1971-01-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It arises out of the uncertainty and uneasiness caused by the statement circulated in the mass media that the government has adopted an employment policy that violates the principle of non-discrimination which parliament has enshrined in several statutes including the Public Service Employment Act, the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act and the Canadian Bill of Rights.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan):
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be instructed to inquire into the administration of the Public Service Employment Act, the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act and the employment practices of the Treasury Board with particular reference to the observance of the principle of non-discrimination.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed to the House by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre. This motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not consent the motion cannot be put at this time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, I want it to be on the record that members on the government side have refused to give leave for this motion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is obviously not a point of order. It is a point of debate. The hon. member knows that as well as I do, and I would suggest to him that he should not receive the floor on that basis.



SPECIAL RECRUITMENT OF FRANCOPHONES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I also ask leave to move a motion under Standing Order 43. May I inform Your Honour forthwith that the subject matter is in the same area as the motion first proposed, but because I have worded the motion differently, and since I believe the government itself might like to have the matter cleared up, I hopefully ask that I be given unanimous consent to move the motion which I have drafted. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather):
That the report of the circulation of a memorandum entitled "Special Recruitment of Francophones in the Public Service" be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates-
I interrupt my reading of the motion to point out that that is the committee to which Public Service matters go.
[DOT]-so that the said committee may investigate the whole matter and make sure that no steps are contemplated that would interfere with strict adherence to the merit principle in the recruitment and promotion policies of the Public Service.
I hope the House will give its consent so that this matter can be cleared up.


Mr. Speaker:: I have before me a copy of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In this instance also the motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and therefore requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have noticed there is not unanimous consent; therefore the motion cannot be put.
sfc [DOT]!*	$



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-219, to establish the Canada Development Corporation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
January 25, 1971
Questions

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Orlikow: 1 Is a study on Housing Policy or Urban Problems being conducted on behalf of or under the auspices of the Minister without Portfolio and, if so, what aspects of these problems are being studied?
2.	How many people have been hired or are on contract in connection with this study?
3.	Who are these people and what are their qualifications?
4.	What is the annual salary or remuneration in each case?
5.	What will be the total cost of this study?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: 1.	A study of Urban Problems, including housing policy and the impact of federal government activities in urban communities, has been undertaken by the Minister without Portfolio, Responsible for Housing under the auspices of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
2.	A study was carried out by Dr. N. H. Lithwick, Professor, Carleton University, with the assistance of members of the staff of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, other Federal Government agencies and departments, universities, and other professionals.
3 and 4. These people were hired on a confidential basis. It is not therefore appropriate to divulge their names or the terms of their engagement.
5. The total cost of the study, to November 30, 1970, was $121,210.02, excluding costs attributable to the staff of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and other Federal government agencies.


BRIDGEWATER, N.S.-FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Has any progress been made in acquiring a site for a new federal building at Bridgewater, Nova Scotia?
2.	On what date is it anticipated a site will be acquired?
3.	After acquisition of a site, on what date does the government plan construction of a federal building?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1 and
2.	The site investigation is still in progress.
3.	It is not possible to set a target date for the construction of the building until a site has been acquired.


URBAN RENEWAL PLANS
Mr. Gilbert: 1.	For the present fiscal year, what urban renewal plans have been submitted to the federal government?
2.	Which plans have been (a) approved (b) not approved?


Robert Knight Andras: 1.	For the period January 1 to September 30, 1970, (the Corporation's fiscal year is the calendar year), the following applications for urban renewal projects under Section 23B of the National Housing Act were received
by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: Corner Brook, Newfoundland; Moncton, New Brunswick; Hamilton and Kitchener, Ontario; Winnipeg, Manitoba-Midland Railway and Theatre Centre Area; Kamsack, Saskatchewan; Calgary, Alberta.
2.	(a) All the applications listed in 1 above have been approved, (b) Nil.


PUBLIC WORKS-CONFEDERATION BUILDING, OTTAWA
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract CR-67-2702 to cover general alterations to the Confederation Building and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, what was the reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract
(a)	what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, (a) Seven tenders were received, (b) Highest tender, 188,000., lowest tender, $153,500. (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement: Newspapers-Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and Hull; La Voix de la Construction, Montreal; Daily Commercial News Toronto; Heavy Construction News, Toronto.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	M. J. Lafortune Construction Limited.
4.	(a) and (b), (i) $4,668.90, Ingram and Pye, Architects. (ii) None, (iii) to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by trades, as provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed.
5.	and 6. The contractual arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Contractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
Cost Breakdown by Trades-General Alterations to Confederation	Building-Contract	N.C.R.-67-2702:
General, $3,994; Electrical, $69,000; Drywall, plaster and lath, $14,600; floor tile, $800; glazing, $818; painting, $40,200; hardware, $3,911; Venetian blinds, $8,908; carpentry, $11,269.


GROS MORNE NATIONAL PARK-MINING EXPLORATIONS
Mr. Marshall: Has the Province of Newfoundland agreed to dispense with further mining exploration in the proposed area within the boundaries of the Gros Mome National Park?

January 25, 1971


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes.


ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Has the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development recommended to the Government of Canada the establishment and development of (a) the Gros Mome National Park
(b)	a National Historic Park at the Viking Site at L'Anse aux Meadows (c) a National Historic Park at Port-aux-Choix?
2.	Has the Government of Canada unequivocally agreed to establish and develop (a) the Gros Morne National Park (b) a National Historic Park at the Viking Site at L'Anse aux Meadows
(c)	a National Historic Park at Port-aux-Choix?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. (a) Yes; (b) yes; (c) See 1 (b).
2. (a) Yes, conditional upon an amendment to the National Parks Act. (b) See 1 (b); (c) See 1 (b).


GROS MORNE NATIONAL PARK-HOLDERS AND CLAIMANTS OF LAND
Mr. Marshall: Who are the holders or claimants of land within the boundaries of the Gros Morne National Park?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will acquire the lands and transfer the administrat on and control to the Federal Government. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development does not have a record of all holders or claimants of land.


GROS MORNE NATIONAL PARK-ESTABLISHMENT OF BOUNDARIES
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Are the boundaries of the Gros Morne National Park definitely established and, if not, what factors may affect the present boundaries shown on the map attached to the memorandum of agreement?
2.	Has any money been allocated in the 1969/70 estimates to establish and develop the Gros Morne National Park, and, if so, what is the breakdown of expenditures in 1969/70, 1970/71, 1971/72, 1972/73, 1973/74, 1974/75?
3 For what purposes is the money allocated in each year?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. The external boundaries have definitely been established. Minor adjustments will be made by joint agreement if necessary. The details of the boundary related to the underwater environment remain by mutual agreement to be finalized.
2.	Actual Expenditure, 1969-70, $43,800 for land survey and investigation. Until, a master plan for the park has been prepared, it is not possible to present figures on the scope and pace of development.
3.	The master plan is under way and it would be premature to give specific recommendations at this time.
Questions


GROS MORNE NATIONAL PARK-PROPOSED ROADS
Mr. Marshall: 1.	What proposed roads are to be established within and outside the Gros Morne National Park boundaries?
2.	Is it proposed to build a paved highway between Deer Lake and Bonne Bay as part of the program to establish and develop the Gros Mome National Park?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Preliminary plans were
developed, however, as mentioned in reply to question 429, it would prejudge the master plan to give specific descriptions at this time.
2. This proposal was not specifically included in the letter of agreement signed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Mines, Agriculture and Resources for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.


ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Marshall: 1.	What Is the proposed program for the next five years in the establishment of (a) the Gros Morne National Park (b) the L'Anse aux Meadows Park (c) the Port-aux-Choix Park?
2.	What are the approximate dates of work start on the three proposed Parks?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. As noted in reply to question No. 429 funds have been allocated, however, it is premature to outline specific activities.
2. It is proposed to initiate on site work at Gros Morne and L'Anse aux Meadows Parks in the 1971-72 fiscal year. A further development program will be developed in relation to Port-aux-Choix Park. Studies are required in relation to the total potential of the site.


NATIONAL PARKS-ESTABLISHMENT OF BOUNDARIES
Mr. Marshall: Are the proposed boundaries of the proposed National Historic Park at the Viking Site at L'Anse aux Meadows and at Port-aux-Choix defined?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: A tentative boundary has been agreed upon with regard to l'Anse aux Meadows. Details remain to be finalized with regard to Port-aux-Choix.


DIRECTORS OF COMPANIES WITH EXPLORATION RIGHTS IN NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Who are the directors of companies and what are their occupations who hold exploration rights within the boundaries of the Gros Morne National Park?
2.	Who are the directors of companies and what are their occupations who hold exploration rights within the boundaries of the Parks at L'Anse aux Meadows and Port-aux-Choix?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Information required in rela-
2700

January 25, 1971
Questions
tion to the question has not been obtained by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The lands and resources are under provincial jurisdiction. Administration and control will be transferred to the federal government clear of any encumbrance.
2. See 1 above.


NEWFOUNDLAND-RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Marshall: 1.	In the negotiations to be carried out with regard to the establishment of a golf course at one of Newfoundland's National Parks, which Parks are being considered for this facility?
2.	At which Park will be developed (a) a heated swimming pool (b) a tennis court?
3.	Where is the location of the marine environment area to be developed as an underwater component of the proposed National Park or Parks?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Gros Morne and Terra Nova National Parks.
2.	These facilities will be developed in conjunction with Gros Morne National Park.
3.	By mutual agreement this remains to be defined in relation to the Gros Morne National Park.


NEWFOUNDLAND-CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY AND AIRPORT FACILITIES
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Has the Government of Canada agreed with the Province of Newfoundland to build an all-weather highway between Deer Lake and St. Anthony in Western Newfoundland as proposed in the White Paper presentation of the Province?
2.	Has the Government of Canada agreed to establish airport facilities in the North West Coast of Newfoundland and in Labrador as proposed in the White Paper as presented by the Province?
3.	Where are the proposed locations of these airport facilities?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. This proposal is under consideration but was not specifically referred to in the letter of agreement signed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Mines, Agriculture and Resources for Newfoundland and Labrador.
2.	See 1 above.
3.	See 1 above.


NEWFOUNDLAND-WHITE PAPER PROPOSALS CONCERNING WEST COAST
Mr. Marshall: 1.	What proposals in the White Paper presented by the Province of Newfoundland in the development of the West Coast were accepted by the Government of Canada?
2.	Was the Memorandum of Agreement respecting a proposal for the establishment of a National Park and two Historic Parks on the West Coast of Newfoundland signed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on behalf of the Government of Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Portions of the paper are still under consideration. The Government of Canada considers the White Paper to represent the views of the Newfoundland Government and will continue to give these views consideration.
2. Yes.


NEWFOUNDLAND-PROTECTION FOR FISHERMEN
Mr. Marshall: In the specific areas to be designated to provide landings and staging areas between Rocky Harbour and St. Paul's, will the Federal Member for the district of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe be consulted in order to ensure protection for fishermen?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development would be pleased to receive any submissions the federal member for the district of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe may wish to submit on behalf of the fishermen.


GROS MORNE NATIONAL PARK-EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONNEL
Mr. Marshall: 1.	What are the necessary qualifications of the 22 full-time employees for the Gros Morne National Park and also for the 30 seasonal employees?
2.	Will all permanent employees required for the Gros Morne National Park be enlisted from the immediate area?
3.	Are any arangements being made to prepare applicants for jobs requiring special qualifications within the Gros Morne National Park?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. The employees would include labourers, gate-way attendants, clerks, typists, maintenance officers, equipment operators, naturalists, resource management specialists, administrative officers, etc. The qualifications vary greatly, however; while in some fields it may be necessary to staff positions from outside the area the Department will work closely with Canada Manpower to train and develop the local human resources to the fullest. See also Question 2.
2.	It is a policy of the Department to recruit qualified personnel in accord with the Public Service Employment Act. When feasible local people are retained.
3.	A letter of intent was signed on October 31, 1970. It is planned that arrangements will be discussed with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as well as with the Canada Manpower Centre.


GROS MORNE NATIONAL PARK-PREVENTION OF POLLUTION
Mr. Marshall: Are any studies being made to introduce measures to ensure prevention of pollution where necessary within the boundaries of the Gros Morne National Park?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: These will be initiated in due course.

January 25, 1971


GROS MORNE NATIONAL PARK-RELOCATION OF COMMUNITIES WITHIN BOUNDARIES
Mr. Marshall: Will any relocation of communities within the boundaries of the Gros Morne National Park be necessary and, if so (a) which ones (b) what plans are being made to consult with citizens of these communities as to their future?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The relocation of communities will be carried out by the Provincial Government. Details remain to be finalized. As illustrated by the map attached to the Memorandum of Intent Bakers Brook, Green Point and Sally's Cove are the principal communities involved.


&quot;BLACK PAPER&quot; PUBLICATION
Mr. Robinson: Does the government subscribe to the policy expressed in the "Black Paper" publication?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The recent publication "Foreign Policy for Canadians" includes, in the volume dealing with the United Nations, a chapter on Canadian objectives in southern Africa which sets forth Government policy. Since the publication was issued, the Government has decided to comply with the Security Council's resolution of July 23 elaborating on the arms embargo against South Africa. This decision was announced to the House of Commons on November 2. Some of the recommendations set out in the document known as the "Black Paper" refer to measures already adopted by the Government.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	In what year was the first income tax system established in Canada?
2.	What were the taxation rates at that time?
3.	What were the basic exemptions?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
In the 1917 session of Parliament the Income War Tax Act imposed the first general income tax in Canada. The provisions applied to 1917 income.
2 and 3. The rate of normal tax which applied at that time to individuals was 4 per cent on the amount of income over $1,500 in the case of unmarried persons or of widows or widowers without dependent children, or over $3,000 in the case of all other persons. (Exemptions were lowered in 1918 to $1,000 single and $2,000 married.) In addition to the normal tax, a supertax was also levied, progressing from 2 per cent on the amount of income over $6,000 but not over $10,000 up to 25 per cent on the amount of income over $100,000.


APPLICATIONS FOR TAX EXEMPTIONS FILED BY TEACHERS AND PROFESSORS
Mr. Forreslall: With respect to Bulletin 41 issued by the Department of National Revenue establishing tax exemptions for teachers and
Questions
professors on a two year basis, how many applications and in what specific categories (a) have been accepted (b) are under consideration?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The
information requested is not available as there is no separate record kept specifically of the applications for tax exemption filed by teachers and professors with their employers in accordance with Bulletin 41. The tax exemption in question is not established by that Bulletin but rather by reciprocal income tax agreements or conventions between Canada and the other countries named in the Bulletin.


INSECTICIDES CONTAINING LINDANE
Mr. Anderson: Are insect killers which use the toxic chemical lindane available for commercial or household use in Canada and, if so, have any tests been made by the Department of National Health and Welfare on the effects of this chemical when inhaled or ingested by humans?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Insecticides containing lindane are available in Canada. While toxicological studies on lindane have not been carried out in the laboratories of the Department of National Health and Welfare, a complete review of the scientific literature dealing with the toxicity of this compound has been made. On the basis of these data it has been possible to establish tolerances for lindane in a number of foods at levels which will cause no harmful effects even if the foods are consumed over an entire lifetime.


COMPENSATION PAID TO FISHERMEN AS A RESULT OF MERCURY POLLUTION
Mr. Korchinski: 1 How much money was paid to each province for distribution to fishermen in compensation as a result of mercury pollution?
2.	How many fishermen were involved in each case?
3.	What areas were affected?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to continue paying compensation on an annual basis during the contamination period?
5.	Have any requests been made by any province for compensation to fishermen for other than mercury pollution and, if so (a) was any compensation paid (b) what amounts were paid in each case?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1. Ontario, $84,398.00; Manitoba, $772,242.18.
2.	Ontario, 39; Manitoba, 998.
3.	Lake St. Clair, Lake Winnipeg, Cedar Lake, Saskatchewan River System, Lake Sipiwisk, Split Lake.
4.	The initial arrangements to provide for the payment of compensation to fishermen were intended to be temporary in nature. Consideration is now being given to a more long-term solution but no decision has been made on the question of the payment of compensation on a continuing basis.
5.	No.

January 25, 1971
Questions
INCOME TAX PAID BY SASKATCHEWAN FARMERS Question No. 595


Mr. Thomson:: What was the income tax paid by Saskatchewan farmers in 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The
annual analysis of tax returns which is based on a statistical sample indicates the following amounts of total tax payable by Saskatchewan farmers. The figure includes federal income and old age security tax and provincial income tax payable:
Taxation year
1966
1968
Total tax payable $27,040,000
28.914.000
36.645.000
27.704.000 Not available
Picocuries of Strontium-90 per Litre of Milk
Sept. '60	Sept. '65	Sept. "British Columbia	10.8	20.0	9.0Prairie Provinces	8.6	20.5	8.7Ontario	4.2	20.2	9.7Quebec	13.3	20.0	9.6Maritime Provinces	11.6	28.2	13.8Newfoundland	no test	40.4	30.5


PUBLIC WORKS-BUILDING CONSTRUCTION IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	At what locations were Public Works buildings constructed in the Province of Saskatchewan in 1970?
2.	What was the type of structure and the cost in each case?


Arthur Laing: 1 and 2.
Source: Taxation Statistics, editions of 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970-Table 9.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-MAN-HOURS SAVED AS A RESULT OF UTILIZATION OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: How many man-hours have been saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Department of External Affairs during each year since computers have been used?


Mitchell William Sharp: There have been no direct man-hours saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Department of External Affairs. The use of computers has provided reports which either would not have been available at all, or which would not have been sufficiently current to be effective, if other methods had been used to prepare them.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-CHANGE IN PERSONNEL AS A RESULT OF USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: As a result of the use of computers by the Department of External Affairs, how many employees have been (a) laid off (b) hired?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Department of External Affairs has neither laid off nor hired employees as a result of the use of computers by the Department.


Mr. Forresiall: By region in Canada, what was the strontium-90 level at the end of September 1960, 1965 and 1970?


John Carr Munro: The strontium-90 level in Canada, as measured by its level in milk, was as follows:
Location	Type of Structure	CostBienfait	Post Office	$33,000Fort Qu'Appelle	Federal Building	88,500Govan	Federal Building	28,400Kenaston	Post Office	28,600Kisbey	Post Office	24,145Tisdale	Federal Building	180,000Wynyard	Federal Building	141,200


Mr. Thomson: 1.	Has the grant to the National Cancer Institute been reduced and, if so, for what reason?
2.	What are the government's plans for this grant this coming year?


John Carr Munro: 1. Yes, federal assistance from the National Health Grant to the National Cancer Institute was reduced from $350,000 for the fiscal year 1969-70 to $250,000 in 1970-71. The National Health Grant is intended to support short-term projects (applied research, demonstration and training) designed to stimulate and develop improvements in health services. Support for individual projects normally does not exceed a period of three years. This grant is not intended to provide annual blocks of funds in support of continuing activities.
2. The "block grant" to the National Cancer Institute from the National Health Grant will be further reduced in 1971-72 for the reason stated above. However, the N.C.I. or research investigators supported by N.C.I. may submit applications for support on a project basis under the National Health Grant, the Public Health Research Gran., or to the Medical Research Council. Thus, the reduction in assistance from the National Health Grant need not represent a reduction in the level of government fund available for cancer research, but rather re-

January 25, 1971

fleets a shift from the "block grant" approach to the "specific project" approach.


Mr. Godin: Is the Board of the International Development Research Centre composed of ten English speaking Canadian members, ten foreigners and only one French Canadian member and, if so, is it the intention of the government to appoint other French Canadian members to the Board?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Board of Governors of the International Development Research Centre is composed of a Chairman, The Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson, the President of the Centre, Dr. W. David Hopper, and 19 other Governors. In accordance with the provisions of the International Development Research Centre Act, the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and nine other Governors must be Canadian citizens. Two of the Canadian Governors, Dr. Louis Berlinguet and Mr. Paul Gerin-Lajoie, are French-speaking Canadians. Dr. Berlinguet is both Vice-Chairman of the Board of Governors and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Board.
The present 21 Governors is the maximum number of Governors provided under the IDRC Act and, therefore, no additional appointments are contemplated at the present time. However, the terms of several of the present Governors are of two years duration. It will be possible, therefore, to appoint a larger number of French-speaking Canadians to the Board in 1972.


Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Since January 1, 1965, has it come to the attention of the government that any Indian women have married persons who are not Indians and, if so, has any such woman not been enfranchised as that process has been given meaning by virtue of section 108(2) of the Indian Act and, if so, what reasons were accepted by the government for not enfranchising each such woman?
2.	On what date was the policy decision made not to so enfranchise?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. During the period January 1, 1965 to January 1, 1970, there were 2,597 Indian women recorded as having married persons who are not Indian. 2,345 of the above noted women were enfranchised. There were 489 similarly enfranchised between January 1, 1970 to November 24, 1970. Enfranchisement of the remainder is held up pending the verification of form providing the details of their marriages.
2. There was no change in policy respecting the enfranchisement of Indian women who marry non-Indian.
Questions


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has the government contributed financially to the construction of the Saint-Magloire Home in the Saint-Magloire parish, constituency of Bellechasse and, if so (a) what amount (b) on what terms?


Robert Knight Andras: (a) and (b). Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation made a loan of $251,910 in December 1968 to assist in financing the construction of Saint-Magloire Home in Bellechasse County, the loan being repayable over a term of 50 years at an interest rate of 6j per cent.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has the government contributed financially to the construction of the Saint-Raphael Home in Saint Raphael in the constituency of Bellechasse and, if so (a) what amount (b) on what terms?


Robert Knight Andras: 
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has the government contributed financially to the construction of the Saint-Gervais Inc. Home in Saint-Gervais constituency of Bellechasse and, if so (a) what amount (b) on what terms?


Robert Knight Andras: (a) and (b) Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation made a loan of $258,300 in October, 1967, to assist in financing the construction of the Saint-Gervais Inc. Home in Bellechasse County, the loan being repayable over a term of 50 years at an interest rate of 6] per cent.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Who are the members of the Treasury Board and, on what date did each of those who now comprise the Treasury Board become members thereof?
Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to
Prime Minister):	Pursuant to Order-in-Council PC
1971-64 dated January 14, 1971, the following members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, in addition to the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance, constitute the Treasury Board: Hon. Jean-

January 25, 1971
Orders for Returns
Pierre Cote; Hon. Jean Chretien; Hon. Jack Davis; Hon. Herb Gray.
Further, the following members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada have been named alternates to serve in place of members of the Treasury Board: Hon. Arthur Laing; Hon. Gerard Pelletier; Hon. Ron. Bas-ford; Hon. Robert Andras; Hon. James Richardson; Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer.


Mr. Caouette: Does the government intend to announce in the near future an increase of support prices for powdered milk and cheese to further help dairy producers?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: If and
when there are any changes in support prices for dairy products, they will be announced in the usual way.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Is there a French version of the booklet "Audit Office Guide" Cas. No. FA 3.-258 and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Among those who earn $10,000 and over in the office of the Auditor General, how many (a) speak English only (b) speak French only (c) are bilingual?


Edgar John Benson: The Auditor General informs me as follows: 1. No, presumably because there was no demand for it when the Audit Office Guide, which is now out of print, was released in 1958.
2. (a) 122; (b) none; (c) 30.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 734
Mr. Fortin:: 1.	In the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, is there an administrative division specifically concerned with the auditing of the financial activities of government agencies and, if so (a) as of what date (b) under what authority was this division established (c) what are its specific terms of reference?
2.	How many persons are there in this division?
3.	Do government agencies pay for the auditing and, if so, on what basis?


Edgar John Benson: The Auditor General informs me as follows: 1. No. (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable; (c) Not applicable.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Gilbert: 1. What were the terms of the contract between CMHC, Ontario Housing Corporation and the developer or developers regarding the federal provincial land partnership for the Thistledown project?

2.	What are the names of the developers to the said contract?
3.	Was the consent of Etobicoke Borough Council a term of the contract with regard to the sale of the lands?
4.	Who is the present owner of the 10 acre tract of land at the northeast comer of John Garland Blvd. and Martingrove Road in the Borough of Etobicoke, Ontario?
5.	Who was the former owner of the above land?
6.	Has the above land been sold to J. D. S. Developments Limited and Pinetree Developments Limited, or either of them, or to any other purchaser and what was the date of sale and what were the terms of the sale and the consideration paid?
7.	Were there any conditions in the agreement of purchase and sale requiring consent of the Borough of Etobicoke and, if so, what were those conditions?
8.	Were the said lands originally projected by CMHC to be used for vital community and social purposes?
9.	Has CMHC made any recent studies with regard to the use of the lands for social and community services?
10.	Has the Minister or CMHC received a request from Etobicoke Borough Council for a meeting of all interested parties to attempt to secure agreement on the best use of the said land?
11.	Does CMHC still retain title to the said property, and have they the power to cancel the agreement of sale between them and any other contracting parties?
Return tabled.


