1971-04-05

QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
mental basis some years ago and, if so (a) in what cities or towns (b) was the experiment discontinued and, if so, for what reason?
4. If the results of the experiment were not satisfactory, is the same system now being reinstituted and expanded and, if so, for what reason?
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Anderson: 1.	Have any federal funds been used to develop or test exhaust manifold thermal reactors or exhaust gas recirculation systems for automobile engines?
2.	Have any federal research funds been used to develop systems to reduce particle matter in automobile exhausts?
3.	Has the Department of Supply and Services announced a date after which all vehicles owned or leased to the federal government must be equipped with (a) exhaust manifold thermal reactors (b) exhaust gas recirculating systems to control nitrogen oxide levels (c) systems to reduce particle matter?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Transport and Supply and Services as follows: 1. No, to avoid duplication of work being carried out in the United States. The findings of this research will be made available to the Department of Transport under the memorandum of understanding signed by the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation.
2.	No.
3.	Vehicles purchased by the Department of Supply and Services must comply with the objective performance standards on the levels of emission from motor vehicles in accordance with the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations issued by the Minister of Transport, effective January 1, 1971.


AIR CANADA-CLOSING OF RESERVATIONS OFFICES IN THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has Air Canada refused to allow employees to see the recommendations of Mr. Justice Freedman made pursuant to the feasibility study of employment adversely affected by technological changes and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Will any Air Canada reservations offices in the United States be closed as a result of the new policy being adopted by Air Canada and, if so (a) how many U.S. citizens are working for Air Canada in reservation offices in that country (b) will any be laid off through the implementation of this policy of office consolidation?
3.	Did Air Canada introduce the system of office consolidation in the reservation department known as Telpak on an experi-


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. The report in question is a public document and is available through Information Canada.
2.	Reviews of this nature to improve customer services are an on-going process. If and when any adjustments are made as a result, appropriate notice would be given and discussions held between the Company and union representatives.
3.	Yes. (a) Fredericton, Boston, London, Windsor, Quebec, Trois Rivieres, Victoria, Tampa, North Bay, Saint John, New York, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Miami, and Sudbury. In addition to the foregoing, 138 other cities in Canada and 227 in the U.S. are linked to major reservations offices located in other cities by Zenith and special exchange lines, (b) No.
4.	N/A.


HEALTH AND WELFARE-CIGARETTE ADVERTISING
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Does the government regulate cigarette advertising on radio and TV?
2.	How much money was spent on such advertising in each of the past three years?
3.	If the government does not regulate such advertising, does it intend to do so and, if not, for what reasons?
4.	What results have been obtained by the publication by the Department of National Health and Welfare of anti-smoking literature?


James Alexander Jerome: The Canadian Radio-Television Commission and the Department of National Health and Welfare advise as follows: 1. The Canadian Radio-Television Commission has no Regulations directly affecting cigarette advertising on radio and TV.
2.	Year	Radio

1967	$2,863,000	$2,458,0001968	2,350,000	2,717,0001969	2,727,000	3,344,0001970	(not available)
The above figures compiled by Elliott Research exclude agency commission, program and commercial production charges.
3.	Introduction of legislation concerning cigarette advertising would depend on the progress made on present

Questions
legislation before the House and the priorities that have been established.
4.	In drafting Regulations on advertising material in 1970, the Commission took note of the concern expressed by the Commons Committee Report on Tobacco and Cigarette Smoking. The Commission enacted a television Regulation which made room for an additional 30 second unpaid public service announcement per hour where the maximum regulatory advertising material is completely sold out. Unpaid smoking and health announcements are announcements which may be broadcast during this additional 30 second period.


HIGHWAY SAFETY
Mr. Mather: 1.	Is the government giving consideration to the issue of a summary report for 1969 or 1970 analyzing highway accidents of commercially operated vehicles in which fire was involved?
2.	Is consideration being given to analyzing and reporting motor carrier accidents involving vehicle defects or mechanical failure?


Gérard Duquet: 1. The collection of highway accident data is a provincial responsibility and the Department of Transport is now studying accident data collected by the provinces. After establishment of a common basis for these data, they could lend themselves to the analysis of highway accidents for all of Canada.
2. Officials of the Department of Transport are working on a data system to gather this information which contributes to the development of safety standards.


WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Mr. Comeau: 1.	What recommendations have been made concerning financial assistance to municipalities and industry in their fight against pollution as indicated at page 2711 in Hansard, January 25, 1971 by the Minister ol Fisheries and Forestry?
2.	How much money has the government paid in direct pollution abatement cost other than planning or research costs?
3.	Are any loans or grants now available to industry and municipalities and in what form?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1. Suggestions have been made to review the provisions under the mechanism of tax exemptions in order to assist industry in its efforts to abate pollution. Such measures were thought to be potentially helpful in supplementing the assistance that may be considered in the form of low interest loans to municipalities and industry.
2.	Departmental operating expenses apart and exclusive of planning and research expenditures, the federal government spent in excess of $100 million directly on pollution abatement costs during the calendar year of 1970.
3.	Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation provides loans to municipalities to cover two thirds of the cost of eligible works. 25 per cent of the loans are forgiveable on completion of the works. The long term interest charged by CMHC has recently been reduced from 8.j per cent to
7J per cent. Available funds are allocated to provinces, who select projects to be funded and who assign the requisite priorities to the works. The Coordinating Committee on Water Pollution Abatement Research of the Federal Government and Pulp and Paper Industry, chaired by the Director, Program Coordination, Canadian Forestry Service, will annually select research proposals from industrial and other research agencies to receive federal support up to $1,000,000 annually for the next five years if matched by equal numbers of dollars by the pulp and paper industry.


MERCURY CONTAMINATION OF DOGFISH
Mr. Barnett: 1.	Has the Department of Fisheries and Forestry determined the sources and/or the causes of the contamination of dogfish by mercury in the Strait of Georgia and (a) if so, what are they (b) if not, what investigations and/or research are under way or contemplated?
2.	What programs are being implemented with a view to eliminating or reducing the contamination of dogfish by mercury in this area?


Eymard G. Corbin: 1. No. (a) not applicable; (b) additional samples of dogfish from this and other coastal areas are being collected for analysis and comparison purposes.
2. Further research in the area of background levels of mercury in the environment will be carried out during the coming months.


DRUG RESEARCH
Mr. Mather: Is the government undertaking to supply marijuana to the Toronto Addiction Centre for the purpose of having persons smoke the drug for a payment of $5.00 a day as a pilot project for a longer research test later this year and, if so, what is the approximate cost?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In May 1969, the Food and Drug Directorate authorized the release of a supply of marijuana and hashish to the Addiction Research Foundation of Toronto for research purposes, following their request. The Foundation is now using the drugs in a small pilot study designed to investigate the long-term physical and social effects of the consumption of these drugs. The Addiction Research Foundation has not applied to the federal government for financial support for this project.


DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND FORESTRY-INCOME DERIVED FROM COMPUTER SERVICES
Mr. Robinson: What Income, If any, is derived from the computer services provided by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry (a) from other departments (b) from sale or services to industry (c) to provincial government departments (d) to municipalities?


Eymard G. Corbin: (a) $8,000; (b) nil; (c) nil; (d) nil.

April 5, 1971


ABOLITION OF STEEL TRAPS IN HUNTING AND TRAPPING
Mr. Mafher: Have representations been received urging the abolition of the use of steel traps in hunting and trapping and, if so, what consideration is being given to such representations?


Eymard G. Corbin: Yes. Trapping and fur management, however, are responsibilities of the provincial and territorial governments.


PEI-ALLOCATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,080
Mr. McQuaid:: Since March 7, 1969, has any money been paid or allocated by the Government of Canada to the Government of Prince Edward Island under the Prince Edward Island Development Plan for purposes of education or for the construction of educational facilities and (a) if so, over what period of time will the allocated money be paid and what will be the terms of repayment (b) if not, will any money be made available over the next five year period to the Province of Prince Edward Island for purposes of education or for the construction of educational facilities and, if so, how much and what will be the terms of repayment?


James Alexander Jerome: The government advises as follows: Not to date, (a) Not applicable; (b) these matters are under consideration in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
Questions


FERRY SERVICE BETWEEN ST. BARBE, NFLD. AND BLANC SABLON, QUEBEC
Mr. Peddle: 1.	Did the ferry Avalon Voyager operate from St. Barbe, Newfoundland to Blanc Sablon, Quebec last year and, if so, who was the owner and the operator?
2.	How many (a) passengers (b) cars (c) trucks, were transported on this ferry during the 1970 season?
3.	Was any federal subsidy paid directly or indirectly to the operator of this ferry and, if so, how much?
4.	Is an effort being made to have this vessel replaced for the coming season?


Gérard Duquet: 1. (a) Yes; (b) Puddister and Bennett Shipping Limited, St. John's, Nfld.
2.	(a) 4,656; (b) 1,258; (c) 839.
3.	(a) Yes; (b) $91,451.61.
4.	No, but the possibility of vessel replacement in subsequent years is under study.


PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE-INFORMATION CONCERNING STAFF
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the present total staff of the Privy Council Office?
2.	Are L. D. Hudon, David Kirkwood, Miss Pamela McDougall, J. M. Shoemaker and Jean Richard employed or to be employed in the Privy Council Office and, if so (a) in what positions (b) at what annual salary?
3.	What is the present total annual payroll of the Privy Council Office?


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: 1. 206.
:. (a)	and (b)	Position	Salary Range	Mr.	L. D. Hudon	Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet (Economic Policy)	$24,000	- 30,000Mr.	D. H. Kirkwood	Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet (Government Operations)	$22,000	- 27,000Miss P. A. McDougall	Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet (External Affairs and Defence)	$22,000	- 27,000Mr.	J. M. Shoemaker	Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet (Science, Culture and Information Policy)	$19,100	- 21,700Mr.	J. Richard	Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet (Legislative and House Planning)	$20,000	- 25,000
3. Approximately $2,257,850.


HUNTING OF POLAR BEARS IN CANADIAN ARCTIC, 1971
Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many polar bears were shot in the Canadian Arctic in 1971 by licenced hunters other than Eskimos?
2.	What is the quota on polar bears for the current season?


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. To
date, no polar bears have been shot by licensed hunters under the sports hunting of polar bear program.
2. The quota for the sports hunting of polar bear for the current year is 10, to be taken out of the over-all quota for Eskimo and Indian licence holders.

