nothing-and we want it to be well understood-against the creation of ministries of state. We object to the motivation, the responsibilities and the power given to those ministries or ministers of state. We especially object to the eventual lack of relations between those ministers and Parliament.
Mr. Chairman, I deemed it important to once again bring up those issues during the debate with the hope of prompting the government members to change their minds about the creation of those ministries of state.
Mr. Chairman, we are not here to hinder the government in their business, but to help them. We are here to show them the dark side of the picture, which they may forget at times.

April 1, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Mr. Bechard:: It does not show.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, one of my friends, the hon. member for Bonaventure says: "It does not show".


Albert Béchard: From Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine!


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry for my mistake in the name of the constituency of the hon. member for Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine, but since we do not here him very often in this House it is not very easy to remember the name of his constituency.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this attitude towards us is negative. When members from the opposition make proposals to defend parliament while encouraging government action, they are accused of delaying business and it is with such a pretext-because according to them parliament has become an old-fashioned institution where the business of the House is delayed-that the government leaves unsolved the unemployment problem, the unemployed students' problem, that of regional disparities, and what have you.
Mr. Chairman, ministries of state will be created. Is it in order to solve those problems? No. Is it in order to meet with the request from the opposition? No. Is it for election reasons? Yes, Mr. Chairman, because those ministries of state, unless we are given proof to the contrary, will be ghost institutions, like the white papers or royal commissions of inquiry, used to hide the lethargy, the torpidity, the lack of activity of the government or their failure in a specific field.
Mr. Chairman, since then, the government-


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of the hon. member?
The hon. member has been criticizing royal commissions one after the other but, a few moments before, he asked for a royal commission on the CBC which has already been the object of several commissions. Could he explain this illogical request?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, this is not illogical. I can explain my position quite simply: on all subjects for where there is no danger of the government being unmasked, royal commissions are set up, but on all subjects which would require a commission to unmask the true masters of this government, as for instance the banking system and the CBC, the government hides its head in the sand like an ostrich and refuses to take any action. This is why I request, as I do as well on the banking system, the setting up of a royal commission on the CBC to put some order in this corporation.
It is much easier for government members to criticize, shout and disturb the members who have the floor rather than take a stand. This is why I wonder about the use of these ministries of state. Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude with this.
We have today a fair number of departments, crown corporations, parliamentary secretaries and ministers and what is the result? They cost millions in administration expenditures. We have one of the most costly administration in the world as compared with the mall number of inhabitants in Canada. And not only they do not solve our problems but they aggravate them. Instead of providing human services to the individual in his relations with the government, he is given an inhuman and "numbered" service and finally there is no service.
Mr. Chairman, communications between the government and the Canadian people are non existent because the government has retreated to an invory tower and does not care a rap about the people provided it can exercise power. That is all it wants instead of seeking to serve the nation. However, it should remember that when the people entrust a man or several men with power, they expect it to be used for the good of the people and not for personal profit.
Mr. Chairman, this is the reason why people entrust power to a particular party. However, they realize more and more today-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I call it five o'clock.


André-Gilles Fortin: -Mr. Chairman, in doing so, they always show the same partisanship to one party, so that they are both in the pay of high finance. Therefore, no matter how many ministries and ministers of state we give ourselves, if we do not wish to really serve the population, irrespective of high finance, we will not solve the problem.
The population has given the government power, not to create even more ministries of State or bestow favours on hon. members, but to serve the population and put the money at its service.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again.

Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-External Affairs'

Israeli-Arab conflict- suggested representations to Israel respecting peace negotiations; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding)-Health-paramedical services-negotiation of cost-sharing agreement with provinces.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, Notices of Motions (Papers).

April 1, 1971



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North) moved:: That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report by C. B. Haver of Montreal for Northumberland Consultants Limited regarding a review of the cost-benefit evaluation by Stanford Research Institute for a Prince Edward Island causeway as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,832 reported in Hansard, July 21, 1969 at page 11374.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think the motion I moved tor the production of papers, a request was rejected by the government, speaks for itself. What is involved here, as far as I am concerned, is the question of how governments make decisions, on what information they make them, how much of that information should be made available to the public in general, what information should be kept private and confidential, and what reasons the government has for keeping such information private and confidential.
The subject of building a causeway from Prince Edward Island to the mainland of Canada has been debated for many years. I will leave it to members from the Maritimes, and from Prince Edward Island in particular, to discuss in greater detail, and with a good deal more knowledge than I, the necessity for such a causeway and the advantages to be gained from its construction. Suffice it for me to say that it was a Liberal government that promised the people of Prince Edward Island that, if elected, it would proceed with the building of a causeway which would thus obviate the necessity for moving from Prince Edward Island to the mainland of Canada by way of the ferry.
Estimates were made of the cost of constructing such a causeway. I speak from memory, but I think I am not far wrong in saying that the original estimate given to the public was for an amount in the neighbourhood of $140 million to $150 million. Subsequently, the government announced that a new estimate, amounting to $200 million or more, had been made of the cost of constructing a crossing. The cost was so high, and the benefits to be derived so slight, that the government felt it could not proceed with the project. Whether the fact that an election had been held and the Liberal party had been singularly unsuccessful in electing members from Prince Edward Island was a factor that influenced the government's decision I leave to members of the Liberal party to discuss if they so see fit. But the fact is that the decision was made not to proceed to construct the crossing.
I am not here today to contend that the original proposal to build the causeway was correct. I am not here today to say that the subsequent decision not to build the causeway was incorrect. I am not here to say that if a causeway could have been built for $140 million it would
Prince Edward Island Causeway
have been proper to build it. I am not here to say that if the causeway cost twice $140 million it is too expensive, and that we should not proceed with its construction. What I am saying today, and what in effect I am saying in my motion for the production of papers which I moved at the beginning of the session, is that I believe if meaningful decisions are to be made on this or on any other question, that if the ordinary residents of Prince Edward Island-in this particular case-are to know how such decisions are arrived at, and that if members of Parliament both in government and opposition parties are to be encouraged to reach any sensible conclusions, then surely the fullest information possible must be provided. Otherwise, members of Parliament, and I include government members who are not in the Cabinet as well as opposition members, merely become rubber stamps or ciphers. Without the fullest information on this or any other question, the public cannot be expected to make any meaningful, realistic and sound judgments.
We pride ourselves on living in a democratic society. I say that a democratic system of government cannot really be democratic or function effectively unless and until government, whether federal, provincial or municipal, is prepared to give to the people, who in the final analysis should make the decision, all the information they can properly be given. Of course, there are certain cases where information should be withheld. For example, the government is proposing to build new airports near Montreal and Toronto. The government therefore has the responsibility for purchasing the hundreds of thousands of acres of land which are required for the construction of the modern airports of today. No government could be expected to announce the precise location of such an airport, because to do so would be an invitation to the land speculator to squeeze every dollar he could out of the government. Thus, I recognize there are occasions when the government cannot disclose the details of a particular plan to the members of this House.
In this particular case the government, in its wisdom, made a promise to build a causeway to Prince Edward Island. Much as I disagree with Liberal governments, I cannot believe that this government promise the people of Prince Edward Island that it would build a causeway only because it was thought that in this way some Liberal members from Prince Edward Island might be elected. Even with the feelings I have about the Liberal party and Liberal governments. I cannot believe that. The government must have had some pretty detailed plans and comprehensive cost estimates with regard to the building of this causeway. They must have had some pretty complete documentation and cost benefit ratios in relation to this causeway to back the former government's promise to the people of the Maritimes that the causeway would be built. Later they decided not to build the causeway. I shall leave it to the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and others to discuss the details of the causeway since they are much more competent and knowledgeable about it than I.
However, when the government decided not to build the causeway, members of the government must have

April 1, 1971
Prince Edward Island Causeway had all the details concerning what the latest cost-estimate was. They must have had some information concerning the new cost-benefit ratio. Having made the decision first to go ahead, and later not to go ahead, I cannot see any reason why a government which has spoken so often about participatory democracy, a government led by a Prime Minister who so often has said he believes in dialogue or a government which has set up a whole new department, Information Canada, so that ostensibly the people can be told what government departments do and how government decisions are made, should always say no to any request made by any member of Parliament for such information. Unfortunately, it is usually only opposition members who ask for information.
I say this is unfortunate because I believe it indicates that government backbenchers are not doing the work they were elected to do. They function really as office boys for the government instead of members of Parliament. Few, if any, requests for the tabling of documents are agreed to by the government. In this session, as in every other session, there is a long list of motions for the production of papers on every aspect of Canadian life and dealing with questions which are of vital importance either to this country as a whole or to one area. Time after time we get from this arrogant government a simple, flat no. The government will not give to members of Parliament or to the people of Canada the information which they have every right to have. I say to the government that if it believes in the democratic system, if it believes in the kind of participatory democracy about which government members have spoken, if it believes in the right of the ordinary citizen to have all the knowledge he requests in order that he may make the kind of decisions about government policy which one would hope would be made in a democratic society, it should stop functioning within a mantle of secrecy.
The government should face up to the very simple proposition that instead of everything being private, every report, every study made by the government or for a government department should be made public. Then, the people of Canada will know more about those matters in which they are interested and will be able to decide how they should act on the basis of complete information rather than on the basis of the kind of misinformation we so frequently receive in this country when the government says no to the type of request I made in connection with this motion.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult to find a constituency farther from the Prince Edward Island causeway than mine, but perhaps I may be permitted to enter the debate this afternoon for a few minutes as a member representing a coastal constituency. In my province, we have had to deal with island to mainland transportation over many years, so we have had some considerable experience with it. I know that later on the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) will bring to the debate his own firsthand knowledge and his feelings concerning the matter of transportation between his beautiful island and the mainland. I am not altogether unfamiliar with the territory involved. I have taken the trip across on a few occasions. In fact, I took a trip across to the island on one memorable occasion. When I was asked if I would enter the debate this afternoon, I looked up my office diary for 1968 in which I had put down some notes about that trip. I should like to recall them to mind this afternoon. As the scene unfolds it will perhaps become familiar to hon. gentlemen of this House. These diary notes read as follows:
Monday, February 19, 1968. Arrived Moncton about noon. Cold-9 degrees below. Windy. Had lunch and left by bus tor Tormentine to take the ferry to P.E.I. Many cars waiting. Went aboard to find angry crowd held up for hours while we drove from Moncton. Many others including kids and farmers with animals left in the cold. Ferry Abegweit, a 25-year-old railway ferry, all brass and mahogany. Car deck taken up with many rooms down both sides.
There were little brass plaques on the doors. I read the wording on them and noted it in my diary because it was very interesting to see so many rooms and cabins on the car-deck of a ferry which traverses a 9-mile gap. These rooms accommodated pantry stores, crews' mess, carpenter an boatswain stores, engineers' and officers' mess, crews' galley, seamens' mess, provisions stores, waiters, caterer, chief restaurant steward, stewards' smoking room, quartermaster, deckhand, second steward and oilers. The mystery was that any passengers were able to get on board. This was hardly a ferry, I found; it was a floating city which travels between Prince Edward Island and the mainland of New Brunswick.
My notes in the diary continued as follows:
Lots of ice in the strait. Miserable facilities at both ends. Telephones between the terminals have been out of order for two months. Badio on the ship not working. Costs $1.65 to use the ship-to-shore telephone.
Then, the diary note concludes:
Caught in snowbank for seven and a quarter hours and arrived Charlottetown midnight to hear the government had been defeated on its tax legislation.
I have never spent as memorable a night on the ferry services of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. Let me contrast that with what has taken place in British Columbia. But first, may I say that if I were a regular user of this ferry service, were I a native of P.E.I., I too would be asking for a causeway. As I say, let me contrast that with what has taken place in the province of British Columbia. For many years, stretching back to the early days of the settlements on the west coast, we had a ferry service between the city of Vancouver on the mainland and Victoria on the southern tip of Vancouver Island.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I apologize to the hon. member, but I think I owe it to him and to all other hon. members to remind him and them that we have before us a motion which is limited in its terms. It calls for the tabling of certain documents. That is the motion that has been put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) for consideration by the House
For many decades it has been agreed and recognized that such motions provide for a debate which is narrow