PUBLIC WORKS-ALTERATIONS TO LANGUAGE CENTRE, CARSON'S ROAD, OTTAWA
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract OC-03140-Additions and Alterations to Building "E", and site services, Phase 2, The Language Centre, Carson's Rd. and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, for what reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?
Return tabled.


PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. Alexander: 1.	Who are the members of the Public Health Engineering Advisory Committee responsible to the Minister of National Health and Welfare?
2.	What are the terms of reference of this Committee?
3.	(a) On what date was the Committee established (b) on what date was its first meeting (c) how frequently has it met to date?
4.	Have there been any interim reports on the work of this Committee?
Return tabled.
January 25, 1971


FARM CASH RECEIPTS IN PAST TEN YEARS
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	In each of the past ten years, what were the total farm cash receipts for wheat, oats, barley, rye, flax and rapeseed in the Wheat Board area?
2.	In the same period of time, what amount of money was paid under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act?
Return tabled.


CMHC-FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF LOW-COST HOUSING
Mr. Alexander: 1.	(a) How many different projects received financial assistance from the $200 million fund allocated to CMHC in 1970 for the purpose of encouraging innovative approaches in the construction of low-cost housing (b) where were they located?
2.	Which construction companies were involved in these projects?
3.	(a) In which cases does CMHC expect to make a profit from the operations of projects for which it has provided, through the renting of commercial space or other means (b) what use will be made by CMHC of these funds?
4.	How will tenants be chosen for these projects in which CMHC has an interest?
5.	What innovations were submitted and accepted?
Return tabled.


CMHC-MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES 1968-70
Mr. Foriin: By province, during the years 1968, 1969, 1970, were seizures made by CMHC and, if so, how many were (a) as mortgage foreclosures (b) as lapse of sale?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister relating to the program the federal government is now organizing to provide $2 million for the purpose of hiring unemployed Francophone university and college graduates this year. I should like to ask him whether there is any justification for the government keeping this program secret from the Public Service Alliance, Parliament and the people of Canada?
Hen. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it was not the intention to keep this program secret. Indeed, in answer to the question I should like to table a copy of a statement made today by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, dealing with this question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: Why didn't he make it in the House?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: He should have made it in the House. He is running away today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course the Acting Prime Minister can only table the document with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, since the Acting Prime Minister says it was not intended that this program be kept secret, can he give the House some explanation of why the document circulated by the Public Service Commission of Canada contained the note: "This information is confidential and no official announcement will be made"? Has the Acting Prime Minister any explanation to give in that regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I believe that an explanation can be given and I suggest that when the President of the Treasury Board is here tomorrow these questions should be directed to him. The reason he made a statement to the press is that the press had been asking him questions and he felt, therefore, that he should not delay his answer.


John George Diefenbaker: He has run away from the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is now the policy of the government of Canada to develop employment projects in the Public Service designed to assist specific language groups and, if so, where the parliamentary authorization exists for such projects?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer given publicly by the President of the Treasury Board, which my hon. friend apparently does not want to see, does deal with some of these questions.


An hon. Member:: It does not deal with it.


Mitchell William Sharp: I suggest that questions can be put quite properly tomorrow and that the delay will not make any difference.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Egmont is rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: I suggest to Your Honour, Sir, and to hon. members that the House is now in danger of establishing a very unhealthy precedent in view of the fact that this important question has come to light and that ministers of the government feel they are not able to express themselves other than on days when they are supposed to be in the House under an informal system which has in no way been recognized by Your
January 25, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry
Honour or members of this House. Therefore I think the answers of the Acting Prime Minister must be considered most inappropriate and unparliamentary, and that hon. members have the right to hear now from the President of the Treasury Board rather than being asked to wait for 24 hours during which time the misister is free to make whatever statement he wants, whenever he wants, to the public at large.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF MEMORANDUM, &quot;SPECIAL RECRUITMENT OF FRANCOPHONES IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE&quot;

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he will table a copy of the memorandum entitled "Special recruitment of Francophones in the Public Service" in order that we may have it before us officially?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to do that.



PROGRAM FOR HIRING OF FRANCOPHONE UNIVERSITY GRADUATES-SOURCE OF FUNDS

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, as approximately $2 million is involved in this program, will the Acting Prime Minister advise the House from what vote that money is being taken?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this amount of money relates to next year and has not yet been allocated to any specific program. It is not a fund; rather it is an estimate of the staffing costs of departmental proposals to increase Francophone recruitment.



PROGRAM FOR HIRING OF FRANCOPHONE UNIVERSITY GRADUATES-CONCEALMENT OF EXPENDITURES

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I return to the questions intitially asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he has discussed this matter with the President of the Treasury Board and what explanation there is for the fact that the President of the Treasury Board denied flatly the existence of the program when confronted with the confidential memo? Is it now possible for $2 million to be expended without the 'President of the Treasury Board knowing anything about it? At the same time, when the minister is giving his answer, will he let the House know whether there are some orders and directions for expenditure that have been made since the first day of March, 1970, which have not yet been made public or indeed have been kept secret?


Mitchell William Sharp: The right hon. gentleman, having been the head of a government and having been in this Parliament longer than anyone else, certainly knows that the government would not be

promising to spend any money that had not been approved by parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: The so-called secret plan referred to in the press is actually a study being carried out by officials with a view to further progress toward the goal of greater Francophone recruitment by determining how additional Francophones might be brought into the service and meaningfully employed within departmental programs. Knowing the right hon. gentleman's interest in the subject, I am quite sure he would approve.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman's evasiveness has become so characteristic as not to arouse any surprise. Now I ask him whether or not he will answer the question I asked, whether, during the period since March 1, there has been concealment of expenditures by the government of Canada? I particularly direct his attention to the fact that a memo providing for the expenditure of $190,000 for the answering of letters in respect of the white paper on taxation was concealed from parliament and it has not yet been made public.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mitchell William Sharp: Quite clearly no money can be expended out of next year's estimates until they have been approved by parliament, and I hardly need to give any undertaking that if any of these plans do go through they will be brought before parliament for approval.



PROGRAM FOR HIRING OF FRANCOPHONE UNIVERSITY GRADUATES-OFFER TO TABLE MEMORANDUM-RECONCILIATION WITH STATEMENT

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the House of Commons will be given a reconciliation between the statement made by the President of the Treasury Board in which he denied the existence of the program and the fact that today the Acting Prime Minister offers to table a copy of the memorandum?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I understand that the chairman of the Public Service Commission may also be making a statement today because it is most desirable that this situation be clarified. It seems to have been based on some misunderstanding.


John George Diefenbaker: Some falsification by the government.


Mitchell William Sharp: Certainly there was never any intention on the part of anyone concerned to conceal anything from parliament or from anyone else.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the statement of the Acting Prime Minister that the government would like to see this matter cleared up, would the government like to reconsider its position with regard to the motion I made today under Standing Order 43 and let the matter be referred to a committee of the House?
January 25, 1971



PROGRAM FOR HIRING OF FRANCOPHONE UNIVERSITY GRADUATES-ACTION TO STIMULATE ECONOMY GENERALLY

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if the government is prepared to adopt a program designed to stimulate the economy so that it would be unnecessary to offer special projects for particular groups?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think there is some misunderstanding involved here. The program that has been under study is not directly related to the question of unemployment.


John George Diefenbaker: No?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is related more to the desire of the government, which I am sure is shared by the opposition, that the balance between Francophone and Anglophone people within the Public Service should be restored to something more representative of the population.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROGRAM FOR HIRING OF FRANCOPHONE UNIVERSITY


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Acting Prime Minister has given some study to this matter. Has he read the statement by the Public Service Alliance and the words of Mr. Edwards, "we would like to know how long this $2 million slush fund has been earmarked?" Also, I would ask the minister to advise when this plan was first arrived at, and can he give an, explanation as to why the President of the Treasury Board on Saturday denied the existence of something that he admits today?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman obviously is reiterating a question which was asked a moment ago.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and arises out of a statement he made to the press last Friday concerning the proposed Canada Development Corporation. In view of the fact that according to his statement the government proposes to turn over Crown corporations valued at between $300 million and $400 million to this new body, can the minister give the House assurance that these government enterprises will continue to be owned by all the people of Canada and controlled by the government of Canada free, of course, from any day to day political interference as they are now?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the proposal involved is that the Canada Development Corporation could consider purchasing these corporations from the government of Canada. The legislation, of which I believe my hon. friend now has a copy, provides for consideration of such action in the future by the Canada Development Corporation if and when it is established by this Parliament, in which case legislative action by Parliament would be required before the corporations were turned over to the Canada Development Corporation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: From the statement the minister made last Friday I judge that the capitalization is to be $1 billion. May I take from his statement that the government will have a majority interest on the basis of both the $250 million which is to be invested and the securities which it will receive in exchange for the Crown corporations?


Edgar John Benson: Actually the capitalization is $2 billion, if my friend will look at the statement. The proposal is that in the initial period the government will own all the shares of the Canada Development Corporation. The proposal for investment of $250 million, which is put forward in the legislation, is quite apart from Crown corporations to be turned over for equity, if this is decided by Parliament, in addition to the government investing $100 million in equity in the first year and $75 million in equity in each of the two following years for a total of $250 million, with power provided in the legislation for lending up to an amount of $100 million in addition to the Canada Development Corporation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is the main point I was asking about. Does the government envisage, at whatever time it decides to sell shares in the proposed corporation, that the government itself will maintain a majority equity position vis-a-vis the Canada Development Corporation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to analyse the whole of the legislation at this point, but it is indicated that for quite some time the government will have all the shares in the Canada Development Corporation. Ultimately shares will be offered for purchase. I think my friend will find that the legislation provides that only Canadians may own these shares, that no Canadian may own more than 3 per cent, and that the government's ownership in the over-all corporation ultimately could not be reduced to a point below 10 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West, but I think I should caution the House that we should not have a debate on an item which is now before the House. To some extent we would be anticipating an order of the day. However, I recognize that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has asked pertinent questions, and the hon. member for Edmonton West should have the same privilege.

January 25, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



RELATIONSHIP OF LEGISLATION TO REPORT ON FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF CANADIAN COMPANIES

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister say that the theme, shall we say, of this legislation, the maintenance of strong Canadian control of companies in the private sector, is a reflection of the report that will be brought forward by the Minister of National Revenue with regard to foreign ownership in Canada? Is this the vehicle that the government of Canada will choose in order to implement whatever recommendations the minister will make in his report?


Edgar John Benson: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. I think this legislation stands on its own and will provide an opportunity for the development of Canada, with an opportunity for Canadians to participate in the ownership and development of the resources of Canada.
* *



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.
Has he received from his opposite number for Quebec, Mr. Choquette, a request for federal government legislation or powers enabling him to effectively combat the Mafia in the province of Quebec?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Not as far
as I know, Mr. Speaker.


Gérard Laprise: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
In view of the increase of organized crime in Quebec, does the Minister of Justice intend to take action to ensure that the Criminal Code is enforced as it should be?


John Napier Turner: The Criminal Code is a well-known document, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of reported large new sales of French arms and equipment to South Africa, can the Acting Prime Minister advise if the government of Canada has expressed or will express to the government of France its concern about arms sales to an area which the Prime Minister the other day described as a potential Viet Nam?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have already expressed in this House and in the United Nations, and I do so again, our opposition to
the sale of arms to South Africa, which is in accordance with the resolution of the Security Council on this question. We are urging all countries, without exception, to comply with that resolution.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I have read some of the debates at the United Nations. However, can the minister advise if by letter or personal representation the government has expressed its view to France on this very serious matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, I do not think there has been any occasion, Mr. Speaker. The only country to which we have made any representations is a fellow member of the Commonwealth and, as the House well knows, we made those representations of the basis of trying to avoid a rupture in the Commonwealth. I am sure my hon. friend agrees with that. That is the only occasion and the only country to which we have made representations of that kind.


Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Darlmouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to advise the House on negotiations between Canada and France with respect to the use of Canadian Armed Forces facilities by French troops during the coming summer months?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take that question as notice.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, this question has been asked several times in the House and we continue to get the same reply. As a supplementary I ask the Acting Prime Minister to take seriously his undertaking to investigate the matter so that the House may have some indication of the relationship between Canada and France with respect to armed forces training.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the great increases in the costs of welfare being borne by the provinces and the municipalities as a result of the high unemployment existing in the country, is the federal government giving consideration to increasing its share of the cost of welfare that it bears?
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, all I can advise the hon. member at this time is that should there be any change in the sharing formula under the Canada Assistance Plan it will be announced as a matter of policy in the House.

January 25, 1971



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON GOVERNMENT INTENTION FOLLOWING MINISTERS' CONFERENCE

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, immediately at the conclusion of his meeting with the welfare ministers from the provinces will the minister make a statement in the House announcing the government's intention with respect to the Canada Assistance Plan?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, although the deliberations at the welfare ministers' conference will probably not be open to the public on a day to day basis, as I indicated previously, there will be opening statements given by the ministers and there will be a closing statement. Therefore the House and the people of Canada will be well aware of the deliberations. But I reiterate that so far as any change in the cost-sharing arrangements under the Canada Assistance Plan is concerned, if indeed there should be such a change, that would be a decision of the federal government that would be announced in the House as a matter of policy.



ABILITY OF PROVINCES AND MUNICIPALITIES TO PROVIDE WELFARE

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is the minister in a position to assure the House that the provinces and the municipalities are able to provide welfare for those who need it, in view of the very alarming increase in the amount of unemployment in this country and the consequential extraordinary rise in the welfare budget requirements of the municipalities and the provinces? Is the minister in a position to assure the House that those responsible for administering these programs in the field are in fact meeting the need and able to meet the need?


John Carr Munro: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, if there were an incapacity on the part of the provinces and some municipalities to meet the need and the provinces therefore requested reconsideration of this matter, I am sure the government would be pleased to do so.



MANPOWER


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Last week I asked him whether or not, in view of the large numbers of unemployed people who are unable to make use of the present manpower programs, he could indicate to the House the exact number of those who have applied for retraining or training under the programs but because of the regulations were not able to
Inquiries of the Ministry
make use of this opportunity, and he indicated he would be prepared shortly to make a statement. Is he now in a position to indicate to the House in short form the exact numbers in this situation, and whether or not the government is prepared to make any changes in the present regulations?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, following our exchange a day or so ago in the House I did make inquiries. I do not yet have a report on whether there are any meaningful figures available.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the increasing concern with respect to the numbers of students who will be unemployed during the coming summer, will the minister shortly be able to indicate to the House the kind of programs that will be operating, in view of the difficulties with last year's program for unemployed students?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as soon as a decision is taken it will be made known, but I cannot put a precise date on when that may be.



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-REQUEST FOR BACKGROUND PAPERS-CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE MANITOBA PLAN

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the importance of the grain policy proposals now under consideration, would the minister consider tabling or making available to interested members the background papers and analyses of the proposals as well as any other material that elaborates on them?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will give consideration to that recommendation.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, is the minister going to hold any further meetings with the Minister of Agriculture of Manitoba concerning the alternative plan suggested by him and will the minister indicate if the Manitoba minister suggested or concurred in a 12 per cent farmer contribution, as referred to by the minister last Thursday?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the House a few days ago, it is my intention to have a meeting with the Prairie Ministers of Agriculture at which time any variety of items might come up, and at which time there will be an opportunity for further discussion of any proposals the ministers might have. The question of the farmers' contribution was discussed at my earlier meeting with the Minister of Agriculture of Manitoba.

January 25, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION



POLICY RESPECTING IMMIGRANTS FROM UNITED STATES

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the conflict between statements by top immigration officials that our immigration laws are "patently ridiculous" as they apply to the encouragement of United States immigration and the minister's statement on the other hand that "we need more Americans in Canada because of their easy assimilation in this country," will the minister make a statement on motions clarifying the policy of the department with regard to American immigration?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate to attempt every time to clarify what the press may report about what officials may have said, especially when they do not identify the officials nor, indeed, even try to pursue the tone of a quote attributed to the minister. There may be an opportunity for the House to discuss this whole issue when the legislation with regard to the immigration appeals board is before it, or indeed perhaps at another time when a statement on immigration policy is placed before the House.


John Howard Lundrigan: Will the minister state whether direction was given to his officials to allow the statement which was made to reach the press in order to distil public feelings regarding the heavy unemployment in Canada at the present time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is not in order in those terms. The hon. member will appreciate that the question is asked in the form of an argument. I do not think it is in order in those terms. The hon. member may want to rephrase his question.


John Howard Lundrigan: Were any directions given to the departmental officials to release a statement of this nature? Also, will the minister state the exact policy of his department with respect to United States immigrants?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As far as the second question is concerned, the hon. member is reiterating the question asked in the first instance as to whether a statement will be made on motions. I do not think that the motion should be made at this time.


James Aloysius McGrath: Will the minister inform the House by a simple yes or no as to which version is correct, the version in his speech or the version of one of his civil servants? The answer should be simply yes or no.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Are the federal government and the government of the province of Quebec in accord on the general lines of a formula for amendment of the constitution, as reported?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize the fact that the question is very large in scope. I wonder whether the hon. member expects a statement of this kind to be made at this time during the question period. The hon. member may inquire whether the minister proposes to make a statement in due course.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I will rephrase my question. Is it proposed to make a statement in the House with regard to any agreement that may be reached as to the amending formula for the Canadian constitution between the federal and the provincial authorities?


John Napier Turner: I would think that any announcement on the progress of constitutional discussions would be made by the first ministers after the conference that is to be held in Ottawa on February 8 and 9.



NATIONAL DISASTERS


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister.
In view of the landslide which occurred in Asbestos causing the relocation of numerous families and requiring the construction of new housing, can the minister tell the House whether he has received a request from the authorities of this community that it be declared a disaster area?


Mitchell William Sharp: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will inquire.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF INITIAL PRICES AND QUOTA ESTIMATES TO FACILITATE SEEDING PLANS

Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle - Moose Mountain):: have a question for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In order to facilitate the spring seeding plans of western farmers, will the minister announce as soon as possible the initial prices and quota estimates for the current crop year?


Otto Emil Lang: In the proposals tabled in the House in late October, Mr. Speaker, it was indicated that we hoped to do this prior to March 1. This remains our hope.

January 25, 1971



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It arises from the fact that some funds seem to be available for special groups of people, as is evident in the report concerning Francophones. Have the minister's department and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development submitted a request to Treasury Board for special funds to be used to meet the problems of the Indians and Metis since 40 per cent to 50 per cent of these people are receiving welfare at the moment?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the question asked by the hon. member is argumentive. I doubt whether the question as asked is in order. The hon. member may want to rephrase the question in order to make it acceptable from a procedural standpoint.


Stanley James Korchinski: Has the minister made a special request for funds to Treasury Board for such a requirement?


John Carr Munro: The hon. member should direct his question to either the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I think he will find that some very imaginative programs of assistance to these people have been implemented.



CANADA GAMES, SASKATOON-PURPOSE OF ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

John George Diefenbaker: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in connection with the Canadian games at Saskatoon. Will the minister inform the House whether the Prime Minister and other ministers of the Crown will be in Saskatoon at the time of the games to demonstrate their athletic prowess or is the purpose to give the people of Saskatchewan an opportunity to get the "tone" to which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration just referred? I know that the purpose will not be in any way political, but for athletic purposes only!



POLLUTION


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: My
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. On January 20 I asked the Minister of Finance whether any low-interest loans or grants would be made to industries and municipalities to aid them in cleaning up pollution. The minister stated that he was awaiting recommendations from the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Will
Inquiries of the Ministry
the minister be making recommendations with respect to grants or low-interest loans to industries and municipalities in order to clean up pollution?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: A number of recommendations will definitely be made, Mr. Speaker. Some have already been submitted.



ROBERT BURNS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I wish to direct a question to the government House leader. Is the government aware of the fact that today is the anniversary of the birth of the world's greatest poet, Robert Burns?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are aware of that. That is
why we have a Scottish Acting Prime Minister today. I hope Your Honour and all hon. members will make private arrangements to celebrate the immortal memory of Robert Burns in a fitting manner.


Some hon. Members:: 

AGRICULTURE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Approximately 10 days ago I raised a question of privilege with respect to certain data which I had requested concerning alleged trafficking in industrial milk quotas. The minister promised to look into the matter. I wonder whether he has been able to do so.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We took this under consideration, Mr. Speaker, and I understood that a letter was sent to the hon. member explaining the situation to him. If that was insufficient, perhaps we ought to have more correspondence.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I know the minister does not want to create a wrong impression. I suggest that he look into the efficacity of his mail service. No such letter has been received.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the question ought to be directed to the Postmaster General.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


James Aloysius McGrath: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic

January 25, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Expansion. It is prompted by the presence of Premier Smallwood of Newfoundland in the gallery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I bring that fact to the attention of the House so the minister will be most circumspect in his answer. Will the minister reconsider whether he will attend the special economic conference planned for Newfoundland, and is the special five-year program for Newfoundland now ready for signature?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to attend the conference in Newfoundland because the date has been changed.
As to a special program to be signed by the province of Newfoundland, I should tell the hon. member that actually this is a program which has already been announced, and I expect it will be signed within a couple of months.


James Aloysius McGrath: As the minister is going to be in attendance at the conference, will he use his influence to see whether the premier will permit the Members of Parliament from Newfoundland to attend?


Mr. Speaker:: 

SUMMER GAMES, BRITISH COLUMBIA-INCLUSION OF PADDLING

J. Michael Forrestall: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wish that I had his tan and had spent a few weeks where he has obviously been. I welcome him back to the House. Would the minister-this is a little more than a direct representation-use his good offices to correct an oversight which has permitted the dropping of paddling from next summer's games in British Columbia? I ask this having in mind, as an item of economic trivia, that there were more paddles sold in Canada last year than track shoes.


Mr. Speaker:: Again I submit that this is a representation rather than a question.



PROPOSED FLOODING OF SKAGIT RIVER VALLEY-RESPONSE BY U.S. GOVERNMENT TO REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT BE CANCELLED

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay Wesi):: A week ago, Mr. Speaker, two questions were put to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and were taken as notice at that
time. I should like to repeat them. Could the minister tell the House what the response has been from the United States government to his request that the agreement be rescinded under which 6,000 acres of the Skagit Valley will be flooded? Would he also indicate if it is Canadian government policy not to permit the flooding of the Skagit Valley in any circumstances?


John (Jack) Davis: To put the record straight, a submission has been made to Washington in writing. I have spoken with some of the responsible officials in Washington on this subject and we are now awaiting a written reply from the United States government. That is the state of this affair at the moment.
$ ^



FISHERIES


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's Wesi):: My question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry-I addressed it to his Parliamentary Secretary on January 14-and it concerns the opening date of the seal hunt and whether the minister would consider eliminating the discriminatory quota system which he has announced for the killing of seals in the gulf by Canadian sealers whereas Norwegian crews are allowed twice the number?


John (Jack) Davis: There are a number of statements in that question which are not correct. Basically, the seal hunt will be carried out on a sustained yield basis. Canadians will not be taking fewer seals than the Norwegians. We intend to make an announcement about the opening shortly. It will be made in close consultation with the industry itself.


Walter C. Carter: Can the minister elaborate and tell the House the quota which the ships are allowed to take in the area known as the gulf and in the area known as the front?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether that question is in order. The hon. member is asking for statistical information and unless it is given in the course of a general statement I would not think a question could be accepted in those terms.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, the minister has suggested that my information is not correct, so I would think the least I could expect is a clarification of the misunderstanding.


Mr. Speaker:: From the point of view of the Chair I suggest it might be expected that the minister and the hon. member should get together and clarify the matter between the two of them. At this point the discussion becomes debate, and I do not think the hon. member's supplementary question can be allowed.

January 25, 1971



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: My question is addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. In view of the importance of the matter, is the department making any investigation in connection with the discontinuance of dining car service on trains 30 and 31 running between Ottawa and Montreal, which are heavily patronized?