April 5, 1971
Questions


CANADIAN AHMED FORCES PENSIONS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	In each year 1959 to 1970, both inclusive (a) how many personnel of the Armed Forces commenced drawing pensions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (b) how many widows commenced drawing pensions under the said Act?
2.	In each of the same years, how many pensions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act to (a) retired Canadian Armed Forces personnel (b) widows of such personnel, have been discontinued because of the death of the annuitant?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National
Defence):		
1.	(a)	(b)
	Former	
	Canadian Forces	
Year	Personnel	Widows1959	492*	62*1960	459*	79*1961	787*	93*1962	1110*	101*1963	1170*	123*1964	2825	2171965	3723	2731966	3124	2781967	2588	2991968	3245	3701969	4071	3421970	4092	358*Prior to	1964 records were not maintained	in a manner which	would permit this information to	be readilyidentified and the figures represent the difference be-	tween pensions in payment at end of each year.	2.	(a)	(b)Former	Canadian Forces	Year	Personnel	Widows*1964	342	701965	351	981966	185	1051967	89	801968	162	771969	249	761970	261	78^Widows1	' pensions may cease for reasons	other thandeath, e.g.	remarriage, and statistics are not	maintainedon the reasons for discontinuing pensions.	
Records prior to 1964 were not maintained in a manner which would make this information readily identifiable.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Coates: 1. Have any rental agreements been entered into by the government with individuals or firms for space, where the actual occupation of the rented space had to await the completion of construction of the building and, if so (a) on how many occasions has this occurred since June 25, 1968 (b) in each instance, what was the name of the individual or firm from whom space was being rented (c) what was the total amount of space rented (d) for what period of time (a) at which dollar value annually in each instance?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources expressing the view of the government when he said in a television interview last night, as recorded by Canadian Press in today's journals:
The government might have to sit at the table where the great financial decisions are made to a far greater degree than it has in the past to enable Canadian companies to play in this very tough league with the American companies.
If this is government policy, can we expect the government to be injecting itself far more into the decisionmaking processes of the chartered banks than it has in the past?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say what the minister had in mind when he used the expression "sit at the table." If he means there should be someone talking for the public interest and that it should be the government, then I totally agree with him. But if he meant something different I would have to discuss the matter with the minister. I imagine he was talking on his own behalf.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: How can a minister talk on his own behalf!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is no particular statement of government policy contained in that beyond what I have just said.


George Harris Hees: If it is government policy that where the interests of the country are concerned the government should inject itself more into the decision-making process of the chartered banks, does the government now intend to tell the chartered banks that they should lower their interest rates in keeping with what has been done by their counterparts in the United States, Great Britain, Europe and most parts of the world?

April 5, 1971


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This particular move is not contemplated at this time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: 1 have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the statements we heard from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources last night were taped two weeks ago, can the Prime Minister assure us that those are still the views of the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the report of his speech to the Niagara Falls Chamber of Commerce. The Prime Minister is reported as having said that in a free society trade-offs must be accepted and that in order to provide jobs it would be necessary, among other things, to have a shorter work week with earlier retirement, delays in young people entering the labour force and less emphasis on women working. I should like to know if this means that the government's policy now, instead of seeking to expand the economy and create jobs, is to restrict the labour force wherever possible in order to make a greater distribution of poverty throughout the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the statements mean what they say. I do not think that this government believes there should be growth at any price, to the point that we would have longer work weeks, child labour and so on. I am surprised that the statement caused any astonishment in the ranks of the NDP.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask if it is the government's intention to bring in legislation to provide for a shorter work week, for earlier retirement, for a greater delay in young people entering the labour market and, particularly, if the government intends to introduce legislation to provide for less emphasis on women working in view of the Prime Minister's speech in Toronto a few weeks ago asking for the removal of discrimination against women? Does the government intend to introduce legislation to deal with the matters which the Prime Minister outlined in his speech in Niagara Falls?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is a very wide-ranging question, Mr. Speaker. On the latter part of it, I do not think legislation would be the kind of thing we would contemplate to put less emphasis on women working. What I did say in Niagara Falls was that women should have a choice of being able to work or not according to their own decisions and not because of traditions and social structures imposed on them from the past. On the earlier part of the question the answer is yes. There is a provision before the House now for earlier retirement, if the opposition would let us get it through.
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the first question asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. Is the Prime Minister taking the same course in double-talk from the same instructor as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, because they both say different things every week according to which way the wind blows?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to a preceding question. May I ask the Prime Minister whether his speech at Niagara Falls in particular, as well as the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada, means that the government has definitely abandoned any commitment to a full employment policy for fear of inflation and that it intends to keep the economy with some slack in it at all times?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously not, Mr. Speaker.



WAGE INCREASE LIMITATION SUGGESTED BY PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION CHAIRMAN-GOVERNMENT POLICY

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of a statement made by the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission, Dr. John Young, to the effect that wage increases should be restricted this year to some 4 per cent? Does this represent government policy, and is the Prime Minister prepared to assure the House and the country that the cost of living his year will not rise more than 4 per cent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course I cannot give that assurance, Mr. Speaker. I do not know how high the cost of living will rise this year.



PROGRAMS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE DELAYED IN ENTERING WORK FORCE

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's statement over the weekend that there must be some delay in young people entering the work force, can he tell the House whether the government has any programs for young people if they are to be delayed even more in finding employment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have recently put forth a lot of suggestions along these lines, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member knows that as a constant thing for some years past the federal government has been financing half the cost of post-secondary education all across the land at a cost of several hundred million dollars per year.
4896

April 5, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
As the Bourassa government, in Quebec, is taking over the increase of the guaranteed minimum income supplement for the old, could the minister tell us if the federal government has agreed to such action by the Quebec government?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the premise of the question and therefore it is difficult to answer.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
In view of the situation prevailing in the province of Quebec, would the minister consider lowering the pension age to 60 and granting pensions to wives of pensioners, even if they have not reached pension age?
He *	*



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. It is in two parts. Did the premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, ask the Prime Minister to extend the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act when it expires on April 30? Also, if the premier made such a request, has the Prime Minister agreed to present the extension to Parliament on behalf of the premier?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the premier of Quebec, in conversation and in writing to me, did ask for the provision of some special measures to deal with situations such as we have known in past months. What cabinet will do with that request is something I cannot predict. We will, of course, have to study the request, along with the other input we are looking at, in approaching the House with measures concerning public order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Since the Minister of Justice said before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that the government would only extend this Act if there were extenuating circumstances, or only bring in permanent legislation if there were extenuating circumstances, what are the extenuating circumstances, if this is government policy, under which this Act would be continued or a new bill brought in to replace it permanently?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is really for a statement on motions or a declaration of policy that the hon. member is asking. If we come to Parliament with specific measures, of course we will explain to Parliament why we are coming to it for specific measures.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further question. Does the Prime Minister accept as government policy that before this Act would be continued, or a measure introduced to replace it, there would have to be extenuating or special circumstances that do not exist today in the province of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is meant by extenuating circumstances.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one further question. I wonder if in the course of time the Prime Minister will contact the Minister of Justice and find out what he meant by those words?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South on a supplementary.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister tell the House now whether the government has decided to let the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act die in accordance with its promise, or whether the government is considering coming to parliament for an extension of time for that Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the House now.
Hs *	*



BROADCASTING


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. It has to do with the judgment handed down this morning by the Supreme Court of Canada in connection with the action of Confederation Broadcasting (Ottawa) Limited, the owner and operator of CKPM, against the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. Has he read the judgment yet and does he realize that it is a body blow to the bureaucratic injustice and tyranny that has been practised against responsible Canadians?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Gerard Pelleiier (Secreiary of Siaie):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had as yet an opportunity to read this judgment and I leave to the right hon. member the responsibility for the conclusions he has just drawn; I would not endorse them myself before reading the judgment, and perhaps not even after.

April 5, 1971


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I recall that the minister did not endorse my views on April 6, 1970, when I brought this matter to the attention of the House, as recorded at page 5511 of Hansard. I asked the minister then whether the decision made against the company operating this station was not in fact Star Chamber in effect. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court that there must now be a hearing and that Mr. Juneau and the commission acted wrongly in denying the simple justice of a hearing, and inasmuch as when this matter again comes up it will be before the same board with Mr. Juneau in charge and of the same members, has the minister given consideration to taking action that will ensure that the owners of CKPM who were denied justice will not again be denied justice by the very commission that did just that?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am taking the right hon. member's learned remarks into consideration.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Robert Borrie (Prince George-Peace River):: My
question is for the Minister of Labour. We welcome him back to the House after a long weekend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert James Borrie: Will the minister advise the House if the agreement that was reached last night in the railway dispute will mean the immediate movement of lumber and grain in the western provinces, British Columbia and Alberta in particular?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, before I came into the House I spoke by telephone to the local chairmen of both unions of the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National employees in Vancouver in the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers who have assured me that the men are returning to work in that particular area.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: In view of the fact that at the meeting in Winnipeg there appeared to be some rejection of the plan, can the minister inform the House as to the outcome of the meeting that was held in Winnipeg?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have been busy elsewhere. I apologize because I am not fully conversant with all the meetings that are taking place at this moment across Canada.
Inquiries of the Ministry BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM



FAILURE OF COMMISSION TO COMPLETE WORK-PUBLICATION OF COMMISSIONERS' VIEWS ON REASONS THEREFOR

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the House if an Order in Council has been passed discharging the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism from its responsibilities, either under Privy Council minute No. 3374 or its successors, and does that minute relieve the commission from its obligation to report on the mass media as laid down in the original terms of reference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot remember if there was an Order in Council along those lines. I remember writing a letter to the joint chairmen explaining to them that I understood the reasons why they did not want to pursue their work.


Gerald William Baldwin: As Mr. Gagnon, the former co-chairman of the commission, has, in breach of propriety and probably of law, disclosed certain details of the meetings of the commission, is it the intention of the government to secure from the other commissioners and publish their views on the issue raised so that the taxpayers of Canada can decide on the extent to which they got value for the $10 million spent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course I cannot agree with the premise of the question. If the hon. member has a charge to make or an information to lay, I hope he will do it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Did Mr. Gagnon or the other commissioners have any communication with the government or anyone on its behalf, either in writing or otherwise, with regard to this decision to suspend hostilities or about the 12 month stalemate which preceded it? Was information about their decision communicated to the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No communication at all, Mr. Speaker,
concerning the cessation of hostilities.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING CONCLUSION OF COMMISSION'S WORK

David Lewis: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider tabling any correspondence relating to the conclusion of the work of the commission which passed between one or both of the joint chairmen of the commission and either himself or any other minister of the Crown?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will. If the hon. member is referring to the correspondence in which the commissioners notified me that they wanted to wind up their work and the answer I gave to them, I see no reason why I should not table it in the House. I will look into the correspondence to see whether it contains any information which might be secret; if it does, I will explain to the House why I should not table it.
4898

April 5, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Lewis: I am interested particularly if there is correspondence which sets out the reasons the commission decided not to produce its final report-all that kind of thing-so that all the information may be before Parliament and the people.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The letters to which I refer do contain some explanations along those lines and I will meet the commitment I gave a few moments ago.



FAILURE OF COMMISSION TO COMPLETE WORK-PUBLICATION OF SPEECHES AND EDITORIALS BY JEAN-LOUIS GAGNON

John George Diefenbaker: My question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Information Canada. Having read what Jean-Louis Gagnon said, as reported by Arthur Blakeley in this morning's Gazette, it is apparent he had some difficulty in understanding the reason for divisions in the province of Quebec. I am wondering whether the minister reporting for Information Canada, and knowing the desire of that organization to give the fullest information, would feel like publishing the speeches and editorials by Mr. Gagnon between 1940 and 1950? It would be very informative.


Hon. Robert Slanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: would certainly give consideration to that suggestion, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the speeches of the right hon. member would be of more national interest, though.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you for the compliment, but at the moment I am asking about Mr. Gagnon because he had a lot to say that Canadians should know about and Information Canada with its capacity for making information public would be doing a national service.



FAILURE OF COMMISSION TO COMPLETE WORK-WITHHOLDING OF COMMISSIONERS' SALARIES

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of the fact that the B and B Commission refused, or was unable to, complete its final report, has any consideration been given to withholding money for the commissioners' salaries on this account? After all, the commission has cost about $10 million.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is my
understanding that there are no further salaries to be paid to the commissioners, that they have now wound up their work. If we wanted to give them more money I am sure they could publish more things and produce further volumes. If that is the desire of hon. members opposite-


George Harris Hees: Liberal pork barrel. Come and get it. It is here. Help yourselves. We have millions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I realize this is an important subject and I see that a number of hon. members are anxious to ask questions about this very interesting situation. However, perhaps we might give some thought, before the end of the question period, to going on to another subject. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member
for Annapolis Valley on this same subject, but I suggest that we then go on to another matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Does the Prime Minister not consider that part of the function of the commissioners was to complete their final report as they promised, in accordance with the terms of reference? Since they were unable to do this, or refused to do it, would the cabinet look into the situation and request a final report or, if one is not forthcoming, be prepared to withhold further payment of salaries?



