1971-03-31

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege concerns an incident which took place at one minute before midnight on March 31, 1949, 22 years ago, a number of some significance to the Prime Minister.
It was on this date, March 31, 1949, at one minute before the witching hour of midnight that nocturnal nuptials, or one might say a midnight marriage, took place between Newfoundland and Canada. The Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, affectionately known as Uncle Louis, bore the ring, and Joey Smallwood, affectionately and otherwise known as Joey Smallwood, the shotgun.
For hon. members who are curious about the strange, eerie hour, here is the official explanation. There was a conflict of interest between one faction which wanted the event to coincide with the very beginning of the new fiscal year and the other faction which at any cost wanted to avoid All Fool's Day. Thus this mysterious but very delicate balance was struck.
Newfoundland was a good deal older than Canada, but despite the age differential 52.34 per cent-here is a significant number again-of Newfoundlanders felt the marriage could be successful while 47.66 per cent felt the marriage could never work. Most of us who supported Confederation felt sure it would survive at least 22 years, but had we known the only living father thereof would survive that long as premier the marriage might never have been solemnized. Anyway, we can take solace in the fact that he has been the best premier Newfoundland has had since Confederation.
Seriously Mr. Speaker-I see you are clutching the edge of your chair so I shall end soon-on this the twenty-second anniversary of Confederation, while I cannot speak nor would I presume to speak for our estranged brother, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), who wept bitterly when the banns were announced 22 years ago, I am sure that, generally speaking, we
Newfoundlanders on this side of the House supported Confederation and, whether we did or not, we are proud to say today "We are Canadians".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Tolmie.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry) moved: the first reading of Bill S-13 (from the Senate), to amend the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act. Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did Air Canada commission a feasibility study as to the advisability of consolidating reservation offices across Canada and, if so, by whom was the feasibility study conducted and how much did this study cost Air Canada?
2.	In how many cities did the feasibility study recommend that reservation offices for Air Canada be located, and what are the names of the cities so designated?
3.	In which cities, where there are now reservation offices for Air Canada, will such offices be closed?
24081-21J

March 31, 1971
Questions


Mr. Gerard Duquei (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1, 2 and 3. Reviews have been carried out by Air Canada personnel at various times with reference to specific locations. Reviews of this nature are on-going, covering the whole system, and are designed to bring about improvements in standards of customer service. If and when any adjustments are to be made as a result of further studies, appropriate notice would be given and discussions held between the Company and union representatives.


AIR CANADA-RESERVATION OFFICE, OTTAWA
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) Where is the reservation office of Air Canada located in Ottawa (b) when was this space leased and what rent did Air Canada contract to pay annually (c) what was the length of the lease (d) what will it cost Air Canada to terminate its lease for these premises?
1-2. What was the cost of purchasing new equipment and installing same in the present premises occupied by the reservation office of Air Canada in Ottawa and what will be done with this equipment?
3.	What additional premises, facilities and equipment will be required in Montreal to handle the Ottawa reservation business and what is the estimated cost of these items?
4.	What is the estimated cost to Air Canada of transferring the employees in the reservation office from Ottawa to Montreal?
5 What will the net savings to Air Canada be as a result of moving the reservation office to Montreal in the next five years in (a) direct labour (b) equipment (c) lease of premises?


Gérard Duquet: 
AIR CANADA-TELPAK RESERVATION SYSTEM
[Stage Direction]
i
Mr. Orlikow: 1T. Did Air Canada investigate whether or not other major air carriers had instituted the telpak reservation system, found through experience that the system was wanting and subsequently reinstated their previous equipment and facilities at considerable cost?
2.	If such inquires were made, which public air carriers had such experiences?


Gérard Duquet: The management of Air Canada advises as follows:
1 and 2. U.S. Airlines make extensive use of Telpak. The most recent report of the Air Traffic Conference of America indicates that United States airlines provide reservations service to 708 United States cities in this way. Management has heard no adverse comments concerning use of Telpak to consolidate reservations services in the United States and the practice is increasing. The A.T.C.A. report shows that both Canadian Pacific Air and Eastern Airlines presently use Telpak arrangements from Ottawa to their Montreal reservations offices in the manner presently planned by Air Canada.


CNR-PURCHASE OF RAILWAY TIES
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): During 1970, how many railway ties of each category of quality were bought by CNR in (a) the Province of Quebec (b) the Province of Ontario?


Gérard Duquet: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
(a)	Quebec
(b)	Ontario
Hardwood Track Ties 194,250 161,910
Hardwood Switch Ties 659,660 FBM 459,020 FBM
Softwood Track Ties 11,200* 509,465
* The quantity shown represents all of the softwood ties that were available to the railway during 1970.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, 1970
Mr. Soulham: 1.	(a) How many post offices were constructed in Canada during 1970 (b) by province, how many were constructed during 1970?
2.	(a) How many post offices are slated for construction during 1971 (b) by province, how many are to be constructed during 1971?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. (a)
122. (b) Listed below.
By Crown
Construction **By Build-Lease
Province	*Single Purpose	*Multi Purpose	*Single Purpose	*Multi PurposeNewfoundland	6	2	-	-Nova Scotia	2	3	-	-New Brunswick	1	-	-	-Quebec	16	-	6	1Ontario	20	2	3	-Manitoba	7	1	3	-Saskatchewan	17	2	1	-Alberta	11	1	7	-British Columbia	4	2	3	1

March 31, 1971

2. (a) 191. (b) Listed below.
By Crown
Construction **By Build-Lease
Province	^Single Purpose	*Multi Purpose	^Single Purpose	*Multi PurposeNewfoundland	3	-	2	2Prince Edward Island 1	-	-	-Nova Scotia	2	-	-	-New Brunswick	6	2	-	-Quebec	12	6	22	7Ontario	44	7	20	-Manitoba	8	5	3	-Saskatchewan	13	2	1	-Alberta	13	-	2	-British Columbia	2	2	4	-*Single purpose	means a	building	that accommodates	only a post office,	and multi purpose means a	building1.	Total Revenue Passengers (emplaned and deplaned)
St. John's
Questions
that accommodates other department(s) as well as a post office.
**Build-lease means a building constructed to the Department of Public Works' specification and leased to the Department of Public Works by an entrepreneur as a result of a public tender call.


ATLANTIC REGION AIRPORTS-PASSENGER, SPACE AND OPERATIONAL STATISTICS
Mr. McGrath: 1.	How many passengers, from 1965 to 1970 used the following Airports (a) St. John's (b) Gander (e) Halifax (d) Moncton (e) Saint John?
2 How many square feet of passenger terminal space is available at each Airport?
3.	By year, for the same period, what was the number of hours which each Airport was not operational due to weather conditions?


Gérard Duquet: Gander	Halifax	Moncton	Saint John1965	
145,085	74,521	370,936	136,041	91,2701966	
157,658	78,334	430,174	159,864	98,1441967	
184,952	74,185	507,218	176,434	129,3761968	
192,010	75,339	544,956	185,785	132,5801969	
189,583	69,356	578,012	133,613	123,0261970	
Figures for this year are not yet available from the Aviation Statistics Centre of DBS.2.	Total Passenger Terminal Space (in square feet)St. John's	Gander	Halifax	Moncton	Saint John9,320	39,128	43,376
3. Total non-operational time due to weather conditions
The only times that any of the above airports were officially closed to air traffic during the period 1965-70 occurred in 1965, when St. John's and Gander were not operational for 12 hours and 2 hours respectively due to snow.
The dates which would indicate when weather conditions were below safe flying limits are not readily available.


COST OF CANADIAN PARTICIPATION AT OSAKA WORLD FAIR
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	What were the costs for the Canadian Pavilion at the Osaka World Fair (a) for administration (b) for performers (c) for support staff?
2.	What were the additional expenses (a) during visits of dignitaries (b) for the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada?
8,900	7,154
3.	What was the cost of Canada's national day (a) for dignitaries (b) for performers (c) for security and other measures?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary io President of the Privy Council):: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned: $199,950 was contributed towards the cost of the participation of the National Ballet of Canada and the Montreal Symphony Orchestra, in the World Festival of the Arts at Osaka.
The Canadian Ambassador to Japan incurred official hospitality expenses totalling $23,144.25 for extra representational activities during the World Fair but not necessarily at the Canadian Pavilion, this amount includes costs of $179 for a luncheon for the Prime Minister of Canada and his entourage.
In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1. (a) $397,200, which covered salaries, allowances and removal of the administrative staff during their complete term on the Osaka project.

March 31, 1971
Questions
(b)	$419,578, which covered lees, accommodation and transportation for all performers for the duration of Expo '70, excluding Canada Day performers.
(c)	$1,176,000, which included salaries, allowances and removal of Canadian support staff; the R.C.M.P.; Canadian hosts and hostesses; salaries of Japanese support staff; Japanese security police; Japanese hostesses; Japanese usherettes; and stagehands.
2.	(a) During visits of dignitaries, $6,500, (52 official and state visits), (b) Nil. He was the guest of the Japanese government throughout his stay.
3.	(a) For dignitaries, including the total cost of Canada Day receptions, $10,000. (b) $105,000, which included fees and transportation, (c) Security was provided by the Japanese Association and Government of Japan at their cost. Other measures which included costs of costumes, props, platform and transportation totalled $25,000.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-DESIGNATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
Mr. Robinson: What percentage of the supplementary estimates of the Department of Transport is designated for (a) winter works (b) to reduce unemployment (c) underestimating expenditures (d) combatting inflationary costs (e) new programs (f) hiring of additional employees?


Gérard Duquet: In so far as the Department of Transport's Supplementary Estimates "A" 1970-71 are concerned, only 42 per cent can be identified in the following categories:
%
(a)	Winter works	-(b)	To reduce unemployment	42(c)	Underestimating expenditures	-(d)	Combatting inflationary costs	-(e)	New programs	-(f)	Hiring of additional employees	-
The remainder of Supplementary Estimates "A" do not fall within the categories noted. The balance represents such unforeseen items as:
1.	Oil pollution clean-up following the sinking of the tanker Arrow.
2.	Charter of a replacement vessel due to the loss of the Newfoundland Coastal Ferry S.T. Patrick Morris.
3.	Settlement of a construction claim concerning the St. Ours Dam in the Quebec Canal system.
Transport had no requirements under Supplementary Estimates "B".


RCMP-SEARCH OF CONTRABAND GOODS, PLACENTIA BAY, 1968-70
Mr. Carter: 1.	How many private homes were entered by RCMP officers in the Placentia Bay area in search of contraband goods from the U.S. Naval Station, Argentia, in the years 1968-69-70?
2.	On what authority were the searches conducted?
3.	What goods were confiscated and their assessed value?
4.	What were the items on which Excise taxes were levied and their assessed values?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: 1. 1968, 4; 1969, 21; 1970, 5.
2.	Writs of Assistance issued pursuant to the Customs Act.
3.	Televisions, tobacco products, stereos, record players, tape recorders, radio equipment, watches, refrigerators, stoves, dish washers, clocks, cameras, projection equipment, food mixers, toiletries and other items for household use, having a total appraised value of $7,051.70.
4.	Televisions, record players, stereos, radio equipment, watches, tobacco products and toiletries having a total appraised value of $2,482.90.


ADULT TRAINING AND RETRAINING PROGRAM COURSES
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	What are all the courses offered by the Department of Manpower and Immigration as part of the Adult Training and Retraining Program?
2.	How many persons were enrolled in each given course for the year 1970?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Departmental records are not maintained in a manner which would readily provide the information requested. To obtain these details would necessitate the carrying out of a special research. The necessary staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work involved to provide a complete and accurate answer. In addition, the Department does not have the necessary funds to undertake this expensive research.


CANADA STUDENT LOANS PLAN-UNCOLLECTABLE LOANS
Mr. Hales: 1.	How many student loans have been returned to the government from chartered banks as uncollectable for each year from the inception of the Canada Student Loans Plan to December 31, 1970?
2.	What was the amount of such loans?
3.	For what reasons were they written off as uncollectable?
4.	What amount was collected by professional collection agencies and what percentage does the government pay for such service?
TMr. Jerome.]
March 31, 1971


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1, 2, and 3.
The table below shows the number and amount of claims
Questions
submitted by lenders as uncollectable by loan year (1 July-30 June) and by reason for claim.
Loan Year	Death Claims	Default Claims	Total	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	Amount$	$	$1964/65	
1	500	Nil	Nil	1	5001965/66	
31	20,690	12	6,751	43	27,4411966/67	
64	55,607	157	109,256	221	164,8631967/68	
85	93,484	449	210,436	534	303,9201968/69	
106	122,133	554	395,709	660	517,8421969/70	
148	163,973	1,439	1,495,650	1,587	1,659,6231970/71 (to 31.12.70)	
71	101,635	1,979	2,151,677	2,050	2,253,312Total	
506	558,022	4,590	4,369,501	5,096	4,927,501Percentage	
10	11	90	89	100	100
Death claims are written off under the legislation. On default claims, collection action continues in cases where the borrower cannot be located (approximately 60 per cent of default claims) or refuses to co-operate with the lender (approximately 30 per cent of default claims). Some default claims arise due to circumstances beyond the borrower's control. If a borrower's difficulties are the result of such temporary problems as sickness, accident, imprisonment or unemployment, no collection action is undertaken provided the borrower has co-operated with the lender in arriving at a stretched-out repayment schedule (approximately 10 per cent of default claims). If a borrower were to become permanently incapacitated, the claim would be written off. No default claims have yet been written off.
4.	A professional collection agency was employed in late 1968 to follow default claims. The table below shows collection made by this agency since that date. The fee for this service is that authorized in the Regulations for payment to lenders for collections made by them (i.e. 20 per cent of the amount of principal and interest recovered).
Loan Year	Amount Collected
1968/69	 $ 46,500
1969/70	 $ 85,400
1970/71 (to 31.12.70)	 $209,800


NEWFOUNDLAND-GUARANTEED LOANS, 1971
Mr. Lundrigan: Since the beginning of the 1971 fiscal year (a) how many loans were made in the Province of Newfoundland under (i) the Farm Improvement Loans Act (ii) the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act (iii) the Small Businesses Loans Act (b) what was the amount of each such loan?


Edgar John Benson: Data on numbers and amounts of loans by province under these programs will be published in full in their Annual Reports later this year.


INCOME DERIVED FROM USE OF COMPUTER SERVICES
Mr. Robinson: What income, if any, is derived from the computer services provided by the Department of Transport (a) from other departments (b) from sale or services to industry (c) to provincial government departments (d) to municipalities?


Gérard Duquet: The following income was derived
by the Ministry of Transport from provided computer
uces:	1969/70	1970/71Other Departments	$ 62,450	$ 80,315Industry	19,000	20,000Provincial Governments	-	-Municipalities	-	-Total:	$ 81,450	$100,315


NEWFOUNDLAND-MINERAL EXPLORATION
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Has the government entered into an agreement with the Province of Newfoundland re mineral exploration?
2.	Will the federal government be carrying out any such surveys in the Province of Newfoundland?
3.	Will geological surveys with emphasis on industrial minerals, silica, limestone, dolomites, barite, celestite, be carried out with federal government assistance?