April 1, 1971

in its scope, and that hon. members participating in the debate ought to limit their contributions, within reasonable limits, to the question that the motion places before the House, namely, whether certain documents ought to be tabled or not. That is what we have to consider, and on which there should be a decision eventually.
I would think that even debate on the question of whether there should or should not be improvement in the ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland would to some extent be out of order. What we should be discussing is whether documents should or should not be tabled. When we go to the other end of the world, the other side of the continent, and consider whether there should or should not be additional or improved ferry services between Vancouver Island and the mainland, I would think we are going far from the motion which is before the House. I appreciate that the hon. member is making a very interesting speech. We were all fascinated by his travelogue, but I would think an effort should be made, before the 20 minutes allotted to the hon. member expire, to come back to the motion which is before the House.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to continue just a little further, you will see how this connects up, and in a very pertinent way, with the motion that is before the House. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) said, we are here to urge the government to make sure that all the considerations were placed before the experts making the survey so that they could make a judgment in respect of the causeway. I think one of the judgments they would want to make, and which the government would want to see them make, is whether or not elimination of the ferry service and the building of a causeway are necessary, simply because there is not a competent ferry system which could be operated in that particular location.
My argument today is that when those documents are tabled, we should have tabled with them a competent examination of the ferry services to determine whether or not a causeway is in the best interests of the people concerned, and whether or not a competent ferry service could give the people what they require. I think that is pertinent to the argument being made, and is narrow enough to adhere to the point that is before the House. If such a study does not come forward with the documents, then I think the government has not properly instructed the experts on carrying out their survey, or the experts themselves have not gone far enough afield in their survey to determine whether or not adequate cost-benefits exist in a causeway. The experts should be prepared to point out other alternatives, and to present documents to the House in order to demonstrate those alternatives.
Following along this argument, I point out that in British Columbia we had experienced a ferry service quite akin to the kind of service that has existed for a long time between P.E.I. and the mainland. That ferry service was operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway. I think this is germane to the argument I am making because in this instance we are speaking of railway operated ferry services. On the west coast, the ferry service grew old. The vessels grew old. The Empress
Prince Edward Island Causeway Hotel in Victoria, one of the famous Canadian hotels, was beginning to run down. The CPR was considering whether or not it could maintain service to the hotel. People began to disregard the ferry service and to use air service. Air service expanded until 17 planes a day were running between Vancouver Island, Schwartz Bay airport and Pat Bay airport serving the city of Victoria.
Eventually, the provincial government decided to build its own ferry service, prompted first of all by completion of a tunnel which enables traffic to move very swiftly out of the heart of Vancouver to the ferry landing area, which is about at the 49th parallel. The ferries are of the most modern kind. They are end loaders. Cars roll off and on with great speed. Fast highways connect the ferry with the two cities at either end, and so what we are looking at, as compared with the former railway service, is a highway oriented ferry system designed to serve automobiles and trucks, and in no way connected with rails. It is based on having excellent highways open at all times for traffic, and fastloading and unloading. This leads one to believe that if a system such as this existed rather than the railway oriented system of Prince Edward Island, it might very well meet the needs of that island, and meet them for a long time, because the Canadian people will have to look at the very, very heavy cost of a causeway to serve that area. If legitimate alternatives exist, then those legitimate alternatives should be explored.
What happened after the highway-oriented service between the mainland and Vancouver Island went into operation? First of all the old Empress Hotel in Vancouver, which the CPR had thought it would have to phase out, suddenly became prosperous and today is being updated to take care of the additional service. Tourism has increased as a result of the improved traffic. What happened to the fast and cheap air service-17 planes a day to the island? The fast highways and fast ferries gave it competition. With the time needed for the drive to the airport, the air flight and the journey at the other end, the demand for air service has decreased to a few planes a day.
In considering the question of a causeway the very large cost involved must be considered. Is it possible that the people of Prince Edward Island would find that their needs could be satisfied with a highway-oriented road service and a ferry service, roads that were open year round to the main points served by the ferry, and terminals adequate to house people in subzero weather? Our experience shows that traffic expands when good service is provided, so there should be good maintenance. Ship-to-shore telephones should remain open, terminal telephones should operate efficiently, and in every way an excellent service should be provided.
If these conditions were made part of the study, I think we could compare this service with the cost of operating a causeway. The people of Prince Edward Island might find that they could have the enjoyment of their island without really connecting it to the mainland by a causeway; that they could have excellent service to and from
4832

April 1, 1971
Prince Edward Island Causeway the mainland to supply their needs and improve the tourist traffic. They might find this a better solution to the problem than waiting tor the day when the people of Canada could find the quarter of a billion dollars to build the causeway they dream of.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the ever diligent and thoughtful member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) for taking an interest in this question. I congratulate him for two reasons: a diligent member should be seeking inportant information, especially information relevant to decisions regarding financial expenditures, and I commend him for correctly assessing that this important matter for which the report is requested is not regional or provincial but is a national issue. By bringing forward this motion he reveals himself as a good parliamentarian. I hope the motion will pass.
We are at a stage now where information concerning the causeway project is vitally important. In this respect I should like to refer briefly to the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman). I know that his heart is in the right place and that he wishes us well, but I should like to cover a few points where his information might be inadequate.
In Prince Edward Island our greatest cash crop is not readily transportable by truck and so far has required a tremendous movement of reefer cars from the railway. So we are not in a position to abandon the railway at this stage of our economy or technology. I can think of no trucking company which would be in a position to send down the vast number of trucks and transfers required to market such a perishable and market-sensitive product as potatoes.
I would also point out that a comparison of the ferry service in the hon. member's province and mine must include one important ingredient, the fact that we have very heavy ice conditions. For this reason we must have powerful icebreakers to provide continuity and efficiency of service. The hon. member mentioned the ferry boat Abegweit which we crossed on together in 1968-not a luxurious vessel by any means. When one considers how many times that boat has to cross the strait in winter conditions, bucking ice, and that many of these men are on double shift, the fact that they have a little cabin to rest in between shifts cannot be regarded as luxury. It is an old ship, and the people of Prince Edward Island are concerned that it is the only icebreaker that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) is leaving with us. It has been in service since 1947. The people are not overjoyed either, with the government's decision to remove the largest and newest car ferry, the John Hamilton Gray.
The people of Canada, and particularly the Maritimes, have been given many conflicting stories about the cost of the Northumberland crossing. I would have thought the government would have welcomed the opportunity to produce this data. At first we were told that the causeway could be built for $105 million, then we were told $146 million. When the project got under way with magnificent spur railways and highways pathetically leading
to the open sea and almost $20 million expended, we were told the cost would be well over $300 million.
When doubt was raised, Colonel Edward Churchill was engaged as a consultant for the Department of Public Works to study the project on the spot, to engage staff to investigate the matter and give an estimate of the cost. Colonel Churchill is a most eminent engineer and was involved in the construction of the Expo site. His recommendations are found in report No. 26 of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, first session of the twenty-eighth Parliament. In answer to a question about the cost of the highway he said, as reported at page 443:
The $300 million figure was not mine, I do not know where it came from, and I think that I cannot make any comment other than to say it is a silly figure. I do not know where it came from.
A diligent member from Prince Edward Island, whose name I will not mention, then asked, "Silly because it is exaggerated?" Colonel Churchill, said "Because it is not true-and it certainly did not come from us." An hon. member then asked, "In your view, is it an exaggerated figure?" Colonel Churchill answered, "Yes." I then said, "Thank you very much." Sir, with this uncertainty, this confusion, this evasion and this repudiation by the government of Canada of a solemn commitment to build a permanent land link, is it any wonder that I should join with great sincerity in the matter raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North and ask this House for further information on this tremendously important matter?
Like the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I am concerned. In the age of Information Canada there seems to be a growing tendency to regard almost any document as being one which should not be revealed. Time after time that is the answer we receive in response to motions for the production of papers. I cannot believe that a democracy can be healthy if it is not informed. Thomas Jefferson enunciated that great truth many years ago. The denial of information surely cannot contribute to the effective and efficient dispatch of our business.
It is particularly important today that we know the true story and what is to be done about the Northumberland crossing. It is important because it may well be in the interests of the financial welfare of Canada that this permanent land link be built now. The particular ferry service which the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra talked about is a most expensive service and the subsidy required every year is rising at a rapid rate.
I have always believed, and Colonel Edward Churchill also stated this when being questioned, that it would be good, sound economics to build a permanent land link. If you incur year after year deficits of between $7 million and $10 million, you will soon reach the stage at which a land link, with a toll which would amortize its cost in a reasonable time, will be the better course of economic valour and political wisdom. Yet the people of Prince Edward Island today are uncertain about the cost, despite