SUGGESTION THAT COMMISSION NOT MAKE FINAL REPORT

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: My question concerns the revelations by Mr. Gagnon concerning some of the problems the commission encountered in finalizing and/or writing the last few volumes of the report. Would the Prime Minister inform the House, when he answers the hon. member for York South, if there was any communication by any member of the government to the commission prior to the letter from the commission to the government telling the government and the country they would not in fact be completing their report? In other words, I refer not necessarily to communication by written correspondence. Was any member of the government in touch with the commission, was he aware of the division of opinion, and did he suggest to the commissioners or to a commissioner that no final report be made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter. I cannot give a very simple answer, especially when my answers are cut off by the opposition. I should say now that my previous answer was not completed, and I am afraid I will not be able to complete this one.


George Harris Hees: You were cut off by the Speaker, not us.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Having in mind the Soviet Union's current proposals for a five-power disarmament conference, particularly with regard to germ and chemical warfare, is Canada giving any consideration to using its good offices to encourage such a conference?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most encouraging aspects of the speech made by Mr. Brezhnev to which the hon. gentleman refers was its reference to a new Soviet approach to the banning of biological weapons. This

April 5, 1971

really means that the Soviet Union has now agreed with the method of proceeding proposed by the British and supported by Canada, namely, that the early conclusion of a separate treaty on biological weapons is the most efficacious manner of making progress. We are hopeful that an international agreement banning development, production and stockpiling of biological agents of warfare can be agreed upon at an early date. Work could continue on banning chemical weapons.


EAST PAKISTAN-PARTICIPATION BY CANADA IN DISCUSSIONS TO AVERT WIDENING OF CONFLICT-SAFETY OF CANADIAN NATIONALS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the continued troubled situation in East Pakistan, and especially the announcement of interest in the matter by the Indian government. Can the minister advise whether Canada is holding discussions on this serious question with representatives of Pakistan, India or the United Nations with a view to averting an even wider conflict?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to keep in touch with the situation in Pakistan. I understand that the High Commissioner of Pakistan was recently in touch with the Canadian government urging us to prevail upon other countries not to intervene in this situation. We made it clear, as I have made it clear in the House, that until we have all the facts we think that intervention would not serve very much purpose.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I ask the minister whether he is now in a position to assure the people of Canada that Canadians living in East Pakistan have been safely evacuated or are not in danger?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The situation is this. Before the emergency arose there were about 150 Canadians in Pakistan. About 40 left before the recent emergency arose; another 22 have arrived in Singapore, and there may be a few others we have not been able to trace. There remain about 85, and the information we have is that none of them is in any danger at the present time.


EAST PAKISTAN CONFLICT-CANADIAN ASSISTANCE THROUGH RED CROSS
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Have he or his officials been in touch with the Red Cross agencies to provide aid and assistance to people in this area?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have been in touch with the Canadian Red Cross and have said we are ready to help if they can find some way of assisting the people of East Pakistan.
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN


RENOVATION OF NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD VANCOUVER TERMINAL-GREATER USE OF PRINCE RUPERT CAPACITY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the continued idleness of the National Harbours Board terminal at Vancouver owing to the condition of the building, do the minister and the government intend to authorize the expenditure of money to renovate the terminal and put it into full operation?


Hon. Otfo E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the possible use of this terminal was thoroughly investigated again recently. Following the investigation tenders were sought from private interests both in connection with possible leases and in connection with possible sales, but nothing has come of them to date. Some further approaches are now being pursued bearing in mind the possibility that, because of the record movement of grain which is going to be passing through Vancouver, an additional terminal may in fact be an economic proposition, notwithstanding that large amounts of money may have to be spent on putting it into operational shape.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In view of the obvious need for more capacity at Vancouver, will the government give consideration to the construction of a new National Harbours Board terminal and some expansion of the terminal space at Prince Rupert? May I also ask whether greater use will be made of the terminal at Prince Rupert which the former chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners alleges is being used only to half capacity?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, whenever we are having, as this year, record movement of grain out of the west coast ports the terminal at Prince Rupert does tend to be used fairly fully. This will be done again this year. The question of additional facilities is one which is, of course, under review, but whether it would be appropriate for the government to build the facilities or for one of the private trade or co-operative companies to build it remains to be seen.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary. Is any thought being given to diverting some of the funds which would normally be spent under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act into the construction of such a terminal elevator on the west coast?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not think one need put a particular label on the source of the funds. If additional facilities are clearly required, and if a particular kind is required at Vancouver, I am sure the funds will be found.

April 5, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


FINANCE
Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question.
Does he think that inflation has been completely overcome in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that is a very general question. The hon. member urges the minister to make a statement which usually is made on motions. If the hon. member could make his question more to the point the minister might be able to give an answer.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. minister tell us whether he intends to lower the discount rates of the Bank of Canada again so that chartered banks also bring down their interest rates for a better balanced economy?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter for decision by the governor of the Bank of Canada. If he has any such intentions he will, of course, notify the public in the normal way and would be in consultation with me before making such decision.


AMENDMENT OF UNITED STATES INTEREST EQUALIZATION ACT TO COVER SHORT-TERM CAPITAL FLOWS- CANADIAN EXEMPTION
Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether this is in keeping with the Standing Orders, but I would suggest to the hon. member, since I have the reply but it is a rather long one, too long, I believe, for Your Honour's forbearance, that the matter might be discussed on adjournment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This might be a good arrangement in any event. It is up to the hon. member who would have to give the usual notice to the Chair.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has he or the government received any request from the governments of either Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick or both for assistance for the agricultural industry of those two provinces because of the fact that their main cash crop is now being sold at less than the cost of production? I refer to potatoes of course.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minisier of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had some requests and correspondence dealing with the price of potatoes and the lower volume that has been marketed so far this year.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In light of reports that the United States seeks to amend its interest equalization act to bring short-term capital flows under the control of the act, could the minister tell the House whether Canada has been advised of this action, whether his officials are in touch with those of the United States government, and whether the government of Canada is going to seek exemption from these controls, as we do for long-term capital flows?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting with the Secretary of the Treasury tomorrow. I understand that in the act that was approved by Congress and the Senate there was no question of the continuation of Canada's exemption.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Secretary of State if he can inform the House when the confessions he put in book form will be ready in the English translation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member realizes the question is not in order. For one thing it is not a supplementary to whatever the previous question was and, second, the hon. member is not asking a question which relates to the administrative responsibility of the minister as such. I would not think that in those circumstances the question is in order.


DENIAL OF CANADIAN TELEVISION PROGRAMS TO WINDSOR STATION
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he is prepared to reply to the question of which his parliamentary secretary took notice last week concerning the denial of Canadian-produced television programs to the television station at Windsor?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-I will make this very brief-we are going to be asked to consider substitute legislation for the public order act and I think those of us who speak the English language should have an opportunity to read this book. It would be very revealing to us and we would be able to get the feel of it in our own language.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Mr. Lang.)
April 5, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister's book might be prescribed reading for the courses given to hon. members who are trying to learn French.


CONFERENCE ON ASSISTANTS TO PHYSICIANS-RECOMMENDATIONS OF 1969 NATIONAL HEALTH MANPOWER CONFERENCE-USE OF FELDSHER SYSTEM
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the government's national conference on assistants to physicians now being held and in view of the possible tremendous implications for national health care, would the minister state if any of the recommendations of the national health manpower conference of October, 1969, will be presented to this meeting?


John Carr Munro: I believe so, Mr. Speaker.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister if the Feldsher system, now being abandoned by the Russians, is to be made a cornerstone of the new program?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would indicate generally, without particular reference to the Feldsher system, that we believe, along the lines of the report in respect of dental auxiliaries and now the investigation into physicians' assistants, that the development of health personnel in this way will be beneficial in improving the health delivery system in Canada.


FINANCE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the statements made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arose out of speeches made by the presidents of a number of the chartered banks of Canada, can the minister tell us whether, as part of the process suggested by the minister of involving the government more intimately in the decision-making processes, the government is giving consideration to legislation which would provide for public representation on the boards of directors of the chartered banks of Canada?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the boards of directors of the chartered banks are made up of members of the public. Incidentally, since the time this question was first raised I have read the prepared texts of the statements of the various bank presidents in New York and find that the press was quite
Inquiries of the Ministry
misrepresentative in stating that the opinions of one or two of them were the general opinions of the bankers at this meeting.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Would the minister give consideration to new legislation which would require appointment to the boards of directors of the banks not of shareholders' representatives but of representatives of the general public, probably through appointment by the government?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know whether my hon. friend is looking for a job.


CHARTERED BANKS PRESIDENTS' POSITION ON CANADA
Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. In view of the critical stand taken by two or more bank presidents when in the United States regarding the Canada Development Corporation, did the Bankers' Association or any Canadian chartered bank submit a brief on this subject to the committee prior to the March 31 deadline?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot ask this kind of question. I must say it is always somewhat difficult for the Chair to determine what questions can be asked in relation to committee proceedings, but generally speaking the only questions allowed to a chairman of a committee deal with the holding of meetings and the proceedings of the committee. I would not think it is in order to ask the chairman whether or not a brief has been submitted.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the importance placed on Bill C-176 by both the government and the agricultural industry of Canada and in view of the fact that after one year copies of the bill still are not available to members of the House or to farm commodity groups, will the minister consult with the persons responsible to see whether this can be rectified at an early date?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have to admit I was unaware that additional copies were not available to members of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this is the kind of problem the Chair might look into. My information is that the available supplies were depleted some time ago. Of course, hon. members and the public who are interested are entitled to have copies of this bill and this is a difficulty which can easily be remedied.

April 5, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


APPLICATION OF MINIMUM WAGE LAWS TO HOTEL EMPLOYEES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Justice is now in a position to answer a question I directed to the Minister of Labour some time ago regarding the provisions of the minimum wage laws being applied to employees of Canadian National hotels in Canada, especially in view of the importance of the matter to the collective bargaining process?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, after the question was posed by the hon. member to the Minister of Labour I reviewed the situation of the case before the Alberta Supreme Court and found that the matter has not yet been tried. I have suggested to the parties that it would be in the interest of the country to have it brought on for trial as soon as possible.


WHEAT-STOCK ON HAND AT VANCOUVER-NUMBER OF SHIPS LOADING OR WAITING
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Can he tell the House whether there is still a stock of wheat on hand at Vancouver, whether ships are being loaded and how many are waiting to be loaded?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the report I have in my hand this morning indicates that four ships are being loaded, ten are waiting to be loaded, and some 195 cars were spotted for unloading at the terminals.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. Are there any ships now in position in respect of which demurrage charges are being paid, and in view of the loss of $1 million a day to the western grain economy in the past week or so will the government see to it that these charges are not forced upon the grain industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the impression this question was asked on Thursday or Friday of last week.


NEW QUOTA POLICY-EFFECT ON EQUITABLE DELIVERY BY PRODUCERS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board having to do with the new quota policy which results in quotas now being non-cumulative and terminable. Is any consideration being given to the inequities that will arise as a result of late harvests, harvests in the spring, or the fact that many producers may have grain not of the type and grade offered for same at a particular time, which would in effect inhibit equitable delivery in respect of many producers?