Mr. Speaker:: My recollection is that this question was asked a few days ago. I do not recall whether it was answered, but I observe that the Parliamentary Secretary has taken notice of the question.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: During the question period last Friday the Acting Prime Minister referred to a meeting between representatives of the provinces and the federal government in connection with unemployment insurance and the proposed amendments to the Act. The answer left some doubt in my mind. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he is now meeting with his provincial counterparts concerning the white paper proposals or whether he is at the stage of discussing the draft legislation?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: I would not presume to discuss the draft legislation with the provinces, but we are discussing certain proposals which are contained in the white paper.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In view of the urgency of the unemployment crisis, can the minister tell us whether he has yet received answers from all the provinces? Is it still the minister's intention to bring this legislation in by July, 1971, or is he updating his timetable in an attempt to deal with the very harsh unemployment situation?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We are now running ahead of schedule in connection with the timetable outlined for the preparation of the draft bill, and I see no particular reason why we should not meet the target date of July 1, 1971.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacLean:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before orders of the day are called may I ask the leader of the House whether there is to be any deviation from the program fixed for today? Is there any change in business since it was last announced? More specifically, what items are we to consider after completion of the discussion on the textiles bill?
Textile and Clothing Board Act Mr. MacEachen: I think that at the end of the debate on the textiles bill, if it were finished, we would deal with the crop insurance legislation. If that were cleared I do not think I would call the government organization bill-I think that would be the first item tomorrow. I would consult with hon. members opposite as to what we should consider for the remaining time today, if there were any.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, January 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-215, to establish the Textile and Clothing Board and to make certain amendments to other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee of Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I am next on the list of speakers which was drawn up the other day, but I do have a few comments to make on this textile bill. I assume this is a reasonable time at which to make them.
I cannot help feeling that the government's bill to rationalize the textile industry has some good points in it. As I see it, the long term outlook for the textile industry would be better if those engaged in it were in a position to produce goods at prices which consumers were willing to pay; goods which consumers needed and wished to purchase. If we are to produce any goods in Canada they have to be produced in competition with products of the same type manufactured elsewhere. This measure provides for a reasonable degree of rationalization in the textile industry and as such we should be willing to support it. I am aware there are some manufacturers, some individuals, who will be penalized. Some people will lose their jobs and it will be awkward for them. But if we are to have a healthy industry of any kind in Canada we are bound, as I say, to produce goods and services of a type which customers will recognize as being useful, and to put them on sale at prices they are willing to pay.
I should like to make a few comments with regard to the clothing section of the textile industry. For too long, it seems to me, we have tried to shore up this industry with subsidies and so on. We have sought to produce goods-I am thinking of cotton goods-in competition with Britain and India, countries with much greater experience than ours in producing goods of this type. I have suggested before, and I suggest to the minister now, that we should concentrate on products we need in Canada. I am thinking primarily about winter wear; I am not saying we should not produce other things. Let us
January 25, 1971

Textile and Clothing Board Act carry out some research in connection with winter wear. I suggest to the minister, and to those who are involved in the clothing industry, that the winter clothing we now produce in Canada is bulky, heavy, and in some cases far from warm or waterproof. It is unsatisfactory regarded from both a utility and fashion conscious point of view. In this respect, I think we can do much more than we have.
I agree that in this area we have moved part way. For example, the crew of the Manhattan were clothed in Canadian parkas. Probably we produce as good a parka for this type of activity as anyone in the market, but as one who has spent a great deal of time out in the cold in the wintertime, I say there is much room yet for improvement.
I suggest the minister encourage the textile industry, through the offices of this board, to concentrate, if you will, consciously on improving winter wear for Canadians. This is the basic reason I am speaking in this debate. I was talking to a young university student a short time ago who was complaining that the knee boots that women purchase deteriorate under the influence of salt. When a person buys a pair of boots, I think there is no reason for having to wax and polish them to keep out moisture or make them salt resistant. This should be done by the industry before the boots are sent to market. I think if we want to sell our products, we should make sure they are really good products. I just offer this as an illustration of why further improvement is required.
I have indicated that we manufacture parkas and such like, but I think we might be more conscious of the style of winter clothing. We see in our stores coats that come from Yugoslavia. I am not knocking them as coats, but why cannot our Canadian winter coats have the same style and appeal? I cannot help but feel we could do more in this regard if we had the desire. Obviously, if we want to employ more Canadians we must develop markets, and this is one area in which we could expand our market.
Canada has been waiting for twentieth century technology, and I think this is also the case with wearing apparel. It is said that the best type of clothing for wear in the Arctic is two suits of caribou skin, one worn on the fur on the inside and the other with the fur on the outside. I suggest that something more appropriate is required in this twentieth century.
A few days ago I was reading a book about the United States economic invasion of Europe. The reason this invasion has been so successful is that there was a vacuum in Europe to be filled. I suggest to the minister that if we are going to keep Canadians producing textiles in Canada, then we must produce top quality goods at reasonable prices. I suggest we should not let the United States continue to take over Canadian markets, and with them the Canadian technology that produces goods for those markets.
I am aware that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) cannot just manufacture initiative, creativity, style, or even salesmanship, but if he
would pay more attention to creating the proper atmosphere in which these things can develop, the workers in the industry will respond. I should like the minister to consider this suggestion in that light.


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, as a westerner, I suppose that any time questions involving tariffs and other forms of protection are brought forward in legislation, I approach the legislation in the way that a prudent man approaches a beehive because I am afraid I shall get stung. It is the consumer who pays for this kind of protection. There is no pot of money-unless it is the citizens' tax moneys-into which the government can dip to support inefficient industry, if it be inefficient. When we raise the tariff barriers or put so-called voluntary import quotas on those nations which sell to us, thus raising the price of their goods in Canada or reducing the quantity of their goods that can be sold in Canada, then the consumer pays by paying more for his shirts, more for his textiles, more for his clothing generally.
It is to this matter that I am going to address myself. I have been astounded, I must say, at the attitude to this bill of members of the official opposition party, particularly those from western Canada to whom trade is so important. There appears to be nothing in this bill that they question. The only words we have heard from the spokesman for the official opposition party are to the effect that this bill is too little and too late; that protection is good and the more protection we have, the better. I would doubt this very much. After all, the Canadian textile industry started in this valley in the 1820's, with mills going up on the several streams in the Ottawa area and in other parts of eastern Canada. It was assumed that we had to protect this infant industry with tariffs, and no doubt we did. But how old is the infant now? It is one hundred and fifty years old, and we are still called upon to protect it because it is not yet ready to compete.
I v/ould draw the attention of hon. members to a quotation from some remarks uttered many years ago, in 1893. A convention was held by the Liberal party and a delegate by the name of Mr. Gillmor had this to say. He was speaking of industries that live behind the safe walls of protective tariff barriers.
These industries are like the fatted calf, always sucking, and they will never get weaned. These infants are never ready to have their protective tariff taken off. You suggest a reduction of tariff to them and they look so lean and miserable that you would pity them from the bottom of your heart. But when they feel that the tariff is safe for them, they swell to enormous proportions, and display their carriages and footmen, and their eyes stick out with fatness.
Let me also draw the attention of the House to the remarks of Sir Richard Cartwright on the subject of protectionism, made about the same time as the previous remarks. I am going to place the whole quotation on Hansard because one should not make partial quotations, but I might say that I do not agree with the second half of the quotation in today's context:
The moment you introduce the protective system you create a class whose interests are essentially different from those of the people at large, and who become the ready contributors to corruption funds, sharing with their masters the plunder which they have been enabled to take from the people.

January 25, 1971

As I say, Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting, nor do I have any evidence, that "slush funds" have been involved in protectionist legislation of recent years, or for that matter during previous generations; but I do draw the first part of Sir Richard Cartwright's remarks to the attention of this House. Protectionism, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is essentially a self-defeating operation.
In what I have said so far I think I have taken what could be called a rather negative attitude toward this bill. I do not want to be negative, as I hope to show; but I do question, and I am a little dubious. Let me look briefly at the general principles contained in this bill. It provides somewhat more protection than the industry now has. The industry may ask, and may in some circumstances obtain, protection by import quotas or by high tariffs if it is threatened with damage by imports-not so much actual damage but merely threatened damage.
The positive aspect of this bill, which is welcome, is that such industries are required, when they seek this additional protection, to also submit their plans for rationalization. They must show a plan which gives satisfaction to this three-man board, and beyond that to the minister and the government, that they plan to make their industries viable. This is a welcome feature of this legislation.
In common with other spokesmen for other parties in the House, I think that this is good, positive and forward moving legislation. But, I am left with the sensation, after reading this bill, that in terms of rationalization of the textile and clothing industries, this bill will be just as effective or as ineffective as the government of the day chooses to make it.
It can be effective if the industries which are in totally uneconomic areas are encouraged to move into different areas of production in which Canadians can specialize. I have spoken rather harshly of the clothing and textile industries, which all too often in Canada have paid abominable wages under abominable conditions, yet cried for the support of the government while doing so. Although this is a feature of a part of the clothing industry, it is obvious there are great initiatives in some areas, and there must be great efficiency.
I was interested in the minister's remarks when he pointed out the increased sales of Canadian goods to the United States market. We well know that, generally speaking, the United States has an advantage with its long production lines. Generally, United States manufacturers are very efficient producers. When Canada can increase its sales to the United States market in competition with producers in that country, clearly in these areas there is initiative, enterprise and skill on the part of the Canadian producer.
The legislation enables the government to encourage and even direct industries in the textile and clothing spheres to go out of unproductive lines and into productive areas. It is to be hoped that where a plant is totally unefficient, badly mismanaged, or in such a hopeless situ-
Textile and Clothing Board Act ation that no workable plan could come forward, these plants should be led quietly to the grave.
However, while this bill offers an opportunity to the government to divert entire industries into areas of efficiency, it also, from my reading of it, leaves the way open for this or any future government to impose import quotas, raise tariffs and protect the industry in one way or another. All too frequently, these plans for improvement could be accepted on the basis of a piece of paper. If a government should not choose to force an industry to follow its improvement plan as put forward, this legislation could provide nothing more than almost continuous protection of inefficiency.
I know that at the moment we are not considering the bill clause by clause, but I feel when the committee examines this bill, it would be wise to give careful thought to assuring that every action taken by the government on the advice of this board be reported promptly to Parliament. There must be protection for the manufacturer to ensure that his trade secrets are not revealed to his competitors when this government acts upon the recommendations of this three-man board. But I do not think it sufficient that action be taken by Order in Council. I suggest each recommendation should be reported to this Parliament. In addition, there should be an obligation on these industries to provide a progress report, say, at least quarterly, so that members of this House, as well as of future Houses, are able to consider carefully whether this legislation is in fact not being misused. I bring these suggestions to the attention of hon. members.


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, this has been an interesting debate on this bill. I have followed it by listening to all the speeches, and I have heard a variety of interesting suggestions from entrepreneurs who own the factories which may be getting obsolete, from workers who are looking for jobs, as well as those interested in developing countries which have goods to sell to our markets. I have also listened to interested consumers who want to obtain goods at the best possible price.
Perhaps the most interesting speech was that of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard). His speech can be divided into two parts. In the first part, he attacked the legislation as being useless and undoubtedly extremely damaging to the textile industry. In the second part of his speech he stated the legislation was long overdue, and that the government should have introduced these measures years ago. That was an interesting reflection.
Before I move on to a consideration of the legislation, I should like to refer to a number of facts about the Canadian textile and clothing industries in order to better understand the subject of this debate. The Canadian textile and clothing industries are, generally speaking, as advanced and technically efficient as those in other countries. They are well able to compete with imports from such sources as the United States, Britain and western Europe, but such is not the case when we are dealing with imports from low cost sources such as

January 25, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act Japan, developing countries or state-trading countries. This is because of wage rates and other cost differentials or export pricing policies prevalent in those countries. Even with the utmost rationalization, it seems highly unlikely that there would be any possibility of our industry competing with the standard type of product imported from those countries.
In addition, significant new developments are taking place in world textile technology, products and markets. These developments are marked by the use of new machinery, greatly increased demand for fashion, style and higher quality, and by a major shift from the use of natural to man-made fibres. Faced with these new developments, the Canadian prime textile industry finds itself at the crossroads in terms of investment decisions to further convert into specialized products, blends and synthetics, and thereby remain at the vanguard of world textile manufacturing.
Given the importance of the industry within the Canadian economy as a whole, as illustrated by the fact there were $3.3 billion worth of shipments, and the number of jobs at stake, being close to 200,000 in 1969, the government decided, and rightly so, in light of the industry's demonstrated capabilities that it should be afforded some kind of assistance.
o (3:20p.m.)
When the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) outlined the textile policy in the House last May, some hon. members complained that it was too little and too late. In defence of the minister I should say that this textile policy constitutes a very new and unique approach in respect of aiding a sector of Canadian industry. This is the first time a strategy has been developed for an industry sector which takes into account all considerations. These include such economic considerations as regional interests, interests of the consumer and the producer, growth areas and stability of employment. They include as well such social considerations as adjustment assistance programs for workers and such international considerations as relations with our trading partners, obligations under the general adjustment assistance program and obligations to assist developing countries. The plan also encompasses such relevant policy instruments as trade policy, industrial policy including research development, marketing, industrial development and so on. This is also the first time that close co-operation during the policy formulation stage has been maintained throughout between the federal government, industry, labour and the provinces.
Contrary to what some hon. members say, Mr. Speaker, this is not a protectionist policy. We heard from the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) about how important protection is to us or how important he alleges it is. He said we could not compete in free markets. He pointed out that a number of Canadian businessmen say, from time to time, that they see a policy of protectionism developing in the United States. They also point to the domestic policy in Japan which is highly protectionist. Some people look upon the apparent enthusiasm of the
government to rush in and embrace free trade in general as an indication that they are the boy scouts of GATT.
In my judgment, on the other hand, Canada has no alternative but to accept free trade. One must recognize that of every dollar's worth of goods produced in Canada over 40 cents is in respect of goods sold abroad. In other words, nearly half the goods produced in Canada are sold abroad. In Japan, by contrast, the figure is about 10 cents of every dollar. It can be seen, therefore that proportionately our dependance on foreign trade is four times greater than that of Japan. The figure for the United States, I believe, is about 12 cents of every dollar's worth of goods produced represents goods sold abroad. When we compare the situation in other countries to the situation in Canada we realize that, far from being boy scouts in our attitude towards GATT, we are doing the only thing we can to protect our economic interest today. The allegation that Canada can or should adopt a policy of protectionism is entirely unacceptable to me.
The figures from the textile and clothing industries speak for themselves. During 1969, Canada's per capita consumption of imported clothes and textiles amounted to $28.43 U.S. That compares with $15.61 for the United Kingdom, $10.40 for the United States and $6.86 for the European economic community. So, although we have the fear expressed by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre), and a very valid one, that this policy might some day be used for protection, we can see from the figures I have put forward that we are a very long way from having policies which could in any way be alleged to be protectionist. The aim of the textile policy is to encourage the Canadian industry to become and remain internationally competitive by specializing in the more sophisticated types of fabrics and products where factors other than basic import costs, such as style, quality, fashion and delivery, are predominant.
It is true that there will be a certain measure of protection accorded to Canadian industry, but it is important to remember the two main features attached to this protection. First, it is not granted automatically in that companies will have to satisfy the Textile and Clothing Board that imports are causing or threatening serious injury and that their own plans, which will have to be prepared by them with government assistance, will in fact enable them to adjust their operations so that they will become viable. Even if these conditions are fulfilled, protection will not be automatic because the final decision continues to rest with the government. The board which is to be set up will perform only an advisory function. The second limitation on the protectionist features of the bill is that any protection accorded will be of a transitional nature and subject to review by the board.
Another feature of the textile policy is that it will facilitate the phasing out of non-viable operations by assuring workers who may be left jobless as a result of such phasing out of adjustment assistance benefits. These have already been outlined by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey). Any rationalization of an industry can cause unemployment. Indeed, technological change itself causes unemployment. The hon. member for Winnipeg

January 25, 1971

North (Mr. Orlikow) suggested that the government ought to accept the responsibility for providing such assistance to all workers who are rendered redundant by government policy and by technological change. This is an extremely tall order because it would have the effect of locking the government into a position of responsibility for keeping our economy from changing. I cannot imagine how such a policy, in the long run, would be in the best interests of the Canadian people, particularly in view of the responsibility we have to maintain our standard of living and to keep foreign markets for our products.
It is a principle of welfare economics, which might perhaps be introduced into this debate, that one can test a policy by asking whether those who benefit from the policy can compensate those who suffer from the policy and still be better off. When that test is applied to the transitional assistance policy, it becomes obvious that this is a policy which involves the availability of foreign markets, and the opportunity to rationalize and make viable existing Canadian sectors of the industry. As a policy, this is properly directed to make those sectors, which are proven to be so much better off, compensate those who suffer from the change and still retain a general benefit. I commend the government for adopting the policy in this case.
I suspect there are other industries which could be dealt with in the same way. The textile and clothing industries is the place to begin. This might sound like an arbitrary statement, but undoubtedly when we look at the figures it becomes clear that the textile and clothing industries have been very badly hit. But other sectors of the economy, such as the electronics industry, the shoe industry and perhaps others, have been adversely hit also. One would hope that the experiment in respect of this policy will prove it is possible to compensate many of those who suffer from competition and technological change by rationalizing an industry and coming out better off.
The policy also provides for a strong measure of support for national and international trade promotions. Many of these support programs are already known to the hon. members of this House, such as Fashion Canada referred to by the Toronto Telegram as "all the 'Made in Canada', 'Buy Canadian' and 'Good Fashion Seal of Approval' labels packed into one".
The trade fairs and trade missions programs administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce have already met with a remarkable degree of success. The establishment of productivity centres to assist Canadian manufacturers in developing a still greater degree of efficiency has yet to be achieved but, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said last Friday, this matter is well in hand.
In conclusion, I would like to suggest that Canada can ill afford not to have a viable textile and clothing industry, and the textile policy proposed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is surely the best way
Textile and Clothing Board Act proposed thus far to achieve that end. Since the present bill is an integral part of the textile policy, I would strongly urge hon. members on both sides of the House to give the bill their full support.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) is rising for the purpose of asking a question. This is in order. Will the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) accept the question from the hon. member who seeks the floor?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Roland Comeau: The hon. member talked about rationalization. Is he aware of the act that in the last nine years the textile industry has spent over $656 million in order to make its operation more viable? The industry has been rationalized and made very efficient. Does the hon. member feel that the Canadian textile industry at present is not as efficient as it should be?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I do not think it is so much a question of rationalization as of specialization. What the Canadian industry has to do is find the markets in which it can be internationally competitive.


Louis-Roland Comeau: It is the government's job.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: This industry has no natural advantage. On the contrary; we are in exactly the same position as other western countries and we are at a disadvantage compared with many low-cost countries. Nevertheless, we have succeeded in finding markets for the textile and clothing industry in which we can be internationally competitive. I see this legislation as providing a framework for permitting the industry to concentrate its resources in areas where it can find viable international markets.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan), in his intervention in this debate touched on the point that holds the greatest interest for me, namely, the question of protection for workers in the textile industry who lose their employment because of government policy. I trust that I interpret his remarks correctly when I say that he supports this aspect of the bill but that he is disturbed by the suggestion of my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), that it represents a principle that might well be extended to cover all workers. That is what brings me into this debate, even though for just a few minutes.
Far be it from me to suggest that the provisions for displaced workers set out in this bill are adequate, namely, the supplementary unemployment insurance up to a certain point and then a 50 per cent pension from age 54 to age 65, but at least these provisions are in the bill, and I commend the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) for including this kind of provision in the legislation.

January 25, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act
We already have some other provisions of this nature, even though they have their flaws, such as the Devco preretirement leave plan-if a certain friend of ours were in the chamber, that would get him to his feet-and there are now a number of instances where it is recognized that when workers are unable to obtain jobs for reasons that flow from government policy, the state has an obligation to those people.
I would like to suggest to the hon. member for Don Valley that instead of being afraid of this, he should welcome it, and that as a member from that side of the House he should push for it to be carried as far as possible. Indeed, I think that what is be;ng admitted in the incorporation of this principle into the legislation is that there are times when people, workers in this case, have the right to live without that right being dependent upon their ability to get a non-existent job. I firmly believe that that is a principle which one of these days will have to be part of our whole social and economic structure. In fact, I suggest that the persistence of unemployment at this very time should make all of us do some hard thinking in this area.
Hon. members know that some of us are strong advocates of a guaranteed annual income. I know that the more this phrase gets kicked around, the more definitions surround it. I certainly do not mean by a guaranteed annual income the kind of incremental addition that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) has in mind. I have in mind rather something in the nature of a demogrant. But I think that as unemployment persists, as automation and cybernation come along, and as the number of people who are required to produce the goods and services that make possible our standard of living decreases, we are going to have to divorce the right to live decently and in dignity from the question as to whether or not one can get a job. Welfare measures will not do it, a guaranteed income supplement that brings people up to a certain level of poverty will not do it either-it still keeps them poor. The fact of the matter is that government policy comes into this picture, but so will government policy come into the picture of our whole economy, and whether or not people can get jobs in the textile industry, or the automobile industry, or the boot and shoe industry or as PhD's in our universities, depends on government or social policy. I do not think it is civilized, just or intelligent that many ordinary people, running into hundreds of thousands, should have to suffer the stigma of unemployment and poverty because they cannot get jobs that do not exist.
The hon. member for Don Valley is worried about the government being locked into certain policies. I think this is true so long as this business of guaranteeing incomes is limited to various groups, categories or pockets. But I think that if Parliament could get to the place where we would guarantee to all of our people the right to live and an income to make it possible, the government would have even greater freedom with its policies so far as industry is concerned.
Therefore, I wholeheartedly support the statement made the other day on our behalf by the hon. member

for Winnipeg North. I am glad we have the TAB program, the SUB program, the Devco pre-retirement plan, and now this plan for pensions at 54 for workers who are displaced in the textile industry. You know, Mr. Speaker, it took us a long time to persuade the government to bring the old age pension entitlement age down from 70 to 65 years. Maybe we are going to have to bring it down to 60 or to 55 years. We have read about this in our studies of the economy, and of automation and cybernation. Let us face up to the fact and admit that in the year 2000 we are not going to have the kind of society in which it will still be necessary for people to get a nonexistent job in order to have their rights as first class citizens.
Far be it for me to suggest that there is anything perfect about this plan that has been introduced. It is too inadequate. It is grafted on to a system in connection with which the government has not accepted its responsibility for full employment. But it does have the earmarks of the right approach when it provides that workers who lose their jobs because of government policy still have the right to live. Therefore, I welcome that part of the bill, and I hope that members like the hon. member for Don Valley, who belongs to a party which talks about a guaranteed annual income at its federal policy conferences, as well as at its provincial conferences, will not get locked into the kind of statement he made today but realize that this is the picture of the future-a guaranteed income to our people, to our workers, to our families regardless of whether they are able to get jobs, particularly when those jobs don't exist. Let us work hard at achieving full employment, but let us be honest enough to admit that the pattern is changing and that we are going to have to establish the right of all our people to life, and that right does not mean anything unless it carries with it sufficient income to live in dignity.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) apparently wishes to ask a question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) before he resumes his seat.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Delighted.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: When the hon. member referred to the risk of poverty which one faces when one becomes unemployed because of technological advance or government policy, he completely overlooked and made no reference in his remarks whatsoever to the unemployment insurance program, or to the fact that the government is greatly improving that program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member wishes to ask a question.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Does he not recognize that unemployment insurance, which exists and which is being improved, is the answer, or a great part of the answer, to the problem to which, he said, there was no answer?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the hon. member is aware of the fact that unemployment
January 25, 1971

insurance covers a person only for a temporary period, and that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) admitted the other day, in the statement he made on this bill, that that is not enough to take care of people who are displaced permanently. The very proposal before us now is one that provides when this temporary unemployment insurance runs out, if a person is over 54 years of age, he is to get a pension equal to 50 per cent of his average income over a past period of time. I suggest to the hon. member that I am fully aware of the present Unemployment Insurance Act and I am fully aware of the proposals that are in the white paper that the minister gave to us last year, but I suggest that as long as unemployment insurance is for the purpose of protecting workers for periods of temporary unemployment, that does not meet this long-range problem which I think society does have to meet.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly to support this bill. My purpose in speaking is to call the attention of the House to one or two points which I do not think have been raised heretofore, with the hope that they might be explored more fully in committee.
The textile industry in this country consists of various components. Yarn is produced; it is woven into cloth, and the cloth is used to make clothing. Indeed, in the case of artificial or man-made textiles, there is an even more primary process where Canadian raw materials are made into the essential ingredients from which the artificial fibres are made. But the whole industry in Canada is integrated.
There can be no primary textile industry making yarn, or making cloth, unless that part of the industry has some opportunity of a market to which it may sell its products for conversion into clothing. Conversely, and I think history has demonstrated this, there can be no healthy clothing industry in this country unless it is able to rely upon primary suppliers located in Canada. It is this integration of the total textile industry which I think should occupy our attention, and this is a measure of the problem which is faced by the proposed new Textile and Clothing Board.
For example, Mr. Speaker, I am told that at the present time two thirds of the sweaters made from synthetic fibres sold in the Canadian market are imported, and this disproportionate situation in the market reflects itself back to the primary levels of the industry. In my constituency, we have a very modern plant producing a certain type of artificial textile fibre, but this plant is unable to achieve its maximum efficiency because it is not able to produce at maximum capacity. We have a problem of immense proportions in that we are capable in this country of developing, and indeed we have developed, the technology which is appropriate to this modern age, but because of the disorders in the market caused by imports, principally from Asian and State trading countries, we are not able to achieve in practice that efficiency of which we are capable.
Looking down the line, and we should do this, there is another and an even more grave problem. This industry,
Textile and Clothing Board Act and particularly the artificial fibre industry, is one in which there are rapid developments occurring in technology. In order to take advantage of these technological developments, it will be increasingly necessary for new and substantially large investments to be made in plant and equipment. And yet, Mr. Speaker, if order is not restored to the domestic textile market it seems perfectly apparent to me that these investments will not be made, and our country will be denied the opportunity to participate in these highly sophisticated and technologically developed industries which are important to us. We hear all the time that we should be concerned about secondary processing in Canada, and one of the most frequent examples taken is the production of oil and natural gas and the petro-chemical industry. It is the products of this industry which, to some extent, form the basic raw materials of the artificial fibre industry.
So my concern about the effect of foreign imports on the ultimate consumer market extends back to a whole complex of policies which involve our capacity, using our natural resources, for the improvement of employment and the development of better technology in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I desire only to bring these matters briefly to the attention of the House so that they may be more fully investigated in committee. I think that it should satisfy people in my position to know that the concept of injury which will be applied by the new textile board in measuring the effect on imports will not be narrowly applied to the finished products with which imported products compete. It should be widely and wisely construed in order to extend to all elements of the textile industry, so that we in Canada can continue to develop an efficient and technologically advanced industry in this country.


Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and say a few words on the means designed to assist the Canadian textile industry which has been facing serious problems for many years.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), considering his duties and his approach to a solution of the industry's problems, has not made much headway so far. He merely provides a limping industry with a pair of crutches to enable it to drag itself a bit further.
But this alone will not hasten its pace! I do not think the textile industry-or any other industry for that matter

will start running faster because the minister foresees unemployment. In fact, he wants the government to commit itself to paying salaries to those who are laid off, out of the citizens' income, consequently, out of public funds. New taxes will therefore have to be levied in order to pay a large number of citizens who are still unemployed in our vast country, with so much remains to be done.
While the means to keep all our citizens employed could be found, we are content to pay them to do nothing; some are robbed in order to pay others. In short,

January 25, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act means are taken further to increase the cost of living, by increasing prices. I wonder where lies the soluton to all that.
The special legislation on the income supplement to be granted to the textile workers is another crutch given to our limping national economy.
After the textile industry, it will be the footwear industry, the tobacco industry, the furniture industry and so on.
The furniture industry is dependent to a large extent on the textile industry, because it uses a great quantity of textile products for upholstering. The furniture industry as all others is on the verge of bankruptcy. Indeed, I could mention several companies which were fairly successful but had to close. The minister is aware of this.
Why is the furniture industry not as profitable as the textile industry? It is because people have no purchasing power. Now, when there is no purchasing power, industry is in jeopardy because it cannot sell its products. When the government raises taxes, increases rates of interest or leaves it to financiers to set them, higher prices follow.
Consequently, it is impossible to compete with foreign countries. It is impossible because the cost price is too high, due to the government's short view policy, which has not foreseen all these things. When new taxes are levied, prices increase as well as the cost of living, and it is more difficult to meet competition and sell our products because people have not the required purchasing power.
All our economy is off balance. It cannot be improved through partial measures. The taxation system is upside down, as well the pension plans, the interest rates, the salary rates, prices, reserves and exemptions from taxes and income taxes. In short, everything is upside down in this country.
As long as the government puts poultices on wooden legs, it will not solve any problem.
The family system, as well as those of education, companies, salaries, incomes, labour and capital are upside down. I repeat: Everything is upside down. As long as we do not attempt to find a solution, things will be the same, everything will go from bad to worse. It is not by issuing crutches to the textile industry workers aged 55 or more that we will remedy the disarray of our national economy. We are wasting time and energy by keeping on groping like that all year long, by passing laws which do not seltle anything and which contribute further to mixing up all our economic, social and political activities. Therefore let us have a look, once and for all, at our whole economy, let us explore the basic reason for its over-all of balance! Subsequently we will be able to discover a general remedy, for we have that capacity provided that we want to do it, that we open our eyes and see what is going on.
Here is what appeared in the newspaper La Presse on January 23, 1971, about the textile industry:
January 1970: 80,400 jobs.
September 1970: 77,301 jobs.
Therefore, there has been a decrease of 3,000 jobs in the Canadian textile industry in 1970 (the last statistical data available are for September).
The majority of those new unemployed are Quebecers, since 60 per cent of textile workers live in Quebec.
After such a hard blow will the textile industry, the third most important industry in Quebec, find itself in a dead-end road? No, replies Mr. Frank Brady, general consultant to Dominion Textile. "The industry has everything not only to maintain itself but also to rapidly develop, provided it finds efficient tools to fight against its two greatest enemies: imports from countries (mainly Asiatic ones) with low production costs and... fashion! "
In the first case, the answer must come from the government, according to Mr. Brady, while in the second case the industry itself is involved just as much as the public.



A CAPITAL INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
Both because of our climate and because of our comparatively high standard of living, the textile industry has advanced steadily in our country. Every Canadian buys an average of 33 lbs. textiles per year. The problem is that the Canadian textile industry, which at one time was practically the sole supplier of the domestic market, has seen its share of it go down to some 55 per cent in 1970.
This has caused not only employment difficulties but some anxiety as well. The Canadian textile industry, which is well entrenched in Quebec where it employs 56,000 workers, has a turn-over of approximately $2 billion. Eighty per cent of the industry is Canadian-owned and it enjoys a very good reputation on the domestic market.
In recent years, it has attracted new investments of some $100 million per year. Should this rate of progress continue, the industry would supply jobs for some 130,000 persons by the end of the seventies, 70,000 of them Quebecers.
WILL PROGRESS CONTINUE?
The point is whether the rate of growth will continue.
According to Mr. Brady, the textile industry is now in a better position than ten years ago for rapid expansion. It has successfully changed over from natural fibers to straightforward manufacture of synthetic fibers. Technologically, the textile industry is up-to-date. According to Mr. Brady, it can compete with any industrialized country, and without special protection.
Mr. Speaker, there are textile plants in my district and I know of one which has spent $2.5 million on new machinery. Additions were built to receive this new equipment and once all these facilities were provided at a cost of just about $3 million, they were not even put into operation for lack of outlets for any new products. This machinery is of the latest design and there was hope that new jobs would be created but the opposite occurred; indeed, apart from this expansion, other departments were forced to close because even their production cannot be sold.
These products cannot be sold because there is no purchasing power in this country. I wonder when the minister and the members of this House will get it into their heads that it is not advisable to take away from the citizens all purchasing power by collecting taxes, by charging prohibitive interest rates to industries and to

January 25, 1971
[Stage Direction]
individuals who apply for loans, thus letting everyone deal with this problem, as this leaves the way open to exploitation and the government tries to find palliatives like the one the minister is now proposing.
Not only do these palliatives lead nowhere, but they are going to increase the cost of living again and create injustices to other industries, for if we pay salaries to unemployed people in certain industries, we will have to do the same for other related industries, and where will we find the money? Taxes will be raised and by the same token the cost of living. What good will it do? The corrective measures which the government is applying to industry are only so many new restraints, new harass-ments which will bring about injustice and unrest even worse than what we are experiencing today.
The problem cannot be solved that way. Settling the problem implies leaving an adequate purchasing power with the taxpayers, and decreasing interest rates to a reasonable level so that industries may be in a productive position. If an industry borrows money at a 12 per cent interest rate, how can anyone expect it to be able to operate?
But nobody is saying a word about that, not even the Minister. There is not even one member of this House to regret it. As for the Tories, they are happy with criticizing the government. How did they propose to solve the problem?
Since the days of Confederation, this county has been run by Grits and Tories and we are now caught in an ap-peling state of stagnation. Because of overproduction, we subsidize western farmers out of growing grain and we penalize eastern farmers to keep them from producing milk. Even so, we are unable to distribute our affluence. The situation is the same in the textile industry. Why? Because Canadians lack the necessary buying power. Because instead of increasing their buying power we are taking some more away from them.
Lay-offs will do nothing to reinforce the taxpayers' buying power. Nor is it by paying starvation wages, by robbing some to help the others, that we will improve our economy, or give the consumer the purchasing power required to reactivate the textile industry, and other sectors of industry. On the contrary: things will go from bad to worse.
We could say many things about textiles, but what is the use of rehashing details, explanations and figures? I only wanted to tell the minister the present situation is not normal.
To my mind, the real solution to the problem is to give a compensated discount on prices. There, Mr. Speaker, is one way of pleasing the people! That is one way of reducing cost prices! If we do not know where to get the money, or want to take it where we should, the only thing to do is look at the surpluses in Canada this year. We had a surplus of over $34 billion in 1970 and the one we will have in 1971 will be even bigger. If we used it to give compensated discounts on prices to bring them down, we would lower the cost of living and we could tell the unions: We shall not grant any salary increases
Textile and Clothing Board Act but we shall reduce prices by granting compensated discounts; that will increase purchasing power and ensure greater distribution of goods.
Then, we shall be in a better position to compete with other countries. At the present time, taxes prevent us from producing for export, because of the competition of other countries.
That is where action is needed, and the minister does nothing about it. Embargoes on this and that do not solve the problem either, because, if we export goods, we must also import some. To solve the problem, Canadians must be given the means required so that they can spend, make necessary purchases in order to clear our production. We shall export our true surpluses. We shall import other goods that we do not produce here, and which we require. There is a sound economy. This is what we ought to do, and this is what the minister must consider more and more. I do not want to blame the minister more than I ought to, for he is not alone in this business. In fact, there is above him, above the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and above the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), a superpower that controls the whole economy of this country. However, we must ask the minister to show enough nerve to stand up to all that and to bring Canadians the required improvements, so that our economy will be balanced, thus allowing all Canadians to live decently in their country which is full of resources.
John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party have already indicated their support for the bill now before the House; therefore, I do not intend to speak at length. However, there are a few points I should deal with prior to the minister closing the debate.
All hon. members of the House will recognize the difficulties facing the clothing and textile industries in Canada. To the extent that this bill does assist in resolving some of the problems, we welcome it and wish the minister all success in any programs started under this legislation. There is a complex of factors involved in dealing with this legislation and in developing policy and programs. As has been pointed out, our trade relations are involved in more than one way. We have had heavy imports of clothing and textile materials, particularly in recent years. More than one interest is directly affected since many people in Canada have an interest in increasing trade relations in many of those countries that import Canadian products. At the same time, this has posed problems for Canadian workers and producers in various areas.
In addition, we have an interest in trade relations as well, because under any rationalization program it is quite likely we shall have to turn to export markets for some goods that might be produced in Canada. I noted that the minister said the government would attempt to resolve many of the present difficulties, and I think this is the correct approach in terms of trying to come to grips with these problems.

January 25, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act
There are policy matters that also have to be considered. We agree with the minister in his attempt to formulate policy which will liberalize trade-and I use that word with a small "1". At the same time, although we want to see trade liberalized there are domestic problems that must be taken into account. In this regard, we are particularly concerned with the employment aspect of the problems facing the clothing and textile industries.
Thus, there are conflicts in developing policy and there is a divergence of interests as well. We are concerned with the direction of government policy. The minister has indicated on many occasions that the government has to perform something of a balancing act. This is correct in the technical sense, but this balancing act comes after the basic policy framework has been established and developed. What we should like to hear from the minister at some time is something more in the nature of the basic direction of policy development rather than the details into which he goes on occasion with regard to the technical aspects of the situation. In saying that, I do not underrate the many important technical problems with which we have to deal.
I think a few words have to be said about the attitude of business and private interests in Canada. Hon. members have had it drawn to their attention in recent days that a number of representations taking violent exception to the bill now before the House have been made. The first point of objection registered by certain private interests is that it seemed the government was going to play a role in solving the problems of this industry. I suggest that this is an irresponsible attitude to take. Whatever might be said about some specific objections that may be raised, some of them valid, I suggest it is irresponsible for the private sector of the economy to take an attitude that, in effect, rules out a role for the government to play in solving our economic problems. This is a Neanderthal attitude which does no one any good in the long run.
This bill is but the first step in the development of a rationalization process for the textile industry of Canada, and it is a useful first step. It does not necessarily mean that we are going to approve what follows the bill; we shall have to judge that on the basis of government action. But an important point that needs to be stressed is that the success of the program will depend upon subsequent actions taken by the government, for which we shall hold the government responsible. The bill leaves final responsibility with the government, not with the board, and the minister underlined this point in his remarks.
The minister also outlined what seemed to be a comprehensive approach involving trade, the economy, regional problems, employment factors and assistance to workers and others when problems arise. This bill provides the framework within which a program of action can be developed, and we will be watching with interest to see what the government does in following up this program. We want a strong textile industry in this country because it has a very important role to play in terms of providing employment and needed goods for the people of this country as well as goods for export to other countries.
As I have pointed out, we have to be concerned with our external trade relations, both with respect to attempts to liberalize our trade and with regard to certain trading practices that have created problems in the past. I noted that the minister stated he intended to undertake a rationalization of tariffs, and we will be watching to see what the government does in this regard, too.
One further point I should like to stress, a point that I feel is of great importance, was also raised in the debate on Friday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). It is impossible for a program of rationalization in this or any other area to be successful when there is a high degree of unemployment in Canada or a high degree of slack in the economy. The best of programs cannot hope to be successful in solving the problems of this industry if it has to operate within this kind of framework. Thus, I presume that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) will do everything he can within the councils of the government to ensure that the government adopts more quickly than it has indicated so far, policies that bring about a change in the direction of the Canadian economy.
We are very much interested also in the program to give assistance to workers who become dislocated, something that we feel is very important. I do not intend to labour this point since it has been dealt with adequately both by the hon. member for Winnipeg North and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). We approve of the principle contained in this bill; we shall have further questions to ask in committee, and we hope that a positive and concrete program will follow from this legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the chamber that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade, and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I should like in the first place to thank the hon. members who took part in the debate. I regret only one speech and it is that of my friend from Compton (Mr. Latulippe). I would have liked him to use that opportunity more effectively to philosophize on matters other than poultices and strait-jackets. I wish he had dwelt on the importance of taking progressive steps to solve our problems.
Since we are only human beings, I consider politics as the art of fulfilling the "possible." I do not think that all problems can be solved thanks to a single formula, whether it is purchasing power or anything else. Indeed, I think that problems are settled gradually. Moreover, quite often, the solution of a problem gives rise to two others which are sometimes just as difficult to solve. Such is life! I think that my idea of life and politics is much more realistic than the hon. member for Compton seems to imagine. History will be the judge as well as the people of Compton and Drummond.

January 25, 1971

However, this debate will have allowed us to identify important questions. The first one, raised by the hon. members for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) and South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) was about the nature of the Board itself. What are its power, its functions? What is this Board supposed to do? The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe seems to believe that the Board is going to launch a wide inquiry into textile products; such is not the case. The Board will have to pass judgments on specific, concrete cases and in a very short period of time. It will be necessary to correct that impression as soon as possible.
The hon. member for South Western Nova has wondered: Why set up a Board? Could not the government itself not take those decisions as soon as possible, immediately? What he suggests is the system we already have, and it has not worked that well; otherwise, we would not have Bill C-215. We think it would be advisable to formalize all this a little, to create machinery that will study these matters in a manner a little more open, a little more independent than up to now, on the basis of some better defined criteria.
Another series of questions will deal, at the committee stage-as far as I can judge from the debate-with the requirement of bringing concrete plans to the Board. The hon. member for South Western Nova, once again, asked himself the question. If it is merely a matter of modernization, why, he said, should the Board insist on the companies' plans being submitted? Here the hon. member for South Western Nova underestimates the importance of the adjustments to be made. If adjustments are to be made it will be absolutely necessary for the Board to know these plans and to supervise their application, otherwise it will not be possible to know whether required changes are taking place or not.
Questions were raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and the hon. member for Winnipeg-North Centre (Mr. Knowles) having to do with the assistance program. I welcomed the fact that both hon. members seemed to say this was a rather good program.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A step in the right direction.


Mr. Pepin:: I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mack-asey) will welcome that judgment. Both those hon. members asked the question, if it is good for the textile industry why would it not also be good for other industries which are at times in the same predicament. This is an obvious question and we thought about it seriously. During our considerations at the committee stage, I assume we will consider at some length the concept of government responsibility. It is not always easy to identify the government as being responsible for a specific change.
Let me give a rather far fetched example. If the government of Nova Scotia decided to build a road which
Textile and Clothing Board Act happened to pass a mile or so away from the old road, would the government be responsible for losses suffered by those people operating gas stations on the old road which motorists would not patronize as often as they did before? Again, the concept of government responsibility is a very difficult one to assess. In attempting to define in the bill this responsibility for assistance, we decided there were three areas where this government responsibility would come into play. We have them in the bill.
Again there are divisions along philosophical lines. Hon. members of the NDP say they would immediately give full application to this principle of assistance to workers in industries damaged somehow by government action. They would implement the whole principle immediately. What will happen in respect of this measure and how it will be used in the future is very important to us on the government side. If it works well and we find that reasonable use is made of this workers' assistance program, it may be that the idea will become more or less generally accepted and applied to other cases.
Let me come now to the suggestions of the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre). Among other things, he laid some emphasis on the fact that the government of today will carry a very substantial responsibility for the success or failure of this measure. I could not agree with him more but I should like to expand a little bit on that idea. It is not only the government of the day that will be responsible for the way this bill will be used; its success depends also on the imagination, the dynamics and the interest employers will demonstrate. It is also important that the workers react to this legislation in a favourable way. I am being absolutely frank when I say that circumstances will also have a lot to do with the manner of implementation of this measure.
The hon. member, along with others, has made the point that this bill may not be implemented or used in exactly the same way under varying circumstances. There is no doubt in my mind that this is a simple truth. In difficult circumstances of unemployment, for example, the measure will be used in a slightly different way than if we had hundreds of jobs that could become obsolete. I am being very frank, as I think this is the right thing to do at this time. That is why I keep repeating that this bill provides a philosophy, a direction and creates a framework for decisions. As the hon. member suggests, its success depends on the sense of responsibility of the government, of the unions, and of the employers.
It seems to me that industry and unions are pleased with the fact that some framework is being created. I feel ill at ease when I hear people suggest that this bill is a protectionist bill, and I feel ill at ease when they say it is a very liberal bill, one that will create unemployment. In my view both positions are wrong.


Mr. McCleave:: Time will tell.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Those are exactly the words of Mr. King of Domtex "time will tell", after he read the statement of
2724

January 25, 1971
Crop Insurance Act
May 14. I go along with that suggestion. Success will depend upon the response of all the people involved.
Some people have asked me about the basis of selection of the members of the commission. You know them: Mr. Annis, Mr. Campbell and Mr. St. Laurent. Some have suggested that these men are not from the textile industry. I have said in reply that this was part of the deal. We did not want employers in the textile industry unions or importers to be formally represented on the Board. What were the main qualifications of the three gentlemen selected? I have stated that the most important criterion was judgment, because it seemed to me this was the most useful attribute.
I am sure we will debate these matters in detail at the committee stage.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, January 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Olson that Bill C-185, to amend the Crop Insurance Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture:
Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken previously on this bill because I wished to read the extensive debate which took place on January 15. I believe there are one or two very valid points which have been mentioned in this debate which should be re-emphasized. As we know, this bill deals with just one modest amendment to the present Crop Insurance Act. It deals particularly with the flooding of land, cultivating and fertilizing of land, and the planting or seeding of a crop in areas where certain crop damages have occurred in recent years. My remarks shall be very brief because, as I said a moment ago, other hon. members, such as the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu), and the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), have dealt with this bill as it relates to their particular areas.
The bill is interesting, not so much because of the subject matter it deals with, but because of what it lacks. I wish to refer for a moment to the original crop insurance legislation which was introduced in 1959. It is understandable that this piece of legislation still lacks a good deal because this was the first time we had a crop insurance plan for Canadian agriculture. At that time, the problem was not knowing where to begin, where to end or what would be practical in terms of legislation. Now, however, there has been a reasonable time lapse and a number of inadequacies are apparent in this legislation.
I recall that in 1959-60 the Province of Manitoba took the initiative and introduced legislation to complement
the federal legislation because that legislation was only enabling legislation and the main responsibility for effective crop insurance still lies with the provinces. Manitoba was in the forefront and other provinces followed. At that time I was rather discouraged to see Saskatchewan dragging its heels. I can recall, directly and indirectly through newspaper comments and so on, having discussions with the hon. member who was then the Premier of Saskatchewan and now the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) about the fact that Saskatchewan apparently was dragging its heels. However, I believe Saskatchewan has co-operated very well in an effort to bring in a comprehensive crop insurance scheme to meet the potential of the present federal legislation.
One of my worries, and one of the reasons I rise to speak at this time, is that in looking at the figures I find that only about 15 per cent of the people actively engaged in agriculture utilize the crop insurance plan. What is the reason? In my opinion, the reason would seem to be that the plan falls short of what it should be. It would be logical to conclude that the present crop insurance plan is inadequate for the purpose for which it was originally developed.
For a moment I should like to refer to certain recommendations made by the task force on agriculture. The recommendation reads:
In 1975 a Federal-provincial committee should appoint an independent body to make a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of the crop insurance program and, in particular, to recommend on whether or not the current subsidy should be continued.
This is an indication that the members of the task force were concerned about the present legislation. I do not agree with the time at which they suggest such action should be taken. At another point, the report suggests the immediate discontinuance of the PFAA program. I cannot agree with this because the PFAA, since it was introduced, has filled a very great need and has been very effective in many areas in which crop insurance could not apply. I say that, for the moment, we should not consider taking any action to do away with the PFAA program until we have a more effective crop insurance program. In paying this I believe I speak on behalf of a great many farmers in western Canada. I think they would support this contention.
Further on the task force report reads:
The equivalent of the annual subsidy paid to the PFAA program by the federal government should be allocated to the financing of the Prairie Grain Price Stabilization Program.
[ cannot agree with this suggestion, either. This is another example of the present government trying to rob Peter to pay Paul. I refer to these matters because they tie into the present discussion in respect of crop insurance.
In conclusion, may I say my first reason for rising at this time to take part in the debate is to re-emphasize what I and others have said. The legislation is not being utilized to anything like its maximum potential. Because of this, I suggest that the government should set up a