April 1, 1971

the fact that the surveying and studying of this great project began in 1956, quite a while ago. Some of the finest experts from three or four countries undertook that study.
Just two days ago I asked the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) if he had received proposals from the government of Prince Edward Island or private interests suggesting that they might build this land link with suitable co-operation from the government of Canada. The minister's answer was no. The press and other media in my province have indicated that such proposals are in the offing. Surely these people must know the financial facts. It is just as important for them to be known by the people for whom decisions are being made.
The people of Prince Edward Island are undergoing a severe diminution in the number of vessels provided for their transportation and for the transportation of their goods between the mainland and our province. The removal of the John Hamilton Gray, our fine, new ferry, was a backward step. So far as winter travel is concerned, we are now back to where we were 20 years ago and depend only on this old boat which the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra remembers so well from that stormy night.
It has been a long time since our province entered confederation on the promise that the dominion government would provide us with continuous and efficient transportation to the mainland. It has been a long time since we were reduced to one ship. That is why I believe it is most important for the government to comply with the motion and let the people of Canada, particularly the people of our region, know the facts.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to speak on a notice of motion for the production of papers. Frankly, I am surprised how many such motions appear on the order paper. Some hon. members opposite have suggested that this government acts secretly and it does not make information available. That is not in accordance with the facts. There are all sorts of sources of information available to us. I submit that rather than not getting enough information, those of us who want to do a good job are getting a surfeit of material to study. We are inundated with information. It is also not correct to say that none of these papers asked for are produced, because many of them are.
We are dealing with a specific motion in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) which asks for a copy of the report by C.B. Haver of Montreal for Northumberland Consultants Limited on a certain matter. When I read one of these motions for the production of papers of one type or another, my first reaction-I would be less than candid if I did not say this-is, "Why not?". For that reason I have made it a point to listen to reasons advanced by ministers or parliamentary secretaries as to why a particular letter, paper, document, study or report should not be produced.
By the same token, I have paid careful attention to reasons advanced by hon. members for having a certain paper or document produced. Unhappily, many of the reasons advanced by hon. members seem to be lost in
Prince Edward Island Causeway
other comments which they see fit to bootleg into the debate. The comments do not deal specifically with the notice of motion to produce papers but relate to the pet project of the hon. member speaking. I think it is only fair to say that hon. members on this side of the House probably take as much advantage of that opportunity to bootleg remarks into debate as do members of the opposition parties.
Those who have listened to these debates instead of taking part in them have found that some reasons for not producing papers are fairly obvious and are readily acceptable to the mover of the motion. I refer to the situation in which the production of papers, in the opinion of the minister, would affect the security of the nation. To be fair to hon. members moving motions of that kind, almost without exception they agree to withdraw them. Sometimes it is obvious that the hon. member is only fishing. He has heard a rumour or it has been suggested to him that a particular document exists, so he has put on the order paper a notice of motion for the production of the document, only to find when the minister or parliamentary secretary answers that the document does not exist or it is not the property of that minister.
Of course, the other reasons are also advanced by ministers, namely, that the document is a privileged communication between governments or that the federal government or the minister concerned has given the minister or officials of another government an undertaking that such document or documents will be treated as confidential. There are other reasons. This is the grey area into which we get and the reason we have this kind of debate. When a minister receives a report on study, or a document which is needed for internal use of the department, he is called upon to make this decision. He uses this as his reason.
There are times when an individual is asked to prepare a report. That individual, who may be a professor or an expert in a particular field, undertakes the study and reports to cabinet on the understanding that his conclusions will be treated as confidential. If the minister breaks this confidentiality he has broken faith with the individual to whom he has given his word. The minister finds himself in a difficult position. He feels he must honour the undertaking and not reveal the contents of the report because he earlier indicated he would not do so. Surely this is necessary so that the individual who is making the report can feel free to express himself in many areas although he may not be completely in accord with them. He tries out ideas on the minister or department which are, hopefully, backed up by the studies he has made.
Many documents are produced, but not particularly in fulfilment of notices of motions because for one reason or another in the opinion of the minister these documents cannot be produced. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts when it was studying a particular subject. Approximately 1,400 contracts were made available to the committee which was studying
4834

April 1, 1971
Prince Edward Island Causeway only one phase of the matter. We have been told that 12 committees of this House are sitting today. From time to time motions are made in committee for the production of papers, documents, contracts or agreements. These are brought forward by the witnesses and made appendices to the minutes of the committee.
I believe other members wish to speak on this subject. There are other comments I would like to make; however, I have tried to make my point and stay within the four corners of the hon. member's motion. The minister has already indicated why this particular document cannot be produced. He stated that the report was prepared, in this instance, for use within the department and in his opinion at least it is a privileged document.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the motion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) relates to a notice of motion for production of papers, namely, the report by Mr. C. B. Haver in connection with the Prince Edward Island causeway. The motion reads:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the report by C. B. Haver of Montreal for Northumberland Consultants Limited regarding a review of the cost-benefit evaluation by Stanford Research Institute for a Prince Edward Island causeway as mentioned in answer to question number 1,832 reported in Hansard July 21, 1969, at page 11374.
Hon. members have argued whether papers of this nature, which are internal working documents, should be made public. The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) has argued that many of these documents, especially those which relate to a purely internal matter, should not be made public.
Surely it is cabinet ministers and the government who have to make the big decision. If all the working documents prepared for them by civil servants were made public, both the cabinet and the civil servants would be put in an impossible situation. The cabinet has the overall responsibility to decide, whereas the civil servant only has to prepare a report on one specific aspect. The civil servant does not have to take the over-view of what will be the cost of government needs.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North said he was not arguing with the decision that was taken, or the cost of the project, but only the need for these papers to be made public. He argued that members of Parliament must have all information available. Surely this is a time when we want a great deal more background information. When making decisions, we are not prepared to fly blind without the necessary information. In this case the government has made a decision based on the economics of the situation which existed in the spring of 1969. It felt that this was the best course to follow, whether the cost was $140 million or $300 million to which it later escalated. The government had to decide whether it was worth while to spend that amount on that particular project at that time.
When the government decided not to proceed with the project, it announced a development program for the province of Prince Edward Island. The regional development committee met last year and had an opportunity to review with the officials of the province the effect of this program on the province.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The horn- for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair. This is April 1st.
The sun was warm but the wind was chill.
You know how it is with an April day;
When the sun is out and the wind is still,
You're one month on in the middle of May,
But if you so much as dare to speak,
A cloud comes over the sunlit arch,
A wind comes off a frozen peak,
And you're two months back in the middle of March.
I think it is good to remember that April is much more than April Fool's Day.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Richard in the chair.
On clause 14-Establishment of Ministries of State.
Mr. Hymmen:: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of making a few remarks on clause 14 at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Kieth Reinhardt Hymmen: I shall be very brief.


An hon. Member:: No; take your time.


Kieth Reinhardt Hymmen: I accept the invitation implicit in the statement of the hon. member for Peace River that no one on the government side could explain or express an opinion on this clause. Before I continue I should like to reply to what was said earlier today by the hon. member from Northumberland. We on this side of the House appreciate the hon. member from Northumberland, a former cabinet minister. We have missed him in the last couple of weeks, with his ready disposition and the jack-in-the-box way in which he directs questions to the Minister of Finance. Today he was talking about the Liberal pork-barrel. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I have not seen a Liberal pork-barrel. The only barrel I have seen is the one which was rolled out at the Kitchener Oktoberfest last year and which will be rolled out again this year in recognition of the presence of an important ethnic group from Germany.
The hon. member is not here this evening but I will ask him through you, Mr. Chairman, whether, speaking
April 1, 1971

of pork-barrels, he would not care to approach his neighbour, a former member of the cabinet of the province of Ontario, Mr. Simonette, and maybe through his good friend, the hon. Mr. Davis, the hon. member for Northumberland could be appointed vice-chairman of some commission in the province of Ontario. Patronage is very evident in the province of Ontario, although I have not seen much Liberal patronage here.
I am reminded of a private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Cochrane which suggested there was merit in appointing members of the House of Commons to places on boards and commissions. There is a good deal of merit in this idea-


An hon. Member:: What about the Transport
Commission?


Kieth Reinhardt Hymmen: -because it might result in better liaison between the legislative body and the various boards and commissions which, as we all know, are at arm's length from the government. Of course, the Hon. John Robarts who recently retired as Premier of Ontario was not able to solve this problem any more than we have been able to solve it. All the appointments to boards and commissions in Ontario have been made from the Conservative party, the government side. I think there are only about seven, or perhaps nine, supporters of that party in the legislative assembly who do not enjoy an additional appointment to some board or commission in the province.
Possibly this is done to provide extra income to the members of the legislative body in the province of Ontario, but I would remind hon. members that those who sit in the provincial legislature are in receipt of the same allowances and salary as we receive in the federal House. Moreover, many of them are not required to support two residences and incur all the extra expenses which Ottawa members have to meet.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Would my hon. friend permit a question? Is he aware that according to press reports, of all the members on the government side of the Ontario legislature only eight fail to receive additional income above and beyond their $12,000 emolument? This is in the last fiscal year.


Kieth Reinhardt Hymmen: This is the point I am trying to make. My hon. friend says there are eight. I suggested there were seven or nine. The number is in that area, and I am sure Mr. Davis will make some arrangement for the remaining eight or nine.


Paul Yewchuk: Order. The hon. member is out of order.


Kieth Reinhardt Hymmen: I realize that, Mr. Chairman, and I do not wish to carry on in that vein. I wish to deal with the clause itself.


Paul Yewchuk: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the discussion should pertain to Parliament rather than to the Ontario government's problems.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Yes. Having completed his introduction and perhaps laid a basis for his
Government Organization Act, 1970 argument, the hon. member for Kitchener should now proceed to discuss the bill before us.


Kieth Reinhardt Hymmen: Yes, Mr. Chairman. At this point may I apologize to members of the opposition? On two occasions I referred to Northumberland. This was in error. I believe the constituency is Prince Edward-Hastings, not Northumberland. But that does not detract in any way from the remarks I made.
As far as clause 14 is concerned, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings and other members of the opposition, whether intentionally or otherwise, have completely missed the point. So has the right hon. member for Prince Albert who presided over a very important administration some years ago. These hon. members know that with increasing changes in our society today, it is becoming extremely difficult to govern. How many bills to reorganize the government did the former Conservative government bring in? We have been criticized for bringing in two. I say to the right hon. member for Prince Albert, whom many in the House admire-I admire him for his tenacity and for the fact that he has been many years in this Parliament-that had he followed the former leader of this party and taken his retirement, perhaps with the co-operation of this government he would have retired to the other place where he could have been placed on a pedestal for all of us to admire for the rest of his years. We have been criticized for the dictatorial attitude of our Prime Minister. We on this side of the House do not know who the leader of the official opposition is; certainly it is hard to know at the present time who does lead the official opposition.
If I may return to clause 14,1 think the members of the opposition are missing the point. I have said that there are increasing problems confronting government in this twentieth century. Reference has been made to the number of parliamentary secretaries in the government. There are many very qualified ministers, respected in all parts of the House, who have no parliamentary secretary. I think, for example, of the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-a very important department-the Minister of Communications, the Minister of Supply and Services, the Minister of National Revenue-a new appointment-and also the Solicitor General.
The other day an hon. member accused me of trying to force my way through an open door. That is not my intention at all. I am just being goaded by the hon. member for Peace River and by other members of the House, whom I respect, to make a few brief remarks in support of clause 14 of this bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: When are you going to start?


Kieth Reinhardt Hymmen: The idea of ministers of state has been borrowed from the mother of Parliaments at Westminster. A minister who sits just in front of me, the Minister without Portfolio who is responsible for housing, has

April 1, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
been suggested, I believe, as the new minister ol housing and urban affairs. The new Premier of the province of Ontario has just announced a very important housing program. He did not say what amount of federal funds Would be involved, but housing and urban affairs is a very important responsibility of the provinces.
Some time ago the Prime Minister stated, during all the deliberations, meetings and conferences held on the subject of the Constitution, that we should live by the Constitution until we change it. Through the establishment of a minister of state with a secretary instead of a deputy minister we can perform a very important operation within our Constitution that will assist the provinces as well as ourselves without the creation of a large department of the kind the opposition seems to fear.
Another very important problem in this country is evidenced in the first report of the Senate Committee on Science Policy. This report suggests that the government appoint a minister of science. I suggest a minister of state for science would be very appropriate. Such an appointee could work with the Science Council and other bodies, with the assistance of a secretary within a small operation, rather than creating a separate department to design science policy. The same suggestion can be made with regard to the recommendations in the report on the status of women. In this way many other areas could be handled very nicely within our Constitution. Additional responsibility could be given to these people who would work with provincial authorities and others in the country, thus making a useful contribution to Canada.
I made this interjection because the hon. member for Peace River, who has done an excellent job as House leader for the official opposition, suggested that we in the backbenches are a bunch of sheep, that we are rubber-stamps for government bills.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Kieth Reinhardt Hymmen: I am very much sold on this government bill, and in the interest of passing clause 14 I shall now desist from making any further remarks.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, we are very pleased to have heard the intervention of the hon. member for Kitchener.