March 31, 1971
Questions
4.	Will the federal government assist the Province of Newfoundland in detailed geological mapping to identify and locate promising mineral areas?
5.	Will the federal government assist the Province in land development surveys to establish boundaries of Crown and private lands in order to establish titles and speed development?
6.	What will the federal government contribution be in each case in answer to Parts 2, 3, 4, 5?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. No. Discussions concerning possible assistance for selected mineral development activities in Newfoundland are underway between the Province and the federal Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Energy, Mines and Resources.
2.	No.
3.	As part of a possible mineral development program for Newfoundland, consideration is being given to federal financial assistance for geological examinations of industrial mineral deposits.
4.	No.
5.	Under the Atlantic Provinces Surveying, Mapping and Land Registration Program, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is assisting the Province of Newfoundland to map Crown Land Boundaries, establish second order control and undertake large scale mapping of certain urban areas. The Province is responsible for land registration and land titles systems.
6.	This will depend on the results of current discussions about a possible program for Newfoundland.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-RECRUITMENT STANDARDS
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	In the recruitment program of the Armed Forces (a) what education levels are being requested (b) what degree of technical skill is demanded (c) what is being done specifically to attract recruits at such educational levels and with such skills?
2.	Do the Armed Forces make extra demands of military tradesmen as compared to industry and, if so, are such extra demands compensated for accordingly and in what manner?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) Normally, a minimum of Grade 8 or equivalent. (b) For entry as an unskilled recruit appropriate aptitude tests are given to determine suitability to undergo training in trades that are open to recruiting. Skilled applicants must possess the technical skills that are in demand, (c) A continuous national and local advertising program, through press and radio; mobile recruiting teams providing information to the local populace and educational institutions; and conducting tours to various military installations for School Guidance Counsellors.
2. Yes, members of the Canadian Forces, under operational conditions, work long hours in adverse climatic conditions and are subject to moves, often at very short notice, to meet temporary emergencies or requirements. For servicemen serving in certain environments and under certain hazardous conditions, allowances are payable to attract, retain and compensate, whilst others have it built into their rate of pay.


PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE-INCOME DERIVED FROM USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: What income, if any, is derived from the computer services provided by the Privy Council Office (a) from other departments (b) from sale or services to industry (c) to provincial government departments (d) to municipalities?


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: The use of computors by the Privy Council Office is limited as outlined in the answer to question No. 413 to be found in Hansard of November 23, 1970, at page 1358. As a result no income is derived therefrom.


DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-INCOME DERIVED FROM USE OF COMPUTER SERVICES
Mr. Robinson: What income, if any, is derived from the computer services provided by the Department of Manpower and Immigration (a) from other departments (b) from sale or services to industry (c) to provincial government departments (d) to municipalities?


Otto Emil Lang: The Department does not provide computer services to: (a) other departments; (b) industry; (c) provincial government departments; (d) municipalities.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Muir: 1.	What is the function of the Parliamentary Inquiries and Co-ordination Division of the Office of the President of the Privy Council?
2.	What are the names of the employees of this Division and what are their annual salaries?
3.	What are the names and annual salaries of any other employees or people directly affiliated with the Office of the President of the Privy Council who assist the Division in performing its functions?
4.	In what manner does the Division deal with other departments and agencies in performing its functions?
5.	What are the names and annual salaries of the employees of other departments and agencies with whom the Division regularly deals in performing its functions?
6.	What are the additional duties of any persons named in the answers to Parts 3 and 5?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LEASING AGREEMENTS
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many leases have been entered into by the government by either individuals or firms for a rental fee of $10,000 annually or more, that are for a period of ten years or more?
2.	(a) What are the name of the individuals or firms (b) what are the locations of the rented properties (c) what is the actual dollar value of each lease annually (d) what is the period of the lease in each instance?
Return tabled.
(Mr. Marshall.)
March 31, 1971


OPERATION LIFT
Mr. Thomson: 1 What were the amounts paid in (a) salary (b) expenses, to all persons engaged in Operation Lift?
2.	Were any individuals who work for PFAA engaged in Operation Lift and, if so, what were their (a) names (b) addresses (c) salaries (d) expenses?
3.	What department actually managed the field work of Operation Lift?
4.	If there was another agency or department involved in addition to PFAA, what was the liaison between them?
Return tabled.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 LABOUR RELATIONS EFFECT OF RAIL TRAFFIC DISRUPTION ON GRAIN MOVEMENT

Mr. Paul Yewchuck (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 26 I ask leave to move a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the disruption of rail traffic and its present consequences, particularly on the movement of grain to meet Canada's export commitments. This emergency calls for discussion of measures that can be taken immediately to get prairie grain aboard ship at Vancouver to meet these commitments, for discussion of action to ensure that isolated communities get supplies, for discussion of the appointment of an independent conciliator to bring the railways and unions to settlement as quickly as possible in the national interest, and discussion of the appointment of a task force or other body to recommend longterm plans for the settlement of such disputes on the basis of public convenience and necessity. If this proposal is acceptable to you, Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas), that this House do adjourn for this purpose.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Athabasca has given the Chair due notice of his intention to move the proposed motion under the terms of Standing Order 26. In dealing with the matter stated, I think I owe it to the Chair, to the hon. member and to the House to refer once again to the form of the motion proposed by the hon. member.
The House well knows that Standing Order 26 requires that notice should be given to the Chair accompanied by a statement of the matter to be considered, and that the statement made by the hon. member in the House under the terms of Standing Order 26 should not go beyond the notice which has been given to the Chair, should be limited entirely to a statement of the matter itself, should not include enumeration of circumstances, and should not include any argument. I suggest' respectfully to the hon.
Motions jor Papers
member that again the form is perhaps somewhat defective, and I would hope hon. members would try to bear this in mind. Of course, in such an important matter I would not think I should rule on it entirely from the procedural aspect. I think the situation is so important that it does require substantive and substantial consideration by the Chair.
As the hon. member for Athabasca knows, a similar motion was proposed in the House just the day before yesterday by the hon. member for Moose Jaw. At that time I suggested to the House that the Chair should not overlook the condition and it is a very important one, that there can be only one discussion about a question during the same session under the terms of Standing Order 26. So there is a considerable responsibility on the part of hon. members and on the part of the Chair, when a serious condition is developing, to ensure that the debate, if one is permitted under Standing Order 26, should come at the appropriate time. I am not convinced that the situation has changed so much since Monday that a debate should be allowed today. I am very anxious to follow the matter as closely as possible along with hon. members and perhaps in consultation with them, so that if the point should be reached where it appears that it would be advantageous to the House, to Parliament and to the country that an emergency debate should take place, a motion under Standing Order 26, would be granted.
I reiterate my feeling that this is a matter of extreme importance and of great urgency. The question to determine, if an emergency debate is to be had, is when it should be called. I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that we have not reached that stage today. I shall continue to keep the matter under consideration and, as I said, if hon. members feel it will be of value I shall consult with hon. members representing the different parties as the situation develops from day to day.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion No. 133?



DEVELOPMENT OF CITE DU HAVRE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 133-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the plan prepared by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation regarding the development of Cite du Havre in Montreal and discussed in May between officials of CMHC, Montreal and the National Harbours Board.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation advises that the report is at this point a confidential one, and that consequently it
4776

March 31, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
would not be in the public interest to table it at this time. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Gilbert:: I will, Mr. Speaker, subject to the reservation that I will put the motion on the order paper again at a later time.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can he bring the House up to date and give us any information regarding the success, if any, in bringing the labour dispute involving our two national railways to a successful conclusion?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: I thank the hon. gentleman for the reasonable way in which he posed the question, indicating his experience as a former Minister of Transport. He appreciates, if other members of his party do not, that prejudgment of labour negotiations at a period as delicate as this, particularly in the field of transportation, can only have a detrimental effect. I would hope nobody would presume or want to presume- I know the hon. gentleman does not-that the democratic rights of the workers should be removed from them prior to an emergency. I have often said that when and if public interests supersede those of the private parties, I will be prepared to assume my responsibility, but I would not go as far as some hon. members in presuming when that moment should be.



DISPUTE BETWEEN RAILWAYS AND LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS-INTERVENTION BY MINISTER OF LABOUR-STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the very serious dislocation to the economy of western Canada caused by the fact that the strike of locomotive engineers now covers nearly all of western Canada and the fact that a strike vote is being taken which may affect all of the railway systems throughout Canada, I should like to ask the minister if the time has now been reached when he might meet with both of the parties to this dispute to see if his good offices could be used to bring them closer to an immediate settlement?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I apologize for being rather ambiguous in my reply. I cannot very well divulge the confidences of one side or the other or what role, if any, I have played behind the scenes in this dispute. Let me say that I consider it premature at this moment for the Minister of Labour to participate officially in the negotiations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to embarrass the minister or in any way obstruct the possibility of an immediate settlement. However, in view of the fact that the House and the people of Canada generally are deeply concerned about this matter, can the minister tell us if negotiations are continuing and if there seems to be some progress, so that people can have some hope that a settlement is likely in the near future?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are going on at this moment in Montreal in the shopcrafts and nonoperating groups. There was a meeting this morning between the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the CNR, but I am not prepared to divulge the outcome. I understand another meeting is now in progress between the negotiating team of the BLE and the CPR. Unless the hon. gentleman would suggest to me that I take compulsory action against the men who are on strike in the west, perhaps prematurely in the eyes of their national bargaining unit, I can only suggest that things are going on as well as I would anticipate at this very delicate time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I asked the question in the hope that the minister could divulge whatever information he felt free to give. I say to the minister that at no time did I suggest that he take any compulsory action, and no one has suggested that. We are asking the minister whether he, himself, can use the prestige of his office and his own personal expertise for dealing with a situation like this in an attempt to bring about an early settlement.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated to the hon. gentleman who asked a question on behalf of the official opposition that I was prepared to do so at the moment when, in my judgment, it was appropriate. The only reason I alluded to the members of the BLE who are on strike out west is that the hon. gentleman had introduced that in his preamble. I had made no reference to them. I am simply saying that I have divulged all I can without jeopardizing the dispute and the negotiations now going on. If I am forced to divulge more, I think all of us will then have to bear the responsibility if I unintentionally jeopardize what could be a successful conclusion.



DISPUTE BETWEEN RAILWAYS AND LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS-RETURN TO WORK REQUEST BY MINISTER

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. Since the minister has more or less suggested a

March 31, 1971

cooling-off period and since he asked the engineers, as a personal favour to him, to return to work, I wonder whether the minister could enlighten us on this point at this time? Has he had a response to this request, and does he intend to follow through on this approach?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I spoke personally to the members of the BLE in the general Vancouver area or British Columbia who are on strike and suggested that it would be in the best interests of the BLE and the national unit if they did not anticipate the outcome of the negotiations and returned to work. They refused my request, but I understand they are meeting again at two o'clock this afternoon to reconsider the matter.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Since the minister has a certain amount of charm, and I am not trying to be facetious, can he assure the House and the nation that he will continue to approach the engineers with the request that, as a personal favour to him, they return to work? Can he assure us that he will continue that approach?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, if I thought it would bring a settlement, I would kiss the blarney stone.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour, who has been quite conciliatory in this matter, if he will muzzle the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour who apparently seems to be trying to bring this matter to an unsatisfactory climax?



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Secretary of State concerning the Opportunities for Youth program.
Since the government of the province of Quebec has demanded the right of veto regarding projects designed to create jobs for students during the 1971 summer vacation, to be financed entirely by the federal government, could the minister tell us whether students are to submit their project suggestions to Quebec or to Ottawa?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, clearly the hon. member's information is not only incomplete but inaccurate. The agreement between the Quebec and federal governments calls for a Quebec official to be delegated to the secretariat in charge of such projects and for permanent co-ordination in order that priorities and criteria of both governments may be met.
Moreover, a telegram to this effect has been sent to all provincial governments anxious to send one of their officials to this secretariat in order to maintain the best co-ordination possible.
Inquiries of the Ministry
The reply to the hon. member's question is very simple: the project is a federal endeavour and applications should be submitted to the federal government.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Considering the answer just given by the minister, could he tell us if the final decision, with regard to any project, rests with the federal government?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have stated clearly enough that this was a federal program, but I have also stated clearly that the federal and provincial governments had agreed to make joint decisions which do not adversely affect the priorities of the one or the others.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question-



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-ORGANIZATIONS THAT QUALIFY FOR GRANTS

Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the hon. Secretary of State and ask him whether groups or clubs such as service clubs, Lions or other similar organizations will be financially assisted in the same manner as usually extended to students. Will those clubs which propose certain projects also receive some financial assistance?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a program called Opportunities for Youth, that is a project involving young people, initiatives and achievements by young people. The fact that the projects are sponsored by a committee which includes adults and that these are members of one club or another, is not an obstacle; but the hon. member will realize that the emphasis must be on the responsibility and initiative of young people themselves.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. With reference to the strike of tradesmen employed by Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company at Flin Flon, Manitoba, which is well into its third month and is also causing a drastic situation economically in the entire city as well as for many suppliers across Canada, has the minister any further plans to attempt to bring the two parties together in view of the fact that the most recent mediation attempts unfortunately ended in failure?
24081-22J

March 31, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has pointed out, the strike in Flin Flon has already lasted three months. At the request of both parties, we sent a mediator. Unless the attitude of the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company and the several craft unions involved reflects their responsibility to the community, a reflection that was noticeably absent in the presence of the mediator, that strike could very well last another three months.


Robert Simpson: I take it the minister is suggesting that no further efforts will be made at the present time, or at least until there is a further cooling-off period?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am suggesting that both parties at the present moment could very well bring the strike to an end if they would both assume their moral and legal obligations to the community instead of asking the Department of Labour to do the impossible. Until their attitudes change, there is little point in assigning a mediator to the dispute.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board concerning the advisory committee on pay and compensation of excluded personnel in the Public Service, sometimes known as the Clyne committee. In view of the fact that the only report made by this committee was in December, 1968, and in view of the fact that many of the public servants who are excluded from collective bargaining are concerned about the situation, is it the intention of the government to ask the committee for another report soon?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: As the hon. member is aware, I believe, the committee has been in fairly frequent session. I hesitate to describe it as continuous, but it has been in fairly frequent session over the years. Periodically they forward advice, not in the nature of a report but merely advice. I expect there will be a rather more formal report, approaching the first one, in the relatively near future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the report in December, 1968, was tabled, can the minister assure the House that the second report will also be tabled?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think that a second formal type of report would be tabled.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is this country now assisting in the airlift of Maize to Zambia or is it using its good offices to ask Zambia's neighbours to facilitate the ground transport of this important food?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: When I was in Zambia, Mr. Speaker, I had a full report from the Zambian government on the situation that is being faced as a result of the clampdown on shipments through Portuguese ports. At that time the Zambian government did not ask us to take specific action. I believe they were merely informing us of a developing situation in which we might be asked to help.
* # *


CONSULTATIONS ON COMPATIBILITY OF PROPOSED BRITISH COLUMBIA AND FEDERAL CIGARETTE LEGISLATION
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: My question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the government had consultations with the government of British Columbia regarding the compatibility of the British Columbia cigarette legislation with the expected legislation of the federal government in this area?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Philip Bernard Rynard: When will the federal legislation be introduced?


John Carr Munro: The matter is now under active consideration, Mr. Speaker. When there is a decision on the matter of policy on this question, I will advise the House.


CONSULTATIONS WITH CIGARETTE MANUFACTURERS ON ABANDONING OF ADVERTISING
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Has the minister had any consultations with the cigarette manufacturers with regard to their willingness to withdraw television and other forms of advertising?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I and officials of my department have been having discussions with the tobacco manufacturers on a more or less continuous basis covering a lot of fronts, including this one, over the past three or four years.

March 31, 1971


Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
As this question is of great interest to me, I would like to ask the minister if he has met the representatives of the Tobacco Producers Association of Canada who seem very worried about this policy?


John Carr Munro: Yes, I have, Mr. Speaker, but not recently. The last time was many months ago.