January 25, 1971

small representative group of key farm figures from farm organizations to immediately, not in five years as the report suggests, make a close study of the present crop insurance plan and report back to the minister or the Standing Committee on Agriculture with recommendations for a better piece of legislation.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, for years I have been interested in the aims and objectives of crop insurance. I should like to take this opportunity to speak briefly on the amendments which are before us in Bill C-185. A number of members from various parts of Canada have spoken in this debate. A number of rather interesting suggestions have been made. It is not my intention to repeat these. However, there are one or two points I wish to re-emphasize so far as crop insurance is concerned.
I might point out that the first crop insurance act was enacted in 1959 It provided for federal government financial assistance to provincial crop insurance programs, with the proviso that these programs meet certain standards. In this first act, the criterion was that production remain below 60 per cent of the average long-term production for the crop insured in that particular region. We find that a re-insurance provision whereby the province pays a premium to the federal government in return for which the federal government assumes 75 per cent of the losses incurred by the province was added in 1964. This was an incentive to other provinces to join the plan. In 1966, an amendment to the act increased this coverage to 80 per cent and thus provided the farmer with substantially better protection.
Today, the Crop Insurance Act provides, to those provinces which have instituted a crop insurance program, a guarantee which will cover losses up to 80 per cent. Assistance from the federal government comes to 50 per cent of the administration costs, plus a contribution equal to 25 per cent of the total premiums paid. This program is costing the federal administration about $5 million a year and, according to the minister, this is expected to increase to $7,500,000 within the next three years.
According to the statistics, the plan is increasingly being used by farmers throughout Canada. In 1968-69 some 64,376 farmers purchased crop insurance coverage totalling almost $175 million. The premiums paid for crop insurance came to just over $13 million, and the claims against the various plans totalled over $15 million. Again according to the minister, the plan is actuarily sound, and to date for every dollar paid into the program by the farmers, the federal government, and in some cases the provincial governments, 97 cents have been paid out in indemnities to those farmers suffering crop losses. I believe this indicates that the vast majority of the money in the plan is actually going to the farmers who need it.
We find that eight out of ten provinces have crop insurance programs. I understand that only Newfoundland and New Brunswick are not participating. The province of Manitoba, which was the first province to
Crop Insurance Act
introduce a program for crop insurance, still has the largest number of farmers taking advantage of the plan. Last year some 14,200 farmers in Manitoba took out insurance. In my own province of British Columbia, only 810 farmers took out insurance last year and the total amount of their insurance was $8 million. There is no doubt that to date only a small percentage of farmers in Canada avail themselves of this protection against crop loss.
The amending bill before us will provide for contributions to insurance programs which will cover losses of preplanting costs. This is a good amendment and will cover another major hazard in crop production. There is not doubt that very substantial costs are involved before the seed is ever planted. A long period of wet weather, for example, could prevent planting. The losses involved, of course, would be as the cost of getting the land ready for seeding, the application of fertilizer, and in some instances the loss of plants for transplanting, etc. To have these crop costs covered under the plan seems a logical extension of the act.
There is further protection to those engaged in fruit growing along the lines I have already mentioned. This aspect will prove of interest to the fruit growing areas of Canada. In my riding, particularly in the Creston district, we have a small but excellent fruit producing area. However, to date I believe very few growers have availed themselves of crop insurance.
It seems to me that one of the chief drawbacks of the programs set up by the provinces is the fact that the crop insurance rate is too high. This has been a common complaint across Canada. Perhaps rates could be reduced if there were more farmers participating in the plan. In this connection, I would urge the minister to examine the possibility of extending the coverage to other products not now covered under the act. The fact that only 64,000 farmers in Canada out of almost 500,000 have opted for crop insurance is an indication that in many cases the cost is beyond their financial means. They are prepared to take the chance of getting through the growing season without substantial loss.
Another reason farmers have not been participating in the plan is the fact that a large number of them still do not know the details of the crop insurance program. Again, I would suggest to the department that the full terms of the plan be made available to all farm organizations and farmers' groups throughout Canada. I think it is essential that they know what is available for them in the line of crop insurance, and I think this would add substantially to the number of farmers participating in the plan.
In conclusion, I would say that any review of legislation is always good, and our Department of Agriculture should review this legislation to see if some of the provisions are preventing farmers from using the plan. I, personally, feel that the legislation is needed. Let us make it as reasonable and as comprehensive as possible.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: I rise to say a few words at the conclusion of this debate. I


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must point out to hon. members that if the minister speaks now he will close debate on this stage of the proceedings.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I see that there are only a few minutes left before the hour for private members' business, and perhaps if I give you notice that I shall take only a minute or two beyond that hour the House may agree not to see the clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, on rising to close the debate on second reading I wish to thank hon. members for the generally favourable comments which they have made with regard to the amendments that are proposed at this time. While there have been a number of suggestions made regarding other means of making crop insurance more useful to Canadian farmers, there seems to be general agreement with the contents of this bill and the extended coverage which it will be possible to provide in federal-provincial crop insurance agreements. Because there seems to be general agreement with the amendments proposed, I will direct my remarks to some of the other related comments made by those taking part in the debate. I did not hear any hon. member disagree with the amendments proposed in the bill. Suggestions were
January 25, 1971

made during the debate that the crop insurance programs now in operation in eight provinces do not offer insurance for all crops. Mr. Speaker, the crop insurance regulations list the following insurable crops: wheat, oats, barley, rye, flax seed, corn, buckwheat, soybeans, potatoes, sugar beets, tobacco, sunflower, rapeseed, mustard, apples, pears, peaches, plums, prunes, cherries, apricots, strawberries, grapes, tomatoes, spinach, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower, cabbage, peas, beans and forage.
Any other crops for which it is desired to develop an insurance plan can be added to this list by order in council amendment of the regulations. Therefore, it is only necessary for a province to present a plan for any crop which meets the requirements of the act, and we will be prepared to include the plan under the federal-provincial agreement. The initiative, however, for including additional crops under the provincially operated crop insurance programs must come from the provinces. As I said, my officials are prepared to assist in the development of new plans and are presently doing so in the regular course of their duties. In fact, we have recently offered to assume responsibility for necessary research for all new and continuing plans.
Some hon. members indicated that they were of the opinion the cost of crop insurance was a major reason for participation not having increased more than it has. Every discussion about crop insurance starts with the observation that the growing of agricultural crops in Canada is a very, very high risk business. And, of course, it is. The reason we have a Crop Insurance Act is that it was considered the cost of such protection would be too high for farmers to carry themselves. That is why today the federal government pays 25 per cent of the necessary premiums, and 50 per cent of the administrative costs in all provinces with which agreements have been completed. It is the reason the provinces pay the other half of the administrative costs. Ontario and Quebec also contribute to the premiums.
As a result, federal contributions cover about 31 per cent of the cost of providing insurance and provincial contributions provide another 15 per cent, so that farmers are only absorbing 54 per cent of the actual costs when they pay their premiums. The average premium, including the government's share, is about 7 per cent of the coverage provided, so that farmers' premium rates generally run at about 5J per cent. Those of us who have purchased single risk hail insurance throughout the years have paid more than this for that very limited protection.
There has also been some criticism of the amount of coverage provided, particularly for grain crops in the Prairie provinces. There has been a suggestion that the historical yield data used to determine the level of guaranteed production has not provided a realistic basis for insurance in some areas. Certainly, it seems to me that if we are to guarantee production it must be on the basis of the productive capacity of the land as indicated by yields over a period of years. The number of years experience to be used is a matter for negotiation between the federal and the provincial governments, but I might say that we
Crop Insurmance Act
are very flexible on this matter, as is evidenced by the fact that the long-term average yields used to arrive at coverage vary from five to 25 years. In Saskatchewan, a recent study by the Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Administration indicated there was very little difference in the average yields calculated on a ten year basis from those calculated on a 25 year basis, and that in fact in many areas the 25 year average was higher.
Attention was drawn to the fact that the five year period 1965-69 being used to determine coverage for fruit crops in British Columbia contained two poor years, that is, 1965 and 1969, resulting in reduced guaranteed yields. This, of course, often is a factor when a very short period of years is used. However, the period used this year will drop off 1965 and add 1970, which will reflect increased production guarantees. While the original Crop Insurance Act provided that the maximum production guarantee for any crop was 60 per cent of the long-term average yield, we introduced amendments in 1966 which increased the maximum coverage available to 80 per cent of the long-term average yields. At that time, we also provided that if a province so wished, coverage could be calculated on the basis of an individual farmer's yield history rather than on area yields.
There has been a suggestion made that increased inputs into crop production should be reflected in higher guarantees under crop insurance. This is the prime reason we raised the upper limits to 80 per cent of average yields under the 1966 amendments. It will always be necessary, of course, to keep guarantees at levels which, while adequate to cover out of pocket costs of production, do not remove incentives to produce and harvest crops efficiently.
Much has been said during this debate about the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. For several years I have been receiving representations urging me to have this legislation repealed and, as has been mentioned, the task force report is very definite in this respect. However, I have taken the position that the western provinces should have time to make crop insurance available to all farmers, and for a wider variety of crops, before the act is eliminated. I appreciate very much the comments which have been made by those taking part in the debate, both for and against PFAA. I will keep these opinions in mind when a final policy decision is being made in this regard.
In closing, I wish to emphasize that the primary responsibility for crop insurance rests with the provinces. While we are supporting provincial programs in a substantial way, we have very limited authority to influence the type of programs offered. Every effort is being made to keep in close touch with provincial crop insurance agencies in order that we are constantly informed of insurance needs of farmers and to assist wherever possible in meeting those needs.
As is evidenced by the previous amendments to the act and regulations to increase federal contributions, increase coverage, make possible coverage on the basis of individual farm yields, provide reinsurance of provincial

January 25, 1971
Government Administration
risks, to include additional crops and to provide for extended coverage for plants, trees and unseeded acreage, we are ready at any time to meet any reasonable request of the provinces to recommend changes to Parliament in order to make crop insurance a more useful factor in our struggle to stabilize farm income. The amendment contained in Bill C-185 is another step toward meeting the requests that are made from time to time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 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 Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson)-Broadcasting-editing of national news on budget basis; the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise)-Industry-Maniwaki (P.Q.)-talks on possibility of granting money to Sogefor plants; the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton)-Regional Economic Expansion-control of pulp mill in Alberta.
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, public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to provide that where, due to error or negligence of a public servant, a member of the public becomes indebted to the government-as by overpayment of a pension or allowance-then the government should, by Insurance scheme or otherwise, assume a portion of the liability for repayment of the public funds paid out without authority by government error or negligence rather than exact, as now, full repayment from the recipient by arbitrary process of law or government decree.
He said: In all of the time that I have been privileged to serve in this House, Mr. Speaker, no other single problem has enjoyed a higher priority in my thinking
and efforts than the plight of the elderly pensioners and the elderly and disabled war pensioners in our country. Even as I say this, I give full marks to the scores of other hon. members who have taken every opportunity to speak out in support of a more compassionate approach to the problems facing those who can no longer fend for themselves.
One of the failings in our approach to this problem, Mr. Speaker, is that we have tended to view the problem of old age security as something that can be legislated out of the way and forgotten about. These people are considered as units in a segment of the population that has been provided for by specific legislation. If any new problems arise as a result of the implementation of the law, these units must be treated alike, with little or no regard for the individuality of the problems. Those of us who do not have to depend on old age security for our subsistence must be constantly on guard, Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid the very human failing of assuming that because there is legislation to provide for the elderly, they must obviously be provided for the full extent and in the spirit of the law.
Experience has shown that this is not the case. In many cases, it might even be said that nothing is further from the truth. Experience has shown that the implementation of the old age security legislation has, in many cases resulted in hardship that is akin to outright inhumanity to many of the recipients of old-age security payments who have no other means of support. However well intentioned any piece of legislation might be, Mr. Speaker, there is always the danger that the intent of the law will be thwarted through the advent of human frailty or inefficiency in the implementation of the law. Therefore, it has been the custom with governments such as ours to insure that there is either implied or actual right of appeal against arbitrary decisions rendered under a particular statute.
Hardly a day passes that I do not receive letters from constituents who have been notified that the government has garnished their old age pension, veterans allowance or pension, in order to recover overpayment of benefits. In many cases I have found that the overpayments have occurred as a result of improper screening by public servants charged with administering the old age security legislation. In many cases I have found that the overpayments occurred as a result of downright inefficiency on the part of federal employees.
It does not matter whether the overpayments were the fault of the government. Present legislation provides for the government to garnishee old age pensions, veterans pensions or any other income of recipients in order to recover overpayments. This can be done, Mr. Speaker, even if it results in the withholding of the entire amount of a pension or other benefit. As the present legislation is written, there is no right of appeal by the recipient. The government minister responsible for the legislation made this clear on March 9, 1970 in his reply to a question from the member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart).
With Your Honour's indulgence, I wish to put on record a few examples of how the present old age securi-

January 25, 1971	COMMONS DEBATES	2729
ty legislation can be made to work against the very people for whom it was written. One woman was threatened with having her guaranteed income supplement entirely cut off because she could not provide the department with the amount of her husband's income. This woman has not seen or heard from her husband for over 11 years. Two recipients, a husband and wife, received an overpayment of $70.40. A $30 deduction was made for two months and a $10.40 deduction the third month. Cases like this cause great hardship. It is taken for granted that government employees are fully qualified to look after the interests of these people who may have a lack of schooling. But they have great difficulty in dealing with the huge volume of letters they receive asking different questions, so a great many of them are set aside.
I have an instance of another overpayment, the overpayment of a widow's allowance by the Department of Veterans Affairs in the amount of $296.52 because this lady had assets and property in excess of $1,250. The allowance was in the form of a special award of $175.00 monthly after her husband's death. Another overpayment by the Department of Veterans Affairs involved an amount of $194.47 resulting from the fact that the lady in question had banked her $70 monthly allowance instead of paying her son room and board as she had agreed to do, accumulating $194.47 in excess of the maximum allowable amount. This was due to forgetfulness on her part but the allowance would not be paid again until she had given a cheque for $194.47 to the department.
It is safe to assume that every member of this House has a score of such cases on his desk and that a considerable part of the time of each of us is taken up in attempting to resolve such difficulties as these. I have no doubt that every hon. member is as interested as I am in taking whatever steps are necessary to ensure that old age security and veterans legislation lives up to the original intent of Parliament. I would be the first to say that any cases involving fraud or wilful intent to defraud should be prosecuted to the full limits of the law. However, where there is no demonstrated intent to defraud, and especially when it can be shown that the overpayment is at least partly the fault of a federal employee, then the benefit of the doubt should be given to the recipient. Also, where it can be shown that repayment would work undue hardship on the recipient, the overpayment should be forgotten as is the practice in the United States.
I urge all my colleagues in this House to support my efforts to amend present old age security legislation so as to ensure that it can be administered fairly and humanely. All will agree, I am sure, that this was the intent of the legislation. It is our responsibility to make certain that the legislation is sufficiently flexible as to enable individual cases to be dealt with on their own merits and that there is, within the body of the law, the right of appeal against arbitrary decisions. We cannot do any less, and we should not delay any longer.
Government Administration


Mr. Alaslair Gillespie (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the distinguished member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott). I share his concern, as I am sure do all other members of the House, with regard to the instances of hardship he mentioned and the difficulties which have been created for citizens, particularly older citizens, and in some cases for veterans.
I share his wish that our administration should be humane and fair. I should like to emphasize, though, that we are talking primarily about administration rather than legislation. Parliament has provided in its laws for certain rules to be followed and it has called upon the departments of government to administer t he laws according to those rules. I should like to deal with some of the principles which I believe to be involved in the motion before us. It seems to me there are three principles which we could acknowledge at the outset. First, no one should profit unlawfully as a result of an error or as a result of negligence on the part of public servants. Second, no member of the public should suffer as a result of error or negligence on the part of public servants. Third, every reasonable precaution should be taken to prevent the occurrence of errors, in the first place, or their reoccurrence in the second place.
Let me deal briefly with each of these principles. As for the first, that no one should profit unlawfully as a result of the error or negligence of public servants, it seems to me that a number of instances might be cited. The hon. member refers to the overpayment of pensions by the DVA. I think he would agree that in some instances these overpayments may have come about as a result of information withheld by individuals not necessarily with intent to defraud but, perhaps, inadvertantly, not volunteered. Any hon. member will know the legislation with respect to veterans' pensions requires a certain set of criteria to be met before pensions are paid. If the property or income of an individual exceeds a certain amount, the pension is affected. Should the hon. member wish to deal with this problem, I suggest he would have to do so as part of a separate piece of legislation.
Again, one would have to include provision for the kind of error which might occur as a result of a mistake in a customs situa ion. If an individual were to import or take with him materials which were dutiable, and they were not assessed, it could be claimed within this general ambit that he was profiting as a result of the error or negligence of a public official. What about the situation in respect of income tax, particularly refunds? Suppose an individual qualified for a refund amounting to, let us say, $200 for which he has claimed and an official, making a mistake in the decimal point, sends him a cheque of $2,000. What is to happen? The individual concerned has profited by that error to the extent of $1,800 and, in a sense, all the taxpayers of Canada would be subsidising him.
The second principle I mentioned was that no member of the public should suffer as a result of official error or negligence. The Financial Administration Act, Section 23,

January 25, 1971
Government Administration
specifically recognizes this eventuality. I cite section 23(1) as revised in 1968-69. It says that the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of Treasury Board, may make regulations authorizing the deletion from the accounts in whole or in part of any obligation or debt due to Her Majesty or claimed by Her Majesty which does not exceed $5,000. The second part of the paragraph says that obligations, debts and claims so deleted from the accounts during any fiscal year shall be included in the public accounts for that year. So, the principle with which the hon. member is concerned is already recognized in legislation. I will return to this point in a few moments.
Let me deal briefly with the third principle. I stated at the beginning of my remarks that every reasonable precaution should be taken in the first place to prevent the occurrence of an error or its reoccurrence later on. Just how do you prevent mistakes, Mr. Speaker, when there are literally tens of thousands of individual cases involved, tens of thousands of separate events in the course of a year handled by public servants? How do you eliminate or minimize human error-because this is really what we are talking about in this general area. I suppose we are really asking, on what sort of principles of good management can we rely?
I suggest that there are two, in particular, that apply in this instance, that exist at the present time and which are being actively promoted and followed in the public service of Canada. The first is a pre-audit system, a system that aims to detect the kind of errors and negligence that occur before notice is sent out to members of the public. The second administrative procedure is the operational review; that is to say, there is a system of review that would ensure that the audit system is functioning properly and that suitable changes in the operation are made in time to take advantage of technological or other improvements, such as the computer.
Surely, the first thing to bear in mind here is that we are dealing with human beings. We can attempt through some system and the use of intelligence to minimize the chance of human error, but we cannot legislate it out of existence. We cannot regulate it in the sense of issuing memos and hoping that somehow or other error will go away. As long as human beings are administering systems, errors will be made. In fact, I suggest to the hon. member that no system is any better than the people who are administering it. There is a common phrase in use by those who are interested in computers, which undoubtedly are one way of minimizing human error. The phrase is "GIGO", which stands for "garbage in, garbage out". In other words, no computer is better than its input.
With all the goodwill in the world there will always be instances where members of the public receive payments to which they are not entitled. The motion before the House proposes that the government give consideration to the introduction of legislation to provide that the government assume a portion of the liability for repayment of overpayment. I, for one, am not convinced that additional legislation is required.
There is already provision on the statute books for the deleting from the accounts of Canada of any debt due to the Crown. I refer to section 23 of the act, and I have already quoted the section. Perhaps it is important at this juncture to recognize that this amendment to the Financial Administration Act, 1968-69, replaced what had earlier been a limit of $1,000 with the limit of $5,000 to which I have referred.
It is true that the deletion of any debt from the accounts does not absolve the debtor; but normally no further collection action is taken by the government unless it learns that the debtor has acquired assets or has assets of which the government was unaware. Deletion of the debt from the accounts is approved when an investigation reveals that enforcement of collection would be possible only by inflicting real hardship on the debtor. I think we are getting here to the focus of the hon. member's concern: the question is one of inflicting real hardship upon a debtor.
I should like at this point to refer to page 9.27 of the public accounts for 1970. Under the heading "Obligations, debts and claims deleted from the public service" I find that in the year ended 1970 there were 13,910 debts deleted from the public accounts, amounting to a total sum of $3,287,521. This did not include the figures for the Department of National Health and Welfare, so I went back to see what sort of relief might normally be expected from this department. The year before, when the limit was $1,000, there were 133 debts not in excess of $1,000, and 3,722 not in excess of $100. In other words, approximately 3,800 debts were deleted from the accounts of the Department of National Health and Welfare to a total value of just under $100,000.
In the fiscal year ended 1970, most of the deletions were from the Department of National Revenue but there were significant deletions from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Just under 3,000 debts were deleted in that instance, and there were others from the various departments, including the Department of Veterans Affairs to which the hon. member made particular reference. In the fiscal year ended 1970, 336 debts totalling $13,700 were deleted from the public accounts.
My point in referring to these figures in some detail is to emphasize that the laws of Canada, and particularly the Financial Administration Act, already recognize the principle that in cases of real hardship the government will suspend but not eliminate its claims for repayment. There is a procedure laid down for the claimant who states that his circumstances involve real hardship. If the debt is under $2,000 there is a departmental review process; if the debt is over $2,000 the matter goes to treasury board. I think it is also important that recognition of the human problem be given here. It is the current practice to allow up to five years for repayment of a debt under $1,000. In the case of larger debts individual arrangements are made.
Let me conclude, then, by stating that our laws at the present time do recognize the problem the hon. member has recounted to us this evening. Our administrators and

January 25, 1971

public servants are bound by the provisions of legislation passed by this House. Provisions for review based on hardship are operative and indeed reported on each year in our public accounts. In addition, time is given an individual so affected to repay his debt or make restitution.
In my view, the current practice as authorized by Section 23 of the Financial Administration Act meets both the tests I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks; that is to say, the test in respect of an injury to a taxpayer in the sense that no one should profit unlawfully as a result of error on the part of public servants and, secondly, that no member of the public should suffer as a result of such error. Suspension of collection-which takes place, incidentally, only after non-collectability has been clearly established-ensures that no hardship is inflicted on the debtor. The fact that collection is only suspended also ensures that no improper profit is enjoyed.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest this afternoon to the introduction of a notice of motion by the honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott), which motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to provide that where, due to error or negligence of a public servant, a member of the public becomes indebted to the government-as by overpayment of a pension or allowance-then the government should, by insurance scheme or otherwise, assume a portion of the liability for repayment of the public funds paid out without authority by government error or negligence rather than exact, as now, full repayment from the recipient by arbitrary process of law or government decree.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of this House the example used by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott) to illustrate his case. The motion states in part, "as by overpayment of a pension or allowance." I presume, therefore, that the hon. member's concern is directed to the recovery of overpayments made to pensioners and other recipients of federal benefits.
Since the hon. member makes mention of pensions and allowances, and since on the basis of probability, in view of the large number of transactions involved, this is an area in which overpayments from all causes are likely to arise, I am confining my comments to experience in the administration of old age security pensions, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada Pension Plan. There are, of course, many other agencies making government payments to the public: for example, the Canada Pension Commission, the War Veterans Allowance Board, the Unemployment Insurance Commission, Manpower, agriculture, and so on.
In relation to the total number of accounts administered by the Department of National Health and Welfare,
Government Administration
the number of overpayments from all causes is insignificant. When I talk about overpayments I am referring to overpayments from all causes-from administration errors to the fact that the information provided by an applicant is incorrect and in some cases amounts to an attempt to commit fraud. In fact, the administrative procedures that have been established ensure that the number of overpayments due to errors in administration are kept to an absolute minimum.
To cite one example of the type of procedure that is used to reduce administrative errors, the determination of eligibility for a benefit and the payment of the benefit itself are conducted independently of the process of verification and two independent checks are made to determine the correct amount of the benefit. In addition, persons are notified as to their entitlement to benefit, so that no person should be ignorant of the amount of benefit to which he is entitled.
It seems to me that we are dealing with a basic principle relating to rights. A person entitled to benefit has a right to receive that benefit. He should not receive less than the full amount of any benefit to which he is entitled and he should not receive any more than this amount. This principle is the basis for recovering any overpayment made to a member of the public regardless of the reason for the overpayment. The fact that an error may be due to negligence on the part of the administration, or the fact that hardships may result, is not sufficient consideration for forgiving any indebtedness which arises from administrative errors.
I ask why an individual should gain because of an administrative error even if he suffers because of this error. If, for example, a person were paid too little in relation to his entitlement, the error would soon be made good. If he is compensated for any loss which may be due to error, then in justice he should repay any undue gains arising from the same cause. If, due to a computer error, a recipient received a cheque for $1 million-and this has happened in the past-should the individual be entitled to the $1 million? The answer is, of course not. The legislation is quite specific on this point and is designed to safeguard both the individual and the privy purse.
Most people are fully aware of the amount of pension to which they are entitled, either because they are given some form of notice of the amount they should receive or because they know the amount of the payment which they receive each month. If they suddenly receive a payment which is more than the amount specified in the notice or more than their customary payment, the very least they should do is inquire from the administration the reason for the difference. If a person accepts the payment knowing full well, or even with some misgivings, that it is more than his entitlement, then why should he be relieved from part or all of the burden of repaying the excess?
Since the motion is silent as to question of large versus small repayments, I must assume that it refers not only to the situation in respect of small overpayments but to all overpayments regardless of the amount. In this latter respect, surely we cannot be considering relief, partially
2732

January 25, 1971
Government Administration
or otherwise, where a person has derived a substantial benefit either at one time or over a period of time, even if this is attributable to administrative error.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare considers very carefully whether the recovery of an overpayment is likely to cause hardship, and this circumstance is taken into account in the recovery process. If the overpayment is large, so that its repayment results in an onerous financial burden on the person concerned, arrangements are worked out whereby the repayment is made over a period of time by small instalments, so as to minimize as much as possible the hardship to the individual making the repayments.
Of course, for such a procedure to be effective the administration must either be aware of the person's circumstances or it must be able to determine this from other information available. For example, in the case of overpayments which are recovered from recipients of the guaranteed income supplement, the administration would be aware that people in this group have low incomes. In respect of recovery this would be taken into account and reimbursement would be in very small amounts. Therefore, in situations where overpayments arise for whatever reason, barring fraud, it is incumbent on the individual to communicate with the administration and arrange a scheme for recovery which would minimize hardship.
I should like to mention that some consideration has already been given, in legislation passed in this House, to a situation whereby hardship may arise in respect of the recovery of overpayment. I refer to the recent amendment to the Old Age Security Act which was passed on December 17 and received royal assent on the following day. Under this legislation, the period in which overpayment has been made and for which recovery can be effected has been limited to two years, comprising the current benefit year and the year preceding the current benefit year. This provision will apply to all senior citizens who are eligible to receive the guaranteed income supplement.
The intent behind this legislative change is to recognize that pensioners eligible for the guaranteed income supplement fall into low income categories and that recoveries of overpayments incurred over a longer period could result in considerable hardship. I should mention, however, that while this legislation limits to two years the period in which overpayments occur, it is not applicable where the pensioner has made a wilful misrepresentation or has committed fraud for the purpose of obtaining a benefit.
It is my belief that departure from the established recovery procedures would at least be unwise, if not outright folly. Moreover, the concessions which have been made to our senior citizens who are in receipt of the guaranteed income supplement recognize the special circumstances of this group. Furthermore, I am convinced this House would not be acting in the public interest were legislation passed that forgave indebtedness to the
Crown regardless of the cause, and especially where large sums of money are involved.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, I am satifled with the way in which the government passed the legislation mentioned by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton in his motion and which, as he himself admitted, was to set a two-year recovery limit for low-income people who would have received overpayments. This, I think, is a question of justice and as this was a marginal group for income purposes, the government agreed to amend the Old Age Security Act on December 17.
Mr. Speaker, if we look at the hon. member's motion, we can see that he wished to tell the House that this might be very beneficial for those who have been paid benefits over and above their regular allowance, but it seems to me it would be grossly unfair with regard to the administration of public funds for which the government is responsible.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for having introduced this motion and I know that he had probably forgotten that on or about December 17 a bill was introduced for the purpose of providing for what seemed to have caused some hardship to those who fortunately had been paid more than what they were entitled to. He will agree that in its capacity as guardian of public funds in Canada, the government must provide efficient administration.
Perhaps also I could say that the federal administration is assuredly the best government administration in all the country for never have I seen here in Ottawa so many dedicated civil servants working not for money, but for the sake of work well done. They are highly conscientious. In fact, because I know them, I admire them. I have had occasion to talk to them, to ask them for statistics. Even when their work was most demanding, they always showed me remarkable kindness and courtesy, for which I am grateful. These faithful public servants are unknown to most. I hope there will be some public recognition of Canada's debt to them, and a reward of some sort. They are entitled to our attention, our courtesy and our appreciation and I hope they will continue to carry out the functions to which they are dedicated, the service of the world's most beautiful country, Canada.