Otto Emil Lang: I can assure the hon. member that all these variables are being taken into consideration by the Wheat Board. The way in which the Wheat Board will operate the terminable quotas should allow for most of the matters to which the hon. member referred being dealt with.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period has already expired or is just expiring now. The Chair would like to call on the hon. member for Selkirk for the last question.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-CRITERIA USED IN CONSIDERING APPLICATIONS
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State having to do with the Opportunities for Youth program. After having supplied members of the House with the criteria to be employed in the selection of projects under the Opportunities for Youth program, has the minister subsequently added two criteria, namely, that projects which are not to be administered by the youth themselves are not acceptable under the terms of the program and, second, that projects which might normally be considered within the ambit of municipal or provincial public works departments are not to be considered under the Opportunities for Youth program?


Gérard Pelletier: The reply to both parts of the question is no, Mr. Speaker. Evidently, we prefer programs young people themselves can administer and implement, and even more programs through which young people can obtain the co-operation of adults of their community.
The reply to both parts of the question is therefore negative, provided I have understood the question well.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that the question period expired three or four minutes ago. I recognize that a number of hon. members have been rising throughout the question period. I will attempt to give them preference tomorrow. I will also seek the co-operation of the front benches to give the Chair an opportunity to recognize hon. members in the third and fourth rows. I think I should insist on this. I do feel that the Chair is perhaps placed in a difficult position from day to day when there is insistence on the part of hon. members in the front rows to ask questions at the expense, I suggest, of hon. members in the third and fourth rows.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 5, 1971


SHIPS WAITING TO BE LOADED AT VANCOUVER- DEMURRAGE CHARGES
Paul Yewchuk: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for taking up the time of the House but I was the fellow who asked a question a couple of days ago but did not receive an answer from the minister at the time. I think he has an answer today to the question I put.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure to which minister the hon. member is referring. I am sure that if a question was asked and if the reply is short, the House will agree to allow the minister to give that answer now.


Otto Emil Lang: The number of ships and the problem of demurrage in relation to them is one that changes every day. I will have to ask the hon. member to give me notice of the specific day in which he is interested and I will try to provide the figures for him.


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, April 2, consideration in committee of Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Richard in the chair.
On clause 14-Establishment of ministries of state.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. When the committee rose on Friday, clause 14 of the bill was being considered.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see that the Prime Minister is present for the opening of the discussion of this bill today. Perhaps he is going to stay and listen and also contribute to the enlightenment of hon. members regarding the reason for Part IV of the bill which will give him the power to create five ministries of state if it ever becomes law. I am sure the bill will not become law because hon. members will not agree to it.
I think there might be some hon. members across the way who have not read Bill C-207 yet, judging from what they said on Thursday and Friday of last week. I have to say that, as a new member of the House, I might not be as conversant with the legislative language as are other hon. members, but the first thing that strikes me is the language of Part IV of the bill. Clause 14 reads:
Where it appears to the Governor in Council that-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 formula-
Government Organization Act, 1970
tion and development of such policies, the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, establish a Ministry of State for that purpose.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. There is a great deal of perambulation through the Chamber and behind the curtains, and a great deal of talking. The Chair can stand it but it is very difficult for the hon. member who is making the speech. I, therefore, ask for the co-operation of hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: I have no complaint about the noise in the House, Mr. Chairman. This is just an indication of lack of interest in Bill C-207 on the part of hon. members, and consequently it is not surprising to me that this disinterest is beginning to manifest itself in this way.
However, the language in Part IV of the bill is what strikes me. If we go to page seven, clause 23, we read:
A minister of State appointed by commission under the Great Seal of Canada- (a) may be assigned by the Governor in Council-
This indicates that when the Prime Minister, who is the dictator in the cabinet-that is the basic system we have in Canada today-decides that he is going to appoint a minister of state, that is done. The rights and responsibilities of that minister are then determined by the Prime Minister. Certainly, I am not very knowledgeable of the parliamentary system, its history and its privileges, but until now the Cabinet has been dictating to the House. As a matter of fact, the Canadian people have recognized that it has been part of the whole tradition for the Governor in Council, or for the Prime Minister and his cabinet, to decide on the policies, to decide what moneys will be spent and where they will be spent.
What we are now being asked under this bill is to establish a system whereby the total number of people involved in ministries under the Prime Minister's control may be larger than the number of the people in his government. I am surprised that hon. members across the way have not taken strong exception to it. I was trying to calculate the actual number of people who would be involved. At present, the cabinet consists of 28 ministers, including the Prime Minister and the ministers without portfolio. If the present legislation becomes law, we might find that with every minister having at least one parliamentary secretary the figure would double to 56. If you add a few extra parliamentary secretaries for some of the larger portfolios there would be 63 people under the control of the Prime Minister. At the same time there would be five ministers of state. Clause 23 reads:
A Minister of State appointed by commission under the Great Seal of Canada, other than a Minister who presides over a Ministry of State,
(a) may be assigned by the Governor in Council to assist any Minister or Ministers-
I do not know what that means exactly, but my interpretation is that the Prime Minister or the Governor in Council may appoint any number of ministers of state. We have a potential of five ministries and an unlimited number of ministers. Assuming the Prime Minister is
4904

April 5, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 very fair in his distribution and appoints only five ministers of state, a couple of them being those already under his control, we might have a situation with four parties in the House where the Prime Minister might appoint every member in his party to some position of authority. It is possible for a government to be elected in Canada with only 70 members. At present there are 150 government members, 70-odd in the official opposition, less than 20 in one opposition party and 10 in the other. It would be possible, after the next election, for one party to elect 70 members and still form a government. We have had governments with just over 100 members.
Let us consider the possibility of a minority government with only 70-odd members forming the government, with the support of opposition parties. Under this system, it would be possible for a Prime Minister to appoint each and every one of his party to positions of authority, and so far as I am concerned this is a serious step in the wrong direction. It is one which will increase the autocracy of cabinet, the autocracy of the Prime Minister, and reduce the democratic process below what it is at the moment.
Members of the House of Commons are complaining about the lack of independence which they suffer in trying to vote on legislation. Everyone is aware of the party system. Everyone knows there is a lot of line toeing, and a good deal of party allegiance. A couple of days ago I was talking to 70 or 80 young people who visited the House of Commons, and they complained that parliamentarians were not sufficiently independent from their parties. They said that Members of Parliament had to go along with the policies of their parties. If this piece of legislation becomes law, the independence of members will become much less than it is now. I cannot understand the attitude of hon. members opposite. During the last few days I have noticed the type of member who has been staying in the House. I have been noticing the type of member who has been making his presence felt. These people are either ministers or parliamentary secretaries now or aspire to become such.
Members of the Liberal party are showing a great deal of fear. I don't blame them. Some of these members want to become part of the establishment. They want to play their role. They want appointments. They want to be on the inside track. Can you imagine the effect of this attitude on the government if this legislation becomes law? Already there are many hon. members who are trying to show their great allegiance to the Prime Minister, their great allegiance to the cabinet, and their great allegiance to their party, but not to the country. That is not where their allegiance lies. It lies with the Prime Minister, the cabinet, and their party. Hopefully this legislation will never become law. But, can you imagine what will happen if it does, and if a Prime Minister can give appointments to some 100 members of his party? In fact, at present he can decide on about 70 appointments, and the people of Canada are wondering about the fate of democracy.
I have talked to people in this party, Mr. Chairman, who are knowledgeable with respect to the legislative process. They wonder why we did not get a separate bill dealing with the environment, so that we could have had a debate on environment. Such a bill would have been on the statute books by now. They wonder why the government did not decide to bring in separate bills if it wanted more ministries established. I was astounded on Friday to hear the President of the Treasury Board ask the hon. member for Edmonton West if he would be against establishing a ministry of state in charge of feminine affairs, or women. I was astounded at him asking that question, since the Prime Minister already has the authority to appoint any number of ministers without portfolio. I was astounded that he did not realize the Prime Minister could have introduced a separate bill to establish a ministry in charge of feminine affairs. Doesn't he have that right? I ask the President of the Treasury Board, doesn't he have that right now to bring in a separate bill, spelling out the duties, the functions, the responsibilities, and the total administrative bureaucratic costs to the Canadian people of such a ministry? Why does he want unlimited power, such as he would have under this legislation?
I say to the people of Canada that every minister of the Crown is guilty of collusion with the Prime Minister, in the first place for allowing this legislation to be before the House, and secondly for not speaking out against it. The President of the Treasury Board sits over there and smiles. Mr. Chairman, I look down the list of people whom I recognize as honourable gentlemen. We have the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I won't say he is the most aggressive member of the cabinet. He can figure skate beautifully, but I believe he would take exception to the democratic system going down the drain.
I look at the member from Vancouver who is in charge of public works. I don't think he is so enamoured of all the aspects, all of the efforts of our present Francophone Prime Minister that he would not stand up for his people. I look at the President of the Privy Council. I know he got to the leadership convention, and I know he has had trouble finding his way up to his present level in his party, but I thought he would be against a provision of this type. I look at the President of the Treasury Board who has control of the purse strings of the Canadian nation. I would expect this gentleman to thump his desk and say, "If we want a particular ministry of state, or particular minister without portfolio in charge of unemployment, in charge of urban affairs, or in charge of women, or of any such area concerning the Canadian people, bring in a new separate bill, Mr. Prime Minister; place it before the Canadian nation, spelling out the duties, responsibilities, the structure, the hierarchy, and the cost, and we will go for it. We will go for it after we have analysed it and have changed it."
Then we get the minister from Kingston who is the Minister of Finance. I believe he is one who has great knowledge of the composition of the economy in the east and who would stand up against the Prime Minister. Everybody knows the Prime Minister is a very knowledgeable internationalist. Today, I heard the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert challenge our Information

April 5, 1971

Canada expert to produce some of the speeches of Mr. Gagnon during the ten years 1940 to 1950. I would like to see Information Canada publish some of the essays and contributions to the literary world of the Prime Minister during that period. One hon. gentleman holds up a copy of "Pierre Trudeau and Canadian Federalism." I would like to see passages from it circulated to the Canadian people. Then, there is the book by Jacques Hebert and Pierre Elliot Trudeau, "Two Innocents in Red China", which I have read with great interest. I should like to see this book circulated because it tells of his second coming to Red China and his great association with the Chinese people. I think the Prime Minister is a great internationalist. I would like to see more publicity given to Jacques Hebert's views on his visit to Red China. This Jacques Hebert is the same gentleman who published the book by the Secretary of State.
The Prime Minister is an expert on eastern matters. There is nobody in this Parliament more capable than the Prime Minister of finding ways to get control of situations. Then, we have the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. We also have the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources. Where does he stand? I know we are having trouble determining where he stands with respect to energy policies.


Mr. Deachman:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Are we still on Bill C-207? If we are I would not have recognized the fact from listening to the last several minutes of the present discourse. I wonder if the hon. member just wandered off to another topic.