Mr. Schumacher:: He is the only Liberal who has spoken today.


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, the only supporter of the government who has had the nerve, the fortitude and courage to rise in his place today and make a contribution to this debate. I think the hon. member for Kitchener deserves a great deal of credit. Without his contribution we would have gone through the day debating this very important bill before us without any participation by members on the other side of the House. One might almost suspect that the legislation is meeting with the unanimous support of hon. members opposite.


Mr. Boulanger:: Yes, that is right.


James Aloysius McGrath: I do not think that is so. I see on the other side some of my hon. friends who were former
parliamentary secretaries but have now been demoted, put out to pasture. They sit there through this debate with long faces. I know they do not support this legislation. It is a matter of some regret to me that they do not see fit to make a contribution to the debate, as the hon. member for Kitchener has.
I also see the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry who is waiting patiently and anxiously to get the commendation of Parliament to go forth across the country on his white charger and be the Mr. Clean for all Canada. He is waiting to be proclaimed minister of the environment, when he will forget all about the department that gave him his start in public life-the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. The minister will go forward with all his new powers wrested from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-who is not here and is heartbroken at losing some of his powers-from the Minister of National Health and Welfare and from other ministers. I wish the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry would follow the hon. member for Kitchener and participate in this debate.
I observe the assistant government whip now leaving the chamber. He is one of the aspiring parliamentary secretaries who is hopefully waiting for the passage of the bill so he can receive his emolument. If he were to stay in the committee and listen, he might learn something and perhaps be provoked into making a contribution to the debate. He knows in his heart that Members of Parliament are concerned about what this government is doing.
Members of Parliament are concerned over the fact that this government by proclamation can set up new ministries of state, something which has been unheard of in the history of the Parliament of this country. The government will be able by proclamation to set up a ministry something akin to a department. This minister in this ministry of state, under the terms of this bill, will be in charge of policy. He will be formulating the development of policy, something which heretofore was strictly within the purview of the government. This, Mr. Chairman, is a matter of a great deal of concern even to the hon. member for Kitchener who just made a very brilliant intervention in this debate. What concerns me is that by the creation of these new ministries of state the government is giving a licence-I am glad the President of the Privy Council is in his seat-to still more members of the House to be absent from the House under the obnoxious and illegal roster system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: This is a basic denial of the very fundamentals of responsible government whereby the government of this country must, on a day to day basis, be responsible to the elected representatives of the people.


An hon. Member:: Where are the members?


James Aloysius McGrath: Where are the members? That is a very good question and one which deserves to be dealt with. Where are the members of the House today? Apart from

April 1, 1971

the question period, when members of the ministry are absent due to the illegal roster system, members of the House are required to be in committee. Today 12 committees of this House met at a time when the House is in committee of the whole, which should indicate that this Committee would preclude any other committee of the House sitting because this is a committee of the whole House. Yet we have 12 committees scheduled today, comprising a total of 198 members of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


James Aloysius McGrath: We have 30 members in the cabinet, which would give a total of 228, and Your Honour, the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, which would give a grand total of 231. Then there are the absentees and the vacancies in the House. Mr. Chairman, who is to man this committee of the whole House when 12 committees are sitting with a total membership of 198? I will tell the hon. member for St. Boniface who will man the committees. Yesterday we sat with him in the Committee on Regional Development while hearing the estimates of the department. He was the only government member present. The only reason he was present is that he is vicechairman of the committee. Today 12 committees met, and I know of committees of this House which met when there was nothing akin to a quorum. I know of one committee which sat today and heard evidence with just two members present. Now we are talking about creating five new ministries of state and increasing the number of parliamentary secretaries.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The hon. member for St. Boniface on a point of order.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I should like to tell the House that such was not my reason for being present at the committee meeting. 1 always attend meetings of the committees of which I am a member and I had reasons to believe that the hon. member who just had the floor would not be there and that for a while we could hear other members speak.
That is the reason why I insisted on remaining in the committee all afternoon.


George Harris Hees: It would be better if you were there now, Joe.


James Aloysius McGrath: So, Mr. Chairman, they make a mockery of this place; and by bringing in this particular amendment in this omnibus bill which would create still more ministries and which would give the government the right to create ministries by proclamation, the government is further adding to the erosion of the rights of the Parliament of Canada. Let us for a moment take a look at the roster system. What do we have on the government's roster system about the presence of members of the cabinet? On Monday we have 14 per cent of the cabinet present; on Tuesday we have 19 per cent of the cabinet present; on Wednesday we have a big day, with
Government Organization Act, 1970
20 per cent present. I am sorry; it should be 20 ministers present, which is 69 per cent. I will read those figures again. I am sure even members opposite will allow me to make that mistake.


An hon. Member:: They did not know the difference.


James Aloysius McGrath: They did not know the difference. Only the assistant government whip was smart enough to know it. I would say that in itself should qualify him for one of the new parliamentary secretaryships: I hope he gets one. On Monday we have 14 ministers present, or 48 per cent; on Tuesday we have 19 ministers present, or 65 per cent; on Wednesday we have 20 ministers present, or 69 per cent; on Thursday we have 19 ministers present, or 65 per cent; and on Friday we have 15 members present, representing 52 per cent of the cabinet. That would be very fine if even all the ministers who were supposed to be here-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon.
member for Kenora-Rainy River on a point of order.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question. Would the hon. member give us the percentages in terms of the ministers who are supposed to be here, on the roster system, instead of the absolute figures which do not mean anything?


James Aloysius McGrath: All I can say to the hon. member, who is one of those who aspires to be a parliamentary secretary, is that under Standing Order 5 of this House every member is supposed to be in his place. That includes members of the cabinet. But let us stop for a moment and look at the new ministries of state which will be set up under the provisions of this particular part of the bill. There are to be five ministries of state set up by proclamation of the Governor in Council. There are only three of which we know, the Minister without Portfolio who is to be designated as the minister of urban affairs, the other Minister without Portfolio who is to be designated minister responsible for Information Canada, and a third Minister without Portfolio who is to be designated as the minister responsible for the Post Office.
Are we to assume that this is only a temporary situation? Are we to assume that by this innovation, this new designation of a ministry of state, we have a temporary situation? If we are to assume that, then are we to assume that the government looks upon urban problems in this country as a temporary situation? I suggest to you, Sir, and to the members of the committee that the problems facing the cities of Canada today, the great problems of urban transportation, housing and urban renewal, warrant the designation of a permanent department of urban affairs.
Why do we take this half measure? Why do we set up a minister of state for urban affairs whose responsibilities are somewhat less than those of a minister who presides over a full department of government? Is this to be a surreptitious way of changing the Constitution of

April 1, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
the country? Is this something on the line of the government's roster system? Are we to have an inner and outer cabinet, as in Great Britain where they have members of the cabinet and junior ministers? If so, why doesn't the government say so, instead of trying to do it by this back door method?


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, may I have permission to ask the hon. member a question?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I have but 20 minutes in committee of the whole.


Prosper Boulanger: It will be a short one.


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. assistant government whip will be able to contribute to this debate later, or perhaps he will ask his question after I have used my 20 minutes and in that way I will have another 20 minutes to reply to him.


Prosper Boulanger: My question will not take 20 minutes to answer, if I have the hon. member's permission to ask it. Also, it will help him.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order.


James Aloysius McGrath: If the assistant government whip, who aspires to the full title, is prepared to guarantee that I will have unanimous consent of the committee to speak for additional time, I will entertain his question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Prosper Boulanger: I do not think you will need any more time to say what you are saying now. But what I want to ask, in this English that I have been learning for the last ten years in this House-I hope it is getting better-is, what would you call a member being on duty in the House of Commons? What would you call a member being on duty in a committee, on duty in the House or working up on the Hill? Would you agree that when a member is doing these things he is on duty?


Thomas Miller Bell: Explain.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I would invite the hon. member, for whom I have great respect, to make his own contribution to this debate and enlarge upon the very ambiguous question that he just put to me. What I am concerned about is that here we are considering a bill to reorganize the whole government of Canada, setting up new ministries of state, setting up additional parliamentary secretaries, setting up new departments, bringing in amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act, and yet we have so few contributions to the debate from members of the government. That is one of the reasons I entertained a question from the hon. member and it is one of the reasons for my hoping he will enlarge upon what he tried to say; and may I say I am sure he is intent and sincere about it. Let him contribute to the debate just as the hon. member for Kitchener did, who has now probably gone up to correct the blues since he is no longer in the Chamber.
Three of the five ministries of state are already designated, and Parliament is being asked to give the government a blank cheque with regard to the other two. I would like to ask, is Information Canada, established by government edict and proclamation, just a temporary thing? This is what we assume, since it is to come under one of the new ministers of state. Why doesn't Information Canada merit the attention of the Secretary of State? More particularly, if the government places so much, emphasis as it appears to place on Information Canada, why is it not made a complete department of the government?
I suggest that the government is trying to do what other governments, provincial governments, have already done. Here I think of the Liberal government in the province of Newfoundland which ensured the support of its own caucus by appointing a majority of its members to the cabinet. It appears that is what the federal government is intent on doing.
I emphasize the question that I put to the government House leader at five o'clock and which I repeat now. If this place is to mean anything, if we are to take our work seriously, does he think in his own heart, as a great parliamentarian, that this institution can be effective by having 12 standing committees of the House meeting on the same day and at the same time as the House is meeting in committee of the whole on a very important bill to reorganize the whole government structure?


Prosper Boulanger: There is only one committee tonight.


James Aloysius McGrath: The government House leader knows that there were committees meeting today and that there were committees meeting yesterday. He also knows that these committees are meeting without the benefit of a quorum. Mr. Chairman, these committees in most instances, if not all instances, are (meeting illegally. Most of these committees are hearing evidence from important witnesses, including ministers of the Crown.
I point to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry who had the humiliating experience of having to sit in front of his own committee, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, to consider a very important bill, the clean air bill, when there weren't even five members present. He had to listen to the senior officials of his department, including his deputy minister, give evidence on the bill without even five members present.


Mr. Corbin:: When was that?


James Aloysius McGrath: That was a few days ago. The parliamentary secretary probably wasn't even present himself.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order. I have to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


James Aloysius McGrath: I was of the opinion that when I was interrupted by the assistant government whip with his question, I would be given extended time.