POLLUTION
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry involving wide ecological considerations. In view of the known dangers attached to the use of the defoliants 2-4-D and 2-4-5-T, and the concern being expressed by commercial fishermen and conservation groups, will the minister seek to halt the proposed aerial forest spraying program in the Klanawa River basin on the west coast of Vancouver Island until ecological aspects of the proposal additional to the danger of direct fish kill have been fully assessed? Also, will he direct that research studies be made by the forestry branch of his department aimed at devising better techniques for retarding weed tree growth?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, a considerable amount of research has already been done on this subject by our fisheries and wildlife people. No unfavourable ecological effects have been reported as a result of the use of this spray material.


FINANCE
Mr. Alexander Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Could he tell the House if his department or a cabinet committee is presently studying the serious situation of the Canadian pulp and paper industry, following the unpegging of the Canadian dollar?
As some of the plants, such as the Gaspesia Pulp and Paper in Chandler, on the Gaspe peninsula, must stop operating, will the minister make a statement in the near future about the measures which will be taken to meet this situation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the pulp and paper industry have made representations to us with regard to their difficulties which do not only arise from the unpegging of the Canadian dollar. Their representations are under consideration.
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN


SHIPS WAITING TO BE LOADED AT VANCOUVER BECAUSE OF LACK OF PROPER GRADES PRIOR TO LABOUR SLOWDOWNS-DEMURRAGE CHARGES
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: wish to direct my question to the minister who reports for the Canadian Wheat Board. Will the minister inform the House how many ships were waiting in Vancouver harbour for grain cargoes and could not be loaded because of the lack of proper grades of wheat and barley at the grain terminals prior to the recent labour slowdowns?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the labour slowdowns have been going on for a significant period of time. Therefore it is difficult to state the precise point at which this might be said to have started. There were ships waiting in the harbour, but prior to the last difficulty the number of ships at berth or waiting for berths was about equal to the number of berths available.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister on the presumption that he saw the question that I directed to the Prime Minister yesterday. Will the minister make representations to the cabinet that demurrage charges for these ships be paid from the federal treasury rather from receipts of the grain producers?


PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL STORAGE CAPACITY AT VANCOUVER
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the recent statement made by the president of the United Grain Growers, who is also chairman of the Canada Grains Council, that the Canadian grain industry stands in need of an additional five or six million bushels of storage capacity on the Vancouver waterfront, has the minister had any discussions with the co-operatives and the private companies with a view to exploring the possibility of acquiring additional storage?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of our handling and transportation system is under study. In particular, the facilities at Vancouver have been reviewed fairly constantly. There were a number of changes in the arrangements in Vancouver which seemed to make possible better use of the facilities there. The companies involved have now agreed to take various steps which would allow the facilities to be used to a greater extent. A further examination is being made of whether more facilities are required.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Has the minister considered the possibility of having the National Harbours Board construct additional facilities, or of taking some action under the aegis of the Board of Grain Commissioners, shortly to come under new direction? Has the minister given consideration to taking action along these lines?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, no specific decisions have been taken about the sort of facilities that would be required,

March 31, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
and therefore no decision has been taken about who would be the best person or the best company to build the facilities. We are looking at the whole question of our handling and transportation system, and the location of facilities may well depend upon some conclusion yet to be reached regarding the system as a whole.


STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM-PAYMENT OF AIR FARE AND ROOM AND BOARD
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Many young people across the country are wondering whether they might be included on his European tour this summer. There are almost as many as the number that went after the Pied Piper in his day and generation. I wonder whether or not the minister can tell the House whether under this international student summer employment exchange program selected applicants are expected to pay their own air fare and in many cases room and board as well?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, when the program was announced it gave a clear indication that the transportation charges for those seeking summer employment opportunities in Europe were the responsibility of the students themselves. The student is offered an opportunity of some employment which will no doubt go some way toward defraying part of the total expenses, but it is not a program that is subsidized by the federal government.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in knowing how these students are going to be able to go back to university if they pay their air fare and room and board, unless, of course, the minister is arranging for their employment at a high rate of salary or wages. Is there going to be any endeavour on the part of the government to do this, or is this plan just a sham?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this plan has been in effect for a number of years and is altogether in the nature of an opportunity for students to further their cultural education. It is obvious that students who require earnings at the highest possible level during the course of the summer months will not find this program attractive. Nevertheless it is a very attractive program for students who do want to make use of the summer for cultural improvement.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the government given consideration to using some of the big 707 jets that the government has at its disposal to take these students over and bring them back?


Otto Emil Lang: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I would have to refer that question to my colleague, but I understand that those planes are very much used in their regular routine.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO SYDNEY MANPOWER OFFICE
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister with reference to the question I posed yesterday which the Prime Minister very kindly took as notice. I refer to the provision of information regarding the Opportunities for Youth program which is not available or was not until yesterday morning at Manpower offices in Cape Breton.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the information was initially mailed out by the Secretary of State's office to the Manpower offices. Subsequently, wherever shortages were reported material has been airmailed to those offices requiring it. This includes the office at Sydney.


NUMBER OF STUDENTS WHO WILL BE WITHOUT SUMMER JOBS
Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: May I address a supplementary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the department conducted any studies to determine how many students will still be without summer jobs this year?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. This is a very difficult matter to determine in view of the variable factors such as the upturn in the economy, the large number of students who are seeking work, and so on. Therefore it is very difficult to do anything other than look at what has been the case in previous years.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Has he received representations from certain Quebec farm associations asking him to subsidize not only the transportation costs of feed grain, but also the purchase price in order to achieve parity between the East and the West, and if so, what was or will be his answer?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall any specific representations about that particular request, but I think the feed freight assistance program during this past year and for the coming year does in fact equalize to a very large extent the cost of feed in most parts of Canada.
March 31, 1971


BARLEY-DIFFERENCE IN PRICE BETWEEN WESTERN AND EASTERN CANADA
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is he aware that barley is being sold to Western mills and farmers at 75 cents a bushel, and that the very same barley, after having been delivered to the St. Lawrence ports, costs between $1.54 and $1.57 a bushel?

* # * FINANCE


INCREASE IN CHARTERED BANK SERVICE CHARGES- EARLY INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENTS TO COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Now that the banks recognize that the Combines Investigation Act amendments to be introduced by the minister will probably terminate their right to unrestricted pricing collusion, and since they are now blatantly exploiting their advantage, will the minister expedite the introduction of this legislation?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of the legislation is not dependent upon what the banks recognize or do not recognize. We are working on it as hard as we can and will introduce it as soon as we can.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact there is evidence that the government is giving assistance to apple growers in British Columbia, will he also give consideration to the problem of importations that are affecting the whole industry?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of investigations made with respect to imports of certain apple products, particularly apple concentrate. The growers are aware of the findings of most of those investigations.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
Affairs. On a number of occasions the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has been asked about tackling the banks on the question of their increased charges for cheque servicing and the minister has indicated his impotency under the combines legislation. Last week I asked the minister whether he would consider referring this issue to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs so that we could deal with it in an effective way by calling the presidents of the banks before the committee. Has the minister considered this request, and is he prepared to ask the House to make a reference?
Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker, not at this time.


Mr. Sallsman:: Since the minister is not prepared to ask the House for a reference, will he initiate an inquiry into the matter and report to the House?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it requires an inquiry; the facts are fairly plain.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would remind hon. members that we are now running short of time. We will definitely run short of time unless we limit supplementaries.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Grey-Dufferin-Walerloo):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs supplementary to one which was directed to the Minister of Agriculture in connection with the importation of agricultural products into Canada and the confusion consumers encounter in identifying Canadian products when they want to buy them. In determining the regulations under the new packaging and labelling legislation, would the minister consider devising a truly Canadian symbol which will indicate that products are grown and packed in Canada?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The confusion to which the hon. member refers has been a subject of great concern to my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and myself as well as to our officials. We have been endeavouring to eliminate it under existing legislation as far as possible, but I will certainly consider the hon. member's suggestion or representation very carefully because I am aware of the confusion that exists.


INCREASE IN CHARTERED BANK SERVICE CHARGES-REQUEST FOR REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance and it is partly supplementary to the previous question addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate


BAY OF FUNDY TIDES-REPORT ON DISCUSSION WITH NEW BRUNSWICK AND NOVA SCOTIA POWER COMMISSION OFFICIALS
Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Darlmoufh-Halifax East):: Can the
Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources inform us as to

March 31, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
the outcome of the discussions held in Ottawa yesterday between officials of his department and officials of the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia Power Commissions with respect to tidal power?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The general managers of the Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick Power Commissions, accompanied by senior staff, met yesterday with power development and marine construction specialists of the federal government. The meeting discussed in considerable detail the basic assumptions underlying the 1969 report of the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board and agreed on a program of review of areas where changed conditions since 1969 may have altered the competitive position of tidal power.
The review committee will report to the general managers of the two provincial power commissions and to the assistant deputy minister for energy of my department. Their work will touch on such matters as interest rates, escalation of costs of tidal and conventional power generation, and new developments in generation and construction techniques.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Bearing in mind the cuts which were made in rates of corporate and personal income taxes in the recent United Kingdom budget, is the minister considering following this example in his forthcoming budget?


Edgar John Benson: I understand they intend to reform the British tax system to bring it more into line with the Canadian system.


ASSURANCE RESPECTING FORTHCOMING TAX CHANGES TO ASSIST OIL PRODUCERS IN AVOIDING EXPLORATION STAFF LAY-OFFS
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: I have a further question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind that Imperial Oil Limited is presently in the process of implementing a general staff reduction of at least 20 per cent with respect to its western Canadian exploration operations, can the minister offer any assurance that his forthcoming budgetary and tax changes will not contribute to a further decrease in employment in this vital sector of our economy?


NATIONAL SECURITY
John Gilbert: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. Are the minister and his officials preparing legislation of a permanent nature to replace the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act and, if not, is he of the opinion that the subject should be referred to a committee for special study and report?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: The government will be asking Parliament for some type of parliamentary action before long.


INDUSTRY
Mr. C. Terrence Murphy (Sault Ste. Marie):: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that seven vice-presidents and four other senior officers of Home Oil have been guaranteed two years severance pay if they are dismissed or retire in the event of a change in the ownership of that company, would the minister assure the House that under any negotiations he may carry on the ordinary workers of the company will receive the same benign terms?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I directed this question to the minister on Monday and his parliamentary secretary took it as notice. It has to do with the meeting which was held between the minister and the Ministers of Agriculture for the various provinces last weekend and the directive emanating from that meeting that a committee would be set up to study proposed farm adjustment programs. Can the minister tell us the composition of the committee? Will the farm organizations be represented on it?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, though we shall be consulting with the farm organizations. This committee will be reporting to a meeting of Deputy Ministers of Agriculture which is to be held in Ottawa, I believe on April 28.

March 31, 1971


INDUSTRY
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of a decision by a United States customs court to reclassify Canadian-forged auto parts exported to the United States as dutiable material, and in view of the fact that Canada exports about $10 million worth of these parts every year, may I ask whether the minister is aware of this change involving the imposition of customs duties and, if so, whether he and members of his staff will take a close look at this most serious interpretation of the United States customs law since the United States-Canada auto pact was agreed upon?


Edgar John Benson: Since this is such a serious matter I should like to take the question as notice.


FISHERIES
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: This question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In light of a statement made yesterday by Professor Ronald, the newly-appointed chairman of the federal task force set up to investigate the seal hunt, may 1 ask whether the minister is satisfied that Dr. Ronald is approaching his task with the necessary impartiality, or whether he intends to replace him?


John (Jack) Davis: Dr. Ronald is one of six eminent scientists and international humane society representatives who have been going to the seal hunt for a number of years. His opinion, and that of the other five, will certainly be listened to. He is an objective person and I believe we should listen to his views in this regard.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Bearing in mind the tremendous additional quantities of various species of fish which will be consumed by seals if the herds are allowed greatly to increase, will the minister tell us whether it is the policy of his department to let foreign ships take half of our fish stocks and allow the seals to eat the other half?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: My question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for St. John's West. Can the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry now respond to the question I directed to the Prime Minister yesterday? It was taken as notice by the
Inquiries of the Ministry
Prime Minister who undertook to direct it to the hon. gentleman's attention.


John (Jack) Davis: I do not have the question in front of me. Would the hon. member please repeat it?


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the question is brief because we are running short of time. I was hoping to have time to recognize two or three other hon. members before calling orders of the day.


John Howard Lundrigan: I suspect the Prime Minister's promise was not made good, so perhaps I will wait until he has directed the question to the minister and ask for a reply tomorrow.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me. I know it is difficult because I am surrounded by six-foot ex-basketball players. My question to the Minister of Labour or the Secretary of State concerns a strike of CBC production workers. Can either minister give us a report on the current situation? Is the CBC ready now to conduct meaningful negotiations?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I could answer the question a little more accurately, perhaps, if the hon. gentleman would inform me what strike is taking place at the present moment within the CBC.


Mark Willson Rose: A strike of production workers was called for one o'clock today, I understand.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I repeat, I know of no strike at the present moment within the CBC.


FINANCE
Mr. J. G. Lind (Middlesex):: In view of the fact that the chartered banks of Canada seem to practice collusion, I was wondering if we could ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Finance to entertain a little collusion and investigate the recent increase in service charges by the chartered banks, namely, the 50 per cent increase they have imposed on anybody who passes an N.S.F. cheque?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Partly at the instigation of my hon. friend, who has made very firm representations in this regard, the Prices and Incomes Commission is pursuing such an inquiry.

March 31, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry CONSUMER AFFAIRS
CANADIAN CONSUMER COUNCII^CRITERIA USED IN APPOINTING PRESIDENT


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs further to a matter raised yesterday about the Canadian Consumer Council. In view of press statements alleging that the original president of the council was blessed with a total lack of knowledge of consumer problems, would the minister advise what criteria he uses in making appointments to the presidency of the council? Can he also say who the new president is and what qualifications, if any, he has for this position?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubt that the question as asked is in order. If the minister wishes to reply to this question, I think he should do so by way of a statement on motions.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if, in fact, the negotiations with one of the railway companies, the CNR, have broken down and a strike dealine of April 5 has been set?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is possible, Mr. Speaker, but I have not been notified officially of that and I am not in a position to reveal what I know from confidential sources. I have no way of verifying that publicly.


PERCENTAGE OF VANCOUVER STORAGE CAPACITY FILLED AT BEGINNING OF RAILWAY WORK STOPPAGE
Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. What percentage of the total storage capacity at Vancouver was filled at the beginning of the rail strike last week?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to get exact figures for the hon. member. The amount of grain at Vancouver was at a fairly high level compared with what is considered a desirable operating level.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact
that an answer given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare yesterday has created some concern, there being some question as to its accuracy, I wonder whether he has checked the matter and would care either to confirm or to correct his answer concerning the effective date of the agreement between Canada and West Germany regarding pensions?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, concerning the effective date for payments, if I left any misunderstanding I meant to say that payments would not be made until the convention was ratified. I do not anticipate the convention being ratified, at least by the West German Parliament, for perhaps six to eight months. I do not know whether or not that clears up the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So the effective date is not now but six months hence?


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, March 30, consideration in committee of Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Honey in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order, please. When the committee rose last evening clause 14 of the bill was being considered.
On clause 14-Establishment of Ministries of State.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, if it should be acceptable to the committee, I would suggest that I be permitted to deal not only with ministries of state but also the next clause which deals with parliamentary secretaries so that there will be no repetition. Unless an objection is raised, I shall follow that course.