The Chairman:: I think the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Quadra has made a very good point. The hon. member who has the floor may have been straying just a bit far.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra for proving that he was awake. I think he is just getting in an early application for one of these appointments. I notice that my good friend, the expert in the area of finance, who is sitting over there, is not wearing his red shirt today. He has done a tremendous job of ingratiating himself with his colleagues since he was appointed parliamentary secretary. Keep up the good work, there are a lot of appointments to come.
I think my remarks are relative, Mr. Chairman. We are asked to approve a decision of the Prime Minister which, hopefully, came before the cabinet. I hope it did because I have some confidence in his colleagues in the cabinet. But I am challenging the various members of the Privy Council to explain why they are prepared to permit the Prime Minister, who has never explained the bill to the House, to go ahead with legislation which will in effect take complete and total control of the House of Commons. Instead of having dictatorship of the cabinet, as has been traditional since 1867, we will have a small group of 28 ministers in control of all the decision-making
Government Organization Act, 1970 process, plus the fact that the Prime Minister will have control of his own party. It will be a completely autocratic situation.
I have overlooked the Postmaster General, but now I come to a gentleman for whom I have a great deal of respect, the Minister of Justice. He has not been in the House during the debate, so far as I am aware. Perhaps he has been here once or twice, but he has never taken exception to this provision. I wonder if he took exception to it in cabinet. At the moment, there are enough ministers in the cabinet with backbone that some will stand up against the things that are happening in this country.
I will overlook the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and come to the Minister of Labour, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, a man who has tremendous credentials on paper. Is he satisfied with the control being given to the Prime Minister? And where is the member for Vancouver-Quadra?
On rereading clause 23 I see that it gives permission to the Governor in Council to appoint an unlimited number of ministers of state, not just those who will be in charge of the five ministries of state. It provides also that a minister of state "may be assigned by the Governor in Council to assist any minister-". What kind of control is that? Is the member for Calgary South satisfied that we in this House can vote to give a blank cheque, as was done during the Second World War?


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Russell Clayton Honey: Agreed.


John Howard Lundrigan: I won't even accept the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, because I am sure there are many hon. members who wish to speak. I have another 20 minutes, so I shall wait until a little bit later in the day.


Mr. Forlin:: Mr. Chairman, we are now on clause 14 of Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.
As the hon. members opposite know, I have already dealt with this clause, but in view of the extensive powers the government seeks in this clause, Mr. Chairman, this question cannot be settled through only one or two interventions. It is therefore my duty to intervene again, not to repeat what has already been said, but to raise further points.
Mr. Chairman, I should like first, for the benefit of my hon. colleagues, to underline three quite distinct points.
Under clause 14 of this bill, the government wants to assume the right to appoint five more ministers of state.
4906

April 5, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
But there are already 29 ministers. The government also intends to appoint, under Part IV of this bill, 13 additional parliamentary secretaries.
In short, this bill will create 18 new positions at a high salary. It might be advisable to ask why, and I shall come back to this later on.
The second point I would like to emphasize is that because of the excessive number of technocrats in the federal administration, fewer and fewer powers are devolved to parliament in the legislative field, while more and more are granted to the creatures of the executive power, that is to technocrats or experts who are not answerable to the Canadian people.
Indeed, the more ministries of state and departments are created, the more power will be secured by the technocrats, the would-be experts who, unfortunately are not answerable to the people, so that the member of parliament wonders exactly what his role is in parliament, why he is elected; for, if the government is allowed to continue operating as it does at the present time, not only will the role of the member have to be redefined-which might not be a bad idea-but it will have to be discussed and updated.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring up a third point: thanks to the roster system set up by the prime minister (Mr. Trudeau), from 110 to 130 Liberal members will be given higher indemnities, indirectly, for some reason or other, and this without submitting to the test of public opinion.
Mr. Chairman, that is third point which we must not be afraid to raise in this House, because it shows us another aspect of the problem. But let us come back to the first one. So they intend to create 18 new posts. It is known that there is at present more than 29 departments and 16 parliamentary secretaries. One this bill is passed, five more ministers will be appointed; consequently there will be 34 ministers and as many parliamentary secretaries.
Why? Will the establishment of a ministry of state, a department or a Crown corporation be more beneficial to the population? Will five more ministers, five or thirteen more parliamentary secretaries do better justice to the Canadian population? Will a greater number of members with special assignments allow the population to take a greater part in the administration of public affairs?
Mr. Chairman, of course the answer is no. Canadians cannot take part in the administration of public affairs. I think that the government introduces this bill as an excuse for its failure in governing.
The other day, I dealt briefly with a comical situation which already occurred and which is so plausible that it might occur again tomorrow. Assume that there should be tomorrow a shortage of jobs for students, as it is already the case now. The government would be faced with a serious emergency from coast to coast. It would not know what to do with the young students. In fact, in 1972 for instance, there will be an additional 300,000 undergraduates on the labour market, not to mention the present unemployment problem. This means that this

government which has no solution today will not have any tomorrow.
On the one hand, the government is blamed by the population because it does not have any direct and immediate solution to the problem. On the other hand, criticisms keep on increasing because it has not solved the basic issue which is the monetary problem. It goes on following patchwork policies, suggesting makeshift solutions but does not settle the problem.
The latest gimmick used by the right hon. Prime Minister to cover up his lethargy and his imcompetence is very simple: the widely-publicized establishment of a ministry of state and the appointment of some member who is yearning for a title, new powers or a pay raise. With a lot of drum-beating, this new ministry of state which will precisely tackle the problem of summer jobs for students will order inquiries throughout the country, as if we did not know that there are often problems in Canada. Studies will be made, commissions will be created under the authority of this new ministry, and public opinion will be entertained, not on the basic problem but on the surface problem, that is, publicity around this ministry, in the hope of keeping people's minds off the basic problem.
Mr. Chairman, we have 29 departments now. Is the situation better today than it was when we had 25? No, Mr. Chairman. There has been a lot of commotion in government since the Prime Minister came to power, but has the creation and abolition of departments, the changing of names, what I like to term this "fooling around", has all that solved the problem? No! In fact, the only result was to amuse some people, the Liberals, and not to create more justice, more freedom and more security for Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, we in Canada are not asking for changes in department names or in the number of ministers, but for an in-depth reform. It is not a question of giving numerous titles to people who are mad for power. On the contrary, one must forget one's personal interest and deal truly and honestly with the fundamental problem.
Furthermore and this is even more serious, administrative costs are excessive and constitute too much of a load for Canadians. The cost of administrative services is out of proportion to the income of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, on pages 21 and 22 of the booklet published by the Canadian government and entitled: "How your tax dollar is spent", it is said, regarding the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under "economic development and support", that for primary industry alone, administration costs-and not what industries are given to assist them-will be $13.8 million in 1971-72. Last year, they amounted to $12 million. In one year, they have increased by $1.8 million.
One could find similar examples in the case of other departments. For the Department of Labour, administration costs will be $13 million for 1971-72, while in 1970-71 they reached $9.8 million. This is a rather considerable increase. Why? The Canadian people are still waiting and trying to guess.
April 5, 1971

As regards the Department of Transport and Communications, its administration will cost over $29.8 million in 1961-1972. The expenditures of the same department totalled $23 million last year, which means they have increased by $6.8 million in one year. Is this in order to give better service to the Canadian people? No, Mr. Chairman, but in order to give greater authority and better working conditions to technocrats, and to increase the number of officials who pester people with all sorts of inquiries and plans.
As far as the internal overhead expenses of the government are concerned, it is mentioned that the government cannot foresee the correct amount. The exact wording is as follows:
Contingencies Vote
What does it mean? Without trying to understand, Mr. Chairman, let us be content with what is said.


Mr. Bechard:: This is a far-sighted government.


André-Gilles Fortin: It reads as follows:
Contingencies Vote
Seventy-five million dollars are provided for unforeseen spending and salary increases. Last year, the amount was $63 million or $12 million less. Perhaps those figures are not sufficiently eloquent. Here is what we read with regard to "General Government Services":
Legislative-salaries, operating costs of Parliament, election expenses and Auditor-General-
Those items will cost $36.1 million in 1971-72. This cost $32.3 million last year. This is an increase of $4 million.
The collection of taxes is a very interesting aspect.
On page 27 of the same brochure it is said and I quote:
National Revenue-costs of collecting taxes-
Does anyone know how much it cost to collect taxes from the Canadian taxpayer and pay technocrats during 1971-72? The cost was $184,300,000. For the previous year, in 1970-71, the cost was $164,500,000, that is an increase of more than $20 million in one year.
Mr. Chairman, there is no point in proceeding any further with this demonstration to prove that the government believes that it does not have to serve the people.
Mr. Chairman, it seems the government feels it is its duty to serve the technocrats, the civil servants, for its own purposes but not to serve the Canadian people or parliament.
On page 18 of the same publication are printed the words of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), who is sitting in front of me but not listening to what I have to say, and I quote:
The government does not necessarily have to spend vast sums of money in order to meet its policy objectives.
That is a little too strong, we have to admit. In that booklet, the government states that it does not necessarily have to spend vast sums of money for the people. At the same time, he introduces bill C-207, asking for a free
Government Organization Act, 1970
hand to establish, at his discretion, five ministries of state, without telling us what field they will be covering, without telling us what their relationship with parliament will be, taking power away from parliament to increase the power of technocrats and the executive. In fact, while the government is about to appoint sixteen more parliamentary secretaries, here is what it tells us:
The government does not necessarily have to spend vast sums of money in order to meet its policy objectives.
That is an insult to the Canadian people. It is the government's constitutional right to levy taxes from taxpayers, but it is also its duty to provide services commensurate with the taxes levied.
The same government says that it is entitled to levy taxes but without being obliged to spend for the people. That is the ridiculous situation in which we are now.
Last week I mentioned the increasingly decisive influence of technocrats on the government.
Mr. Chairman, I have very interesting statistics that can be found on page 19 of the publication of the Treasury Board, and I quote:
Thereare two ways to look at the overall spending program- one by department and the other by the objectives or functions being served. The Blue Book necessarily sets out amounts for each of the 80-odd Federal departments and agencies,-
Mr. Chairman, "80-odd departments and agencies" are presently heading this government, directly under the executive power. To hear our opposites, this would not be enough to administer the country. This means enormous administrative costs which drain revenue and prevent a really efficient administration, because we are tripping over technocrats and this does not make sense. The situation is now reaching gigantic proportions and is really ludicrous.
This is why I so fiersely oppose the passing of this clause 14, inasmuch as it is a direct attack against the powers of parliament.
This clause states that "the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, establish a Ministry of State for that purpose". Last week, I proposed an amendment stating that instead of the Governor in Council being able, by proclamation, to establish a ministry of state, it would be done by the Canadian parliament may through legislation.
I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board why the establishment of the 29 other departments had to be submitted to parliament and approved by legislation, whereas the government now forgets this constitutional right and would willingly let the Prime Minister establish whatever departments he wishes in fields of his choice without submitting such projects to parliament. That is senseless. That again is prejudicial to the rights of parliament.
The choice we have to make today is not an easy one, but it is clear. Either we shall continue to abuse the system, increase the number of departments, Crown corporations and ministries of state, grant powers, pay salaries and give titles to technocrats, who will abuse such powers without being responsible to the people, or we

April 5, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
shall give back to the Canadian people their right of scrutiny over the administration.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I deeply regret that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bechard) is not here, he who the other day was complaining when I told him that I was going to continue with my remarks-he was here a moment ago- and I would hope that he will honour us with his presence so that I may address my remarks particularly to him.
I see that he is just coming in and I can outline the substance of my speech.