Jean-Thomas Richard: The Chair has already allowed three minutes for that.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.

April 1, 1971


Jean-Thomas Richard: The hon. member for Athabasca.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Chairman, I was waiting for the light to go on.


George Harris Hees: You will never get the light on over there.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order. I know it is not the duty of the Chair to hurry debate in order to see bills passed, but the Chair does wish to hear arguments which may be in favour of or opposed to the bill. I have been trying to follow the thread of the arguments presented but there have been so many deviations that I have had trouble doing so.


George Harris Hees: That is because of the rude members on the Liberal side. They keep on interrupting, which is something we never do.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Chairman, I hope all members opposite are settling down because I do not want them to miss any of my very important comments. During the portion of the debate dealing with the establishment of ministries of state, as well as ministers of state, the debate has also touched upon a successive clause dealing with the establishment of a larger nu'mber of parliamentary secretaries. Throughout this debate the most visible and obvious contributions made by members on the government side were the continuous broad smiles on their faces during the course of the debate, particularly in dealing with part IV.
As I did not pay close attention to this bill at the onset of the debate, I became curious to know the reason for these large smiles. The reason becomes very obvious when we look at part IV and part V of this bill. The Prime Minister has finally come through with the bonanza that all these fellows have been waiting for for three years. I hope they are able to continue smiling when this bill is passed.
I notice, in particular, the hon. member for Kitchener was not only smiling but was drooling all over his necktie and on the front of his shirt. The hon. member for Sarnia is drooling, and the hon. member for St. Boniface as well as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. It might be reasonable to stop at this point and pass some supplementary estimates to buy bibs for these fellows to use until this bill gets through. I hope all those members who are stalling on the government backbenches will continue to smile when the bill is passed, and that their smiles will not turn into a look of guilt when they sit down and assess what they have done, namely, stuck their fingers into the people's piggy bank and come out with substantial loot to be used for their own personal gain at the expense of the already overburdened taxpayer.
As has been pointed out on several occasions during this and other debates, Canada already pays the highest per capita tax of the countries of the free world. On
Government Organization Act, 1970
looking at part IV and part V of this bill, the first question that came to my mind was: What for? What possible reason could there be, in addition to the present 29 or 30 ministers and with the freedom to appoint an equal number of ministers without portfolio, to want a free hand to appoint an additional five ministers of state at the discretion of the Governor in Council, without consulting Parliament and without necessarily indicating the reason for such appointments.
Part IV states that these ministers will be responsible for formulation and development of policies. If this job is turned over to the ministers of state, what will the existing ministers be doing? What will all the civil service people be doing who are charged with this responsibility? What will the Prime Minister's burgeoning supportive staff be doing? It seems to me that this bill in part IV and part V is proposing to promote a shameful waste of public funds at a time when our economy is in very dire straits as a result of the government's actions. This is not the time to be wasting public funds.
This may be considered an effort by the government to solve in part the unemployment situation, but I wish to point out to the Prime Minister and his gang that the proposed additional ministers are already employed as members of Parliament and there is nothing stopping them assisting ministers on formulation and development of policy as members of Parliament. I cannot see that appointing them as ministers of state would increase their intelligence or their ability to develop and formulate policy.
However, if the government can show me that an appointment such as that would increase the ability of a member to formulate and develop policy, I would suggest all members of Parliament should receive such appointments to the great benefit of the country as a whole. Unfortunately, it appears at present that the great advantage will only be to the majority of Liberal members who will benefit from an extra salary of $15,000 per year. It is very questionable that they will be able to justify such an increased government expenditure.
Mr. Chairman, unless the Prime Minister, in whose name this bill stands, can offer an explanation besides the obvious one, namely, mercenary considerations on behalf of Liberal members, I cannot see any way in which we can support this bill. I would find it much easier to justify a decrease in the size of the cabinet. As an example, the minister responsible for Information Canada cannot really justify the existence of his department to the people of Canada. That department, along with the ministerial post, should be abolished.
The job held by the Secretary of State is hardly one that needs a separate department and minister. That ministerial post could easily be abolished and the department combined with another. The communications ministry could easily be abolished and combined with the Post Office. The three ministers involved in Treasury Board, finance and revenue could easily be cut down to two. The Department of Justice and the Department of the Solicitor General could be joined into one. There are many other examples of too many ministers. When one looks at this bill there are only two possibilities: they are either
4840

April 1, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
doing this to give themselves more high-paying jobs or they just do not have people with sufficient talent to handle the posts. Probably it is a little of each. It appears that there is nobody with sufficient ability to carry the responsibility, so it must be spread over the entire Liberal side of the House.
I would find it much easier to support this bill if government reorganization were in the direction I am suggesting. That could be much more easily justified to the Canadian people, in view of the massive unemployment and the need to keep government expenditures down in order to reduce taxation. This government has shown a greater and greater desire to turn responsibility over to Crown corporations, thereby decreasing even more the amount of responsibility by individual ministers. That, again, speaks for decreasing rather than increasing the number of ministers.
I also see part IV of this bill as a further effort to downgrade Parliament in law and in reality. The reason for this statement is that ministries of state may be estabished by the Governor in Council, by proclamation, without reference to Parliament. What the Prime Minister is saying, in effect, is that he does not feel Parliament has anything useful to contribute in deciding whether a new ministry should be established, and by this bill he is giving himself the authority to bypass Parliament completely and virtually make the decision on his own. This, along with the rule changes, along with the roster system which allows ministers to be absent from the House half the time, is very telling evidence that the Prime Minister is waging a cold and sinister war against the institution of Parliament.
A year or two ago the government made political capital by suggesting that they would cut down on civil service staff and on their expenditure, yet since that time the bureaucracy has been spreading at an ever-accelerating rate. In the past year the government has also attempted to make political capital from the war on inflation. Nevertheless this bill, which clearly involves a continuing enlargement of the bureaucracy, will vastly increase the inflationary process of this country. As many hon. members have said, part IV of this bill enables between 110 and 130 members on the government side to increase their pay and their status in Parliament. I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, that I object to this surreptitious and underhanded method which hon. members have used for raising their own pay by way of the back door, so to speak.


James Aloysius McGrath: Shame!


Paul Yewchuk: If they are interested in that, they should be prepared to say so and face the consequences. Nevertheless, the fact that Liberal members will be getting an indirect pay raise is not our only great worry. Another great worry of mine stems from the fact that if they are given these appointments and these titles, they may feel in their minds that they must justify their existence and they are likely to do this by dreaming up more ways of spending huge amounts of the taxpayer's

dollars. I do not need to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this is the last thing Canada needs at this time. Furthermore, it is quite likely that each one will build up his own oversized, bureaucratic pyramid on top of which he can sit. That, again, will mean greater and greater expenditure of public funds. In view of these facts, I think the only logical solution regarding the difficulties connected with this bill is the withdrawal of parts IV and V, after which we may find it a little easier to support the measure.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: This is a filibuster.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, since I was not given an opportunity earlier to finish my remarks, I should like to finish them now.


Prosper Boulanger: The hon. member was given that opportunity.


An hon. Member:: He was offered three minutes.


George Harris Hees: Now he will probably take 20.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I asked the government House leader, who is now conferring with the President of the Treasury Board, what the situation will be when five new ministers have been added to the ministry. New parliamentary secretaries are to be appointed. In view of the already excessive number of committees that are meeting at present, I should like to ask, who is to look after the House of Commons?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Prosper Boulanger: Hon. members will.


James Aloysius McGrath: I think it would be worth while, for the edification of the assistant government whip who makes such brilliant interventions, to place on record the fact that while the House has been sitting in committee of the whole to consider an important bill affecting the entire organization of the government of Canada, 12 standing committees of the House have been scheduled to meet. That is a complete contradiction, Mr. Chairman: when the House is sitting in committee of the whole, how can other committees of the House sit at the same time?


Prosper Boulanger: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, there are not 12 committees sitting tonight. Only the Standing Committee on Agriculture is sitting. That does not mean that more members supporting the hon. member's party will be here tonight. Only one committee is sitting tonight and not 12.


James Aloysius McGrath: I thank the hon. 'member for that intervention. I refer him to Votes and Proceedings No. 108 for March 31, 1971, which indicates that the following committees are to meet on Thursday, April 1: the Standing Committee on Agriculture, which is scheduled for Thursday, April 1.


An hon. Member:: It was to meet this morning.
April 1, 1971


James Aloysius McGrath: It is scheduled for Thursday, April 1.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: For what time of day?


James Aloysius McGrath: The Standing Committee on Election Expenses is scheduled for Thursday, April 1.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: At what time of day?


James Aloysius McGrath: The Standing Committee on Environmental Pollution is scheduled to meet on Thursday, April 1. That is a special committee.


An hon. Member:: That was this morning.


James Aloysius McGrath: The Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs is to meet on Thursday, April 1.


An hon. Member:: At eleven o'clock in the morning.


James Aloysius McGrath: The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry was to meet on Thursday, April 1, and the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs was also to meet on Thursday, April 1. The Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development was scheduled for Thursday, April 1.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Chairman:: Order, please. Will hon. members kindly resume their seats so that we may have order. The hon. member for Ottawa West is rising on a point of order.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Chairman, I understand that at this stage of the bill the debate must be relevant to the clause before the committee. I invite the hon. member to explain how his remarks are relevant to the matter before us.


George Harris Hees: That is not a point of order.


An hon. Member:: That is a point of debate.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: How relevant are his remarks to this clause?


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa West has raised a point of order. I hesitate to agree with him. I think the hon. member who has the floor has raised points that are relevant to the subject under consideration. His intervention related to the organization of government and how hon. members distribute their time. I think he may be nearing the point where his remarks are not relevant, but I think he is still within the bounds of relevancy.


George Harris Hees: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I continue? The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is scheduled to meet today, Thursday, April 1. The Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates is scheduled for Thursday, April 1.
Government Organization Act, 1970


An hon. Member:: The Justice Committee was to meet at eleven o'clock this morning.


James Aloysius McGrath: The Standing Committee on Public Accounts was scheduled to meet on Thursday, April 1. Then, as if those were not enough, a subcommittee has been scheduled to meet. The subcommittee on Public Accounts was scheduled to meet today, Thursday, April 1. Then we have travelling committees, Mr. Chairman. The travelling, Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada was to meet today in the ballroom of the King Edward Sheraton Hotel, Toronto. The same committee, dealing with the Constitution of Canada, is to meet again tomorrow.


Thomas Miller Bell: One committee is in New Zealand.


James Aloysius McGrath: As my colleague says, Mr. Chairman, an ad hoc committee of this House at present is visiting New Zealand and is scheduled to visit Australia.


Gerald William Baldwin: Right now they are rubbing noses with the Maoris.