Russell Clayton Honey: Members of the committee have heard the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman. I would think there would have to be unanimous consent to permit the right hon. gentleman to deal with both parts in his speech. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Sir, as I look over these clauses I can only conclude that the Liberal members will be choosing as their song "Roll Out The Barrel". Over the years there has never been a case that has equalled these particular clauses in respect of the interest they provide for members of the Liberal party. Indeed that is understandable, because if this bill becomes the law of the land and the

March 31, 1971

increases take place in the field of ministries of state and parliamentary secretaries, since these appointments are for a two-year period 110 of 155 Liberal members will have held a position of some kind from cabinet minister to minister of state to parliamentary secretary. In other words, this Parliament will be dominated by those who hold positions within the pay of the country, over and above their indemnity as members. That can only be destructive of the basic principle of the independence of Parliament.
I am very much concerned about this legislation. It is in the Prime Minister's name, but for some reason the Prime Minister does not see fit to be present when discussions are taking place in respect of a matter which is dangerous to the whole concept of parliamentary sovereignty. I shall begin, Sir, by referring to the revelation made the other evening by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister when, in answer to a matter raised by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, he said that "the bill gives flexibility and raises a dilemma concerning how much debate we can stand". I have left out some of the additional words. That is the attitude of this government; Parliament is to be subject to flexibility which has become a synonym for political patronage. This action is being taken in order to keep in line back bench members in supporting the government. There can be no other reason for such anxiety to get this legislation through, which is described as being urgent. Parliament is being bamboozled with the introduction of this type of legislation. We want action taken in respect of pollution, but in order to secure that action, in my opinion Parliament is asked to itself to engage in pollution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: In other words, Parliament is being asked to provide jobs for hungry members who are desirous of holding some title or place, not forgetting that various amounts up to $15,000, in the case of ministers of state, will be available. There is every opportunity to appoint ministers without portfolio, but to positions only paying $10,000, and therefore the government decided it would set up another group known as ministers of state.
Then, so far as parliamentary secretaries are concerned, they believe it will not be long before the amount payable to them may be expected to be increased. Last evening the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte condemned this joining together of legislation that Parliament wants with mercenary provisions like this which must be recognized as being a raid on the public treasury for the benefit of a majority. Why is this course taken? Why is Parliament to be treated in this way? Everything is in this particular bill but the kitchen sink!
But there are two provisions in the bill, in this clause and the following one, that possess an unusual attraction for those who up to the present have not had that preferment that they had hoped to have. When I look at this bill, I can understand full well how the Prime Minister and some of his ministers must have laughed with cynicism when it was before the cabinet-"Watch us; we can get away with it." At a time when there are hundreds of thousands of people out of employment because
Government Organization Act, 1970 of the actions of this government, for members of Parliament to join in increasing their opportunities for service at higher rates of pay is something that cannot be justified.
There are so many hon. members opposite just waiting in the wings. I watch them, Mr. Chairman. But the hon. member for East York is not in their number. He is in the dog house, and the numbers occupying that position are increasing with the passing days. Others look with hope and expectation, and I am just wondering whether or not the provisions of Standing Order 11 may have some application. That Standing Order reads:
No member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any member so interested will be disallowed.
You are fortunate, Mr. Chairman, that you do not have to determine this. If perchance that rule is in effect, this bill will be defeated. You can be absolutely sure of that, because as I look over and watch these hopefuls I conclude that even with the increase in positions which this will provide, where 70 per cent of the government members will hold positions of this kind, unless that 70 per cent were voting for it this bill would not pass the House.
I ask myself why is Parliament being treated in this way? I am disquieted by this type of legislation. It is dangerous to the maintenance of Parliament itself when a government has a majoriy and, being afraid to introduce these two clauses, with provision for ministers of state and an increase in parliamentary secretaries by way of separate amendments to existing legislation, it throws them into a hopper and says Parliament must accept all the bill whether we agree with these provisions or not.
This bill has all the hallmarks of the dictatorship of the majority. I am not going to use the type of language which is now passable in Parliament-I am not used to using words of that type. However, this bill is a fraud and a political swindle on the institution of Parliament, and it cannot be justified in any way. It is designed to place private members supporting the government in a position where they dare not speak out, where they dare not have their own opinions, as four or five of them have had, including the hon. member for East York to whom I have alluded. They dare not speak out because in doing so they will commit suicide. The sword of Damocles is over the head of every member of the Liberal party who dares to take a stand that the government does not like.
This is pushing Parliament around. Sir, I know that skullduggery has been practised for years. This deed of endeavouring to force members of the House to vote for that which they do not want in order to get that which they do, makes a caricature of Parliament. This is legislation that constitutes a squalid subjugation of this institution. I have watched Parliament for a long while. I have a deep regard and affection for this institution. I saw parliament in the darkest days of war but, Sir, in the last two or three years it has been downgraded and degraded for one purpose only, as the hon. member for Pembina said when speaking on this matter, and that is to control the thought of Parliament because the government has a
March 31, 1971

Government Organization Act, 1970
majority. It is placing shackles, bridles and letters on this House. It is a dangerous bill.
The Prime Minister does not stay in this House when introducing his own bill. Even his parliamentary secretary is not here. On a bill of such importance, to which the Prime Minister placed his own name, it is difficult to understand why he is not here.
The explanation for what is being done is that it will provide flexibility and efficiency. This causes me to quote the words of Voltaire, who was referred to by the Prime Minister the other day, and who said, "There are some men who use thought only to justify their wrong doings, and speak only to conceal their thoughts." That is what is happening here. The Prime Minister recently indicated that the statesman with whom he felt the greatest affinity was Machiavelli. I have in my hand a volume called "Machiavelli The Prince". The Minister of Justice is looking at the picture on it and he will see that it bears a striking physical affinity to his leader's appearance. In fact, if it were not for the identification and the fact that this is a picture of a death mask, frequent mistakes would be made by those who look at it.
When a political philosopher receives the approval of the Prime Minister, it is interesting to read some of the observations. This is a Penguin Classic book, and I am sure all hon. members will want to get it. At page 91 I find this:
The fact is that a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous. Therefore, if a prince wants to maintain his rule he must learn how not to be virtuous, and to make use of this or not according to need.
Then, I shall read this part:
-he should not deviate from what is good, if that is possible, but he should know how to do evil, if that is necessary.
Here is another quotation:
-a prudent ruler cannot, and should not, honour his word when it places him at a disadvantage and when the reasons for which he made his promise no longer exist-a prince will never lack good excuses to colour his bad faith. One could give innumerable modem instances of this, showing how many pacts and promises have been made null and void by the bad faith of princes:-one must know how to colour one's actions-Men are so simple, and so much creatures of circumstances, that the deceiver will always find someone ready to be deceived.
The cabinet deserves to be mentioned and Machiavelli says:
-a shrewd prince should adopt a middle way, choosing wise men for his government-
Apparently, the Prime Minister did not follow that principle.
*-allowing only those the freedom to speak the truth to him, and then only concerning matters on which he asks their opinion, and nothing else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: There are many other good statements here which indicate a dangerous philosophy. Here is another:
How princes should honour their word-praiseworthy it is for a prince to honour his word and to be straightforward rather than crafty in his dealings; nonetheless contemporary experience shows that princes who have achieved great things have been those who have given their word lightly, who have known how to trick men with their cunning, and who, in the end, have overcome those abiding by honest principles.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I regret that I must interrupt the right hon. gentleman. I only do so to advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Russell Clayton Honey: The right hon. gentleman may continue with the consent of the committee. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Russell Clayton Honey: There is no consent.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


Russell Clayton Honey: I might say to members of the committee that it is very difficult for the Chair to ascertain whether there is consent when I hear negative voices. I am prepared to put the question again. Is there consent-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. Is there consent for the right hon. gentleman to continue?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Russell Clayton Honey: There is no consent.


Mr. Maclnnis:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that the "no" from that side of the House came from behind the curtain. No member standing behind the curtain is entitled to voice an opinion.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I was going to bring that matter to your notice, Mr. Chairman. I think it is extremely important at this time to note that the Minister of Justice, in his wisdom, has indicated on behalf of his party that there is general agreement for the right hon. gentleman to continue. I would hope that the Chair has noted that and will appreciate the significance of it.
March 31, 1971


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. When the unanimous consent of the House is involved I have no more right than anybody else in the chamber but I understood, as did the House Leader, that there was general agreement within this chamber for the right hon. gentleman to continue.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The Chair must follow Standing Orders. I put the question twice, and certainly I have no discretion. The Standing Order says there must be consent, and there was not unanimous consent. On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, the Chair heard the negative opinion from within the chamber.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


An hon. Member:: They don't like the truth.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I think it is unfortunate that some members on the government side were not prepared to give unanimous consent to allow the right hon. member for Prince Albert to complete his remarks. He has long experience in this House and we are discussing a very important matter.


An hon. Member:: Same old gang!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think, instead of trying to cut off the discussion, some members on the other side of the House ought to be seized of the importance of this question and should be trying to get all the information they can on it. I submit to the gentlemen opposite that this section which we are now discussing, part IV of this Bill C-207, is one of the most crucial questions we will discuss in this session of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would have hoped that private members on the other side of the House would not only have wanted to listen to the right hon. member for Prince Albert but would have wanted to take a-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. On a number of occasions the hon. gentleman who has just been speaking has made reference to the opposition of gentlemen on this side of the House to allowing the right hon. member for Prince Albert to continue his speech. This is an unsupported and unsubstantiated charge,-


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


An hon. Member:: You are reflecting on the Chair; apologize.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -and I would hope that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands would limit his observations to the lack of unanimity, without trying in a substantial way to ascribe it either to one side of the House or the other.
Government Organization Act, 1970


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if the President of the Treasury Board thinks there is any doubt as to where the opposition to allowing the right hon. member for Prince Albert to proceed came from, then I suggest that you should poll the committee. There will then be no doubt about the place from which the opposition came.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have the floor and I am still on a point of order. The President of the Treasury Board may run the government, but he is not going to start running this committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. Will the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands kindly resume his seat. I merely want to ask whether he is still speaking on the point of order raised by the President of the Treasury Board?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, since the right hon. member for Prince Albert may wish to speak, and since I have spoken for several minutes, I am prepared to surrender the floor to him and to take part in the debate later.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that members on this side are fully agreeable to confirming your understanding by polling the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The Chair, with respect, must say to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and to the President of the Treasury Board that the Chair takes the position we must follow the Standing Orders. I indicated to hon. members, when a question was raised on the point of order, that I heard a negative voice after I had asked for unanimous consent. I did not indicate from what part of the chamber I heard it, and I am not now prepared to indicate that. I merely indicated that there was not unanimous consent and I am not prepared, because so far as I know there is no provision for this in the Standing Orders, to poll the committee. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, if the right hon. member for Prince Albert does not want to proceed at this time, he will without a doubt, take the opportunity to intervene later in the debate. I want to say that this provision for the establishment of ministries of state is a further erosion of the powers of Parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Absolutely.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Here is a provision which says-

March 31, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Mr. Osier:: That is what they did in Manitoba.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the hon. member wants to make a speech, he will have the opportunity to do so. I invite him to take part in the debate and to make a speech, but to please keep quiet while I am making my speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I suggest that the hon. member should remain seated, even though that gives him concussion of the brain. I suggest that he sit where he now is.
Clause 14 reads:
Where it appears to the Governor in Council that the requirements for formulating and developing new and comprehensive policies in relation to any matter or matters coming within the responsibility of the Government of Canada warrant the establishment for the time being of a special portion of the public service of Canada presided over by a Minister charged with responsibility for the formulation and development of such policies, the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, establish a Ministry of State for that purpose.
I underline the words "developing new and comprehensive policies". This clause gives to the cabinet the power to set up what are, to all intents and purposes under this proposed legislation, temporary departments. Clause 15 reads:
A proclamation establishing a Ministry of State shall
(a)	state the name of the Ministry;
(b)	specify the matter or matters in relation to which the Minister for the Ministry is to formulate and develop policies; and
(c)	specify the powers, duties and functions to be assigned to the Minister for the Ministry in relation to the formulation and development of those policies.
I draw the attention of the committee to these words in subclause (c), "specify the powers, duties and functions to be assigned to the Minister". I also draw the committee's attention to clause 21, which reads:
In addition to the powers, duties and functions specified in the proclamation establishing a Ministry of State, the powers, duties and functions of the Minister for that Ministry extend to and include such other matters as are assigned or transferred to the Minister or the Ministry by or pursuant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada.
That clause provides that the cabinet has power to determine the powers, duties and functions of a department which is to be established as a ministry of state. It has the authority to extend those powers and give additional areas of jurisdiction to a minister of state. It has the power to end such a department at any time, without reference to Parliament and without any reference to any statute on the statute books of Canada.
When the Canadian Labour Congress appeared before the government to present its annual brief a few weeks ago, the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing suggested to the delegation that the whole question of housing could be speeded up if Parliament passed Bill C-207, so that a ministry of state could be established for housing and urban affairs. I am not in a position to know whether the Prime Minister intends to establish a ministry of state for housing and urban affairs although, certainly, the statement of the Minister without Portfolio to
the CLC delegation gives one reason to believe that that is the government's intention.
What does that mean, Mr. Chairman? Is a ministry of state dealing with housing and urban affairs within the terms of reference of the words of clause 14 that I shall now quote:
-developing new and comprehensive policies in relation to any matter or matters coming within the responsibility of the Government of Canada-
Does this mean that the government is now asking Parliament for the authority to set up, by order in council and by proclamation, a department of housing and urban affairs, without any reference to Parliament and without giving Parliament the opportunity to discuss the duties to be allocated to the minister, the powers given to the ministry of state and the jurisdiction which the minister of state will have?
A ministry of housing and urban affairs is not a temporary measure dealing with new and comprehensive policies. It is the kind of department that ought to be permanent. It is a department that will probably function as long as there are problems in housing and problems relating to urban affairs. Yet here the government is asking for authority, without referring to Parliament and merely by proclamation, to set up such a department, to extend the powers of that department and, when it deems it advisable, to end that department. Parliament is not to have any opportunity whatsoever to discuss the matter. Mr. Chairman, this is an amazing attitude for the government to take.


John George Diefenbaker: It is scandalous.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is nothing short of scandalous that the government should ask for the power to set up departments of government without referring to the Parliament of Canada and to the elected representatives of the people the matter of what areas of jurisdiction should be available to such a department, what powers it should exercise and what duties shall be prescribed for the minister in question. Actually, this government has been consistently endeavouring to erode the powers of parliament. Already the control of the purse strings has largely passed out of the hands of Parliament. Estimates go to committees. There is no opportunity in the House except for a vote. It is true that a member may specify a particular item on which he wants a vote taken, but there is no opportunity for discussion. The control of the purse strings is increasingly slipping out of the hands of the elected representatives.
We are now asked to go one step further and give the cabinet the stupendous power to set up departments of government with sweeping powers. We are asked to give the government that right without any recourse to Parliament whatsoever. The President of the Treasury Board says that this is necessary in order to have a flexible response. I say that this request for a flexible response is

March 31, 1971

merely a subterfuge for asking for extraordinary and unparliamentary powers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The fact is that technocrats, and I certainly include the President of the Treasury Board in that class, tend to become autocrats. They have little or no appreciation or understanding of the parliamentary process in a democratic society. If giving these sweeping powers to the cabinet is going to make for greater efficiency, it is logical to argue that Parliament be sent home, then, the President of the Treasury Board and the other technocrats could run the whole government of Canada. I say to members opposite that this steady and continuous erosion of the powers of the elected representatives and ignoring the role of Parliament in our democratic system is something they will live to regret.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Many articles have been written in recent months pointing out that the Prime Minister of Canada is moving more and more toward a presidential system and that increasing powers are being vested in the hands of the Prime Minister. It is no longer a case of prima interpares. It is a case of one man seeking to exercise more and more power at the expense of Parliament.
It is significant that the Prime Minister, who is sponsoring this bill, is not even here. When I asked him a few weeks ago if he would undertake to be present when we were discussing these particular sections, he said he would be here. He is not here. He, alone, is in a position to say to Parliament why he wants these extraordinary powers, the use he intends to make of them, what ministers of state he intends to appoint and what particular functions will be given to these ministries of state. He ought to be able to tell us whether these ministries of state will deal with temporary problems or whether he intends to use the powers in this bill to set up virtually permanent departments, such as a ministry of housing and urban affairs. Housing and urban affairs is not a temporary matter. If the government sets up a ministry of housing and urban affairs, I serve notice that in my opinion it will be a complete violation of clause 14 in Part IV of this bill.
The fact that the Prime Minister completely ignores the committee of the whole, has taken no part in the debate and has not seen fit in any of the preceding stages to outline the reasons for seeking powers which have never been granted to any Prime Minister in the history of Canada, indicates a contempt for Parliament. That contempt has not only been indicated by his absence from this committee, but it has been indicated by a number of actions which he has taken. As a matter of fact, in any democratic country, not even the president has the authority to allocate powers and duties unless such action is based on statutes enacted by the elected representatives.
In the United States, a cabinet minister has to be ratified by congress. The department over which any cabinet minister presides is based on statutes passed by
Government Organization Act, 1970
congress. He exercises powers which have been approved and passed by congress.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Do you want to move to the presidential system?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, I am not suggesting that we move to the presidential system. What I am saying to the President of the Treasury Board is that we are in great danger of getting the worst features of both. We are going to get the presidential system without the controls and power to exercise restraint which are available to te United States congress. We will have neither the benefits of the Parliamentary system nor the restricted measures and restraints of the United States Congress.
This legislation is being rammed through the House. Opposition protests are being ignored with respect to the matter of setting up ministries of state. In the main, the government members have remained silent. We have heard no protests from them.