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, before becoming involved in a discussion of the merits of the resolution itself, there are two or three observations I feel compelled to make concerning the language of the notice of motion. First, the motion reads in part:
-the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to provide that where, due to error or negligence of a public servant, a member of the public becomes indebted to the government-
Further on in the motion we see a recurrence of that type of language where it reads:
-then the government should, by insurance scheme or otherwise-

January 25, 1971

I shall have something to say about that in a minute.
-assume a portion of the liability for repayment of the public funds paid out without authority by government error or negligence-[DOT]
So we are talking about payments made without authority by the government, due to the error of a public servant. The basic difficulty involved is that although we all know, or suspect, that a good many people in all their dealings with government welfare schemes try to put one over on the government or on the public, as it were, in an effort to cut corners and play all the angles, the fact is that while this suspicion exists, most people in the category of having been overpaid in respect of their pension scheme or individual welfare program act in good faith and with good intentions and very little blame should be attributed to them.
What makes it difficult is that the recipient being honest and acting in good faith does not necessarily mean the mistake rests with some malfunction in the government. I refer to the numerous cases that have arisen where a welfare recipient happens to be at the same time a recipient of another benefit from a totally different source. One can imagine the situation that might arise with a veteran who has a disability, who is over 65 years of age and who perhaps has a small income-producing property or an interest-bearing investment.
The qualifications for receiving some of these benefits are dependent upon the source of income and the financial position of the recipient. Indeed, when a recipient is a beneficiary under several plans the situation is extremely complicated for him or her, and often entirely without any ill-intention by the recipient and without any error by the government it can turn out that after several months, and in some cases several years, an applicant who has in good faith filled out a form is rendered ineligible for a certain type of welfare payment. Often the reason is that he is receiving a disability pension, a private pension or income from interest on an investment which he has not declared and which makes him ineligible for the welfare payment he has been receiving for several months. He would have required the aid of a very competent solicitor to understand all the intricacies in the first place, and surely we should not expect people who apply for welfare to seek the advice of a solicitor before doing so.
The information filed with an application has to come primarily from the applicant, so there can be no possibility of error by the government. People may think the government should assume liability for these overpayments, but I do not think it should. I suggest even more important and to the point is that much of the difficulty which applicants experience in making separate applications for welfare schemes is that they run into a mass of red tape. I think we all know, as Members of Parliament, that if we are to help people in their relationship with the Department of National Health and Welfare, it is not in attempting to persuade them they are not entitled to benefit but, rather, in helping to cut through the red tape
23786-32$
Government Administration
they have to endure in order to get their applications processed.
Let us bear in mind that consideration of the application is based on the presumption that the facts are supplied by the applicant. The government must proceed on that basis, because any other assumption would require a team of investigators that would in total match the existing staff in the department. Therefore it is imperative that the applicant supply the information. That being the case, the matter is already sufficiently complicated without superimposing stringent, independent insurance coverage or some kind of insurance scheme so that if an overpayment occurs the application has to be subject to an insurance claim to determine whether everybody has taken the proper steps. The way in which insurance is now handled has become a standing joke on television. People have had many laughs about red tape encountered in dealing with the government, but they get as many laughs out of insurance schemes which tend to drop people who make the slightest error in reporting their situation.
I suggest that the way we proceed at present is the most efficient, and that the applicant must provide the correct information. There are times when the situations of applicants are extremely complex. These situations have to be faced by both parties. When this occurs, I submit that the approach now adopted by the government is the best possible. First of all, unless deviation from the norm has been most flagrant it is rarely suggested that people should be prosecuted for knowingly receiving an overpayment. No doubt some people who received overpayments knew they were getting more than they were entitled to, yet prosecution is not mentioned. That, in my opinion, is as it should be.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


James Alexander Jerome: I prefer not to be interrupted while making my remarks. I would prefer to wait until six o'clock.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: My question is brief. Is the hon. member aware of the extent to which overpayments occur in a given period? For example, how much has been paid out in overpayments this year?


James Alexander Jerome: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not. I can answer a brief question briefly, for once in my parliamentary career. Frankly, I am not sure that it would change my view in any case.
In conclusion, I submit that the words used in the motion imputing error or negligence to the government, and the words in its final sentence indicating that at any time the exactment of repayment is by arbitrary process of law or by government decree, suggest an authoritarian approach which in my experience does not exist. In any case, I submit that to change the approach taken at present would require applicants to assume the legal significance of an application for insurance or an application for a pension scheme, and would increase existing

January 25, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
red tape by superimposing a structure which would build another labyrinth in order to accomplish a solution. I therefore submit that the notice of motion should be rejected and that the present situation, which has been rather excellently handled by the department, should be continued.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. I am sorry that we cannot hear more of the eloquent pleas of the hon. member. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-182, to provide for the examination, publication and scrutiny of regulations and other statutory instruments, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the dry title "statutory instruments" rather belies what I believe to be the importance of this bill. I feel it is a significant step toward a more open society in Canada and constitutes a major legal reform in the area that lawyers and parliamentarians have called subordinate or delegated legislation. It represents the first step to be taken by the government in fulfilment of an undertaking given on behalf of the government by my colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), who was at that time President of the Privy Council, to the House of Commons on June 16, 1970. At that time the minister, in outlining the government's proposed course of action in relation to the recommendations contained in the third report of the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments which was tabled in the House on October 23, 1969, stated to the House as follows:
Due to the nature of the committee's recommendations it is not practical, nor is it reasonably possible, to proceed with their implementation by any one means. Rather, implementation ot the committee's recommendations will require action of three different kinds: first, legislative action by Parliament to replace the existing Regulations Act by a new statutory instruments act; second, a number of cabinet directives to implement several ot the recommendations which cannot be dealt with by general legislation and, third, amendment of the Standing Orders for the purpose of establishing a scrutiny committee to review regulations.
Before the coming into force of this bill it is the intention of the government to implement the second
part of the undertaking by issuing the appropriate cabinet directives to deal with departmental directives and guidelines and the conferring by legislation of regulationmaking powers. The cabinet directive relating to departmental directives and guidelines will be in accordance with what was stated by the then President of the Privy Council to the House in these words:
Departmental directives and guidelines that might reasonably be interpreted as affecting the rights of members of the public in a legal sense will be required to be submitted to the Deputy Minister of Justice before they are issued. The Deputy Minister of Justice will make a report to the person desiring to issue the document indicating whether the proposed directive or guideline is essentially legislative in its nature and, if so, whether it would be appropriate to incorporate it into regulations or, where there appears to be no authority to do so, whether the relevant statute should be revised with a view to conferring such authority.
The directive relating to the conferring by legislation of regulation-making powers will set out certain criteria which should be as closely adhered to as possible. It is my intention to recommend that regulation-making powers such as the following should not be granted except after careful deliberation:
(1)	Power in a statute or in a regulation made thereunder to exclude the ordinary jurisdiction of the courts;
(2)	power to amend or add to the enabling act or other acts by way of regulation;
(3)	power to make regulations having retrospective effect;
(4)	power to subdelegate regulation-making authority;
(5)	power by regulation to impose a charge on the public revenue or on the public other than fees for services;
(6)	power to make regulations which might trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties; and
(7)	power to make regulations involving important matters of policy or principle.
In other words, the criteria which I tend to recommend to my colleagues in the government will exclude the granting of powers such as I have just enumerated. The third part of the undertaking will be implemented by recommending to the House the amendment of the Standing Orders to provide for the establishment of a parliamentary committee to review statutory instruments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear! e (8:10p.m.)


John Napier Turner: On this day of the
Gaelic, the learned House leader will introduce it in due course.
This bill is the first major revision of the law relating to delegated legislation. The Regulations Act was enacted in 1950 and, subject to the consequential amendments made to it when the Official Languages Act was passed in July of last year, it has existed without amendment since it was originally enacted. Since the enactment of the Regulations Act there has been a gradual and continued

January 25, 1971

growth of government, bringing in its train a proliferation of regulation-making bodies.
As a direct result of the exercise of regulation-making powers by these bodies, the number of regulations that are being made has greatly increased and the lives of all Canadians are now directly affected by regulations. It is obvious and self-evident that the direct result of this increase of delegated legislation has been a gradual erosion of the power of Parliament in its role as guardian of the people of Canada.
In recent years concern has been expressed by members of the public as well as by Members of Parliament relating to the increase of legislative powers being given to the executive without any realistic form of parliamentary control. I deeply share the concern of those individuals. This legislation, together with the other steps that I have outlined, is an attempt to restore a measure of parliamentary control over the executive and to redress the imbalance in the relationship between the individual and the state. The growth of modern government has meant an alienation of much of our citizenry. The size and anonymity of government has deprived the individual citizen from participation in the decision-making process. The anonymity and remoteness of government has left an imbalance between the citizen and the state. We are looking for new ways of increasing methods of redress, recourse and appeal for the average citizen against the government over which he must have the ultimate control.
The statutory instruments bill is the latest step in the continuum of law reform directed to the protection of individual rights from the power and remoteness of modern government. This continuum includes such measures as the new law regarding expropriation, the Federal Court Act passed before Christmas, the Tax Review Board Act, also passed before Christmas, and the National Law Reform Commission. In the future it will include laws relating to the right of privacy and other human rights.
In the preparation of this bill, the third report of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments, prepared under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Windsor -Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), was extremely valuable. To the chairman and members of that committee I express my appreciation for the excellent report which they made. That report formed the basis upon which the legislation now before the House was drafted.
At the committee stage I intend to render an accounting to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I will compare the report with its implementation in the form of this bill. We were not able to accept all the recommendations. I will attempt to explain to the committee and the House where we departed from the recommendations and why we did so. Generally speaking, the non-partisan report of the special committee of the House of Commons has been in large measure implemented in this legislation.
It is the government's intention to implement the recommendations of the special committee to the fullest
Statutory Instruments Act
extent possible in the manner that I have outlined. The government in no way denies the desirability of fully implementing all the recommendations of the committee, but it was decided that full implementation of certain recommendations was not possible due to a number of practical problems which we found when preparing this legislation. To explain where we have departed from the recommendations of the committee would require a full explanation of the details of the bill. If hon. members will permit, I will not at this time attempt to outline or justify those departures. I intend to do so at the courtesy of the committee.
One of the main features of this bill is that it is designed to protect the public from the improper or unusual exercise of power that has been delegated by Parliament. This will be done in three different ways. First, most proposed regulations will be required to be submitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council who, together with the Deputy Minister of Justice, will be responsible for examining the proposed regulations to ensure four things: first, that they are authorized by the statute pursuant to which they are to be made; second, that they do not constitute an unusual or unexpected use of the authority pursuant to which they are to be made; third, that they do not trespass unduly on existing rights and freedoms and are not, in any case, inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights; and fourth, that the form and draftsmanship of the proposed regulations are in accordance with established standards.
The examination procedure will be carried out by legal officers of the Department of Justice before a regulation is made. It is hoped that at this stage in the regulationmaking process any proposed regulation that fails to meet the criteria which I have just enumerated will be revised in such a manner that, having regard to those criteria, it becomes acceptable to the Department of Justice and to the person or body that proposes it.
Although it is not my intention to deal with individual provisions of the bill at this time, I do not wish any hon. member to be left with the impression that it will be possible to carry out the examination I have mentioned for all proposed regulations. If asked to give an example of the type of regulation for which an exemption from examination may be proposed, the regulations made under the National Defence Act would immediately come to mind. I am advised that the daily orders for the Canadian Forces alone number in excess of 2,500 each week.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: I suspect the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) is seeking the floor for the purpose of asking a question. This can be done if the minister grants permission. Is this agreed?


John Napier Turner: Agreed.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I wish to ask a question before the minister leaves that part of his speech. The minister said

January 25, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
the regulations will be left to the scrutiny of the judicial officers of his department. Will he tell the House what they intend to do about the interpretation of any word or phrase in these regulations? Will they give a definition if it is required?


John Napier Turner: At that stage the primary purpose will be to see whether the regulations meet the criteria. The ultimate interpretation, in one sense, lies with the scrutiny committee of Parliament. In a wider sense, the courts of this country will be called upon, if the regulation is challenged, to interpret whether the regulation is intra vires or ultra vires of the enabling statute. The interpretation of words will not be the primary purpose at this stage.


John (Jack) McIntosh: There will be no change in the present system?


John Napier Turner: There will be a change in the present system. There will be a judicial scrutiny by the Department of Justice to ensure that the four criteria are followed. The second safeguard to be provided by this bill is to give to the members of the public a statutory right of access to statutory instruments, which includes regulations. This right of public access, coupled with the fact that most regulations will be required to be published in the Canada Gazette, will enable the public to be informed of the provisions of laws that are of particular interest to them; that is to say, laws that become laws because they are statutory instruments or regulations passed pursuant to an enabling power in a statute of Parliament.
Although it is contemplated that there will be exceptions to the general rule that every regulation must be published in the Canada Gazette, the right of members of the public to inspect and obtain copies of those regulations will not thereby be denied. In only very limited and necessary circumstances will the right of public access to statutory instruments be precluded. I imagine the committee will want me to enter into more detail in this respect. It is expected that public access will be precluded in respect of instruments such as orders that reveal the location of any unit of the Canadian Forces or the location of any ammunition, weapons or equipment for use by the Canadian Forces, and parole certificates and mandatory supervision certificates issued under section 10 of the Parole Act. Exceptions such as the examples given are necessary to protect, in the first case, the security of the country and, in the second case, the interests of the individual.
The third way in which the rights of the individual will be protected from the regulation-making power of the state is by the requirement of clause 26 of the bill which provides that most statutory instruments will stand permanently referred to any parliamentary scrutiny committee which is established. It is my hope that the members of the scrutiny committee will be able to find the time to examine all regulations, but especially those
that have wide application to the public. In this way, members of the public will be assured that Parliament is at least aware of those regulations which have an impact on their daily lives.
The statutory instruments bill is wider in its application than is the present Regulations Act. As already noted, the bill deals with statutory instruments generally, whereas the Regulations Act deals only with regulations. In addition, the law relating to regulations has been significantly extended to deal with matters such as rules, orders or regulations governing the practice or procedure in proceedings before federal judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, regulations made by federal Crown corporations and regulations made by any federally-incorporated company where a penalty, fine or imprisonment is provided for their contravention. These regulations will now come within the meaning of the word "regulation" as defined in the bill and will be treated in the same manner as any other regulations, with the exception of the Federal Court and Supreme Court of Canada rules where there will be no examination as to form and draftsmanship.
I thank the House for its courtesy. Many of the provisions of this bill are technical in nature and, as a result, I anticipate that a number of questions will be asked at the committee stage. Again I point out that the bill was fathered by a special committee of the House and the government has done its best to implement as fully as possible the recommendations of that committee. I look forward to appearing before the standing committee just as I had the honour of appearing before the special committee when it was considering its report.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is an appropriate time of the year to be considering a subject with such mysteries as statutory instruments, subordinate legislative capacities and statutory authority. All of these have a fine mystic ring to them. Another great mystic gift which appears at this time of year is the dish of haggis, which is almost impossible to describe as to contents and almost impossible to feed to a large number of people. But for the connoisseur, what a dish is haggis! And for the connoisseur parliamentarian, I suggest we have an equal feast before us, something with which perhaps only a few directly concern themselves but when you get immersed in it you find yourself really fascinated because it is one of the basic questions before Parliament.
I think the guts of the bill, if I may use that expression, are to be found in clause 26. I appreciate the minister's saying in his opening statement that there would be a quick establishment of the committee. I think this is important. Clause 26 provides:
Every statutory instrument issued, made or established after the coming into force of this act, other than an instrument the inspection of which and the obtaining of copies of which are precluded by any regulations made pursuant to paragraph (d) of section 27, shall stand permanently referred to any committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses of Parliament that may be established for the purpose of reviewing and scrutinizing statutory instruments.
Since the principle of the bill is really embodied in this clause, perhaps I may comment on it for a few moments

January 25, 1971

and predict the events which will follow. First, I would hope that the review and scrutiny provision would be somewhat broadened and that there would be added an opportunity, if one is not contained in the wording already, to comment and to make suggestions. I presume this is what one has in mind in establishing such a committee. I think this right should be spelled out. However, this is a detail which we can examine when we get into committee.
I would hope that any Member of Parliament or any member of the other place confronted with a problem involving the scrutiny of statutory instruments would have immediate recourse to the committee to be established and would be able to muster that committee almost immediately to deal with the problem he or she brings there. Let me be specific. A few weeks ago the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) passed regulations, as he was given authority to do under the Motor Vehicles Safety Act which was passed by Parliament a few months ago. Immediately, most of us received form letters from motor cycle enthusiasts saying there was something wrong with the regulations, that they impinged upon their freedoms and should not have done so. I will not go into whether or not their complaint was justified. The point I would make is that there should be an instant remedy open to people and complaints that such groups raise should be brought somewhere where they can be looked at and satisfaction obtained.
I hope that when the scrutiny committee is established it will give every parliamentarian in this or the other place an opportunity to immediately take up questions involving the use of statutory instruments and obtain at least an answer. This would make the work of the committee all the more real to every Member of Parliament. I hoped that the committee would be a joint committee, that is, of both Houses, for the simple reason that the other place has a continuity that this place does not have in certain years, usually every fourth year when we become fractious, obnoxious and engaged in that great sport the federal election. Since the people in the other place are immune to that, they would give continuity to the committee and I think this is important.
I would further suggest to the minister and to the leader of the House that it be a small committee; I have in mind something of the order of ten members. I do not think it is a great problem how many government bodies or opposition bodies you have on it. I do not think the vote would be partisan. I see it more as a committee where the vote would be as independent as one could have from parliamentarians in a set-up such as that.
So much for the main clause of the bill, what I should like to see done and the kind of committee I should like to see established. I think, also, it should be a committee with fairly senior personnel of great experience with statutory instruments. The minister nods agreement, and I presume this will be the thinking of the committee. In any event, the reputation of the committee will rise or fall depending upon its ability to deal quickly, as intelligent persons, with the work referred to it.
Statutory Instruments Act
Now may I say a few words about one of my hon. friends who is not here this evening, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). He deserves considerable credit for the fact that we are now debating this bill. He has been an advocate of such action for a considerable time, and I will prove that by making two references only. The first is to the debate in June, 1965, when the procedures of this place were being discussed in the House. At that time the hon. member for Peace River made a motion to set up among the committee of this House one on delegated authority. The Prime Minister of the day, Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, made other suggestions, but let me quote what the hon. member for Peace River said, as reported at page 2276 of Hansard:
In the first instance, he said, there is consideration being given to setting up a royal commission to inquire into the necessity for an ombudsman.
I see the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) pricking-up his ears and I am sure that later in the debate he will be speaking to that aspect of the matter.
Second, he thought the committees, as constructed and set up by this particular section we are discussing, would provide an opportunity to examine into the very dangerous situation which prompted me to move this amendment. I refer to the very increasing extent to which government, particularly the executive branch of the government, is operating with the aid of Orders in Council.
The hon. member continued his argument. I cite his words not only to prove that he was on the right track then and that finally his patience and persistence paid off, but to pay tribute to one of our truly great Members of Parliament. He returned to the fray on September 17, 1968, in the debate on the Address that year, and as reported at page 107 of Hansard said:
There should be a committee on delegated authority.
I do not have too much time but I must stop here for a moment to emphasize this tremendously important issue. Most of the regulations and most of the authorities which affect the ordinary person in Canada, together with the pressure of large government corporations or crown companies, have come about as a result of authority which this Parliament has delegated to others to exercise on its behalf. We live in one of the very few democratic countries that have taken no steps to provide an opportunity for the ordinary man and woman, through the medium of a committee such as I have proposed, to ventilate and bring forth his argument in respect of any grievance he may have which has arisen not because of an act of Parliament but because of something done under authority given to others to act under an act of Parliament. This has a grave effect on our democratic society.
So on at least two separate occasions in recent years the opposition House leader made a very strong pitch for the sort of legislation we are now discussing. I now turn to some of the other reasons why it is an absolute necessity to pass legislation such as this and establish a committee of the House along the lines proposed. Professor J. R. Mallory, in his report "Delegated legislation in Canada: Recent changes in machinery", as reprinted in the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, volume 19, which was published about 18 years ago, dealt with the experience in this regard of the government of Canada during the last war.