James Aloysius McGrath: What is to become of the House of Commons? We have lost the right to grant supply. Supply is no longer one of the prerogatives of members of Parliament. All the estimates of the House of Commons will be passed by a certain hour on a certain date. Now we have even lost the right to examine the estimates and to examine all the legislation coming before this House. No member of the House, Mr. Chairman, can be in more than one place at the same time. Yet members of Parliament are expected to examine every bill that comes before this House, including this important measure which at this moment is before committee of the whole.
At the same time they are expected, in committee, to examine the estimates of the various departments of government. They are expected to examine the clean air bill in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, and the marketing bill which is presently before the Standing Committee on Agriculture. They are expected to consider the Constitution of Canada, which is being dealt with by a special committee of this House. They are expected to do all these things at the same time. I ask you, Sir, what is the role of the House of Commons which is meeting now in an exceptional session of committee of the whole?


An hon. Member:: To be a rubber-stamp.


James Aloysius McGrath: The House is meeting in an extraordinary session in committee of the whole.


An hon. Member:: With three ministers present.


James Aloysius McGrath: With three ministers present. The President of the Treasury Board is here. He has taken responsibility for this legislation. It is in the name of the Prime Minister of Canada, who has not seen fit to attend on a single occasion when this legislation has been debated in committee of the whole.


Gerald William Baldwin: Shame!
4842

April 1, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


James Aloysius McGrath: Although the legislation is in the Prime Minister's name, the Prime Minister has not seen fit to attend. Mr. Chairman, the President of the Treasury-Board has had to carry the load by himself.


Thomas Miller Bell: He is the Joe-boy.


James Aloysius McGrath: He is the Joe-boy of the cabinet. He has been expected to deal with matters concerning energy, mines and resources, fisheries and forestry, the environment, the ecology and pollution. He has had to deal with the Public Service Superannuation Act, and now he has to deal with ministers of state, a whole new area in the organization of the government of Canada. He has to deal with the section of the bill covering parliamentary secretaries.


Gerald William Baldwin: All that talk, and we are going to the dogs.


James Aloysius McGrath: As a consequence of the attitude of this government, the House of Commons is going to the dogs. That is what bothers and concerns me. Day after day we are examining this most important omnibus bill which concerns seven major statutes. Any one of them would require from one to three days' debate. All this time the government and, more especially, the supporters of the government, sit passively as though they were members of the presidium of the Soviet Union which is only there to rubber stamp legislation.
Are we to assume that this legislation received the debate in the caucus of the Liberal party that we are now trying to give it? That is the only way we can reconcile the attitude of members opposite who sit passively and make no contribution to this debate. Members opposite accuse us of mounting a filibuster.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: This is your second speech tonight.


James Aloysius McGrath: If giving legislation as important as this the time and attention it deserves is a filibuster, all I can say to those members opposite who make that accusation is that they have a very poor attitude toward the Parliamentary process.


Gerald William Baldwin: We need more filibusters.


James Aloysius McGrath: As my colleague has just said, what this House needs is more filibusters.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: We have a good one now.


James Aloysius McGrath: If that is what members opposite call a filibuster, I say what this House needs is more filibusters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Before passing this very important part of the bill, which will allow the government to set up five new ministries, something akin to new departments, by proclamation without the due Parliamentary process, I hope that the relatively few who have some backbone will express their reservations and grave concern about what this government is doing to Parliament.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: You are breaking my heart.


James Aloysius McGrath: My heart goes out to the chief government whip because he has to face the people of Ottawa, including the thousands of civil servants in this city, notwithstanding this bill, the superannuation amendment, to which he gave consent, and the amendment of the hon. member of the New Democratic Party which he voted against.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


George Harris Hees: And he is the whip.


James Aloysius McGrath: He deserves our sympathy because he is going to need it. He is going to need all the sympathy he can get when he faces the public servants who reside in his constituency and who sent him here to represent their best interests.


George Harris Hees: And are they ever disappointed!


James Aloysius McGrath: I suggest to the government whip that these public servants have been shortchanged.


Prosper Boulanger: He will be back here and you will not.


George Harris Hees: That is not what the people tell us.


James Aloysius McGrath: The fact that we have this omnibus bill before us is cause for great concern. To bring in this provision allowing the setting up of ministries of state by proclamation is unknown in our constitutional process. We have ministers without portfolio and ministers in charge of departments. We are now going to have ministers of state. Obviously, urban affairs do not warrant the attention of a full department; nor does Information Canada warrant the attention of a full department. We wonder exactly what the government has in mind for the others. We are concerned because it is a bad parliamentary principle to ask legislators to give the government this blanket endorsement, a blank cheque. I will now return to where I began.


Prosper Boulanger: Do you remember where you started?


James Aloysius McGrath: I come back to the iniquitous practice of the roster system and the practice of this government of having standing committees of this House meet while the House is in session. By design or accident, both provisions have the end result of depriving the members of this House of their fundamental rights.


Mr. Jerome:: That is not right.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is true, and the hon. member knows it is true. He is a student of the rules of Parliament. He is the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. He knows it is true. If the hon. member quarrels with that argument, he should get to his feet. He knows that these two provisions, coupled with the new rules of the House whereby the House no longer has the right to withhold supply, have virtually killed, destroyed and made a mockery of Parliament. The Parliament of Canada is supposed to be responsible. With this government it is nothing more than a pale imitation of the presidium of the U.S.S.R.

April 1, 1971


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I am now going to give the other side of the story.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: That is what we have been waiting for.


Prosper Boulanger: In order to practise my English, I will speak in English. I may make a few mistakes, but I have the courage to do it so that my predecessor will understand what I am trying to say. The last remark in the hon. member's speech was a very old one-mockery of Parliament. If hon. members want an example of mockery, they have it in the hon. member who just resumed his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Prosper Boulanger: Any member who makes a speech and then two minutes later speaks for another 15 minutes, saying things which do not relate to the bill and only trying to prove to the Canadian people that members of this House do not work or do practically nothing, is very close to being dishonest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Prosper Boulanger: This is April 1, April Fool's Day. The hon. member is trying to fool us. I will give the true story with regard to the committees which met today. The hon. member stated that 12 committees met today. That is not true. While the House was sitting today, the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs met at 3.30 p.m. There were more members in the chamber at that time than there are at present. The other committee which met at 3.30 today was the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. The third committee sitting while the House was sitting, at 3.30 on April 1, was the Public Accounts subcommittee, and tonight the only committee which is sitting is the Agriculture Committee. This is the situation in plain English.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Where was the Committee on the Constitution?


Prosper Boulanger: You see, Mr. Chairman, they ask us to speak and when we do get up they are afraid.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. In all fairness to the committee, the hon. member who was enumerating the committees which were sitting at 3.30 should call attention to the fact that the Agriculture Committee was sitting and that the subcommittee of the Public Accounts Committee was sitting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Prosper Boulanger: I am surprised at the hon. member. I thought my English had improved. Apparently the hon. member does not understand good English either. If hon. members opposite talk about mockery, I must say I have not seen so well-organized a filibuster as we have wit-
Government Organization Act, 1970
nessed in the last two or three days. I have nothing against the opposition. Most of them are good friends of mine. I chum around with them. They are good people. But when they come into the House they seem to be completely changed. I say this because the public has to know the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Prosper Boulanger: We all work hard here, the opposition included. We work as legislators and do our best to carry out a responsible job. When hon. members get up and make speeches like the one we have just heard, it is not the government they are harming, it is themselves. Speeches like the one we have just heard destroy the image of this Parliament. They ignore the fact that when a member gets to the Hill on Monday morning he is on duty all the week until Friday night. That is truth. That is what you should tell people.
Very often a member has visitors. His electors come to see him with various problems and he has to look after these people. It is suggested we are doing nothing because we do not reply to speeches-well, I will call them speeches-which are made in the House by members of the opposition. Mr. Chairman, if we were to get up and answer every piece of foolishness we hear, we should all be crazy in one week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Prosper Boulanger: I think I shall turn back to French, Mr. Chairman, because my temper is getting a little hot.

I shall close by telling you very seriously that a member of the House, in committee or in his office-and the public must realize that-is not here to play or fool around, but we are here, the members of the opposition as well as the members of the government, to work honestly for the people.
Therefore, I believe that speeches as I have heard since eight o'clock tonight are a mockery of the parliament!


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, at the invitation of the previous speaker, the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger), I would like to try to speak as honestly as possible.
The committee of the whole is studying clause 14 of bill C-207 entitled "An Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto."
I will therefore limit my comments to this clause.
Mr. Chairman, I would like, for the information of my hon. colleagues, to divide clause 14 into four parts, and analyze them one by one.
Here is what the first part of clause 14 stipulates: Where it appears to the Governor in Council that the requirements for formulating and developing new and comprehensive policies in relation to any matter or matters-
Mr. Chairman, that is to say that the first part of clause 14 which I just quoted indicates the government's purpose which is to meet requirements of new policies to

April 1, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
be formulated. In fact, it will be noted, that part of clause 14 refers to requirements -for formulating and developing new policies-
Mr. Chairman, we agree that new policies must be adopted. No member will deny that. Besides, the problem is not at that level. There is no reference in this first part to the implementation of these policies nor to what they will involve. The only reason given to justify the establishment of these new ministries of state is that there are -requirements for formulating and developing new and comprehensive policies-
What is a new and comprehensive policy? What does it involve? What problems does it correspond to?
Mr. Chairman, clause 14 contains no reply either in the letter or in the spirit. There is no reference to implementation of new policies. Only formulation and development are mentioned.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, only studies, analyses or inquiries are referred to.
In other words, they will create a ministry headed by a minister who will make studies, analyses, surveys, develop a new policy, but will not administer them and will not take measures to solve a specific problem. They will be content with conducting studies.
Mr. Chairman, this is, in elusive terms, a judicial mess which cannot satisfy hon. members. This is why we are having this debate which we would like to be constructive.
The first part of clause 14 does not justify the establishment of ministers and ministries of state, this is merely eye-wash. The purpose of clause 14, the very principle of the creation of five new ministries and five new ministers of state is the following: "formulating and developing new and comprehensive policies".
Mr. Chairman, it is regrettable that there is no mention of application, that there is no specification of what is meant. Furthermore, none of the government members have given us this information. To oblige them, to speed up the work, we should vote blindly. No, Mr. Chairman. One may accept the principle of the formulation of "new policies" but at the same time one must not be afraid to ask for information. The clause does not specify either in what fields exactly such new policies will be formulated; it only states that policies will be formulated, that such policies will have to be new and comprehensive.
Mr. Chairman, would this mean that, through this clause, the government admits that its present policy is old-fashioned and unintelligible? I would not go so far as to say that, but why speak of a new and comprehensive policy if the government is unable to justify it?
We must also note, Mr. Chairman, that the first part of clause 14 does not specify the number of areas referred to. No general indication is given about the areas which would need a new and comprehensive policy; it is only stated that it will be related to one or several matters.
Indeed, the second part of clause 14 reads as follows:
_the requirements for formulating and developing new and
comprehensive policies in relation to any matter or matters-

.. .warrant the establishment of a "special portion". No reference is made to a normal portion usually found in a normal department, but a "special portion". What does "special portion" mean? What is this new invention of the government?
Mr. Chairman, we do not get an answer to the question either:
-presided over by a Minister