An hon. Member:: They want a piece of the action.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I suppose many of them hope to be appointed ministers of state or parliamentary secretaries. This committee would do well to stop and think of the long-term repercussions which will evolve from the step we are now being asked to take. The government wants to have a flexible response. There is certainly a case to be made for being able to deal with certain matters and to have certain ministers allocated to deal with specific problems. The government has the power to appoint ministers without portfolio and to give them specific jobs to do.
We have been asking for a long time that a department of housing and urban affairs be established. The government can bring in legislation to set up such a department. This would enable the members of this House to discuss the role of such a department, the powers that would be given to it and the duties of the minister in charge of the department. That would be the proper way to do it. However, when the government asks for the power to set up a department of housing and urban affairs or any other department on its own initiative on the subterfuge that this is merely a temporary organization, the government is seeking in a round about way to bypass Parliament and to nullify the powers of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On this question, members in all parts of the House have a serious responsibility to look into the long-term effects of this measure and to speak out on them. As the powers of Parliament are curtailed and as the voice of the elected representatives is muzzled, so the democratic process suffers.
We might as well face the fact, Mr. Chairman, that there is a growing body of opinion among youth today that parliamentary democracy is irrelevant; that the parliamentary system has had its day. I do not believe that.

March 31, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 I believe that the parliamentary system is one of the best systems that has ever been evolved to enable free men and women to have a voice in governing themselves. But if its elected representatives are to have less and less power, if they are increasingly to become rubber stamps, if they are merely to be brought together to vote for or against non-confidence motions and to ram through estimates on the last prescribed day, then Parliament and its reputation will suffer and a great many of the rising generation will be looking to other methods of governing this country.
This provision is a retrograde step. It is something that the government does not need. If the government wants ministers to deal with specific problems, then it has the authority to appoint ministers without portfolio, if the government needs to set up additional departments, such as a department of housing and urban affairs, then Parliament will support the government. Indeed, I think all parties in the House have at different times urged the government to set up a department of housing and urban affairs. Certainly, the Mayors and Municipalities Association of Canada has been urging this for years.
The government does not have to take this action through the back door, and I should like to ask why it is using this method. Is it because the type of legislation that it has in mind is such that it thinks the House will object to it? Or is it going to be such a piece of window dressing that a ministry of state will be created with virtually no power to be more than a sort of study group to give the Canadian people the impression something is being done when, in fact, the government does not intend such a ministry to do anything at all? I hope that the President of the Treasury Board will tell this committee the reason the government is adopting this method. If the government does want to set up a department of housing and urban affairs, I ask the President of the Treasury Board why it does not bring in a bill to set up such a department.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I do so to advise him that his tune has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member may continue with the consent of the committee. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Russell Clayton Honey: I do not hear unanimous consent. The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That came from behind you, John.


John George Diefenbaker: No, it did not.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Chairman, we are currently studying Part IV of the act respecting the organization of the
government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.
According to Clause 14, the government proposes to establish ministries of state which would handle various matters.
When perusing the legislation, one starts wondering what these matters are and why should a ministry of state be established. Clause 14 provides that ministries of state will be created. We therefore have to find in the bill in which specific areas the government intends acting in order to justify the creation of a department or a ministry and the appointment of a minister of state.
The answer to this basic question does not appear in the bill, nor is it mentioned in the government's statements, or those of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), because, at any rate, even if he is the sponsor of the bill he does not dare pilot it himself.
It is therefore nearly impossible for the opposition to find out why the government wants to create these new ministries of state. We must be satisfied with what is written, trying to justify honestly the establishment of these ministries.
Therefore, I would like to make a detailed study of some clauses of this bill. The questions I ask myself and that I want to ask my hon. colleagues are as follows: What definite fields will be covered by the ministries of state? Who will create them? And finally, whose authority will these ministries of state come under? Who will they be under? The government or parliament?
Therefore, I would like to study immediately clause 14 which states:
p.ra.)
Where it appears to the Governor in Council that the requirements for formulating and developing new and comprehensive policies in relation to any matter or matters coming within the responsibility of the Government of Canada warrant the establishment for the time being of a special portion of the public sevice of Canada presided over by a Minister . . .
This is the reason why the government wants to create a ministry of state. For some reason or other the governor in council will create a ministry of state in order to deal with a problem or to make some study.
Mr. Chairman, this reason means nothing, of course. It is simply a legal jumble which justifies nothing, explains nothing and does not say why a ministry of state will be created.
Mr. Chairman, I doubt then that we are justified in creating ministries of state. We are not opposed in principle and we expect it to be clearly understood. However, we would like to know what the duties of these ministries of state will be, why they will be set up and under what circumstances.
Let us assume for instance that a serious housing crisis exist all across Canada-such as the one now prevailing-and reflects unfavourably on the government in the public opinion. Let us assume that such a crisis is prejudicial to the government; let us assume that there is a very urgent need for a change in housing policy, that the

March 31, 1971

government is in danger of losing ground and of being brought to bay.
A similar situation could also prevail with respect to taxation.
The same could be said, for instance, of unemployment and of summer jobs for students, whom the government is unable to supply with summer jobs. It is merely applying poultices to wooden legs, palliatives which do not solve the real problem but seek to make people forget about it.
The government therefore, in order to mask its inefficiency and put people off, could announce, with a fine fanfare of publicity, of course well nourished by the mass media, the creation of a ministry of state headed by a minister without portfolio, to concentrate exclusively on the problem of summer jobs for students, or on student problems in general, or on housing, or on any other problem.
This does not mean that the problem would thus be solved. As a matter of fact, it simply means that to escape the storm, the government is using the ostrich policy, that is, it is hiding its head in the sand.
The government does not justify the establishment of this ministry of state, but in creating it, it tries to find a way to hide is incompetence, its apathy, its lethargy and its lack of action in a given field.
If hon. members on the treasury benches do not agree, I should like them to show me the provisions of the bill which assure them that such a ministry will not make unwarranted expenditures.
Of course the expenditure of public money is justified to the extent that we really want to face a special problem, and this with appropriate tools.
Mr. Chairman, today the government would have parliament grant a special power to the cabinet, that is appointing at will up to a maximum of five state ministers, and this for purposes and in circumstances which are not defined.
Mr. Chairman, having read the first part of clause 14, I must simply conclude that this is an ostrich policy. Moreover, as those who spoke before me said, this is a policy quite typical of the Trudeau government: the disintegration of the executive and legislative in order to crush the supreme institution likely to ensure the defence of Canadian people, that is parliament. This is a new way to cursh parliament, by granting the cabinet enlarged powers, without applying nor having to report to parliament.
I will go on with my quotation of clause 14 which stipulates that ministries of state will be established, for reasons that are not given, and that they will be headed by a minister of state.
The clause states, and I quote:
-charged with responsibility for the formulation and development of such policies, the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, establish a Ministry of State for that purpose.
Not only will parliament not be able to advise the government to establish a ministry or state nor to ask for its establishment, but the government will not even be
Government Organization Act, 1970 required to ask for the consent of parliament for this purpose.
Thefore, an extraordinary power is thus given to the executive, independently of the people's will and of their supreme protective agency, parliament.
Mr. Chairman, this kind of politics cannot be justified in any way unless we understand that we are considering the policies applied by this government over the last two years, which are unilateral policies showing utmost disregard for the wishes and requests of parliament and which, I must unfortunately admit, are initiated against the hon. members' wishes.
This shows how much this government mocks the House of Commons and reviles its power. It shows to what extent under the present government the executive attempts once more-and this time it is once too many- to crush the legislative power.
In Canada there are three separate powers which are all of equal importance: the judiciary, the legislative and the executive power. It is clearly understood that these powers can be exercised on the condition that the executive does not wield legislative and judiciary powers.
Mr. Chairman, all will recognize that from the moment the executive attempts to dictate some rules or guidelines to the judiciary, then justice is not justice anymore because it is directly dependent on the executive power. He who is judged cannot expect from justice that it be equitable; he can only hope to avoid the disfavour of the executive power which is ready to grind him. The judiciary system cannot operate normally if the executive power tries to control it.
The same applies to the relationship that must exist between te legislative and executive powers. If the executive attempts, one way or another, to assume or limit the rights of the legislative authority, or to ignore them, we come to the establishment of a dictatorship. It is a one-sided decision. The people, through their representatives, have no longer a voice in the administration of public affairs.
Those are the ones, Mr. Chairman, who will say to the people at the next election: "My dear friends, give us your opinion; the Liberal government has come up with a new way of asking the advice of the people, that is through white papers. Let us know your views, be really democrats, take part in the economic and political lives of your country at the decision-making level.
Mr. Chairman, this cannot be true. It is only bunkum, if the executive power crushes, as it is actually doing, the legislative power, that is parliament.
We cannot really live in a democratic country as Canada, Mr. Chairman, and thoroughly apply to the system unless the three main Canadian powers respect each other.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the legislative power is ready to respect the executive and judiciary powers and that the judiciary power is willing to respect the executive and legislative powers. But most unfortunately, one cannot honestly say that the executive power respects the legislative power.

March 31, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
Mr. Chairman, not only is the creation of those ministries of state unjustified but to make matters worse, the duties of the ministers to be appointed at the head of those ministries are not clearly outlined. And in that respect I shall quote clause 21:
In addition to the powers, duties and functions specified in the proclamation establishing a Ministry of State, the powers, duties and functions of the Minister for that Ministry-
One should give great attention to this part because the duties of that minister will be defined here, and I quote:
-the powers, duties and functions of the Minister for that Ministry extend to and include such other matters as are assigned or transferred to the Minister or the Ministry by or pursuant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada.
Therefore, this means nothing. It is once more the same legal mess which is found in clause 14 of the same part of the legislation. In fact, the more you study this legislation, the less you can justify the setting up of these ministries of state. But, if you put yourself in the place of the government members, you have two reasons to support this bill: Either you do not believe anymore in the legislative power and you are willing to increase that of the executive or you intend, through this indirect means, to increase your salary.
Mr. Chairman, I am quite shocked that there are not more government members to state their opinions on this subject. These members have the same rights and the same privileges as all opposition members and I cannot quite explain to myself why the latter alone feel they have to take advantage of their privileges to defend the rights of Parliament.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to call the attention of the government members to that point. I should like to ask the minister who is piloting the bill in the absence of the Prime Minister, what is the reason for the establishment of these ministries and ministers of state. I should like him to tell us what he intends to do and to what extent Parliament stands protected under Part IV of the bill.
There are many ways in which Parliament can be protected. First of all, the discretionary power that the Prime Minister is seeking under this legislation, that is authority to appoint ministers of state without consultat-ing Parliament, should be curtailed. Nowhere in this bill can there be found a clause or phrase prescribing that the government shall consult Parliament concerning the establishment of some ministry of state or the appointment of some minister of state. Nowhere is it stated that the execuive shall consult Parliament or that the ministry of state shall have to report to Parliament.
It is rather curious to realize that under the law many Crown corporations and many departments have to make a yearly report to the government on the administration of public funds, and yet those ministries of state would be excluded.
The ministers of state would not even have to be responsible to Parliament. Were we to carry to extremes the implementation of that system, even the ministers of state could refuse to answer questions which members of the opposition could direct to them on certain matters relating to the administration of those ministries of state.
Once one starts to play with those powers, to crush the legislative power, to push it aside for the benefit of the executive power, one realizes that it is no longer possible for democracy to survive and the situation does not make sense any more.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly object to part TV of the legislation which the right hon. Prime Minister did not have the courage to come and defend in the House, although he is the mover. I am strongly against that part of the bill because it is unjustified and no reason is given for the expense of public money. Above all, it will not solve anything. Judging from their accomplishments, there are already too many departments and ministries of state.
What results can we observe? Someone is designated as Postmaster General and one year later he is dismissed. A year after a new Post Office Department is established in a sort of crazy game. In the meantime, people may be amused but the problems are certainly not solved.
If, at least, through part IV of the bill, the problem of existing destitution in the midst of abundance in Canada were solved, if at least the people of Canada were given the assurance that they could live secure and free, the bill would be useful.
Unfortunately, part IV does not deal with the commonwealth, the well-being of the individuals. Nowhere in part IV is the problem of unemployment, of welfare, of the young dealt with. There is only talk of appointing ministers of state. Why? To increase the salaries of government members in a disguised way, without having to answer to the people, in addition to giving the cabinet more power to crush parliament which has become the only institution really capable of protecting the people from this government which tramples them through its policies as well as the methods it uses.
Mr. Chairman, if at least, through part IV dealing with the setting up of ministries and the appointment of ministers of state, the people could be sure that they would be better protected, we could discuss the bill more easily.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I regret very much to interrupt the hon. member. I do so to advise him and the committee that his time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Continue.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member may continue if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Russell Clayton Honey: There is not consent.


Mr. Boulanger:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think you misunderstood. I believe we agreed he could continue.

March 31, 1971


Mr. Ricard:: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wish to draw to your attention that there was a "no" which came from that side of the House.


Russell Clayton Honey: With respect, the Chair might say to all
members of the committee that I hope we do not have repetitions-


John George Diefenbaker: The member for York-Simcoe was the one who said no".


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. May the Chair say on the point of order that when there is not consent the Chair can hear a negative expression. The Chair is bound by Standing Orders and I would say impartially that I hope hon. members will not feel they have to point out to the Chair on occasion, from either side of the House, that there is not consent.
The hon. member for Red Deer.