January 25. 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
He pointed out that it would have been impossible to carry on the work of government without making very vast changes in the machinery of the Prime Minister and cabinet of that day; without those vast changes it would have been impossible to bring about the flood of Orders in Council and other documents from on high, if I may use that description. I suppose it was natural that that sort of philosophy should spill over into the post-war period. At page 471 of the journal to which I have referred, Professor Mallory says the following about this problem:
-we may conclude that the central executive machinery of the government of Canada has undergone considerable change and adaptation to meet the needs imposed on contemporary government. Functioning under the 1939 procedure the central executive would have broken down in a few weeks under the burden of ordinary government operation today. This change and improvement has taken place rapidly and quietly on ministerial (and, no doubt, official) initiative. It demonstrates again the remarkable flexibility of cabinet government. It remains to be seen how far Parliament, the public, and political parties can adjust themselves to the challenge of the administrative state.
Perhaps it is of interest to note that we are entering upon a period that seems to be more challenging than recent times, more economically uncertain than recent times and one where we may have to prove ourselves a great deal more flexible. This is particularly true of the reaction of the government to financial events. If the challenges were immense in time of war and more immense in the post-war period, I suggest they may be even more immense in the days that lie ahead.
Having listed my reasons for saying that a measure to establish such a committee is necessary, I would also point out that about three out of every four statutes that parliamentarians pass contain at least one section that enables regulations to be made. In the committee referred to by the minister there was presented a special study made by Madame Immarigeon, of our parliamentary library, which revealed that 303 of 416 statutes examined contained power to make subordinate laws. The report she gave the committee showed that 6,892 regulations, covering 19,972 pages, were published during the period January 1, 1956, to December 31, 1968, averaging 530 regulations per year. That did not take into account regulations exempted from publication and documents of a legislative nature but not officially considered to be so. An example of this would be handbooks of directions to pilots.
Perhaps the most telling point of all as to the importance of such a committee is that the major legislation in the field of immigration consists of regulations that are passed, not the statutes themselves. So I would think there is agreement among all members that it is important to get this committee established, to get it a good staff and to put it to work.
I should like to make reference to what I think may be a weakness in this legislation, certainly something that will have to be considered when the bill is studied in committee. According to our advisers, under clause 9 of the bill it will still be possible to enact retroactive regulations. This is in conflict with the recommendations of
the committee that there should be no power to make regulations having a retrospective effect. I think that recommendation is to be found at page 33 of the report of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments. There will be considerable questioning about the departure from the committee's recommendation when this bill comes before the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
My final concern is that the measure will be considered by that committee rather than by a committee of the whole House. The committee of the whole House is not frequently used, but when it is much enthusiasm in respect of parliamentary business occurs in this place. Certainly that was the case with respect to the electoral laws. When dealing with something as important as this bill, I would be inclined to say that it should go to committee of the whole House because it is basic to the operations of Parliament.
The minister has pointed out that there are technicalities involved in the law dealing with statutory instruments. He is perfectly right in that respect. I have had some difficulty making up my mind whether it would be a good thing to have this measure go to committee of the whole House or to our committee of legal experts. On balance, I suppose it is better that it should go to that committee. I think consideration should be given to setting a period of time for the consideration of statutes such as this by a committee of the whole House. I hope the government House leader and the leaders of other parties will consider such a formula.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Why legal experts only?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) asked why it should be a committee of legal experts only. I was arguing that it should not be one of legal experts only. The difficulty is that when we consider anything in committee of the whole House, everyone enjoys it so much they want to stay for the rest of the winter, and that tends to knock askew all the other business with which Parliament is seized.
Perhaps I should repeat my suggestion. In respect of a measure such as this, thought should be given by the House leaders to putting it before committee of the whole for a set period of time. If the measure could not possibly emerge from the committee in the time set, it could be sent to the special committee. I make that as a suggestion. The principle of this bill is one we have sought for a long time. We look forward to working on it in a non-partisan but vigorous way in the committee in order to make it a fine piece of legislation for the protection of our rights as parliamentarians as well as the rights of those Canadians whom we serve.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I hasten to remove from the debate any element of drama or suspense that may linger by making the announcement that we, too, support the principle of this bill and will

January 25, 1971

vote for it on second reading. Perhaps the reason for this is that the bill, as the minister has made clear to us, is the result of an excellent, non-partisan report of an all-party committee. It was a small committee which studied this matter and worked on it thoroughly, and I think it produced a report that we can all support. Let me read as a basis for our support of the bill the first paragraph of the committee's report, because I think this is important:
This report is based on the assumption that public knowledge of governmental activities is the basis of all control of delegated legislation. For parliamentary democracy is a system of government which requires that the executive be responsible to the legislature and that both be accountable to the people, and there can be neither responsibility nor accountability where there is no knowledge of what has been done. In political matters knowledge is the beginning of power, and its lack, impotence.
The bill is technical in nature, as has been made clear by those who preceded me in the debate. Technical or not, it is a significant advance in the attempt by Parliament to control subordinate legislation. Some people have objected to the immense proliferation of subordinate legislation. But the complexity of our times is such that it is absolutely ridiculous and would indeed be Canute-like to object to the fact that there will be a great volume of subordinate legislation.
However necessary subordinate legislation may be, it can also be dangerous if certain conditions are attached- if it is secret and if it is not scrutinized by representatives of the people. The point of this legislation, as I understand it, is that it seeks, through providing for publication and scrutiny, the assurance that there be adequate knowledge by the people themselves and their representatives in Parliament of legislation which affects them and their rights.
The legislation itself does not appoint, as was the major recommendation of the special committee, a scrutiny committee. That is something for this Parliament to do by its own votes. I understand that that will be an accompanying measure to the legislation that is before us. I regard scrutiny of subordinate legislation by representatives of Parliament as the key to effective control over subordinate legislation. I want to stress a point made in the report of the special committee. When the scrutiny committee is set up it should have the power, in its discretion, to refer regulations to other standing committees for consideration. The reason I emphasize this point is that I contemplate that the scrutiny committee will be a small committee with almost legalistic functions to scrutinize the legislation from certain explicit points of view. I think it is essential that other committees of this Parliament should be used to scrutinize legislation from the point of view of substance and not only from the point of view of the legal implications.
Let me give an illustration with which I am very familiar. I have in mind legislation in the field of immigration. Those who are familiar with immigration problems know that nine-tenths of the effective administration in respect of immigration law is by regulation and not by the Immigration Act. It is many years since we
Statutory Instruments Act
changed the Immigration Act. The immigration regulations have been changed, and they set the basic form for dealing with people who come to this country and wish to stay or those who seek to bring their families, relatives and friends to Canada. This is all done by regulation. Those regulations should be scrutinized not just by a small legal committee, a committee on statutory instruments or subordinate legislation, but also by a committee of members of this House who are familiar with immigration matters.
I cite this merely as an illustration of the importance of having the substance of legislation scrutinized by specialist committees of the House. If we are to have effective parliamentary control over subordinate legislation, the power suggested in the report of the special committee will have to be exercised, namely, the power to refer matters to other committees.
The substance of the legislation we are asked to deal with is contained in clause 24 and, perhaps, clause 23. I do not propose to discuss at this stage the details of the clauses of the bill. Clause 23 provides for publication in the Canada Gazette. Clause 24 applies to the right of access to statutory instruments. Clause 25 applies to the provision of copies of instruments for those who are concerned. Clause 26, the most important of all, provides for the scrutiny by Parliament of statutory instruments. I believe this is the core of the legislation. Clause 27 is one which this House and the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will have to examine very carefully. It provides for exemptions. In my view, the exemptions are drawn much too broadly. I believe we will have to look very carefully at this clause. If too many exemptions are provided, I believe the bill will be robbed of its main function.
There are one or two other details to which I should like to refer. One I believe is of considerable importance, although perhaps it sounds a little technical. I refer to recommendation 6 of the report of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments. It provides that all departmental directives and guidelines as to the exercise of discretion under a statute or regulation, where the public is directly affected by such discretion, should be published and also subjected to parliamentary scrutiny. I would say that is a novelty. At the present time we have directives relating to immigration which are not public and which are not made available even to the Immigration Appeal Board. These regulate the rights of would-be citizens and present citizens to bring in relatives. It is a discretion which is hidden from the public, and it should not be. I hope we will study this particular recommendation to see whether it can be more firmly incorporated in the legislation.
Another recommendation to which I wish to refer, although not in detail, is recommendation 19 which provides for the new committee on regulations and sets out the basis of its actions and discretion in six criteria. These six criteria are somewhat broader than the list of criteria to be given under the statute to the officials of

January 25, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
the government. I think we should take a careful look at that matter.
I conclude my remarks on this subject by saying that one of the major exercises of Parliament should be, and I think is, to ensure that among the myriad of public authorities, public regulations and public laws there be adequate voice given to those who are affected by the regulations. I commend this legislation because I think it is a step in that direction. Whether it is an effective step will depend not on the legislation itself but on the vigilance of the scrutiny committee and the willingness of us all to make sure that the all-embracing laws which affect this modern society are designed and work for the benefit of individual citizens.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his brief explanation of this bill. However, I believe he should have elaborated some parts of his introduction a little more, because when I spoke on the resolution which was the forerunner of this bill I expressed the hope that the proposed special commitee to be set up under the provisions of the bill would have the power to effectively police the application of the legislation which may in part be delegated to the various branches of the public service.
From reading Clause 26 it would appear that the purpose of the proposed committee would be to inspect, review and scrutinize the statutory instruments. In fact, that is exactly what the title of the bill says; it is an act to provide for the examination, publication and scrutiny of regulations and other statutory instruments. In referring to the last section of clause 26, we see that it provides:
-that may be established for the purpose of reviewing and scrutinizing statutory instruments.
I ask the minister where the committee would go from there, after it has scrutinized. It seems to me an exercise in futility if having scrutinized the instruments, and so on, they have no power to do anything. If there are no teeth in the legislation, and if they should find a discrepancy or misinterpretation, what use is the committee? I can think of several pieces of legislation with which I have had to deal since I have been a member of this House, in respect of which no agreement has been reached concerning certain clauses because of lack of definition, because of lack of boards to deal with these matters and because there was no acceptance of the dictionary interpretation, such as there is in our courts. Therefore, our constituents do not have, through their Members of Parliament, recourse in fighting the injustices we have been talking about.
I suggest that the terms of reference of this committee are not broad enough. The committee should have the power to take effective action after it has inspected, reviewed and scrutinized. The committee should have power to adequately control the present arbitrary, unsupervised exercise of power by the bureaucracy. Otherwise, as I have said before, the whole thing is an exercise in futility.
The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) said he hoped every member of this House
would be able to bring some problems before this committee to be rectified. I suggest that if the bill passes as it has been presented to this House, without any teeth by which to act, it will just be another exercise in futility for members to bring problems to the committee. Members of the committee may agree or disagree with the member, but their hands will be tied if there are no teeth in the legislation.
If there is one thing we as Members of Parliament are charged with, it is to ensure equal justice to all Canadians and to protect the rights and liberty of the individual as well as the rights and liberty of minorities. We can no longer slough off our responsibilities and give unrestricted, vast power to others without supervision, as has been done in the past. Too often we have given power without ensuring that those to whom the power is delegated will exercise it unselfishly and with impartial justice.
The farming industry certainly is one which has encountered the uncontrolled and unsupervised use of delegated power, much to the detriment of the individual farmer. I intend to offer proof of this in a few minutes. Professor Henry J. Laski, one of the many constitutional authorities in Great Britain, did not agree that delegating power was a dangerous trend which should be stamped out. In his book "Parliamentary Government in England" he described delegated power as an elementary procedural convenience essential to the positive state. But having said that, he warned as follows:
The vital thing is that Parliament should be in a position to make objection to any use of it when it deems fit-
We as members should do this because, as I said before, otherwise we will have abdicated our responsibility and our authority; we will have delegated our responsibility. He continues in these words:
-and that it should be so able to examine what is done in its name as to make it certain that nothing to which objection can be taken escaped from its purview.
In other words, use the device but take sensible precautions. I hoped that the committee of the House proposed in this bill would have the power to ensure that these precautions were taken. I am disappointed that there are no teeth in the bill. In our case, this important point has been forgotten.
It has been proposed from time to time that setting up the office of an ombudsman would serve to overcome the situation created by the abdication of our responsibility. At one time I agreed with this, but since then I have changed my mind. To establish the office of ombudsman would merely be establishing another government official. We realize how ineffective this would be when we consider the scant regard paid by the executive and the public service to our present economic watchdog, the Auditor General. The terms of reference of the Auditor General are ineffective. He can dig out errors and mismanagement, but he can do nothing about them. An ombudsman would be in the same position. I say that this responsibility lies with us as members of this House. Besides appointing another official outside of Parliament to do a job that is clearly that of Members of Parliament,

January 25, 1971

it would not rectify the position in which we find ourselves. It would be just another abdication of our responsibility.
In my opinion, what we need is what I have stated on previous occasions, that is, a parliamentary body that will be armed with power, without regard for governmental rank or influence, one that will be empowered to pursue its own course within its terms of reference, free of direction or influence by the government. It must be strong and free enough to ride close-herd on all recipients of Parliament's delegated authority and to command their compliance and respect. The pattern of the Public Accounts Committee of this House, with its chairman drawn from opposition ranks, might be a very good one to follow. I repeat that to me the essential feature must be that its findings, reports and recommendations carry with them some compulsion on the executive or individual responsible member of the executive, the Prime Minister and cabinet members, to take subsequent action. The very least that must be done is to ensure that anything turned up by the watchdog committee receives a fair and public hearing in this chamber.
I charged a few moments ago that individuals in the farming industry were one group that has suffered economically over the years as a result of delegated power placed in the hands of public service officials. It is because of the continued abuse by officials in this field that I am deeply concerned about this bill. I had great hopes that at least we would have a procedure or a vehicle whereby Members of Parliament could regain control of the power given them by their constituents.
On December 3, 1968, the hon. member who is now Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray)-I am glad he is in the House tonight-is recorded in Hansard as having made the following statement:
It is my understanding of the will of Parliament expressed in schedule "A" of the Customs Tariff Act that implements and machinery for farm purposes come in duty free.
I am sure the minister expressed the thoughts and understanding of most of the present members of this House, as well as the thoughts of a great number of citizens of this country. Unfortunately, the will of Parliament has not been carried out by the administrative body. Let me remind the House again of what the minister said he believed the will of parliament to be-"that implements and machinery for farm purposes come in duty free". It is very clear and simple-that any machine or implement, regardless of other uses, when it is used for farm purposes is exempt from duty.
Let us examine for a moment how the bureaucrats have eroded the will of Parliament in their administration of this directive. It is not necessary at this time to relate to the House a step by step dissertation of when the erosion of the will of Parliament started, and of each case along the way which progressively became more restrictive and further removed from the will of Parliament. Suffice it to recount the last experience I had in this regard in presenting a case to the Tariff Board when I learned from their ruling that they had closed the door completely on any implement or machine for farm pur-
Statutory Instruments Act
poses coming in duty free. This was a complete reversal of what was intended by Parliament. To prove my point, the presiding officer of that appeal board, in appeal No. 914, at page 93 of the transcript, made the following statement:
If you can satisfy the board that these pumps are only for use in agriculture irrigation then they are an agriculture machine.
The chairman of the Tariff Board has recorded there the true interpretation of what the board and the department accept as the definition of the term "agricultural machines, implements and apparatus". A few moments ago I related to the House what our present Minister of National Revenue said about the clause in the act. The actual action taken by the bureaucrats and by departments and boards is entirely opposite to the statement made by the minister in the House. An implement or machine must be made so that under no circumstances can it be used for any other purpose. Any agricultural machine, implement or apparatus must only be used in the pursuit of agriculture, and for no other use, before it can qualify for exemption.
Such a ruling, as hon. members know, is ridiculous because no implement or machine has been or will be invented that is used exclusively for agriculture. Some other use can be established, if even on a one-time basis, and it is simply an "out" for the bureaucrats to say that these machines and implements may be used only in the pursuit of agriculture. Therefore, in making such a ruling or precedent-and I say it is a very narrow ruling, laid down by the board-legislation passed by Parliament is ignored or negated by those charged with the administration of the act. If a committee had been formed with the power to act, as we had hoped would be the case, many of the practices which the public has to put up with would be rectified.
I await clause by clause discussion of the bill. Perhaps the minister has a suggestion to make to the House to give power to the committee to rectify the misunderstandings and lack of definition as well as misinterpretation. What I am trying to establish is that no matter how we word our legislation, the Canadian public either benefits or suffers as a result of the application or interpretation of the legislation by those charged with its administration and enforcement.
Such application by the bureaucrats in regard to agricultural implements is, in my experience, far removed from the intention of Parliament when the legislation was originally passed. In other words, we as parliamentarians are abdicating our responsibilities when we allow the bureaucrats to twist and warp the intent of our legislation. I say we have done this, perhaps not in a great number of cases but certainly in several with which I have had to deal in my term of office as a Member of Parliament.
I regret that I, as a Member of Parliament representing people of this country, have no recourse but to plead with the minister. In most cases the minister has not been long enough in the portfolio to correct all the abuses that he knows exist within the department. This

January 25, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
is our system. We have built it up to the point where we cannot take back some ol the responsibility that we have delegated to the civil servants. I am not blaming civil servants entirely-this is the system. It has progressed too fast for us. But here, again, I say to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) that this is a vehicle whereby we can rectify some of the mistakes we have made in the past.
I am not blaming anyone in particular, but the legislation must have teeth in it. To my mind it is not strong enough in its present form. It only gives power to scrutinize. All hon. members scrutinize the regulations that come before us, but we have no power to tell the bureaucrats that they are not using a proper definition of the words-for example, that they are not putting the proper definition on the benefit of the doubt clause-and that this was not the intent of Parliament. In reply they say, "We have the power to interpret and this is what we are going to do." In fact, in a number of cases one department decides what is going into our legislation and another department has the power to interpret what the first department put in. How ridiculous! You cannot get both departments to agree, and it would appear that at present we have no instrument to reverse that trend. I would hope that this bill is the instrument we need to return the responsibility of application in the manner intended, to those elected by the citizens for that purpose.
I have mentioned one precedent established by the bureaucrats in regard to the interpretation of agricultural implements, and that is that the machine or implement must be made only for use in agriculture. Common sense asserts that such a qualification is impossible to meet. However, the bureaucrats have made their demands even more restrictive with regard to interpretation and thus have started a gradual process of making Parliament's legislative words meaningless. I cannot for the life of me understand why this or any preceding Parliament did not come up with an instrument whereby we could rectify these things that we know are going on, and stop the bureaucrats carrying on from year to year with a wrong interpretation of the legislation passed by this House.
A letter dated May 26, 1961, from the Deputy Minister of National Revenue reads in part:
Having in mind the wealth of precedent in connection with the interpretation of the phrase "agricultural implements" as used in the Customs Tariff, much apparatus which has a purely agricultural application cannot properly be described as agricultural implements or agricultural machinery.
The point at issue in each of these appeals is: can these contrivances be considered to be embraced by the phrase "all other agricultural implements or agricultural machinery, N.O.P." or are they more properly to be regarded as simply passive agricultural apparatus as a silo or a milking stall.
The grain and livestock bodies at issue are utilized for containing grain and for penning up livestock during transportation. In view of past precedents and rulings of the Tariff Board, I trust you will understand my position in considering these articles of a passive nature to be not admissible under tariff item 409F, in the absence of a naming provision therein.
A letter received from the Minister of National Revenue, dated November 5, 1968, reads in part:
It is the position of the department that in order to qualify as an agricultural machine an article must contain mechanical features and be recognizably "agricultural." The Tariff Board set forth this principle in appeal No. 237, and it has been followed by the board on other occasions.
In other words, it must be determined at time of importation whether or not an article is an "agricultural machine." The fact that one particular unit may be for use on a farm does not in itself qualify the product as an agricultural machine.
There are a number of reasons why I have quoted these two letters. Possibly the main reason, Mr. Speaker, is to establish the necessity of modernizing our procedures within this House of dealing with legislation after it has been passed, and made ineffective in its application when dealt with by the administrative body of our system. At present it would appear that Parliament has very little recourse against unfair and unintended application of legislation passed by it in good faith if the bureaucrats decide, through misinterpretation or for some other reason, to apply it in some other manner.
I would hope that the committee proposed by Bill C-182 would be an instrument to deal with matters such as I have described. I hope that when the minister explains clause 26 of the bill, he will assure the House that it is intended that the committee he proposes will have the power and the means to direct and police the application of the legislation and not merely the privilege to inspect, review or scrutinize the regulations. The committee must be given power to direct the application as intended by Parliament. I would hope the committee would have the power to correct any misunderstanding over the interpretation of any word or phrase in our legislation. I would hope it would have the power to rule that any particular word, unless otherwise defined in the legislation, would be interpreted in the manner practised in our courts rather than according to the narrow and restrictive meaning now enforced by the bureaucrats.
My second reason for quoting the two departmental letters is to show the gradual erosion of any purposeful meaning in our legislation by the rulings and precedents established by the bureaucrats without any direction by Members of Parliament on the legislation passed by them. In the letter of May 26, 1961, the deputy minister stated that the agricultural machine, apparatus or implement, because of precedent laid down by a former Tariff Board decision that the article was of a passive nature, was not admissible duty free. This is an arbitrary decision on the part of the members of the Tariff Board and it was not the intent of Parliament, because no mention of a passive or active nature is made in the legislation.
The minister may ask me why my constituents do not take this matter to court. The answer is that in most cases the amount of money involved may be only $100 or $200. The minister, being a lawyer, knows the costs of court actions. It would be poor insurance for a farmer to put up $1,000 or $1,500 to take a case to court when the amount involved is only $100 or $200. The farmer does exactly what the minister would do; he pays the $100 although he knows he should not have to pay it.

January 25, 1971

I have copies of correspondence supplied to me by other hon. members, relating to problems of a similar nature. For example, there is correspondence with regard to a wheeled applicator for the insertion of anhydrous ammonia into the soil, made necessary by new methods of farming and making former applicators obsolete. The bureaucrats ruled that the new applicator was not duty free, although the applicators it replaced had been admitted duty free. How ridiculous can their decisions become? Here is another example, Mr. Speaker. An hon. member wrote to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) on behalf of a constituent, asking whether the constituent was entitled to a rebate of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials used for the construction of a silo. The minister replied in part:
I am advised that while building materials for the construction of farm buildings are not exempt from the sales tax, there is an exemption for materials and parts for the construction or repair of silos for the storage of ensilage.
A short time later the hon. member received another letter from the Minister of National Revenue, presumably written by the officials of the department, which referred to the letter written by the Minister of Agriculture. It read in part:
Certain materials for use in the construction of silos for storing ensilage may be purchased by farmers without payment of sales tax. However, lumber and other multi-purpose materials must be purchased tax paid.
In other words, Parliament ruled as the Minister of Agriculture stated, that materials for use in the construction of silos may be purchased by farmers without payment of sales tax. However, the bureaucrats ruled that if the materials are multi-purpose, the tax must be paid. There is no material used in the building of a silo that is not of a multi-purpose nature. Therefore, the farmer pays the sales tax. If the ruling of the departmental officials sticks, the time this House took to pass that measure was just wasted. Why not let the bureaucrats run the whole country, if we are not going to return to this House some of the responsibility we have abdicated to them?
A similar situation exists with regard to grain storage bins. Under the Excise Tax Act there is provision that manufacturers or producers are entitled to sales tax exemption with respect to facilities designed, manufactured, advertised and sold for storing their finished products on their manufacturing or producing premises. The minister has ruled that farmers, being producers, are entitled to purchase grain storage bins for storing on their farms grain of their own production, free of sales tax. The two qualifying factors here are that the grain must be stored on their farms and that the grain must be of their own production.
The ruling does not specify the granary has to be used exclusively for grain storage for any specified period of time. It does not specify the manner of disposal after it has served its purpose. It does not prohibit other uses of the building if the need arises. It does not specify recovery of the sales tax in the event it is sold at a later date. In spite of all this, the officials have ruled that if the
Statutory Instruments Act
granary in question can be used for some other purpose, it is not sales tax exempt. The officials' ruling is the one that is enforced: the farmer pays.
The points I am trying to make by these examples are as follows: first, the use, or abuse, of the delegated powers of Parliament by the bureaucrats; second, the abdication of our responsibilities, as Members of Parliament, that has arisen because of our present system; third, the necessity of producing an instrument to rectify the iniquities that have developed; and, fourth, the necessity to modernize our procedures so that our social system will not develop into a bureaucratic dictatorship. I hope that the minister or the House Leader, when setting up this committee, will consider having some practical people on it. We do not want all legal minds. I hope the committee will have the power to do something about the problems that are set before it. I know there will be many problems.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable pleasure and some pride that I see Bill C-182, the statutory instruments bill, before this House. As the chairman of that special committee, I want to mention the names of some people who very materially contributed to the fact that the bill is now before the House.
The first sentence of the report which this committee presented to the House reads as follows:
This report is based on the assumption that public knowledge of governmental activities is the basis of all control of delegated legislation.
I believe that this bill is a very important contribution to the end of providing public knowledge of governmental activities. It is the fundamental basis on which citizens of this country will be entitled in future to know more about, and therefore have more control over, the activities of government. The two other pieces which I anticipate will be added to this structure of knowledge and control will be the new parliamentary committee, which I expect will shortly follow adoption of this bill, and the promulgation of certain executive directives to deal with matters internal to government which cannot be effectively dealt with in any other way.
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) rightly pointed to the incompleteness of this bill with respect to the kind of scrutiny and action which will be taken by the subsequent parliamentary committee. I anticipate that that will be the substance of the changes in the rules which will be proposed by the House Leader, when the rules changes are introduced. Naturally, we will all be very interested in the substance of those changes when they are proposed.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) mentioned a matter to which all members of the committee attached great importance. That is the question of administrative interpretations which have from time to time been given to regulations. If this matter cannot be reached in any other way, I trust that it will be thoroughly and effectively dealt with by the executive directives which we expect will be promulgated by the gov-

January 25, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
eminent in furtherance of the policies contained in this bill.
This bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for a thorough clause by clause scrutiny. I do not propose to take the time of the House this evening to discuss the details of the bill. I will confine my remarks to a few general statements, since I will make a more detailed statement on the bill at the report state. All hon. members, whether they are members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs or not, will also be able to raise questions at that time.