There is the second part of clause 14. In short, in the second part of clause 14, there is a question of establishing "a special portion.. .presided over by a Minister". Does it mean that this minister will have a special status, compared to other ministers? It would matter greatly to get an answer to this question.
What will be the relationship between the House and the ministers who will preside over a special portion? And will this agency constitute a crown corporation with mixed participation, or a mandatory crown corporation? Will it be merely a ministry of state? Or rather a sort of make-believe ministry, not responsible to parliament?
Mr. Chairman, I have no preconceived opinion on this question. I am merely asking it. We are expecting an answer.
So we want to establish, to face a special "portion", a ministry presided over by a minister. Why then this "special portion"? What can justify the development of a special policy in Canada? What is this? To put it in a nutshell, in the second part of clause 14 we are told that a "special portion" will be presided over by a minister of state. This is therefore an excuse as the first part of the clause does not say what this new and comprehensive policy consists of. We are not told either what is meant by a "special portion". We cannot guess why a minister should be put in charge of such a service.
This is why we will fiercely oppose the passing of this part of Bill C-207 as long as the government does not specify its intentions in this regard, because as far as we are concerned this is a foolish and unjustified way of spending public funds.
Mr. Chairman, if the government leaves us in the dark because it does not know what is going on, we must conclude that this part of the bill is in fact a pretext to designate ministers of state.
I am still on clause 14 part of which reads as follows:
-a Minister charged with responsibility for formulation and development of such policies-
Not for their implementation, Mr. Chairman! It is not said:	"a Minister charged with responsibility for
implementation of such policies". No. There is no mention of implementation, no talk of translating words into action. Nothing is said of tackling specific problems in particular areas. The clause merely states that the minister designated to preside over the ministry will be charged with the sole responsibility and function of formulating and developping "new and comprehensive policies".
Why "new and comprehensive policies"? What does this responsibility consist of? Does that mean that the
April 1, 1971

ministers responsible for those ministries will have absolutely no influence on present policy and administration? Mr. Chairman, that is obviously what this clause would have us believe.
Mention should at least be made in this clause of application. On the contrary, it speaks merely of "formulating and developing policies".
To understand clearly what the responsibilities of the minister will be, let us go back to the first part of clause 14 and find out why a ministry is to be set up. No reason is given. This may enlighten us with regard to the responsibilities of the minister!
I quote once more from the first part of the clause:
-the requirements for formulating and developing new and comprehensive policies in relation to any matter or matters-
This is the purpose to achieve. This is the justification for appointing a minister of state and for creating five new ministries, and thanks to this obscure wording, a minister will be appointed who will have no power to influence policies directly but who will only have the power to study.
Mr. Chairman, to conclude this rapid analysis, I should like now that we consider this part of clause 14, and I quote:
-the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, establish a ministry of State for that purpose.
Because "new and comprehensive policies" have to be drawn up, so says the government, a minister will be appointed at the head of a department, the so-called "special portion". Who is going to create the department? Who is going to appoint the minister?
Mr. Chairman, not parliament, not you, nor I, nor hon. members opposite either, nor my own colleagues. Who then? The people's representatives? No, Mr. Chairman. Clause 14 states clearly and I repeat:
-the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, establish a Ministry of State for that purpose.
This means the cabinet will create those departments and appoint those ministers. It will not need the authority of the House. All the Prime Minister needs to do is to convene the cabinet, establish the Ministry of State, give it a name and hand a reward to a new minister without coming before the institution that controls the taxpayers' money, namely Parliament.
Mr. Chairman, this is an infringement of our democratic system, a direct blow to Parliament which is entitled to scrutinize the administration of the country.
And I would use the same language if the Progressive Conservative party or the New Democratic party were in office. A principle is at stake. Will Parliament exercise control on the establishment of those ministries and ministers of state? If not, why should the government ignore Parliament when, last year or the year before, it did consult it to establish other departments? Why, at the present time, should some ministers be appointed without the agreement of the House, whereas others could not be appointed in such conditions? That is already unfair to the 29 other ministers who have submitted to the will of
Government Organization Act, 1970
the House. Why a preferred treatment for some, while others will have to abide by the democratic requirements of this institution?
Mr. Chairman, if we get no answer to that question, we are entitled to believe two things. The first is that the government does not care about Parliament, and the second is that the government wishes to hurry to appoint certain persons to positions which will mean for them a title and a higher allowance.
Mr. Chairman, here is then in my opinion an indirect way to vote oneself a $15,000 yearly increase over and above one's allowance.
Mr. Chairman, I am quite puzzled by the fact that the government refuses to consult Parliament.
This is why I am proposing, supported by the member for Roberval (M. Gauthier), the following amendment to clause 14, in view of the explanation and of the analysis I have just made:
That clause 14 of the Act respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto be amended by striking out lines 22 to 24 and substituting therefor:
"Parliament may pass an Act amending the Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and having the effect of creating a Ministry of State."
Mr. Chairman, it will be noted that in this amendment I am respecting the government's wish to create more ministries of state. But, as a member of Parliament, I request the government to respect this supreme institution and to submit to Parliament any decision aimed at setting up any ministry of state since Parliament is the sole body in a position to decide on the establishment of a ministry of state.
I find this request reasonable and honest. The member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) who, a few moments ago, appealed to our honesty can testify to it. He cannot say now that I am guilty of partisan politics.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this is a serious and positive proposal. It may be read in the bill that:
-the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, establish a Ministry of State for that purpose.
I wish it would be written instead: parliament may establish a ministry of state. Why should there be an exceptional situation in the case of some ministries of state, while all other ministers, when their departments were established, had to face parliament?
Mr. Chairman, this is an illogic thing, unacceptable to parliament. This why there are pretty stormy debates now in this House, and I think it is normal, understandable and important.
I therefore table a copy of this amendment.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The hon. member for Lotbiniere has moved an amendment. I must apologize to the committee that my facility in French is not as good as I would like it to be. I hope I can improve it rapidly. I think this is a very important amendment and that the

April 1, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
matter with which it deals is very important. If I have leave of the committee, and if hon. members wish to make a contribution, I should like to consider the amendment and having considered it perhaps invite argument. I think it is a very important point and I would not want to deal with it rapidly.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Could we have the amendment read, Mr. Chairman? Some of us had a little difficulty following it.


Russell Clayton Honey: I would ask the Clerk of the House to read the amendment in French:
(And the Clerk Assistant (Legal Affairs) having read the following amendment)


André-Gilles Fortin: That clause 14 of the Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be amended by deleting lines 23 to 25 and substituting therefor the following:
"Parliament may pass an Act amending the Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and having the effect of creating a Ministry of State."


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. There is a mistake in the way the Clerk Assistant read the amendment in French, because it does not say, ... "gouvernement du Canada", it says, "la loi concernant l'organisation du Canada".
There has been a mistake made by either the hon. member or in the reading. The words "gouvernement du Canada" are not in the amendment.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for Mercier raises a point which other hon. members might wish to consider. It is a very important point. I wonder if it is a substantive motion which we might have some difficulty dealing with in committee. However, I wonder whether hon. members would be prepared to assist the Chair in due course, or now. I am in the hands of hon. members.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept your suggestion. Your Honour might like to consider the amendment between now and next Monday.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Chairman, we would like to argue that the amendment is not in order. The amendment has the effect of saying that Parliament at some future date could present a law to this House to do something or other. I cannot see how the bill before us could be modified in a hypothetical fashion to attempt in some way to give this Parliament or a future Parliament the power to do something in the future. It would seem to me that this is a hypothetical amendment and it is out of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Ottawa West has raised a variation of the argument, but we would like an opportunity to consider it. In some ways he may be quite right, but I would urge that we not have further discussion at this time because so far
as we are concerned one hon. member at least is most anxious to participate in the debate. Having in mind the time, we might proceed so that Your Honour and Mr. Speaker will have a chance to consider the amendment and bring down a decision either tomorrow or Monday, as the case may be, depending on the progress the government allows us to make on this bill.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. As I have indicated, I am not prepared to deal with the amendment now because I want the advice of hon. members. I have very serious doubts that it is in order. I think it is a substantive matter in the form of a declaration which very well may not be in order. But I think hon. members should have copies of the amendment so they may study it before it is put to the committee. If it is agreed, I think we might deal with it the next time the committee meets, because other hon. members wish to engage in the debate.


Cliff Downey: Mr. Chairman, I think your decision was correct and proper, because an important amendment like this should be considered over the weekend. I felt rather hurt by some of the comments made by the hon. member for Mercier who said that we were obstructing passage of the bill. Maybe I have too sensitive a nature to be here, but I do feel deeply about his comments.
I did not follow progress of the bill too closely, at least until the last day or so, because some of us, dedicated, sincere, interested individuals have been working in the agricultural committee trying to get a few minor changes made but meeting a very difficult situation. It almost seems like a filibuster by government members to drag the committee out and not accept minor changes. In fact, even tonight they turned down a very useful amendment with regard to appeals. People are to be denied the right of appeal.
When I first looked at this bill, the title of which says it is an act respecting the organization of the government, I thought it was a good one because any reorganization of the government would be better than what we have at present. I think it was the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert who said yesterday that this bill could be sung to the tune of "Roll out the Barrel." There is logic in that because it does look like a pork-barrel manoeuvre on the part of the government.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I heard the right hon. gentleman speak yesterday and he dealt substantially with part IV of the bill, which is what we are dealing with now. I would invite the hon. member to deal with that part of the bill which is headed "Ministries and Ministers of State." The statements the right hon. gentleman made were really in reference to that part of the bill. I think that in general we may be straying a little from part IV and I would hope we could return to it.


Cliff Downey: I appreciate what you have said, Mr. Chairman. Probably in my enthusiasm I wanted to cover as much of the bill as I could. Hon. members opposite seem to be taking turns sitting in the chamber. Some of them may not have been able to understand the
[The Chairman.]
April 1, 1971

full meaning of the bill and I thought I would help them a little and cover some of the ground that had been covered previously. I apologize if I seem to have wandered to some extent. It seemed to me that the hon. member for Mercier also wandered a little in his remarks.
It is an old trick for a government, when it runs into a messy sort of situation such as exists today, to try to diffuse responsibility as much as possible. Under the term of this bill some 110 members may hold positions of one kind or another. That is a tremendous diffusion of responsibility. It is very useful to be able to say, "That isn't quite in my department. See the chap in the other office about it," or to say, "That fellow is out of town." I imagine if you had 110 people either serving in the cabinet or as parliamentary secretaries, at least 30 or 40 of them would be out of town at any one time. This would make it difficult to pin down where responsibility lay.
I have been told of a situation in one department in Ottawa where there are people who make their living simply by moving the position of papers in files. Requests and documents build up over the years. The person responsible takes the ones from the bottom of the pile and places them on top. It is just like shuffling a deck of cards. For some people it may mean that their requests, scheduled to be dealt with in six months' time, can be handled in a matter of weeks.
I believe it was the hon. member for St. John's East who commented on Information Canada. It is a new department and provides a parallel with the proposed ministries of state. Some weeks ago a document came into my office from Information Canada enumerating all that Information Canada had done. I do not have it with me but it said something to the effect: We had four letters on this subject and three letters on that subject. It listed about 28 or 30 letters and I understood that was the total number of requests for information it had received. Probably Information Canada was busy answering those letters. I presume it also produces the glossy reprints of minister's speeches, sends them across the country and sees that they reach Members of Parliament. But the sum total of work enumerated did not amount to any more correspondence than would go through a Member of Parliament's office in the course of half a day. Most of us thought that Information Canada would receive a flood of mail.
The subject of committee meetings has been mentioned in this debate. I wish to give an example of one committee meeting. A week or two ago I walked into a meeting of the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee. There were three or four members present, sitting, dozing, and listening to evidence. They were passing millions of dollars worth of estimates and were actually sitting around dozing as if they did not have any responsibility. I only wish the people who voted for them could have seen what was happening.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. With respect, I again invite the hon. member to confine his remarks to the
Government Organization Act, 1970
general ambit of part IV, ministries of state for specific purposes. When the hon. member deals at length with committees, and so on, he may be outside of the bounds of relevancy.