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Chairman, it is not an easy task to participate in this debate. I say that because it is obvious from the refusal of members of the government, as evidenced now by the hon. member for York, to grant the normal courtesy that is given to members of this House to complete their statements. Obviously, even the government backbenchers are not interested in listening to intelligent debate on this bill. They go so far as to bar the right hon. member for Prince Albert and the Leader of the New Democratic Party from that courtesy. One wonders what is the use of participating at all. We seem to be talking to deaf ears. Perhaps the members of the government are not interested. Even if they are interested, it is obvious that they do not want to hear the legitimate views of those who might be opposed to some parts of the bill we are considering at the present time.
I say also, Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to participate in this debate when the Prime Minister, who obviously considered the bill important enough to sponsor it, does not appear in the House at any time when it is being debated. Indeed, we do not even see his parliamentary secretary on this occasion. So as a result we are, so to speak, talking to the wind. There is not very much hope that one could present an argument to which someone would listen, and in respect of which one would receive the type of encouragement which would indicate that perhaps an interesting consideration is taking place in respect of the contents of this bill.
Having said that, I share the concern expressed here this afternoon by those who have preceded me and those who have spoken at other times in this debate. In fact, I must say-and I have thoughtfully considered what might be an appropriate adjective here, so I do not use it lightly-that this is the most deceptive piece of legislation I have ever had to deal with in this House or that this government has ever presented because its real result will be far more sinister-yes, that is the word-so far as the parliamentary process is concerned than most of us in this House even realize or understand.
If the only aim of this legislation were to increase the number of ministers and parliamentary secretaries, that
Government Organization Act, 1970 might be one thing; but actually that is only one aspect of what this bill will do. In the few minutes I have at my disposal I shall attempt to show that it also erodes the very fibre of what this institution is. Considering the attitude of so many young people, and others not so young, toward this institution we should be asking ourselves every day what we are doing to strengthen this institution and not to weaken it? This should be the basic purpose, not only of those in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition but of those who support the government. I am concerned, and this is why I use such adjectives as "deceptive" and "sinister", because I see a further degrading and eroding of the place of Parliament in what I consider to be the most satisfactory way that man has devised to govern himself.
I want to point to just a few of the anomalies in the bill. It is not just a question that the government does not define what an enlarged cabinet will do, with particular reference to ministers of state. It is not just the question that the powers of Parliament are being eroded. There is also the question that the whole bureaucratic administration of government is being strengthened, is becoming more difficult to manage and, so far as the representatives of the people are concerned, is becoming more dangerous. I believe that Canada is the most over-governed country in the world. We have three levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal, and when we talk about government we have to consider all three levels. I know of no better way to emphasize this point than to say that if we were to add the total expenditures of all levels of government together, and then deduct from that total the various transfers that take place between those levels of government and compare those expenditures with the net national income of the Canadian people, that national income being what they earn through salaries, through dividends, through commissions, through the sale of their produce, and whatever other income they may have, we find that it costs Canadians approximately 47 cents out of every dollar they earn to govern themselves. That calculation is relevant here, Mr. Chairman, because this bill will increase the size of the bureaucratic aspect of government at the federal level.
Let us look briefly at the present situation. There are 155 government members in the House. The cabinet is made up of 29 members, including the Prime Minister and three ministers without portfolio. It is the largest cabinet we have ever had in Canada. There are 16 parliamentary secretaries. There is an assistant speaker; there is a whip and an assistant whip. There is a vice-president of the House committees, and there is the chairman of the committees. This makes a total of 62 members from the government side of the House who have specific jobs, other than just being elected members of Parliament.
If one considers the remarks of the Prime Minister when he upset the fruit basket of parliamentary secretaries last fall, at which time he indicated it was his policy

March 31, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 to rotate these lesser offices every two years, one finds that Bill C-207 will provide an opportunity for 139 of the 155 members on the government side to have jobs during any one Parliament. How will that come about? We presume there will be 29 cabinet ministers, just as now. Then, there will be ministers of state, and if you count them on the rotating basis that means five for one two-year period and five for another two-year period, making a total of ten. With 28 parliamentary secretaries for each two-year period, there will be a total of 56 over the life of a Parliament. There will be two assistant speakers over the life of a Parliament, two vice-presidents of committees of the House, two whips, two assistant whips, and 36 chairmen of committees. I repeat that during one term of office 139 government members will be able to hold office. This is something that is disturbing. All it can mean is a growth of the bureaucracy and an increase in the cost of government.
Let us look at the situation in a few other democratic countries. Britain, which has a population of 50 million, has 20 members in cabinet, and there are 30 ministers of state who are not in the cabinet. The latter cannot speak on policy. All they can do is answer for the activities of the departments with which they are associated. Then, there are law officers, an attorney general, two solicitors-general and an advocate making a total of four. There are 54 ministers, in and out of cabinet, out of a grand total of 630 Members of Parliament.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Would the hon. member permit a
question?


Robert Norman Thompson: I have only 20 minutes, Mr. Chairman, and I have some material I would like to put on the record. Since there are no provincial governments in Britain, one must assume that the national government looks after much of the administration which is the responsibility of provincial and municipal governments in Canada.
Australia, with a population of less than 14 million and a federal system similar to Canada's, has 12 ministers hi the cabinet and 14 ministers who are not in the cabinet, for a total of 26. There are 21 ministers chosen from the Australian House of 125 members, and five from the Senate of 60 members, and that Senate is an elected body.
India, with a population of 500 million, has state legislatures like we have in Canada. It has a cabinet of 50 members. It also has 15 ministers of state who are not members of the cabinet. The lower House consists of 500 members. Then, there is the President of the Republic in addition to the Prime Minister, and he also has an administrative function.
The United States, with a population of 210 million, has 12 cabinet ministers, and they are not chosen from the House or the Senate. There are 50 state governments in that country.
France, with a population somewhat the same in numbers as the United Kingdom, has a cabinet of 19 members. Its National Assembly is composed of 779 members, and it has no provincial or state governments.
Germany, which is not too dissimilar in population from France and the United Kingdom, has a cabinet of 16 members. The federal parliament is composed of 496 members, and there are also provincial governments, the Landers.
Japan, with a population of 100 million or more, has a cabinet of 21 members, and its House of Representatives is made up of 467 members. It has no provincial governments. What I am concerned about is that the growth of bureaucracy, and the size of the government which has been pyramiding during the last three years, will continue.
In addition to the increase in the size of the administration, what concerns me also is the fact that under the terms of this bill the House will not be permitted to debate a proposal to form a new ministry. We all know what happened when Information Canada was set up without any reference to this House at all. I will have something to say about that in a minute or so. If we adopt this bill, we merely strengthen the power of the Prime Minister and the government to increase the bureaucracy without any reference to Parliament. By proclamation, the Governor in Council will be able to set up five ministries of state. In each case the responsible minister will be in charge of policy formulation and development. This is contrary to parliamentary procedure and tradition, since policy formulation has always been the prerogative of the Crown. This bill represents a real danger.
Furthermore, in clause 21 we find that the minister may be "assigned or transferred ... by or pursuant to any act of the Parliament of Canada". This gives the minister administrative powers besides his policy formulation duties. It is a way for the government to create another department without passing a bill, without the consent of the elected representatives of the people, without estimates and without study by a House committee. You can see what this means, Mr. Chairman.
The same criticism can be applied also to the actions of the Secretary of State who is responsible for bilingualism and biculturalism without any bill having been passed giving him this function. Perhaps we should recall that this was not just an accidental or single occasion. There has been a trend within the government towards such actions, and I believe that is the reason this bill has been worded and formulated as it has. By creating more ministries, the government is giving its ministers a licence to be absent from the House. The roster system governing the attendance of ministers has not worked so far. What will it be like with five more ministers?
The reasons for creating these ministries of state are obscure. The government already has the power to name ministers without portfolio. We have this situation in connection with the Post Office and Information Canada, with housing and urban affairs at the present time. Why create new ministries? For example, let us consider two

March 31, 1971

of the present ministers without portfolio, the minister responsible for housing and the minister responsible for Information Canada. They must be waiting in the wings to be established as ministers of state. I don't know, but if their jobs are so important that separate departments with a single minister in charge are necessary, whether that be a minister without portfolio or minister of state, then why not create full ministries? As has already been mentioned this afternoon, I believe the minister without portfolio in charge of urban affairs and housing holds one of the most vital positions in the government. So, why not make it a full ministry? I believe the majority of members in this House would agree with this. This could be done by statute and I believe there would be very little argument or disagreement about it. Perhaps the reason for not following this course is that ministers without portfolio now receive only $10,000 a year, while under the new statute ministers of state will receive $15,000 a year.
It is a well known fact that many of the Liberal backbenchers believe that they deserve a title. I do not really object to that because I know many of them are frustrated. They find it difficult to justify their presence in the House with the limitations imposed upon them. Indeed, they may be in a more difficult position than we in the opposition in many cases because there is not much opportunity for them to participate in debates as any member of this House should have the right to do. Rather than bringing a more logical approach to problems, the government is attempting to bring legislation in through the back door. It is a very deceptive type of legislation because it is in the form of an omnibus bill. Mr. Chairman, we cannot deal with the issues in the way we should under the omnibus approach to legislation. It is an unpopular method, and is only a tool to get legislation through Parliament without a proper decision on each item in the bill.
It seems to me that these points bring out some of the very real dangers that this bill represents. Another aspect worthy of mention is that there is no provision setting the length of time ministers of state can function. If we look at the various clauses of this bill, we find that clause 17 allows the Governor in Council to establish a ministry of state and a department, while clause 18 gives the Governor in Council power to terminate its existence.
Another deceptive clause is No. 20 which provides that a minister of state will not have a deputy minister but that his senior officer will be called a secretary, and he shall be chief executive officer. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, his function will be exactly the same as that of a deputy minister. If this is so, then why not give him the title? Soon there will be a deputy minister, under-secretaries and secretaries all doing the same jobs. Clause 22 provides that the minister of state will report annually to the House, but since there will be no Act to refer to it will be difficult to assess the report. It will be difficult to deal with estimates of such a ministry because there just will be no established committee to deal with them. Under the new rules, we are supposed to be giving all members a better chance to participate, but we are
Government Organization Act, 1970
already nullifying some rules to which we agreed not long ago.
We could talk about the uunlimited number of parliamentary secretaries that can be created. If we allow the government to do this, we are increasing the size of the bureaucracy and weakening the power of this House. At the same time we are increasing the power of the Prime Minister who already has more power than any head of state in any other democratic country in the world.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, my own leader, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, and the hon. member for Red Deer. They expressed in a very competent and serious manner the dangers inherent in this move to appoint ministers of state at the prerogative of the Governor in Council. All who are concerned and anxious about the welfare and good order of the parliamentary system will have enjoyed the remarks of these three hon. gentlemen, but I submit that they forgot something, Mr. Speaker. They forgot the very nature of the Liberal party-what the beast is like. In the history of our country there has never been another political party that has always known that it was the only one fitted to govern. There has never been a political party with a better reputation for lining up at the trough. It would be too much to expect the Liberals to have changed their ways during the life of one Parliament.
There are 155 Liberals and the Prime Minister knows they all want a piece of the action. This is a nice way of working it, Mr. Chairman. Clause 14 of the bill reads:
Where it appears to the Governor in Council that the requirements for formulating and developing new and comprehensive policies-the Governor in Council may,-establish a ministry of state-
I may be naive, Mr. Chairman, but I always thought that in Canada we had a party system of government. I thought that a party devised policies and the government tried to implement those policies. This does not say very much for the policies that come from the Liberal party, and it certainly does not indicate the Prime Minister's confidence in them. Maybe he did not like the answers he got to the questionnaires given out at the last meeting of the Liberal Federation of Canada. It seems that we must have ministers of state to devise policies and programs that may be needed from time to time. Without doubt, some legitimate case could be made for some additional, specialized portfolios. It has been mentioned in the debate on this bill that there is a good argument for the appointment of a minister in charge of Information Canada, or urban and housing affairs, or youth affairs, or even women. One could even make out a good case for a minister who would be responsible for all the government's Crown corporations.


Gerald William Baldwin: How about a minister for unemployment?

March 31, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, we could have a minister for unemployment. There is provision for a minister to be in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. We have only half a minister in that portfolio at present, and I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. Some serious argument could be made for those portfolios. I am sure if the government were to bring in legislation for the establishment of departments of portfolios in these areas, the legislation would find support among members on both sides of the House.
Let us take a look at the makeup of this government. The hon. member for Red Deer compared our Parliament to those of other countries. As I said earlier, he forgot the particular nature of the beast that governs this country at the moment. At present we have 29 cabinet ministers, 16 parliamentary secretaries, one whip, one deputy speaker and one assistant deputy speaker. I am referring to people who get paid for doing their jobs. That is a total of 48. The bill provides for 13 more parliamentary secretaries, to bring their number up to the number of cabinet ministers appointed, which means that the government will have taken care of 61 Liberal members. We have a long way to go. 1 do not know that I can suggest positions for 155 Liberals, but I will try. As I say, this measure will have taken care of 61. That number will be feeding at the trough. Then, there are to be appointed six ministers of state who, I think, probably could be justified. That brings the total up to 67. We are not even half way there yet.
Well, I have been assessing the experience and capabilities and interests of my hon. friends in the back two rows on the government side, and I have some ideas that I think would be useful to the Prime Minister if he is thinking of appointing more ministers of state. I hope that they will be helpful to him. For example, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton might be appointed as minister of state in charge of the obliteration of the Parliament Hill skyline. Perhaps he could get a few more skyscrapers around the House of Commons. I suggest that the hon. member for Ottawa West be made minister in charge of all malingerers in the Public Service. He could undertake a study on the formulation of policies in this area. Then, how about appointing a minister in charge of kiosks? You know, they would be useful in the summer youth program.


Gerald William Baldwin: Did the hon. member say chaos?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No kiosks. We already have chaos. I suggest this because when the socialist government was in power in Saskatchewan, it brought sewers and water to tens of thousands of farms and hundreds of towns and villages in the province, and now there is a surplus of one holers and two holers. If you spread them out, about one every half mile on the trans-Canada highway, they would reach from Vancouver to Thunder Bay. That is why I suggested a minister in charge of these kiosks. That way we could make good use of surplus equipment which has been going to waste in Saskatchewan and tidy up communities and farming areas. I suggest that the minister in charge of the wheat board be transferred to
that position. I think he could do a good and adequate job there.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I think we need a minister of state to undertake studies and develop policies relating to election expenses. I think the hon. member for Don Valley ought to have that position. Then, there is the whole matter of questions which are asked in standing committees. How about appointing the hon. member for Lachine to undertake studies and formulate policies relating to how one should ask questions in standing committees? I can think of another one, too. The hon. member for York Centre could do a good job as a minister of state in charge of developing policies and studies on the question of how to dispose of parliamentary secretaries. How would this appointment suit you? I suggest that the hon. member for York West be appointed as minister of state in charge of studies and the development of policies relating to what we do with mayors or municipal officials once they are elected to Parliament. After all, we have to feed and keep all these people.


Gerald William Baldwin: There would be good liaison with the Prime Minister.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I suggest that the hon. member for York East could be made minister of state in charge of studies and policy developments relating to the formulating of ideas in newsletters from members on the government side of the House.


An hon. Member:: Ha, ha, ha.


Mr. Otto:: I can see the hon. member is blushing. I do not blame him.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We badly need more help in agriculture, and I have some sympathy for this suggested appointment. I suggest that we urge the Prime Minister to appoint the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe as minister of state in charge of studies and the development of policies relating to whether you could put the hon. member for Crowfoot in charge of our National Livestock Marketing Board or even in charge of the farm products marketing act.
There are a few more appointments that I can think of, Mr. Chairman. We are trying to get something for all these fellows and make sure that the trough is well lined with Liberals. I think the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona should be minister of state in charge of studies and the development of policies relating to the attendance of hon. members in the House of Commons. Or, how about the hon. member for Essex? He could be made minister of state in charge of a special study on the abolition of the Senate. I think, also, that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich would be delighted to be minister of state in charge of studies and policies relating to the travelling of parliamentary committees.


An hon. Member:: Who are you to talk this way?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I think, altogether, that 79 Liberals have now been taken care of. I have another suggestion for making use of the rest of the Liberals in Parliament.