When speaking on this bill the other day, Mr. Chairman, I indicated that this part of the bill would greatly add to the powers of the Prime Minister. I indicated at that time that, in my opinion, the office of the Prime Minister of Canada was far more powerful than that of the president of the United States and, as a political office, far more powerful than that of the prime minister of Great Britain in the same sphere. I do not mean a comparison as to their positions in the world. That would involve different considerations.
I wish to deal briefly with what the Prime Minister of Canada can do once he has assumed that office. The cabinet, within the political considerations of his party, is entirely his choice. He answers to no one except his own party with regard to the choice of his cabinet. There is no necessity to submit the names of the cabinet for ratification, as is one in the United States. Up until a couple of generations ago, we had a practice whereby any one named to the cabinet had to resign and the name of that person was resubmitted to the electorate by way of a byelection for approval. That no longer applies.
In the United States, certain individuals who have been proposed as cabinet ministers have encountered considerable opposition either in the Senate or in the House of Representatives. The last example I can think of was the nomination of the former secretary of the interior, Wal-ter-Hickel, which was approved only after a great deal of difficulty and persuasion in the house. No one should be under the illusion that the President of the United States is free to do as he wishes with regard to his cabinet. In Great Britain, there is no requirement for ratification.
With regard to the Senate of this country, the nominations to that place are entirely within the control of the Prime Minister. The appointments are directly attributable to the Prime Minister. To that extent, Mr. Chairman, he controls a great deal of the political life and happenings within Parliament. I will not go into detail except to state that he has absolute power with regard to appointments to the other place.
In the United States, the Senate is a second legislative body, subject to vote by the electorate and is a counterbalance to the powers of the President. Any one who wishes to say anything on the subject should read American political history. He will see that in many instances the United States Senate, even if it shares the political views of the President, will not side with him and in fact may turn him down. The most recent example of that is the support the presidency gave to the further construction of a supersonic air transport. When the senate turned it down by refusing to continue the funding, that was the end of the program, although it was against the will of the president. There is no such thing in this Parliament. After the legislation comes down, unless the House itself becomes very difficult, the Prime Minister merely sticks to his guns, his majority ultimately votes in its favour and it becomes law.
In Britain, prime ministers must take account of the House of Lords. It is true the powers of that body have been curtailed over the years. The British prime minister has no power over the composition of the House of Lords, except in so far as peers are nominated; there is a body of hereditary peers over which he has no control. There can be no doubt that the presence of the House of Lords has greatly influenced decisions British prime ministers have reached with regard to certain pieces of legislation.
Consider appointments to the judiciary. Appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada are the prerogative of the prime minister and no ratification of those appointments is required. In the United States, recommendations for appointment to the Supreme Court are subject to ratification and in the last three years we have seen just how far this revisionary power can be exercised. Both Presidents Johnson and Nixon have seen their nominees refused by the Senate.
In England, there is no provision for ratification of appointments to the bench or to the High Court, although it is accepted that hereditary peers can form part of committees of the House of Lords, and they do. To this extent, there is a restriction on the power of the prime minister.
Appointments to representative posts abroad are usually made from within the public service, but the man who has the final say with regard to major appointments is the prime minister. Appointment to be an ambassador to a foreign country is not subject to ratification. In the United States, searching examinations of potential holders of major ambassadorial posts can be carried out and approval can be withheld. In Britain, there is no similar practice.
Appointments to positions as parliamentary secretaries can be made here at the whim of the Prime Minister. He is apparently of the opinion that there should be a complete turnover every two years. Others have felt the period should be one year. But the Prime Minister is the man who determines who shall be a parliamentary secretary and to what minister. In Britain, the position is the same. In the United States, there are no similar appointments.

April 5, 1971

Now, I come to my final comparison. The Prime Minister can always hold a sword over the heads of his cabinet, the parliamentary secretaries and any of his supporters in the chamber by threatening to call an election. It is at his call, and his call alone, that a recommendation for the dissolution of Parliament can be accepted by the Governor General. This does not apply in the United States, if only because the dates of elections are fixed under the terms of the constitution. No President of the United States can hasten or delay an election. I know that in the history of this country on many occasions when government backbenchers and parliamentary secretaries were proving recalcitrant or critical of the conduct of a prime minister, the answer has been: If you don't like it let us call an election and we shall see then how many of you will get back. This made them toe the line, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: Oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Calgary South, could, if he were prepared to break some confidences, tell us about some instances of which we have become aware through that authoritative source of information, the leak from caucus. These are the points of comparison I bring to the attention of the committee between the powers exercised by the Prime Minister of Canada, the Prime Minister of Britain and the President of the United States. The proposal before us today would make the Prime Minister of Canada even more powerful. I admit that within the cabinet there is a kind of political responsibility, but the power of the office of Prime Minister is unrivalled in regard to these five ministries of state, ministries whose name could be changed, whose function could be changed, ministries which could even be wiped out altogether by order in council. Even an order in council is, in fact, an order made by a cabinet under the dominance of a prime minister.
Another point I wish to emphasize is this. In clause 16 of this bill there is a power to vary by order in council the purpose or the objectives of a ministry of state. I would say that this would include the power to change the purpose for which money had been asked for or voted by the House. This is a power which has been denied to government in other cases. Indeed, Mr. Speaker has ruled that the government does not possess the power to change the purpose for which money was estimated and granted by the use of orders in council.
An attempt was made to do so in the case of the Dominion Coal Board, but it was ruled that the government did not have the power to vary the allocation of moneys voted on behalf of the board. Yet, here we are being asked to give carte blanche when it comes to altering the objectives, the composition and the financing of ministries of state. An attempt is being made to stampede the House into accepting this proposal by exerting all kinds of pressure. I could name member after member on the other side who must, surely, find it extraordinarily difficult to countenance legisla-
Government Organization Act, 1970 tion of this kind even for one moment. It is something which has never been done before and there is no reason to try it out now.
I talked the other day about efficiency and quick response. Why does not the parliamentary secretary set up a dictatorship? That is the most efficient and quickest way to get a flexible response. But in the view of the parliamentary secretary from Bonaventure, anything that is proposed by the government has been inspired by some divine source and can have nothing wrong with it; therefore, we should bow low and be thankful that we have such wise masters. That is the way Liberal members think. They think they own Parliament and the people of Canada.


An hon. Member:: They are your words, not ours.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But the actions are yours. The words uttered by hon. members opposite may well be Charlie McCarthy words for all I know. Certainly, the Prime Minister is the man in this House who said: "We are masters of this Parliament". According to the Prime Minister, members on the government side are the masters, but this is not the case. Never will I vote for a proposal whereby moneys voted by this Parliament may be diverted to another purpose by order in council. I suppose this is the government's way of trying to get around the ruling made by the Chair the other day that one cannot legislate by supplementary estimate. Under this proposal, the government would not have to worry about adding a supplementary estimate; they can legislate new provisions entirely by order in council.
It is a good thing that I let a period of time elapse between my last speech and this, because in the interim we have had the benefit of that really gem performance of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, if one contemplates the possibilities under this proposal, it could turn out that that minister could be made a minister of state for economic affairs. And what a green-eyed disaster that would be!
I deny, of course, that the minister is correct when he says that presidents of Canadian banks have no right to speak out. They can criticize government proposals, whether in Canada or outside. I am not going to hold a brief for what they said, but I suggest that they do have the right to say what they said. I would like to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister would have said had those particular gentlemen been laudatory of government programs in any way. I suppose it would then have been suggested that they be offered seats in the Senate; that they should be taken as witness of the efficacy or value of government action. But because they dared criticize, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has the unmitigated gall, the impertinence, to suggest that one particular bank president be fired. I would have thought that the man who had earned the right to be fired was the parliamentary secretary.


An hon. Member:: Who is it you are talking about?

April 5, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I suppose the parliamentary secretary was talking about the former governor of the Bank of Canada, who was making a speech in his position as president of the bank. However, I suppose hon. members opposite do not have the slightest concern for relevancy or whether any names or situations are at all parallel. Anything that pops into that wide open space between the ears rattles around and then comes out again.
If presidents of Canadian banks do not have the right to speak out on their own, then what right has the Secretary of State? It is alleged that he has the right to express his personal views, as he has in his book, even though he may disagree with those of the government. That is all very fine if that is the position taken by the government; but why single out individuals for comment and then go on to suggest that government must sit on the boards of Canadian banks in order to control individuals on those boards, as has been suggested in this particular instance?


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If there is consent, Mr. Chairman, I can finish fairly shortly. All I am saying at this time is that I suggest to the parliamentary secretary from Bonaventure, and to all other hon. members, that if they study these particular clauses dealing with ministries of state they will see how insidious and dangerous a situation is being created. It may be, of course, that so many of the hon. members opposite are carolling or singing, hoping to draw attention to their own particular qualifications so that they might be among those who are upgraded for the various positions that will be open.
I should like to hear one hon. member opposite, and not one has yet done this, stand up and justify with valid reasons the creation of ministries of state of this kind with the power to change by order in council not only their composition but their tenure of office, their purpose, and the purpose to which their funds are directed.


Mr. Gillespie:: Shocking!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board is a great one to say "shocking". We know the degree of omniscience with which he approaches a given position; he thinks that if the members on the government side think something is all right, then it must be all right. I suggest to the hon. member, whom I have known for a long time, that if he sat over on this side of the House for a while he would see that it is a far cry from being correct merely to sit on the government side and approve all ideas that emanate either from the cabinet or from the administration. After all, one has to sit on the gov-

ernment side for only a short time to become aware of the influence of the bureaucracy and of certain individuals within the bureaucracy, the mandarins. This proposal is made to order for the mandarins and for those who populate the Prime Minister's office. Since the Prime Minister his broken through the ceiling of $1 million in salaries in his own, personal office, I suppose we can expect a further expansion.
Certainly, all these ministries of state will have to be supported. The parliamentary secretary says "looked after". But it will mean jobs for the boys. It will be very nice, boys, too, at salaries of course which will set a great example for the whole country. But may I say this, Mr. Chairman: I must share the views of many of my colleagues who say at this point they will not allow this measure to pass. A great deal more explanation must come forward. As a matter of fact, there is one man who should come into this House and give the explanation concerning why he wants to change the composition of this cabinet. No cabinet ministers have been here at all, except merely to sit, except perhaps for the President of the Treasury Board.
An hon. Member; He is the one on duty.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, but it is not his
duty to explain this legislation.


An hon. Member:: He has been delegated by the Prime Minister.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, the President of the Treasury Board may have been delegated by the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister owes it to this House to come here personally and say why he wants his cabinet changed. Perhaps government members have forgotten that the cabinet is responsible to this House and believe they are the masters. So far as I am concerned, that is for the birds.


Mr. Beaudoin:: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to express my views for the first time on Clause 14 of Bill C-207 which I consider very important, as does my hon. friend the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin).
This bill is one of the most important, particularly with respect to Clause 14, which gives the Governor in Council the right to increase the number of ministers from 29 to 34 and the number of parliamentary secretaries from 16 to 34, an increase of 18.
I do not doubt, Mr. Chairman, that many hon. members on the government side can indeed fulfill the office of minister or parliamentary secretary. However, I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that in order to decide if the government should spend more money in the administration, we should know first whether this would be profitable for the people of Canada and if this would make a serious contribution.
Would it not be necessary now to give some consideration to the administration of the already existing depart-
April 5, 1971

ments in order to reorganize them, before setting up new ones?
The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) said the other day, as he was blaming the opposition for objecting too much to Bill C-207, that he thought it was a very innofensive piece of legislation of no great importance. If this is true, I would call upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the minister who introduced this bill, to withdraw it immediately. We could proceed to the consideration of more serious legislation, if this bill is really innoffensive and of no great importance.
But if the minister suggests that the bill before us is of some importance, and that its aim is to increase administrative efficiency, it would be necessary first to know whether its passage would be really profitable.
I note that very often certain departments only operate against Canadians and particularly against producers.
Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to draw the members' attention to the report of the proceedings of the Senate Committee on External Affairs dated November 4, 1970, regarding what I consider as poor administration. I would like to quote some excerpts from this report.
Senator Macnaughton was asking the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) what was the matter with meat imports, particularly lamb from New Zealand. As a matter of fact, the question was as follows:
Mr. Minister, I would now like to turn to New Zealand, and include with it the meat problem of Australia. You mentioned yourself the possibility that Great Britain may make the European Common Market in due course. Needless to say, as you so well know, the New Zealanders are extremely upset. Here is their assured market which may be in jeopardy.
Is Canada considering possibly stepping into the shoes of Great Britain and stepping up the importation of lamb from New Zealand and meat from Australia, on three grounds: firstly, we need a secondary source of cheaper meat than filet mignon every day; secondly .. .