Cliff Downey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I made an error in the notes that I had written for myself tonight.


An hon. Member:: Several.


Cliff Downey: I thought this said "Secretary of State" instead of "ministers" and I thought if we have any more departments run the way this chap runs his, we are really going to be in trouble.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cliff Downey: If you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, I shall tell a little story which illustrates quite graphically what is going on.


An hon. Member:: Spare us.


Cliff Downey: This is something I heard out in the cow country and it may be very pertinent to the situation here. A chap who was sick went to doctors all over the place and they could not find what was wrong with him.


An hon. Member:: He was probably a Stanfield Tory.


Cliff Downey: He travelled all over the world, and it was not until he met up with a Chinese herbalist that he got a diagnosis. The herbalist looked at him and said, "I know what is wrong with you. What you need is an ounce of dried human brains." This was an unusual prescription so the fellow asked, Where will I find this?" The herbalist said, "I have a whole office full of them here. I have cowboys' brains at $10 an ounce, doctors' brains at $250 an ounce, and I have Liberals' brains at $500 an ounce". The patient wanted to know if Liberals were that much smarter than cowboys, or why the difference in price. He was told "No, it is not that way at all. We can get cowboys brains anywhere, but you wouldn't believe how many Liberals we have to knock on the head to find an ounce of brains."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: Explain.


Cliff Downey: I apologize to members on the other side. I do not mean to offend anyone, because I know that basically they must feel the way they do about a lot of things. However, they are subject to the type of leadership they have and I guess we can't do anything about that.
I should mention something about the democratic process and relate this to committees. I realize that when too many people become involved it is difficult for the democratic process to work. If this bill were to go through we would have the situation where too many people would be involved. I cannot see that it could perform any useful function. As the hon. member for Athabasca stated, there should be a consolidation of departments rather than this diffusion of departments and the resultant diffusion of responsibility. This can be exemplified by the department

April 1, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
of regional incentives which I believe is a new department within the last few years.


An hon. Member:: You are still confused.


Cliff Downey: We have people who go around and pick out industries in various provinces and give them grants. I do not know how well equipped they are for the job, because there has been some question about their business experience. I would hate to hint at this, Mr. Chairman, but it seems that maybe some of the funds dispensed this way may find their way back in campaign funds or something like that. It is hard to say. I would not want to say that is the way it is, but it could be.
There seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for this debate and I am surprised that there are not more government members rising to speak. This is the way it is in the agriculture committee. A lot of complaining is done, but we do not find the degree of participation that there should be from the government. I sometimes feel that they do not even listen, that we are just being ignored. The other night we were discussing the wording of a clause to promote a viable agricultural industry-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House Leader what his intentions are for tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we propose to continue with the bill presently under consideration in committee of the whole. If that should pass, we would call a number of other items: Bill C-3, an act respecting investment companies; Bill S-5, respecting weights and measures; Bill S-ll, respecting weather modification activities, and Bill S-13 respecting the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: At a meeting of parliamentarians in Cairo a few months ago I said that I believed Israel had the right to exist. That aspect of my remarks was not very popular. I went on to say that it did not have the right to exist within boundaries of its own choosing. Surely within these parameters there is still an opportunity for us to do useful work. Surely we can show more interest, be more helpful and generous and do something to assist in brightening the currently faint lamp of peace in this vital and crucial area.
Hon, Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) for giving me the opportunity
of saying a word about the Canadian position on this grave Middle East situation. The present stage of efforts to make progress toward a lasting Middle East peace settlement involves both continuing dangers and challenging opportunities. The absence since March 7 of formal and mutual agreements to maintain the cease-fire underlines the persisting risk that hostilities might at some point be renewed unless the momentum of the current peace initiative is maintained and reinforced. But there are encouraging possibilities for such progress toward peace which I hope will be taken up and exploited by the parties.
The government of Canada has followed with close interest the latest sequence of exchanges under the aegis of Ambassador Jarring, the United Nations Secretary General's special representative charged with promoting a peace settlement on the basis of Resolution 242 which, as the hon. member for Hillsborough has reminded us, was drafted with the help of Canada which was then on the Security Council. Although Canada is not directly involved in these efforts and we are, therefore, not informed of all aspects of the exchanges, certain observations can fairly be made on the basis of development known to us.
I should like first to reiterate the Canadian government's full support of Ambassador Jarring's persistent and untiring efforts to assist the parties toward a settlement based on the Security Council resolution. The House is well aware of the formidable nature of the issues to be resolved. Any expectation of rapid advance toward agreement would be illusory. But some encouragement may be drawn from the Secretary General's report of March 5 on the course of Ambassador Jarring's mission.
In drawing attention to the intensity of recent efforts to move toward a peaceful solution, the Secretary General noted that general agreement had been found on some of the problems to be settled. He also cited with satisfaction the positive reply given by the United Arab Republic on specific questions raised by Ambassador Jarring. As the House is aware, the UAR response included an explicit expression of readiness to enter into a peace agreement with Israel subject, of course, to mutually acceptable terms of such agreement being worked out. At the same time, the Secretary General has appealed to the government of Israel to respond favourably to Ambassador Jarring's initiative. Ambassador Jarring will doubtless seek
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
now to elaborate progressively the terms of a peace settlement. For this he will be dependent upon good will and restraint by the parties in asserting what they see as their respective vital interests.
In the Canadian government's view, the essential basis for a just and lasting peace remains available to the parties in the full implementation of Security Council Resolution 242. The opportunity is theirs, with Ambassador Jarring's help, to resolve within that framework all their outstanding differences. In this respect, the response of the UAR government to the questions posed by Ambassador Jarring is encouraging. We earnestly hope that the ultimate effort will be made along these lines, as a matter of urgency, to convert the present absence of hostilities into an enduring peace.
The Canadian government's concern to see the exchanges under Ambassador Jarring proceed successfully has been emphasized to the parties in these terms in our regular diplomatic contacts.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday I directed the following question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro):
Has the government come to any decision or is it in the process of negotiating a cost-sharing agreement with the provinces or with any province with respect to any of the several paramedical services?
The minister gave a negative reply to my question. This same question was raised about five months ago by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Mac-Innis) and myself. At the time, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Isabelle) indicated in part of his reply that in 1969 several provincial ministers had asked the federal government to include some paramedical services in the national scheme. He said it was up to the government to take a decision in this matter and not up to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
He also indicated that the minister had informed the provincial health ministers that he was prepared to discuss with the cabinet the inclusion of some services as soon as the provinces and territories had set a date for joining the national plan. He indicated that the minister intends to draw the attention of the other cabinet members to this important matter in due course.
There is no doubt that the government has conveniently forgotten that the Medical Care Act permits the inclusion of paramedical services. This section was added to the act by amendment on December 6, 1966. In the debate on the amendment it was made crystal clear that any province would be able to go ahead with providing additional services provided, of course, that the minister and the Governor in Council agree. This certainly is not the interpretation which the minister and this government currently places on the legislation. There is no need to obtain a consensus from the provinces, and there is no provision which says that all provinces must agree before cost-sharing arrangements can be made with a province.

April 1, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
To prove this point I would like once again to place on the record the following information. The Federated Legislative Council of British Columbia, in its bulletin of September 4, 1970, quotes from the Canadian Chiropractic Association memorandum of August 28, 1970, as follows:
On December 6, 1966, the Medical Care Act was amended to permit inclusion of paramedical services. Details of the debate which followed can be found on pages 10761 to 10766 of the House of Commons Debates, December 6, 1966. Two excerpts from that debate follow:


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I take it this means that the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the minister, can extend paramedical services in a plan in a particular province, even though other provinces have not asked for a similar extension. In other words, the minister would be free under this amendment to accede to the request of a particular province that wanted to add the services which are provided under this legislation and it would not have to wait until a majority or a specified number of provinces indicated their desire to have these paramedical services included. I hope the minister's interpretation is the same as my own, namely, that any province would be able to go ahead with providing additional services, provided, of course, that the minister and governor in council agree.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I think the construction the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has put on the proposed amendment is correct, namely, that it would be possible for one or any number of provinces to admit any health services. I want to assure the committee that the amendment proposed is not a pious wish.
Here we have the present government House leader, who was Minister of National Health and Welfare at that time, giving a solemn commitment that paramedical services could be instituted by a single province. This certainly is not the interpretation which is currently being placed on the Medical Care Act.
Over the past few months members of this House have received an increasing number of requests from individuals and organizations urging that paramedical services be included as a cost-shared item under the medical care program. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the health of the Canadian people should be one of the prime objectives of any government. In many thousands of cases, paramedical services are the only type of health care which an individual requires, and I feel they should be his or hers by right under the various provincial acts. There is no reason why the government should further delay allowing those provinces which wish to include these services, but can only include them if they are based on a costsharing basis with the federal government, to do so.
I understand that most provinces in Canada have already indicated that they intend to institute a medical care program. There should be no further delay by this government and by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in dealing with this matter. I trust that before this session is over the Canadian people will receive the welcome news that paramedical services will be part of the cost-sharing program under our Medical Care Act.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, to answer in a more elaborate manner the question of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), i.e. if the government has taken a decision, or if negotiations are presently taking place with some provinces about paramedical services, here are in a few words the facts of the situation.
At the meeting of Ministers of Health in November 1968, this question was studied. Some provinces were then of the opinion that it would be wise not to proceed too quickly with the expansion of benefits, before acquiring some experience on the operation of provincial plans. At that time, the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) promised that the federal government would not apply the provisions of paragraph (3) of section 4 of the Medical Care Act to any supplementary health service, as long as there was not unanimous consent of all the provinces and territories, and as long as the effective date of all plans, in the provinces and territories, was not known.
At the ministers' conference of November 1969, these provinces showed a much more confident attitude, and a formal request was made towards optometry services. As will be remembered, the minister stated that he would discuss the matter with his colleagues, when all the provinces and territories had made known the date of their adhesion to the federal medical care programme.
At the December, 1970, conference, the provinces agreed on the fact that no expansion of services would take place before the results of the review of the financial cost sharing arrangements were known.
I hope that some hon. members will understand that if the government takes the lead in this field, the provinces must also do their share.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.18 p.m.

Friday, April 2, 1971