March 31, 1971

If the Prime Minister will continue his plan of rotating the parliamentary secretaries every two years, and 29 have been appointed for two years, another 29 will be appointed for another two years. That makes a total of 107 Liberals who have been looked after.
I notice that clause 14, when referring to ministers of state, uses the words, "for the time being". If the ministers of state were appointed for the time being, or on the same principle under which parliamentary secretaries are appointed, namely, for a period of two years, the government could appoint another 18 ministers of state. Mr. Chairman, adding 18 and 107, we arrive at a total of 125 members who would be taken care of in one Parliament. I am short of about 27 positions that I have not been able to suggest for hon. members opposite. But, Mr. Chairman, I have made a pretty good effort. My suggestion would certainly give hon. members opposite some status-all but 27, and I would not want to discriminate against them. I am sure if the Prime Minister put his mind to it, 27 more positions could be found for ministers of state to carry out studies and develop policies.


An hon. Member:: Why not pay chairmen of
committees?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That would solve the difficulty. My colleague is suggesting that we should pay chairmen of committees. That would take care of 15 members at least. I think we have solved the problem. We have enabled the government to continue the historical status of the Liberal party. The golden age of the PFAA is no longer necessary. We now have the census and a few other matters which can take care of most good Liberals in the country. But the party never really completed the job of taking care of good Liberals in Parliament, and this method is superbly designed to accomplish that.
I have said all this to indicate exactly what I think about clause 14 of the bill. It is so contemptuous and ridiculous that it must be laughed at and laughed about. It is such an insult to parliamentary institutions that we can only put our anger aside, look at it and simply say how ridiculous it is. I think, if we all work at it, we could dream up positions and suggest them to the Prime Minister. The positions would be for hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who want to get into the act and want to get a piece of the action.
For the past 150 years following elections, the eyeballs of the Liberals have reacted like cash registers with dollar signs showing up.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is another one. We could make him minister of state in charge of inane interruptions.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I will leave it to the House to decide whether this interruption is inane. I thank the hon. member for allowing me to interrupt. I wonder what percentage he would suggest, because in the one place where the sun shines the brightest in all of North America from his
Government Organization Act, 1970
point of view, 16 out of 28 members have executive positions. That is a little better than 50 per cent.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is right. It is just because we have a minority government. Following the next general election, it will be approximately 16 out of 40. A proper democratic balance will be restored to the Manitoba legislature. We do not have quite enough NDP members. I assure the hon. member that following a couple of byelections on Monday and the next general election, there will be a better ratio of cabinet ministers to private members in the New Democratic Party in Manitoba.
I am now down to 26. In the next few days, I will continue my efforts to think of 26 more positions that can be filled by hon. members. They can be made ministers of state in charge of studies and developing policies which can then be handed to the caucus. As they are all in the caucus, as well as the ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries it would be an extremely interesting meeting. If we followed this idea through, it would probably develop to the point where they could invite the opposition parties and we would all be in their caucus. One could follow this through to a wonderful conclusion. It boggles the mind to think of all the possibilities there are with this kind of government.
Even though this may have come as a surprise to some hon. members, in the past few weeks the Prime Minister has expressed some regard and respect for Parliament. I hope that when he and the President of the Treasury Board decide to set up another department of government, which they have the prerogative to do, they will come to Parliament and tell us why they need it, what it is for and what it is to do. I am sure that Parliament will deal with their proposals in a proper and prompt manner.
I have been expressing a fond hope. I am falling into the same trap as the one into which the hon. member who spoke ahead of me fell. I sometimes forget that the government members are nice fellows. Every once in a while I have a lapse of memory and forget about the nature of the beast that governs this country. I am sometimes naive about what we expect in the form of second thoughts from members of the Liberal government. One can always live in hope.
Should this new system develop to the point where all government members have some kind of position of status, a higher position, a higher income and are responsible for laying down policies or formulating ideas, they could report to each other as a caucus and invite the opposition to attend. It would not be necessary for this House to sit very often. Imagine the ball we would have in the question period. The right hon. member for Prince Albert would need a list as long as his arm if he were to make one report per day during the session of Parliament. It would be a little difficult sorting them out. We could publish something like the seating plan. This could be changed every second year when all parliamentary secretaries and ministers of state were shuffled. All we would have to do would be to print another seating plan. Since the government members have been playing

March 31, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 musical chairs for the past two years, there would be no problem about who sits where.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I rise on a question of privilege. I have not been playing musical chairs nor have several others.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am going to correct the idea I had about the position I had for the hon. member. A position of minister of state should be created for holder of the vacant post. Since he has not been moved yet, he must feel left out. If he was appointed holder of the vacant post, he could stay right where he is.
I feel very contemptuous and angry about this sort of measure. I think this bill flies in the face of a democratic process and good governmental action. For my benefit and the benefit of others who spoke on this particular part of the bill, surely the Prime Minister could participate in this debate, if it would not inconvenience him too much. If it would help, we could arrange a picnic in the snowbanks on the front lawn. We could make maple syrup, throw it on the snow and even skate on it. We could pause during this swinging gathering so the Prime Minister could drop into the committee of the whole. We do not want to put him out.
This would give the Prime Minister an opportunity to explain why he needs these ministers of state. If he does not mind, he might even give a hint as to the responsibilities of these ministers of state. I hope it is not asking too much of the Prime Minister to ask him to come into this House at some point to take part in the debate on his bill. If it is asking too much, I apologize. I am sure all opposition members would want me to apologize. We do not want to put the poor fellow out, except at an election.
I hope the people of Canada will let the government know the contempt they feel. I hope their contempt will be echoed in the mails and in the press. Maybe if Parliament and the country are lucky, the President of the Treasury Board and his colleagues will decide that this is not the proper way to accomplish their objective and withdraw this clause. This clause could be amended so that the government would have to tell Parliament why each minister of state was required and what he was to do. This would be more proper and more in keeping with the role the government should be playing.


Steven Otto: Mr. Chairman, I have heard a most impassioned plea in defence of Parliament by both the right hon. member for Prince Albert and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. They defended an institution which has been obviously threatened by this bill, an institution that is really a ghost. It does not exist any longer. I did not know how to illustrate the fact that Parliament is no longer what these people think it is, but fortunately the speaker who preceded me illustrated exactly what stage Parliament has reached.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven Otto: In the nine years I have been in this House, I have never said a derogatory word about any member of Parliament and I do not intend to do so now. However,

this brings forth the illustration to these hon. members that it is not the government that destroys Parliament and it is not really the opposition. It is a group of circumstances which has made Parliament that institution which these hon. members think it is. I have only devoted a short time to this institution, but I can see why these hon. members who have devoted a lifetime to it have such great affection for Parliament. It is a parliament of Alice in Wonderland. I know it is difficult to realize


John George Diefenbaker: You will have to excuse me; I have received a message and have to leave.


Steven Otto: Yes, of course, I will excuse the right hon. member for Prince Albert. It is a Parliament which no longer exists, and indeed the purpose of this bill is to try to make some sense out of what remains of Parliament.
I do not think for one moment that any reasonable person could find this evil-this bill-lurking under a bush ready to destroy Parliament. This bill proposes to create a few or any number of ministers of state. It was the opposition and the people in general who demanded that ministers be put in charge of individual departments. Yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way demanded a minister to look after the affairs of women. We do not have any women on this side, but we do have a member for York West who is possibly ambitious enough to undergo some sort of sex change operation if that were necessary. Mind you, he may not go that far in order to accomplish this goal.
Just recently when the minister of fisheries was discussing the first part of the bill which deals with the environment, there was a hue and cry about whether we should have a separate minister of the environment and a separate minister of fisheries. I suggest the people of Canada are not demanding that we place all these important arms of government within the control of one or two ministries, and this can be perfectly illustrated by the old problem of housing. Hon. gentlemen opposite wili remember that up until very recently housing was cast from one department to another. I do not think there is one department that did not at one time or another have responsibility for CMHC or the National Housing Act. This may be one reason we have such a difficult time with housing in Canada at the present time.
I do not see that this bill is such a great threat. Indeed, the whole tenor of the speech made by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands was that if the creation of these ministries was by separate bills in this House, then somehow the House of Commons would have some power. Probably since the day of Pitt the Younger, Parliament has not had any power except the power to delay. No hon. gentleman opposite can say that he really has the power to change anything, and none of us on this side can say it either. We have the institution of Parliament, of so-called responsible government, which sets the policies, and we can but follow. The opposition can oppose and delay. It is the delay that has discredited Parliament in the eyes of the Canadian people.
March 31, 1971

The parliamentary institution was well suited to a very quiet agricultural country. Canada is not the place for the old type of Parliament; we have to get things moving quickly and cannot be sedentary about policies. Therefore, between the idiosyncrasies of this Parliament which hon. gentlemen opposite so staunchly defend and the real facts of life in this country, we have to devise some new forms.
I think the Prime Minister himself when first elected as leader of the Liberal party said there was too much power in the administration. But it is no wonder when one minister has six or seven different departments to handle. An attempt is being made here to give one minister responsibility for a current issue, and the minister of the environment may not forever be involved with that particular issue. It may be the case that at the present time we do not even need a minister in charge of parks or in charge of lumber. After all, things change with time. I think this bill is an attempt to bring government to a current position. I do not say that it is perfectly right, but at least it is an attempt to recognize that if we make no changes whatsoever we will disappear. Not only will the power which Parliament may or may not have disappear, but our purpose in the minds of the people will disappear.
Unfortunately, democracy itself is put to the fore. When the people of Canada question our position, they also question democracy. The danger is that if we lower ourselves in the eyes of the people, what happens to democracy? I have tried very hard to follow the argument that has been put forward that the possible creation of more ministries will be so detrimental, but with all respect I cannot see it. I think this is a useful bill. It puts forward a set of criteria. It gives power to the government to create ministers of state for a certain specific purpose as the need arises, without going back for another 25 or 30 day debate. What would be the result of such a debate? Would the opposition defeat the government? Does any hon. member opposite think a government member would vote against the government with our party system?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Steven Otto: Does any hon. member opposite ever vote against his party? Of course, not! Although at one time it might have been said that members of Parliament expressed themselves as individuals, recently in the rule changes recognition was given to party, both opposition parties and government party. Hon. members will also recall that power was given to the whip of each party to remove a member on five minutes' notice from any committee.
To say now that this Parliament is something other than what it really is, is putting it over on the people of Canada, in reality joining them with this kind of Alice in Wonderland attitude toward Parliament instead of facing facts and telling ourselves we have got to change. The chances are that Parliament as we know it will disappear. The chances are that we will not adopt the republican system. I think there is a good chance that we will
Government Organization Act, 1970 come to some compromise which will serve this country, which will give us the best of the two worlds, and in which the people of Canada will indeed have representatives who speak for them. One way to bring this about is to take the issues which are important from the people of Canada and place them in the charge of the minister of a department. This will demonstrate that we are not completely impervious to this approach.
With all respect, let me repeat that all of the arguments I have heard are very good historical arguments and could be the basis of debate for many days. But when we come to the real meat of this section, surely that has nothing to do with it except that it is an attempt by the government to make some changes from time to time. If hon. gentlemen opposite have any private ideas, then we would welcome them. But let them not say, throw the bill out simply because it does not fit into the old, ghostly concept of Parliament as we know it.


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. member for York East really put his finger on the idea the government has in mind when he said there has to be a compromise. The kind of compromise which he, the Prime Minister and the cabinet have in mind, together with others on that side of the House, is the kind of compromise a boa constrictor has when it swallows a rabbit. That is what hon. members opposite want. As far as this Parliament is concerned the government wants to swallow it. This bill is one of the weapons which will be directed towards that end. Until the hon. member for York East got up, I was about to say that government supporters, instead of rising to defend this measure, had remained in their seats, dumb, docile and listless. When I use the word "dumb" I am using it, now, in the oratorical sense rather than in the intellectual sense. Until the hon. member for York East spoke not one of them got up, or was allowed to get up, to speak in support of this particular measure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Mr. Borrie:: You know better than that.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am sorry if I have touched hon. members opposite on a raw nerve. I respect hon. members who have capability, but with regard to this particular measure, where a great deal is at stake, as has been indicated by my hon. friend from Prince Albert and others, it seems to me there is an issue which ought to be determined by the process of debate back and forth across the floor of the chamber. The bill affects one of the greatest issues of our time-the issue of what will happen to parliamentary government. The hon. member for York East says Parliament is suffering and that the bill before us would reform Parliament. How can a bill which creates more pa:d posts in support of the executive improve parliament? It is true that as one goes around the world one finds there is growing disillusionment with the whole process of government. But too often people confuse government with the legislative system. It is the legislative system which in the end will be required to
4800

March 31, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 infuse new life and a new virtue into the processes of government.
The appointment of five ministers of state, 14 parliamentary secretaries and other ministers who would be in the same position as ministers without portfolio, will in no way improve the parliamentary structure. Hon. members opposite know better in their own hearts than to support this measure. They should support the fight we are carrying on from this side of the House.


An hon. Member:: What fight?


Gerald William Baldwin: My right hon. friend from Prince Albert at one time held the highest elective ofiice in this country. He is a man who loves Parliament. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands was at one time premier of his province. Time was requested on their behalf for an additional period in which to complete their observations. This was refused. There is no doubt about where the denials came from. At least the hon. member for York-Simcoe identified himself when he challenged the right of one of our members to carry on. I think this was a shameful thing, and I regret it. However, it is not the issue we are debating today.
This is not the first time the government and its immediate predecessor have brought reorganization bills before the House. In 1966-67, Bill C-178 was introduced, a lengthy bill setting up a number of departments. In 196768 there was Bill C-161, and in 1969 there was Bill C-173. Each of those bills involved the reorganization of government, each of them reallocated responsibilities, established new departments and changed the functions of ministers. In addition, there exists at the present time an act which provides for the re-allocation of duties. Why is it necessary to proceed with the legislation we are examining today in this committee? What has been the net result of the three reorganization bills to which I have referred? They have resulted in the creation of a large number of new ministers who fall over each other's feet, get in the way, mess things up, and refuse to give hon. members information when they want it. Inflation is still with us, unemployment still rising, huge increases are noted in the cost of government. I should probably be out of order if I were to attempt to go into the details concerning the new departments which were created by the measures to which I have referred, and to the additional cost which has been laid on the shoulders of the taxpayers as a result.
Each time a new department has been created, spokesmen for the party opposite have said: we shall take over staff from an existing department, so it will cost less money; we shall set up these new, shining instruments and they will do the job so much better. What do we find today? The cost of government is abnormally high and is imposing a steadily increasing burden on the unfortunate taxpayer. Take the size of the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council alone. In 1965, 125 people were employed in the offices of the Privy Council and of the Prime Minister. In 1969, there were 232. I believe the number today is around 300 or more. The cost of the Privy Council Office in 1965 was $2 million. In
1970 it was $11,256,175. My hon. friend from Churchill, during the debate on the budget on April 28, 1970, put some figures on record dealing with the establishment of the office of the Prime Minister, and I should like to quote now, from page 6223 of Hansard:
In 1960 the cost of the staff of former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker was approximately $50,000. The cost was the same when he assumed this office in 1957. One of the first things he did was to ask for the staff establishment of former Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent. The cost of Mr. St. Laurent's staff was $50,000. The cost of Mr. Pearson's staff ran in the neighbourhood of $75,000 until near the end of his regime when there were some sharp increases. However, this is a far cry from the $821,000 annually which is now being paid by the Prime Minister to staff his office.
That was in 1970, and there has been a substantial increase since that day. I understand that in the Prime Minister's office now there are some 80 people and that the cost is more than $400,000. This does not include the Privy Council staff. Maybe these people are needed, I do not know. But looking at the results, and judging from them, sure as Heaven something is radically wrong.
When the Prime Minister made his first speech in this House in this session, he asked that Hansard should record a list of the legislative programs referred to in the Speech from the Throne. There were approximately 70 measures proposed at that time, and since then the government has brought in two or three more. That speech was read three months after the conclusion of the last session. We were told by His Excellency, and the text of his speech was repeated by the Prime Minister in this House, that there were these 70 bills. This was the task facing Parliament. Surely, we had reason to expect that those bills would have been ready and would have been brought in for first reading right away. What did we find?