Mr. Gibson:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order...


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for Hamilton Wentworth on a point of order.


Colin David Gibson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I want to say that the hon. member is out of order because he is talking about New Zealand lamb. This is not the matter under consideration and I protest.


Russell Clayton Honey: I think the point of order of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth is well taken. However, I do not wish to seem to be too strict in this particular debate because I believe other hon. members have wandered a little at times. I hope the hon. member will try to stay on the subject.
[Translation\


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for having raised this point of order, but I do not think I am out of order for drawing the attention of the House to the administration of existing departments.
Government Organization Act, 1970
That is what I said at the outset and it will not take long to make my point. I resume the quotation, with your permission-


Mr. Boulanger:: Permission is not granted.


Léonel Beaudoin: I quote the rest of the question:
-and thirdly, Great Britain has to, as you have so wisely said, consider a market of 300 million and not a market of 50 million-
Here is how the minister answered:
I am pleased to tell you that this has already taken place. Mr. Burns might explain.
Mr. Burns is Assistant Deputy Minister for External Services in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Here is his answer:
Mr. Chairman, the Canadian tariff on meats from Australia and New Zealand is a very low one, of the order of a quarter or a half a cent a pound-


Prosper Boulanger: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. [English]


Russell Clayton Honey: Order please. The hon. member for Mercier is rising on a point of order.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, you have just called the previous speaker to order. Now, after having recognized that you were justified in doing so, he said he would continue in the same vein.
Mr. Chairman, you can tolerate this situation, but if you want the Standing Orders to be respected, you will have to recognize that the hon. member does not abide by them.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for Hamilton Wentworth raised a point of order. I think the hon. member for Richmond may be straying a bit far, and perhaps he would try to confine his remarks to the part with which we are dealing.


Léonel Beaudoin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to show how effective are the present departments before determining if the creation of others would benefit Canadian producers. I continue with Mr. Burns' answer:
There has been a very sharp increase in meat exports both from Australia and New Zealand in the last 18 months.
Is this sound administration, Mr. Chairman, especially with respect to our Canadian producers who find that the price of their products vary by 4, 5 or 6 cents per pound from week to week? Do you think, Mr. Chairman, that with departments such as these and such irresponsible people-I restrict myself to this particular field because I did not have time to consider the whole question-we will get somewhere? As a matter of fact, we, of the opposition, must be everywhere at once.

April 5, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
With respect to farm production, does our present Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in the manner it operates, benefit the people who come under it?
The more the government creates departments and, by the same token appoints parliamentary secretaries, the more it will have to establish royal commissions, etc. The more departments, the more public servants; the more public servants, the more "tripping", and less progress is made.


Albert Béchard: It is good for animals, it is good for sheep.


An hon. Member:: There are enough sheep on the other side.


An hon. Member:: Some are in New Zealand, and some on the other side.


Léonel Beaudoin: Let us leave the sheep in New Zealand. Is it patronage-minded leaders we want or capable ministers? I said before, Mr. Chairman, that some members on the other side of the House can become excellent ministers and parliamentary secretaries. However, would it be profitable for us? We should know what we are buying, what administration is costing us, before we appoint administrators.
Since 1968, the cost of administration has increased by some 70 per cent. That's enough. With unemployment and with the tax collector stealing from their pockets, small wage-earners will certainly take a dim view of an increase in the number of ministers, of parliamentary secretaries, of civil servants, and in the cost of government administration.
I wanted to say a few words to call the House's attention to this oversize expense game. I wanted to say that I am against this bill, and particularly against clause 14.


Mr. McCuicheon:: Mr. Chairman, I suppose everyone who speaks in this Chamber subconsciously worries about being original and about avoiding repetitious remarks. But I may say at the outset of this intervention that I make no apology whatsoever for being repetitious if that is necessary. I have no concern whatever about repeating arguments that have been made before, because it may take a lot of repetition before the people of Canada are aroused to see just what is happening. It may also take a good deal of repetition to arouse the innate decency of the government backbenchers. I am amazed at all this talk of obstruction and delay in connection with this piece of legislation.
The hon. member for Peterborough, in his intervention last Friday, mentioned that we had been debating this bill for 17 days, and another hon. member said we had been debating it for 20 days. Who knows? I suspect that both of them grabbed these figures out of the air, but even if it takes 37 days or if it takes 70 days it will be worth it, in my humble opinion, to delete this part of the bill.
It has come to my attention through scuttlebut around the hill that it is being said: what is the difference, the
government does not have any legislation ready anyway so we are really not holding up anything.


An hon. Member:: There is the unemployment insurance bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: Bring it in.


Prosper Boulanger: You are not the government. You had a chance in 1958.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The hon. member for Lambton Kent has the floor.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to refer to the fact that there are three particularly obnoxious clauses relating to ministries and ministers of state, and these are clauses 14, 20 and 23. I say to the government in all sincerity-because I think I am a reasonable person and I am anxious that some parts of this bill be enacted-that we should split this bill and only keep parts I, II, III and VII. If I am any judge of members in this place, I say that those parts will pass virtually automatically.


Albert Béchard: Why don't you vote, then?


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: All you have to do is withdraw parts IV, V and VII and resubmit them in another form. I will then guarantee you that the bill will become law very quickly.
What is the crux of this debate? It is very simple. We on this side do not object to the appointment of extra ministers when it can be demonstrated that a need for these extra ministers exists. But what we do object to is the method used in this instance. Ministers without Portfolio can be appointed and their pay must come from an appropriation account. In other words, we have to scrounge around to find the money to pay them. What is wrong with that? If it can be proven to Parliament that there is justifiction for such an appointment, there is no problem getting that ratified. In his intervention the other day, the hon. member for York East pointed out that backbenchers in this chamber could not stop anything, could not do anything. Maybe he was partially right, but I submit that at least in such a case the people of Canada would know. They would be told why it was necessary to have another minister. That is very important in parliamentary democracy, but under this method salaries are provided by statute. There will never again be a chance to question why these appointments were made. We are being asked to accept this proposal on a take it or leave it basis, by one man rule.
What will all this mean? How many other ministers will there be? By how much will bureaucracy increase? Is this a bill to appoint five or six new ministers? I submit that because of the woolly way in which the bill is worded it would be quite possible for every member on the government side to receive an appointment. There is just no ceiling. So far, not one government member has come forward with a reasoned argument in support of this measure. I have been sitting here waiting for some-

April 5, 1971

one to come out with a reasoned sales pitch, to explain to me why I should support this measure.
It the government backbenchers believe in this thing they should be prepared to stand up and be counted. They should say we should do it for this reason, that reason or the other reason. But has that happened yet? I ask you to read the debates. The best interjection from the government side so far was by the President of the Treasury Board last Thusrday. At that time he told me to read the bill. I thought that was rather profound, coming from him. I have read the bill, and I have read the speeches made on it. The only contribution from the government side has been to point out that patronage exists in other legislatures. In my opinion, that is a very weak argument. Let us admit that it does exist in other places. Does that make it right for us? I think not.
The only contribution by the hon. member for Peterborough, for whom I have the highest regard and respect for his academic background, his integrity, and for his being a former deputy speaker, was to point out that in 1959 a resolution regarding parliamentary secretaries was introduced in this House. I am not going to stoop to that type of nit-picking, but let the record show that that bill in 1959 replaced a previous act that had been brought in by a Liberal government. But this is specious argument, and I don't like it. On Thursday last, the hon. member for Mercier made a sincere intervention in the debate. He did not need to, but he apologized for his English. I salute him, Mr. Chairman. His remarks were well made. I sincerely wish I could do as well in his language as he did in mine.
I am astounded that government members have given so few reasons to support the bill. But there was one exception. We all know that the hon. member for York East is an independent thinker. I admire his intellect. I do not always agree with him, but I respect his judgment. As recorded at page 4798 of Hansard he said:
This bill proposes to create a few or any number of ministers of state.
He can see the loopholes in it. He went on to point out how pessimistic he was about Parliament, and as recorded later on the same page he said:
No hon. gentlemen opposite can say that he really has the power to change anything, and none of us on this side can say it either.
I cannot share his pessimism about the way this institution works. I was not sent here to give up my right to be heard on behalf of the people of Lambton-Kent, and to try to make changes. I was not sent here to be a rubber stamp to an arrogant government run by one man. Attitudes here, Mr. Chairman, are appalling. One voice here last week was heard to say, "We've got a winner." He was probably referring to the Prime Minister. I say to hon. members opposite: don't let it go to your heads, boys, because under our system of representation, which incidentally, Mr. Chairman, is another subject-


Grant Deachman: Would the hon. member permit a question with regard to a point he has made?
Government Organization Act, 1970


Mr. McCutcheon:: As soon as I conclude my remarks I will be happy to answer questions from the hon. gentleman.


Grant Deachman: This is just a factual point. I think he made an error, and I believe the hon. member might like to explain it if I am incorrect. He said that the bill would create any number-


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order. Does the hon. member for Lambton-Kent wish to accept the question?


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I told the hon. gentleman I would be prepared to accept questions from him at the conclusion of my remarks. 1 only have 20 minutes. I was saying that under our system of representation-


James Alexander Jerome: A point of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Jean-Thomas Richard: The hon. member for Sudbury on a point of privilege.


James Alexander Jerome: In his contribution to the debate on this clause, the hon. member has said that any number of ministries of state may be created or any number of ministers of state may be appointed. Clause 17 of the bill reads:
The Governor in Council shall not, pursuant to section 14, establish ministries of state so that there are more than five such ministries in existence at any one time.
I wonder if the hon. member would not admit that this does not provide for "any number" but provides for a specific number only and that he would be in error-


Jean-Thomas Richard: I think the hon. member is entitled to make his contribution, and if any other hon. member wants to deny his allegations or correct them it can be done in a future speech.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Chairman, this intervention is
typical and is just a stalling tactic. I would refer the hon. gentleman to the remarks I have made, and I would further refer him to clause 23 to see how that relates to the clause he quoted. But may I continue?
Our system of representation has given the government a majority, but I would like hon. members opposite to remember that in the 1968 election, 4,375,115 people voted against this government while 3,609,539 voted for it. 1 ask, therefore, who has the greatest responsibility, government members or members in opposition who have tried their best to represent the majority? I say through you, Mir. Chairman, to the hon. members opposite, "Don't be so cocksure of yourselves; remember you don't have the divine right to rule." We on this side of the House represent a lot of people as well.
Last Thursday night, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kitchener made a spirited intervention in this debate. His remarks in support of this section of the bill can be found on page 4835 of Hansard. He said, "Patronage is very evident in the province of Ontario." He went on to

April 5, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
say that he also supported a private members' bill, submitted by the hon. member for Cochrane, providing for the appointment of Members of Parliament to boards and commissions. The government whip, and I am delighted to see in the House, in an effort to assist his colleague as all good whips do, posed the following question as recorded at page 4835:
Is he aware that according to press reports, of all the members on the government side of the Ontario legislature only eight fail to receive additional income above and beyond their $12,000 emolument? This is in the last fiscal year.
That is not a defence of this bill, Mr. Chairman, but it seems to me that it was meant to point out that since there is supposed to be patronage in another jurisdiction it must be all right to have it here as well.