John Napier Turner: Lawyers and non-lawyers.


Mark R. MacGuigan: As the minister suggests, lawyers and non-lawyers. I wish to pay tribute to a number of members opposite for the very great contribution which they made to the presentation of the report by the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments-which is the basis of this present legislation. I wish to pay tribute to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), who is in the House this evening. He and the hon. member for Greenwood were pillars of strength on the committee. They made very material contributions to the report which was presented.
I also wish to mention the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who is not in the House this evening but who was a very active member of that committee. Also present for the debate this evening is the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Forest), the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Murphy) and the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson), all of whom were very active members of the committee. I thank them for their contributions. By not mentioning the names of all members of the committee I do not want to suggest that they did not make as full a contribution. Indeed, they did, but it would be tedious to go through the whole list. However, I want to thank all members of the committee.
At this time I want to say a special word of thanks to certain members of the government. In his presentation before the committee, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) urged us to present a bold report and to press the government to reveal areas which had hitherto not been considered to be matters of public knowledge. The leadership of the minister and the then President of the Privy Council were very instrumental in helping the committee to present its report and in getting the report before the House. I also thank the present House Leader for giving this matter a relatively high priority on the list of government bills.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: I want to mention the two counsel who assisted the committee, Dr. Gilles Pepin, now of the University of Montreal, and Mr. John Morden of Toronto. They were of considerable assistance to the committee throughout the hearings and in the preparation of the final report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: I make these comments to illustrate the contribution which a great many people made to the report and to this bill, as well as to other implementations which the government will be bringing forward. This is a genuine team effort. I thank members from both sides of the House. I take great satisfaction from the fact that the report is far-reaching and that in presenting this bill the government has maintained the thrust of the committee's recommendations. This matter is of sufficient importance to mention at this time so that the House will take formal notice of it. I reserve any further comments until I have the opportunity of participating in discussion at the committee stage. I will then have some words to say at the report stage.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) remind us of the exhortations of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) that the committee bring forward a bold report. The committee may have acted in that regard. However, I wish the minister had been as persuasive with his colleagues so that we would have had a bill which measured up to the level of his exhortations.
This bill is a timid, half step. I hope to demonstrate where the government and Parliament should have gone with regard to this bill. I was not a member of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments, but my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and I have been especially concerned about this subject.
Those members of the House who served with me on the finance committee and, from time to time, on the justice committee will know that I have been a steady critic over the years of those sections of any legislation brought before the committee or this House giving broad, sweeping powers to the governor in council to make regulations. I have been particularly critical of the wording that is used. I can point to a rather regular consistency, bill after bill, every year over the past several years, where I have been very critical of this.
As a matter of fact, just a few weeks ago, on the bill dealing with sales finance companies, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) was prepared to accept a suggestion that we remove some highly offensive wording which would have precluded any questioning of regulations. In other words, the government itself would have been the judge of the quality and propriety of the regulations which it purported to pass under that law.
It seems to me that Bill C-182 has been drawn up-of course, it was drawn by the Department of Justice-for the benefit of the Department of Justice. It has a neat flavour in that the ultimate authority is, naturally, in regard to references-and they are almost legion-to the Deputy Minister of Justice. It is provided that these regulations shall all be passed, that there shall be certifi-
[Mr. MacGuigan.)
January 25, 1971

cates and that there shall be a registry of regulations maintained by the Department of Justice. I say, fine! I would agree with one step there. But we must remember, plus ga change plus c'est la meme chose.
Who drew the regulations in the past? Who were the draftsmen? In many instances it was the Department of Justice. Certainly the department gave its approval; or it may have been that the influence of the department was wide. I put it this way: their influence, maybe, was by paste and scissors. We saw from one bill to another the same offending words and we were always told by the public servants who appeared before us as witnesses, "Well, these are the regulations as they appear in all the other bills and we are not doing anything different here." No, they were just perpetrating potential injustice.
So I say, there is perhaps one correct step in this measure. I refer to the maintenance of a registry. I think we will be better guided in committee by the departmental officers in the praticalities of what is suggested in the bill, whether in the submission of the draft regulations to the Privy Council or in the interchange with the Department of Justice, and whether we may not be setting up a very complicated set of machinery which will delay the preparation of legislation and of regulations.
I would like to put up a warning light at this point. I would not want to have this House, in passing this bill, simply create some form of Frankenstein which will cause too much coming and going and too much exchange of approval of approvals as between the Privy Council and the Minister of Justice. I think we understand that oftentimes a simplified procedure is far better than a detailed one.
We must clearly understand what we want in this legislation. What does Parliament want? Is it the power to suspend the coming into force of regulations, in other words that no regulations would pass into delegated legislation or come into effect unless approved by Parliament? This, clearly, would not work. We do not want that. After all, why has Parliament provided for these powers to make regulations under the legislation? It has done so for the sake of simplicity, flexibility, the need for adaptation and other valid reasons. On the other hand, we must have scrutiny of these regulations. They must be exposed to public examination. Statutory instruments must be scrutinized and exposed to public examination; there cannot be application until approval.
There must be review, with the power to have Parliament revoke improper statutory rules. Not the committee referred to in the bill; I do not think anybody wants that. The only body which could revoke a statutory instrument would be Parliament. The committee would recommend to this House that a particular statutory instrument be revoked or amended. Certainly no committee of this House should have power to tell the government that its regulations are hereby revoked; Parliament must do that. The committee which is being set up to review this matter is acting on behalf of Parliament, and it seems to me this is what is wanted. It is Parliament that controls and it is Parliament that must revoke statutory regulations.
Statutory Instruments Act
By whom should this be done? I asked, what did we want? Scrutiny, review and a power to recommend to Parliament to revoke. By whom? I would suggest, as did my hon. friend from Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh), a committee of Parliament, a small committee of members of both Houses-that would simplify things-adequately staffed, because we want them to have an automatic referral of regulations and constant, ready reporting so that the process is as simplified and as efficacious as possible.
I have dealt with the matter of review, but there are other ways in which to accomplish scrutiny. First of all, there is the built-in scrutiny of the submission that is made to the Privy Council and to officials of the Department of Justice. This in itself will screen off a lot of difficulties. So that is step No. 1. Step No. 2 is the provision for publication in the Canada Gazette. In this regard I suggest to the minister that the proposal in this bill goes too far. When we were discussing the anti-dumping bill- this applies to other legislation as well-much to the astonishment of government members and also to myself the officials admitted that there was power under the Regulations Act for the governor in council to make regulations exempting the publication of regulations. So there is no guarantee of scrutiny here.
I agree that there may be certain circumstances involving national or international security where there should be an exemption power, or power given to the governor in council to pass an order providing that certain statutory instruments be not published, but only if this be in the overriding public interest. Having attended the same law school which I attended, I think the minister will recognize the legal theory that exceptions should be narrowly construed. In this particular case I strongly commend to the minister that exceptions to the necessity of publication should be narrowly construed.
With regard to the recommendation that as much as possible we adapt our legislation, I suggest that we make an amendment to the provisions of this bill dealing with the Revised Statutes to provide that there shall be included, in all legislation heretofore passed that gives power to make regulations, the words that appear in the new section 28A of the Interpretation Act. I refer to the expression "subject to the affirmative resolution of Parliament", or "subject to the affirmative resoluton of the House of Commons". I suggest these words be inserted immediately in all such legislation. Certainly I anticipate it will be included in all future legislation. This is going to the ultimate stage, to that far point that the minister exorted the committee to reach. I hope he will now be able to convince his colleagues to accept this sort of amendment in committee so that we can go to the limit the minister wanted.
Let me cite one example to the House. I do not want to be invidious in any particular regard, but let me make reference to the immigration regulations. I regularly have occasion to refer to them myself. The 1967 regulations

January 25, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
were departmentally inspired. They were drafted by the department and accepted by the minister and the governor in council. Although I and other hon. members in the House, both privately and publicly in speeches as well as in constant correspondence with the minister and his officials, have objected and criticized some of these regulations, nevertheless Parliament has never directly accepted those regulations as such.
We are told that the law as passed by Parliament provides for the making of regulations, but let us look at the effect of the regulations. Let us consider the assessment of an applicant for landed immigrant status. We have to consider the ability of the applicant under the points system. The applicant is told he is either qualified or he is not qualified. He is not told in what respect he is deficient or to what degree he is deficient. He is not given access to his performance; no statement is given him indicating he has failed owing to inadequate training, insufficiency of language, that he has lost so many points because he is of a certain age, or anything of that nature.
He learns about his points only if he has had the gumption to ask for a reassessment and a special inquiry. His counsel or friends cannot ask for this information in order for them to judge whether the applicant should apply for a special inquiry, or to help him meet these questions. Perhaps the applicant has some evidence to substantiate his application, but he is not told what evidence is lacking. Only when he appears at the special inquiry is he told how he was rated. At one time one could obtain information about the points rating and often could assist the immigration officers with additional evidence. Conversely, you were in a position to tell the applicant, "Forget about it; there is no way your application will be approved, and there is no question of a special inquiry". Although we are told these are the regulations, the regulations have not been passed.
It seems to me that the legality of these statutory instruments must be tested. First of all, one must ascertain whether they are within the power of the act and, secondly, whether they are just or unjust to a given applicant. I do not think a committee on statutory instruments should substitute its wisdom for the determination of any application. Neither do I think it should go into immigration dossiers and substitute its judgment for that of the officials. That is not the purpose of this legislation. Then there are many other boards, and so forth, which would not concern this committee but which would be a matter for the Federal Court.
I hope I have not taken too long to examine this bill, and that I have made suggestions that commend themselves not only to members of the House but to those members who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Indeed, I hope to be on that committee myself. I hope the committee will be able to produce a good working bill from the present proposals.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill S-7, to repeal the Leprosy Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed and bill read the third time and passed.



PENITENTIARY ACT


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That the annual report for the year ended 31st December, 1968, made pursuant to section 30 of the Penitentiary Act, contained in the third annual report of the Department of the Solicitor General, tabled in the House of Commons on November 3, 1969, be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and
That during its study of the aforementioned report, the com-mitee be empowered to adjourn from place to place in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, much of today's progress has been accomplished by agreement, as a result of the excellent work of House leaders, a rank to which I was appointed today in the absence of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). May I suggest that we have a five minute holiday for most hon. members and that those who wish to partake in the late show be permitted to plunge forthwith into the same.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the
hon. member whether this delegation of authority was made in pursuance of the new legislation?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member that the Chair now see the clock as indicating 10 p.m. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the business for tomorrow could be confirmed and, if it is what we think it is, since it is in the name of the Prime Minister who is not here, will the minister indicate who will be introducing it?

January 25, 1971


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the first bill to be considered tomorrow will be the government organization bill and it will be dealt with by the President of the Treasury Board.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, some little time ago in the committee I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier,) who is in charge of the CBC, to explain to me the workings or arrangements in respect of the editing of the news carried by CBC. Since the minister at that time was unable to do so, I decided to put a question to him in the House and debate the subject at this time.
The situation is that when a news story develops in Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal the news editor of the CBC has to make a decision as to what is news. He does this and then it is put on the national news. I am not criticizing that policy, because obviously somebody has to decide what is news and this is the logical job of the news editor. However, there is an additional problem in respect of other areas of the country.
If a news story develops in Halifax or Vancouver, in addition to the news editor deciding whether the item is of national interest he must also take into account that it will cost the CBC several hundred dollars to send that story live from Vancouver. The figure of $1,000 was quoted to me some time ago. I am not sure how accurate that is but I am sure the cost amounts to several hundred dollars anyway. If a story is brought from Halifax live to Toronto this, again, costs the CBC several hundred dollars.
In addition to the normal decision as to whether a story is newsworthy, this budgetary consideration must be taken into account. In the event the news editor decides a story is worth while, he will have a tape sent by mail to Toronto where it is put over the CBC national news. If it is a morning story, it may well not appear until that evening. If it is an afternoon or evening story, it will not appear until the next day. If the story is not important enough it may not appear at all, because by the time it is put on TV it will be yesterday's news. The news editor must decide between yesterday's news and a good story today, particularly in respect of the television field because space is limited. He will always decide in favour of today's news.
Let me refer to the real basis of my complaint. If a story is news in Vancouver, it should be televised live to Toronto for appearance on TV that day. It should not be
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion postponed until the next day. There are budgetary considerations when news stories come from Vancouver or Halifax which do not have to be contended with when the stories come from Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal. My argument is that the outlying areas in Canada tend to be bypassed in respect of worthy news stories, and I do not think this is right.
My understanding is that the CTV network operates on the same basis. If I extend criticism to the CBC I should perhaps extend it to the CTV network as well. The difference is that the CBC is a national concern, supported by the tax dollar, and we might assume that one of its principles is to promote equality of treatment across Canada. Perhaps the CTV network does not have this same obligation because it is directed more in terms of money.
In either case I do not think this is a good way of choosing newsworthy stories, that is, on the basis of whether we can afford them. If news from Saskatoon is of national interest, as a member or resident of that area I feel it should get the same type of coverage given to a story emanating from Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal. Frequently that is not the case now. As I said earlier, I wanted to ask the minister questions in this regard when he appeared before the committee but he was unaware of the technical matters or specific arrangements. Hopefully, the Parliamentary Secretary is in a position to enlighten us on the matter at this time.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), I was asked to answer this question.
Since decentralization was carried out at the C.B.C. last spring, more and more importance is being attached to the contribution of the CBC's regional offices to the broadcasting service.
The CBC has correspondents in all provincial capitals who contribute regularly to the information and public affairs broadcasts over the radio as well as on television, and whose task it is to report on Canadian facts to all Canadian people, as is required by the Canadian Broadcasting Act.
Thus it is wrong to claim, as does the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson), that certain areas in this country that are far away from production centres of national television news bulletins, would suffer on account of the distance and that, for financial reasons.
Information directors hold daily preparatory meetings prior to issuing television bulletins, during which they decide on the importance as well as on the time to be given to the news of the day. As the time allotted to televised news is established beforehand, certain items transmitted by regional centres must necessarily be dropped temporarily or completely, on account of the importance and time to be given to more significant news. But that is never done for financial reasons.

January 25, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion



INDUSTRY-MANIWAKI (P.Q.)-TALKS ON POSSIBILITY OF GRANTING MONEY TO SOGEFOR PLANTS

Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last, that is January 21, I asked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) whether he intended to get in touch with the Quebec authorities or the Sogefor management and come to an agreement which might forestall the closing of the plants on March 5 next.
I presume the minister has had enough time to take into consideration this most important question as far as the 800 employees of the Maniwaki-Mont-Laurier-Lac des lies area are concerned. In fact, failing an immediate solution, three plants will close down, by reason of a lack of outlets for their production, or of poor administration, or perhaps even of both. This somewhat recalls the situation that prevailed in 1929-30, when there was overproduction but inadequate purchasing power for the consumers to get the goods offered.
People know that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is granting money earmarked for industry in some low-employment zones, for the opening of new lumber mills or plywood plants, for the production of building materials, whereas existing businesses intend to shut down because they find no customers for their products.
While taxing the Canadian people for subsidizing new industries, we are maintaining the 11 per cent tax on building materials, which prevents people from buying such products.
The federal government is keeping silent before the problem facing the Sogefor employees. The government should, as soon as possible, offer to help the Quebec authorities and the Societe generate de financement to find some means of preventing the closing down of those plants in a region where 28 per cent of the people are unemployed and where 10 per cent are on welfare. If those plants do shut down, this percentage will be over 50 per cent.
Those forest and wood industry workers as well as the whole population of this area have reasons to worry. In fact, they will be greatly affected by the shutting down of these plants. The governments should not be content with instilling confidence into these people but should also assure them that they will keep their jobs. They are not interested in living on unemployment benefits which will cost $40,000 to $50,000 per week to the public Treasury, neither on a pittance from the Department of National Health and Welfare.
The forest and wood industry provides most of the occupations for these people who do not want to lose this industry and have given evidence of it. The Maniwaki people are prepared to set up a co-operative with their own savings so that this enterprise may survive. However, I do not know whether those savings will be sufficient for the enterprise to keep operating.
Following discussions I have had with the municipal authorities, I am asking the Minister and the government to take necessary steps to prevent the closing down of
those industries and spare those people hardships, anxiety, unemployment and privations. Perhaps this enterprise should be granted the necessary subsidies to maintain its operations for at least one more year and to find new markets for its production. Quite a few things will have to be done to reorganize these industries and make them viable.
I said earlier that the administration had a weakness which should be corrected but the government should avoid flooding the market by creating new and similar industries unless it is confident that their production will be in sufficient demand.
The minister should let us know what his plans are in this connection.


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Sogefor is a wholly owned corporation of Societe Generate de Financement de Quebec. This latter company is a holding company in which the province of Quebec is the principal investor. I want to assure the hon. member that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) is fully informed, both of the basic economic problems of this company as well as of its current financial difficulty. He is equally aware of the extremely vulnerable pos tion of the over 500 workers in the three locations and the woods operations of Sogefor.
This department, however, administers an act of this Parliament, the Regional Development Incentives Act, which makes assistance available for plant expansion, plant modernization or for new plants establishing in designated regions. Sogefor is in a designated region, but there is no authority under the act to make grants simply as a subsidy to carry a company through a difficult period or to try to develop new markets for a company.
Perhaps the question has to be addressed to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. We in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion have definite limitations concerning the kind of aid that can be given. We do not provide assistance, and we lack authority to do so, for temporary aid of a financial kind which seems to be requested at this time, nor could we s'mply help one company or a group of investors to buy out another company in order to proceed. We must be governed by the requirements of the act concerning expansion or modernization.
However, I want to say to the hon. member that if and when this company makes an application to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for aid that conforms with the conditions of the act, that application will be given urgent consideration. The department is fully aware of the dislocations that would result in those communities from Sogefor closing down and it would do what it could in considering any application that came forward that would fit into the authority of the department.
[Mr. Bechard.l
January 25, 1971



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-PARTICIPATION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN CONTROL OF PROPOSED ALBERTA PULP MILL

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, on December 14 I addressed the following question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand):
In view of the large investment by the federal government in the proposed pulp mill in Alberta, is it the intention of the government, either directly or through one of its Crown agencies, to hold any equity capital in this operation, or is there going to be any safeguard of the federal interest through having some members on the board of directors-
This followed a question by the hon. member for York-ton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) which reads as follows:
In view of the minister's recent announcement that Proctor and Gamble are to receive an incentive of some $11,790,000 to construct a pulp mill in Alberta, can the minister indicate whether this is a foreign controlled operation? If so, was consideration given to providing the incentive to a Canadian company or Crown corporation?
The minister answered:
Mr. Speaker, we certainly considered the possibility of an incentive to a Canadian company, which unfortunately was not ready to start operations at this time.
For some time members of this party have urged the government to reconsider its policy of making grants such as it is doing and in the way it is doing to foreign-controlled companies. The answer that the government has given on most occasions is that any such policy would hurt the depressed areas of this country which it is attempting to assist through its regional development incentive program. I suggest that this ignores the conflict that may develop with any sort of meaningful policy that the Department of National Revenue may eventually bring forward with respect to the control of foreign ownership within the Canadian economy.
However, Mr. Speaker, whatever element of validity there may be to the point that the government makes in this regard, I suggest that now there is a new, golden opportunity. Today, at last, a bill concerning the Canada Development Corporation was given first reading in the House. I suggest that this presents a new opportunity to protect the public interest by providing for participation of the Canada Development Corporation in major projects which are being assisted by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I suggest that a plan should be worked out whereby grants made by the Department of Regional Expansion for industrial projects should involve an exchange of shares in the company which is receiving public funds to assist it in becoming established.
The question of foreign ownership is a matter of major concern in Canada today. In fact, we are reaching the ultimate: a recent study has shown that in 1968, 94 per cent of the expansion of a group of American-controlled companies in Canada was being financed with Canadian money, with money generated within Canada. Statements have been made since then by authorities pointing out
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion that this figure is now higher. This is a problem we must tackle at once.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the manner in which some of the projects are being carried out influences the character of the Canadian economy. We do not, in fact, get the full benefit of some of the developments which are being assisted. For a long time we have talked of Canadians being hewers of wood and drawers of water. It might be said with respect to the production of kraft pulp, which is what is involved in the proposed mill at Grand Prairie, Alberta, that this is only a glorified form of Canadians being hewers of wood. In fact, kraft pulp is a rather inglorious product, albeit an important one in the economic picture.
In this regard, Mr. Speaker, it might be useful to draw the attention of the public to the way in which Proctor and Gamble looks at the future as described in Moody's Investor Service, which is available in the Parliamentary Library. The December 15, 1970, issue describes the Proctor and Gamble expansion as follows:
Proctor and Gamble Co. of Canada, subsidiary, plans to build a bleached kraft pulp mill near Grand Prairie, Alta., costing over $80,000,000. Mill will expand current pulp-making capacity and help assure a continued adequate supply of bleached kraft pulp for its growing household paper products in U.S.-
In its August 7 issue, Moody's had this to say about Proctor and Gamble:
Subsidiary expansion: Charmin Paper Products Co.-
That is a subsidiary owned by Proctor and Gamble in the United States.
-plans to build a household paper products converting plant at Modesto, California-
I am not aware whether there is a direct relationship between these two plants, but nevertheless I think these two developments, coming so close together within the over-all picture of the development of Proctor and Gamble, illustrate the fact that we are not getting the full benefit out of projects which we are helping to assist in Canada. In addition I would point out that a recent news item stated that Canadian Bechtel Ltd., a subsidiary of Bechtel Corporation of San Francisco, has been selected by Proctor and Gamble as general contractor for the pulp mill at Grand Prairie. Again we have an American concern which gets this major contract.
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. O'Connell) would be much interested in statements made recently in Regina, Saskatchewan, by Mr. Walter Gordon. Mr. Gordon said as follows, as quoted in the newspaper report:
Governments must be careful in handing out huge industrial incentive grants, and first assure that no Canadian company can handle the development. Mr. Gordon said it makes him uncomfortable to think of a large U.S. soap manufacturer (Proctor and Gamble) receiving $12 milllion in government money to build a pulp mill in Alberta.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker,

January 25, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is always interested in the remarks of Mr. Walter Gordon. Indeed, he approves in general of Mr. Gordon's views. I was on the same plane as Mr. Gordon when he went to Moose Jaw. I do not think he made his main speech in Regina. It was at least close to the hon. member's constituency.
The Proctor and Gamble Co. of Canada is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Proctor and Gamble of Cincinatti, Ohio. Its project at Grande Prairie was based, in the first place, on its being the company to which the province of Alberta granted the necessary timber cutting rights. Any Canadian company proposing a similar project would certainly have been given the same consideration of the need for an incentive in order to create new employment.
Other aspects of the hon. member's question ought to be answered in the following way. The agreement with Proctor and Gamble requires the company to comply with all the terms and conditions of the Regional Development Incentives Act and regulations. This legislation provides no authority for the government to take an equity position in the operation, nor for government representation on the board of directors.
I share with the hon. member the hope that the Canada Development Corporation, which Parliament is in the
process of creating, will provide opportunities for Canadian participation in projects of this kind in the future. However, it is only fair to say from the perspective of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion that the department cannot make distinctions and insist upon conditions more onerous in the designated regions than are applied elsewhere in Canada. If, for example, they did so in terms of equity or representation, it would work against the mandate that Parliament has laid upon it to foster economic expansion, employment opportunities and social adjustment in the designated regions.
An over-all policy with respect to foreign investment is required. The Canada Development Corporation, as an instrument of that policy, might well mean that we will be approaching a different future with respect to economic development of this kind. I do not share the disdain of the hon. member-with regard to the kind of employment being developed in the northern forest areas. I cannot simply call it employment of hewers of wood and drawers of water.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Tuesday, January 26, 1971