Prosper Boulanger: Filibusters; that's what we found.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, the record shows that during the month of October, eight bills were brought in for first reading. In other words, at the time the list of bills was placed on the record by the Prime Minister only eight were ready after three months of preparation and Heaven knows how much time before that. This is an example of the bungling and administrative incompetence we find when we have 29 cabinet ministers. One might ask, therefore, what calibre can we look forward to with the addition of five ministers of state as well as unnumbered ministers who are not assigned a special position.
We might follow this list all the way down. In November, I believe 16 bills were brought in for first reading. In December, there were about six; in January there were three; in February two, and so far in March six or seven. So, there are still 30 bills we have not seen which we were promised by the government on the first day of this session. The only way to have an administratively competent and intelligent parliamentary government is to have a government which brings before the House a certain program, a government which states what the bills are and brings them in for first reading. In this way

March 31, 1971

the members and the people in the country may have a look at them. The opposition can then consider them, evaluate their position and decide what position they will take in the course of the session to deal with them competently.
Here, however, we find ourselves in the position that 30 bills have not yet been exhibited. I understand the situation is different in many other parliamentary governments. When I was in the United Kingdom two or three years ago, I was told that the government knows how many bills it will introduce and the bills are prepared, introduced and available at the beginning of a session.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There is a time allocation.


Gerald William Baldwin: There is a time allocation, but not the time allocation this government thinks there is. This government does not know the difference between time allocation and the kind of parliamentary system we should have here. The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert referred to the difference between the presidential system and the parliamentary system. At least in the presidential system the president can appoint members of cabinet. This is precisely what the Prime Minister will now be able to do. However, in the United States every one of those appointments must be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent. The Prime Minister has mentioned that he would like to see a countervailing force. He has said it so often that some day I hope he will do something to bring it about.
It is necessary that government be strong. I have never denied the fact that under the circumstances of today, and the kind of society we have today, the government must be powerful and able to act quickly and efficiently. That cannot be down, however, unless this House is given the right to challenge, scrutinize and delay legislation if necessary. It is the parliamentary function of an opposition to delay if necessary and have a proper opportunity to see the legislation and deal intelligently with it. That is not a power which resides in this parliamentary system today. This government is now attempting to even weaken or limit what powers we have. Mr. Chairman, let no one say that the appointment of additional ministers of state or additional parliamentary secretaries will help the parliamentary system. In absolutely no way will this be the result. This is the reason we on this side of the House conceive it to be our duty to challenge the government on this issue.
My right hon. friend from Prince Albert and others have pointed out that this bill should not have been introduced in this fashion. There are aspects of this bill to which we might have given our approval in a minimum of time. But we would be derelict in our duty if we permitted this Prime Minister and this government to have this kind of power they wish to grasp. This is the name of the game for them. They want to have their hands on the levers of power so that they can manipulate things, not for the purposes of the country but for the purposes of the government and the party they represent. We would be derelict in our duty if we did not vigorously oppose this particular measure in this bill. The govem-
Government Organization Act, 1970
ment must have been aware of this. There was no hesitation so far as this party was concerned in disclosing to the government the fact that we intended to oppose this vigorously and at length. I consider, from the correspondence I have received and from the observations I have read in the media, that the government is on the wrong side on this particular issue.
I think the government would be well advised to review its position and withdraw this particular part of the bill as well as the next part. The government has the power it needs, so I ask why in Heaven's name the government is insisting on proceeding with this particular clause. I have indicated there is administrative incompetence and bungling on the part of the government. There is no question about this. Why do they believe the appointment of five new ministers will help? Perhaps the President of the Treasury Board may have some answer to that, and I would be delighted to hear him. He looks as if he were ready to say something. Therefore, I shall sit down at this stage, and reserve the right to make a few more comments at a later stage, in the hope that the President of the Treasury Board will comment at this time.


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to say a few words about the bill now under study. This bill is really bad when we consider all its wastefulness as well as the control it will give to some members of the administration.
Mr. Chairman, all parliament does is pass laws; it produces nothing. For the administration of taxpayers' property we now have hundreds of bodies which operate as best they can or nearly not at all.
We do not need new administrative tools, but more efficient ones. Should we fail to do that, it is futile to introduce other bills and complicate the situation even more by appointing new administrators with fantastic salaries which would contribute to raise government expenditures. All these new employees will not be able to do much more than today.
We provided ourselves with various tools: the Economic Council was established to give the government the tools required to have the economy operative. Several other commissions made suggestions to the government. They are there to advise the government on policy matters.
There are so many organizations which cost the taxpayers a mint of money, and still some people talk about setting up some more to solve the problem while the ones we now have are unable to ensure a better administration, because they are short of money. If we are to create new organizations and new ministries, more money will be required whereas there is still not enough of it for the ones now existing.
If we intend to increase taxes to enable these organizations to work properly, the Canadian taxpayers will no longer be able to pay because being already overtaxed they will go bankrupt and the majority of those who are now still thriving will eventually tumble down. The gov-
24081-23J

March 31, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 ernment will come clattering down drawing everything
in its wake.
Mr. Chairman, the democratic system is the best system in the world but what is democracy? Democracy is an agreement that we commit ourselves to honour. But now the government does not care about it because it wants to take absolute control and do without members of the opposition, who were in fact elected by the people, have made the same commitments and are subject to the same regulations and the same laws as members of the government and agencies of the crown. However we find within these agencies officials who do not work efficiently because the necessary instruments are not available to them.
Some civil servants are efficient, some are so remarkable that their qualities beggar description. They do their job well, but they lack the required tools. It is therefore up to us to give those civil servants, and existing institutions, the tools required for their operations and the running of our economy. Establishing new institutions by way of new expenditures, new taxes and levies will not restore the balance of our economy which is completely out of kilter.
The only economic agency we need, Mr. Speaker, is one which would balance all sectors of our economy, allowing our financial machinery to fulfill its functions thoroughly. We should rather have an agency aimed at planning the financial aspect, so as to enable our economy to work properly.
Our organization is not working, not because there are not enough departments; in fact, there are too many. Every time we appoint new ministers or establish new agencies, we increase the administrative work. I dare say that since this government has been in office, the administration has increased by more than 60 or perhaps 70 per cent. The administration staff has increased and the people are getting fewer and fewer services.
The more we create new agencies, the fewer services will be provided to the people, and the more exasperated they will become. We must therefore react and create agencies capable of truly solving problems.
There is no need to make available to the public new departments or additional civil servants because they will not be able to work in the present economic system. It is impossible to put more things to work.
Before the war, there might have been fewer members of Parliament and departments than today, and yet, when war was declared, in a few days, an organization the like of which had never been seen or known in Canada, was put to work. All parts of Canada were organized and the economy of the country was put into action. Instead of creating new departments, the existing ones were put to use and it was said: This department will be responsible for this and that department will be responsible for that.
All the time the war lasted, Mr. Chairman, the economy of Canada kept going, although we went into debt.
We could do the same thing now, even though we are not at war, because the number of public servants has
[Mr. Latulippe.l
increased in all departments. The number of civil servants, of commissions that cost millions of dollars to the government and give nothing to the people, would justify action from the government. I think that we must oppose the establishment of these agencies as proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). We must reject the bill before us, because it brings no solution to the problems. We do need solutions, and efficient results for the people. We must know where we are going, and if these new agencies lead nowhere, we do not need them.
The Economic Council of Canada made many recommendations to the government.
It does not need new employees to carry out those recommendations, but more funds. It is therefore necessary to set up some organizations to make money available to Canadians and make financially possible what is materially possible. This is the role of our members. We would thus be doing something for the people.
We must not make the administration more intricate or increase the debts of Canadians which have already reached a maximum level. We cannot run further into debt because they are beginning to exceed our assets.
Under the present system, the more we are creating debts the more we are spreading dissatisfaction, because we have to make up those debts and deficits with all kinds of tax increases.
Mr. Chairman, 25 per cent of the population is on social welfare, 14 per cent of Canadians depend on economic assistance. This means that about 40 per cent of the budget is used only to keep Canadians alive, to pay them not to work, to allow them to exist. When things are that bad, it is not proper to increase the salary of one person or another, but we should rather save. It is time to buckle one's belt and to create new organisms to let people live.
There are plans to invest in order to find jobs for Canadians. The investments should not come from salary increases or the formation of new organizations. In fact, a large part of public money will be used for the administration of those agencies and there will be nothing left to look after the people.
When 75 per cent of the budget must go for administration, only 25 per cent remains to reorganize the economy and the government can no longer function. The government that leads the country today is almost a topsy-turvy government: they base themselves on false principles and refuse to see where the real problem lies instead of grabbing the bull by the horns, as good Canadians will say, to solve the problem.
They are always besides the problem, endeavouring to set up all sorts of organizations we cannot finance. Let us set up an organization capable of financing the administration of the country.
Some members agree with us on that score, and they have all the required competence to do even more. We therefore do not need any new organizations.


Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Chairman, it is a delight to take part in this debate so late on Wednesday afternoon and
March 31, 1971

to see such a large group in attendance on the government side. I should like to tell them that it they have anything better to do than sit and listen to me they might as well go ahead because I can assure them and their whip there will be no vote this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: We will stay.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: We have to have a quorum and there is no other way of keeping it.


An hon. Member:: We would not miss it anyway, Mac.


Mr. McCuicheon:: You are very kind and I shall try not to disappoint you. When the hon. member for Peace River spoke this afternoon he mentioned the dearth of legislative items brought forth by the government and suggested that this bill should have been split into four or five bills. Instead, it appears as an omnibus bill containing everything from pollution and government reoganiza-tion to the Prime Minister's patronage pork barrel.
There are to be five new cabinet ministers, and the group of followers and hangers on will include executive secretaries here in Ottawa as well as travelling executive secretaries in the constituencies. Imagine the bill for each ministry that will be foisted on the Canadian taxpayer. Will it be $1 million or $2 million? Mention has been made many times this afternoon of the proliferation of bureaucracy. An example of this is the staff around Information Canada, which is growing like a mushroom at the expense of the taxpayer. There must be several hundred people in there, some of them engaged in drawing nude posters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And that should be done by the minister without portfolio.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: At the same time every other department of government is increasing its staff in order to disseminate favourable information about their departments and their lovable ministers.
Since 1963, when I first came to the House of Commons, there have been three organization bills. One was for the streamlining of procedures and was intended to cut down on overhead. What a bill of goods that was! Since 1963 the proliferation has been astronomical and now we have this, probably one of the woolliest pieces of legislation ever presented to this House. Those are not my words, Mr. Speaker, but the words of a very prominent law officer.
I have no hesitation in speaking at this time, thereby delaying this bill if that is what it takes to get the government to see the light. If the bill passes, this House of Commons will have lost any chance to scrutinize the cost of these ministries and departments because their operations will be at the discretion of the cabinet. I should like to say there is one part of this bill of which I approve. After all, who in this chamber can oppose a measure to curtail pollution? I also approve the minister who has been earmarked for that job, Mr. Chairman. In my opinion, the Hon. Jack Davis is a dedicated man and will do a good job in that position.
Government Organization Act, 1970


Gerald William Baldwin: He is just unfortunate in his choice of colleagues.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: But, Mr. Chairman, how can I vote in favour of supporting Jack Davis, as I desire to do, when I have to support the rest of the hodge-podge contained in the bill? To go further, I will not oppose the reinstatement of the Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote, Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Post Office. In my humble opinion the government did the country a disservice when he was removed as Postmaster General, especially when Eric the Wrecker was put in charge of that department.


Mr. Bigg:: A $100 million loss!


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: We may never know what we lost through that appointment, and I should like to support the reinstatement of Mr. Cote. Having said that, I am not prepared to support such bad legislation as this part of the bill is, merely because there are two or three desirable by-products in it.
I have already voiced my opposition to the preferential treatment, as incorporated in this bill, that is being accorded to certain high ranking civil servants. I know that the government is very well disposed to the elite class and is not so concerned about ordinary folks. I have already pointed out my criticism of the pension arrangements for department heads, and I shall have more to say about that later.
Now, we come to the pork barrel part of the bill. There are to be five new ministers of state and five new parliamentary secretaries. I do not know if I am accurate in saying that. The man in whose name this bill stands does not deign to favour this place with his presence in order that we can ask him questions about how many appointments there will be. Under the old act not more than 16 parliamentary secretaries could be appointed. There are 27 ministers, plus the Prime Minister. Now, we are to add five ministers of state, making a total of 32 ministers, and more parliamentary secretaries. Will there be ten more parliamentary secretaries or will there be 16 more? Are we to double the number of parliamentary secretaries? I do not know and nobody on the government side seems to have the answer.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Read the bill.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: How many more civil servants will there be? How many more people will work in the offices of these ministers? Will this cost us $2 million per year of $200 million? How many more people will be drawn from the press gallery to fill this vacuum and this need?
Since 1968 a large percentage of people have been siphoned off from the press gallery. How does this happen, Mr. Chairman? Well, let us say that a member of the gallery has shown some sympathy for the administration in his reporting. Some of this, I suggest, may have been perfectly legitimate. He has expressed an honest opinion about government action, let us say. There have

March 31, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
been rare occasions on which the government could be applauded.


An hon. Member:: Name one.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: If, however, a second article appears that is friendly or biased in favour of the government, something like this takes place probably, and this explains the proliferation of certain types of people in ministers' offices. A former member of the press gallery, who is now a government employee, will approach the member of the press gallery in question and say, "Let's have a coffee, or a coke." Then, the conversation will start something like this: "Say, did you know that Joe Greene is looking for a PR writer; did you know that Bryce Mackasey would like to get one; have you heard that Jean-Luc Pepin needs somebody in his department?"


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: To explain what the minister means.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: So, the conversation continues in this vein. Then, the former press gallery member might say, "Would you be interested?" The reply might be, "Well I don't know; I am getting along pretty well." Then, he would be told, "Well now, remember the job pays $5,000 more than you are getting." After all, this is the taxpayers' money and to heck with the expense. This offer would be very tempting, Mr. Chairman, because I can assure you that, by and large, publishers are notorious skinflints.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: What has been the effect of this, Mr. Chairman? Every cloud has a silver lining. The bulk of those in the press gallery who are prepared to prostitute their trade for political or monetary advancement is gone.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But there are none like that.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: I would draw to your attention the fact that for some time now the quality and fairness of news reports emanating from this place has improved
markedly, and the news is not so slanted. I suspect that those who are still left in the gallery are dedicated to their craft. They are still reporters.


Mr. Whelan:: You are being reported now, Mac. The man in the gallery is writing down what is being said. He likes it.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: I suspect that the majority of those in the gallery who would prostitute their craft for monetary and political gain are gone. However, there are probably enough left to fill the opportunities that the enlargement of the executive will no doubt provide. In his remarks, the hon. member for Red Deer described how 139 government members could get extra money out of the treasury. I suggest that that would be hardly enough to satisfy the boys over there.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the President of the Treasury Board if we can expect to continue with this bill tomorrow. I imagine that quite a number of government members wish to speak. Will we carry on with this measure tomorrow?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the House Leader intends to present, hopefully for rapid disposal, three bills dealing with veterans' affairs. After that, we would continue with this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: As I gazed around on this beautiful day I found that winter has almost gone. Spring seems to have injected fresh energy into our debates. I wish hon. members a quiet and restful evening. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, April 1, 1971