Mr. Francis:: Could I ask the hon. member a question, Mr. Chairman?


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Just as soon as I finish my remarks. I ask hon. members opposite, do they approve of this in Ontario or any other place? Do they condone this practice? If they think it is wrong in Ontario, why do they support it here? Two wrongs don't make a right.
Look at what will happen to members of Parliament in the future. A move is under way to move members down to the Commonwealth building, and why? Plans are being made to have Parliament taken over by an elite. When a rubber stamp vote is required a bell will ring and members will climb on the bus which will run every three minutes. I think the Commonwealth building should be renamed Eunuch Hall.
To return to my point, Mr. Chairman, is this a bill to appoint five new ministers or six, or could it be 50 or 60? There is no reference in this clause to parliamentary secretaries or deputy ministers. Does clause 20 refer to deputy ministers or parliamentary secretaries? If it refers to deputy ministers, where do they come from and where do they go later? Are the ones who are let go those for whom we made a provision for extra pension payments in another clause of this bill? And where do we get the expertise-


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, the hon. gentleman's time has expired.
[Transiation~\


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to keep the floor very long but nevertheless, I have a few remarks to make concerning the legislation now before us, Bill C-207.
I also wish to say, like my hon. friend from Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon), that there is no need for me to apologize for taking up the House's time, for it is my duty to my constituents to speak in this debate.
I am quite convinced that Bill C-207, if it becomes law, will imply wasteful expenditures and for this reason, I think it is my duty to oppose it.
To me, this bill is like a grab bag of the kind you can buy in any drugstore. It looks good from the outside but you are disappointed when you open it, in the same way
as we are disappointed when we read clause 14 in particular.
The opposition is quite justified in doing everything in their power to block the passage of this piece of legislation.
I can easily understand the anxiety of government members who feel they meet the required qualifications to be entrusted with extra duties. But at any rate, let us not forget that Bill C-207 reflects the kind of arrogance and uncompromisingness so typical of this government's actions.
This is why I want to congratulate warmly my hon. friend from Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) who on several occasions has drawn the House's attention to the deficiencies of this legislation.
I was hoping that the government apprentice whip would have learned something but I think he is a desperate case and that the best he can do is to speak from time to time in an unintelligible fashion.
Mr. Chairman, with Bill C-207, the government is trying to get carte blanche to administer public affairs without consulting the House. If 264 members have been elected by the Canadian people it is to protect them against the extravagances of this government.
I cannot see why our friends opposite do not stand up in larger numbers to defend this legislation. Only a few of them stood up to congratulate the government or to have their presence noted or through loyalty toward their leader so that they be remembered when promotions are distributed.
After a quick study of the measure before us, one can but conclude that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would like to increase the number of ministers from 29 to 34, and that of parliamentary secretaries from 16 to 34.
Considering the additional expenses those proposals imply, it is thousands and thousands of dollars that taxpayers will have to pay for such extravagance and the wish to reward the more or less deserving members of government.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that more thought should be given to that matter. It is becoming obvious through press reports as well as radio and television news that the people are beginning to resent that measure.
There could perhaps be another explanation to the proposal before us now. I think it is a roundabout way of rewarding Liberal members only since it is a known fact that during the last election many of them who were not sure of running were promised that the M.P.'s emoluments would be at least $24,000.
In view of ever-increasing pressures, members of the cabinet probably concluded that the best thing to do was to introduce the bill before us now, so as to increase the number of parliamentary secretaries and ministers of state.
Some of my colleagues said self-assuredly, I believe, that almost 140 Liberal members would thus be rewarded

April 5, 1971

during a government's tenure of office. In other words very few would be unable to get a piece of the pie the Prime Minister wants to give his supporters.
Mr. Chairman, one may recall that when this omnibus bill was introduced, Mr. Speaker mentioned that perhaps the limit had been reached concerning the introduction of omnibus bills in this House.
I should not like to condemn Bill C-207 as a whole.
This legislation surely contains provisions that are on the point of being enacted and I do not see why this government insists on having the whole bill adopted at the present time. If the government listened to reason and simply withdrew clause 14, this legislation would be adopted very quickly.
I must remark that people do not readily understand why in Canada, where the population is about 21 million, this government should try to multiply the positions of ministers and parliamentary secretaries, whereas much larger countries, for instance, the United States and Great Britain, tend to consolidate their departments in order to make them more efficient.
The government stated that this measure was designed to ensure better administration. Judging from the way this government is running state affairs, one cannot help but conclude that more confusion will result. A greater number of people will have to deal with such and such a problem, which will create confusion. Instead of providing the Canadian people with the more effective and decentralized administration which government members seem to want so much, we will have just the contrary.
Just like other opposition members, I can only recommend to the government that they withdraw the bill under study or at least clause 14. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) may rest assured that should he do so, this measure would quickly be passed.
Those, Mr. Chairman, were the few remarks I wanted to make with respect to Bill C-207.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, one of the interesting announcements contained in the Speech from the Throne on Thursday, October 8, is the following paragraph:
To foster coordination of the activities of all levels of government, and to contribute to sound urban growth and development, the Government proposes the re-organization of its urban activities under the direction of a Minister of State for Urban Affairs and Housing.
In reply to my question of March 17 with regard to the ministries of state that would be set up, the Prime Minister stated:
-we would wish to have a minister of state designated for the purpose of looking at housing and urban affairs.
Government Organization Act, 1970
This is the only opportunity that hon. members, including the former mayor of Toronto who have a great interest in housing and urban affairs, have to say what they think should be included in a ministry of state for housing and urban affairs or, as stated in the Speech from the Throne, urban affairs and housing. Hon members should not miss the opportunity of speaking on housing at this time. Once we have a fait accompli, that is once the ministry is established, it will be very difficult to get any laws changed. Perhaps this illustrates the fundamental weakness of the legislation with regard to the point I have made twice before and will again several times.
As elected representatives of the people, we will not be permitted to get a point of view across if we tame the swell of the ocean by the creation of these ministries of state without anticipating what kind of ministry will be set up. Once the debate is over, we will no longer have an opportunity and Parliament will have lost a great deal more of the strength it once had to react to the views of the people. I make no apology for speaking briefly on this subject. I will be brief because we must go on to other matters at five o'clock, matters which I look forward to with a great deal of interest. I have to attend a committee meeting this evening, so I will have to finish my speech on housing at a later date.
This is the only opportunity for a full-scale housing debate. We must state what the function should be of this reorganized ministry. I presume that the Prime Minister and the government have more in mind than a minister without portfolio reporting to this House on behalf of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In view of the thrust and push of urban problems, there has to be something more. Parliament authorizes the spending of a great deal of money out of the federal treasury to deal with the housing problems of Canada. Therefore, we must have a great deal more say with regard to the policies and programs on which this money will be spent.
The Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities today presented a thoughtful brief to the federal government. It suggested that the near total freeze on urban renewal spending be lifted. There should be some discussion on this matter in this chamber. Are the mayors right in making that suggestion to the minister without portfolio in charge of housing? They suggest that the federal role be largely a funding operation and that the policies with regard to the spending of the money be made with provincial and municipal cooperation. Do we want to hand over vast amounts of money without stating how the money should be spent? That is an important policy question. It is something we have to discuss before this ministry is set up. There are other suggestions, but I cannot state them all in the minute that remains.


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

April 5, 1971
Business of the Home


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-External Affairs-Disbanding Commonwealth Committee on Indian Ocean security-Request for statement; the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) -The Canadian Economy-Possible sale of McClelland and Stewart publishing firm to foreign interests; the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan)- Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Denial of Canadian television programs to Windsor station.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could state the order of business. There are a number of points. Following private members hour, it is our intention to proceed at eight o'clock this evening with government order No. 8, Bill C-3, the Investment Companies Act. This will be followed by government order No. 43, Bill S-5, dealing with weights and measures. Following those items, we will return this evening to Bill C-207 in committee stage. Tomorrow, we will begin with government order No. 50, the textile measure. Following that, we will again return to the committee of the whole stage on Bill C-207.
With respect to this hour, Mr. Speaker, on Friday afternoon there was some discussion about the possibility of dealing with Bill S-ll on the basis of the uanimous consent of the House to refer that bill to the committee following second reading. With the consent of the House, it is now agreed that we do that with the exception that a speaker will be heard on that subject. If hon. members are in agreement, following that we will withdraw the bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters), Bill C-24, which deals with the same subject matter, but the subject matter of the bill will be referred to the same standing committee at the same time. Following those items, we will then revert to the regular order of business for this hour, the notice of motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Pell South (Mr. Chappell), notice of motion No. 25.


Gerald William Baldwin: That was one of the
better speeches of the day, Mr. Speaker. We accept it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) has clearly stated what has been agreed. I assume agreement to this program carries with it an assurance that when I move for the reference of the subject matter of Bill C-24,
[The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard).]
after we dispose of the government's bill about rainmaking, the necessary unanimous consent will be forthcoming, it being understood that no speeches will be made at that point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is the House
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. C. M. Drury (for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry) moved: that Bill S-ll, to provide for the obtaining of information respecting weather modification activities, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I insisted on speaking about Bill S-ll for the purpose of giving the House a few explanations about the problems which might rise from this bill.
In 1964, I was the first member in this House to raise the question of cloud seeding. I was the laughing stock of other members and of the press in general. I would like to quote what was written in he Droit of October 23, 1964:
The House of Commons has certainly been the scene of some unusual questions recently. The Crdditiste member for Chapleau, Mr. Laprise, carried the day for ingenuity yesterday, by asking the Prime Minister whether the government authorized the irresponsible people who are seeding clouds.
The members, who were intrigued at first, smiled feebly. And as the member for Chapleau insisted on the importance of his question, quoting La Terre de chez nous and La Frontiers of Rouyn, they could not refrain from laughing. The speaker of the House, with the seriousness of his functions, suggested that the question be put on the order paper.
Then the Prime Minister, visibly taken by surprise and about to burst with laughter like more and more of the members, promised to enquire.
Taking offence, the member for Lapointe rushed to his colleague's help and stated with an incensed taxpayer's voice that this practice of seeding clouds had brought about so much rain in the Lake St. John area that all the crops failed. Again, renewed gales of laughter. Mr. Gregoire, determined not to give up, explained that if city-dwellers did not take this seriously, peasants were fed up with getting their hair wet. He solicited the government's attention.
So they laughed at me. I was practically called an imbecile, a madman and I am glad to see today that the Senate has become just as mad as I was in 1964, since they are introducing Bill S-ll titled "An Act to provide for the obtaining of information respecting weather modification activities."
April 5, 1971

So, there it is, they want to modify the weather. The concept is taken for granted. In fact, private enterprise and scientists employed by Mr. Bernard Power, owner of the Montreal firm Weather Engineering, have been doing research and development for a long time designed to produce rain or snow. I would not be surprised if the heavy precipitation experienced in areas such as Montreal, Quebec and even Hull-Ottawa last winter was the results of such physical or chemical experiments.
Clause 2 (b) of the bill states:
"Weather modification activity" includes any action designed or intended to produce, by physical or chemical means, changes in the composition or dynamics of the atmosphere for the purpose of increasing, decreasing or suppressing hail or lightning, or dissipating fog or cloud.
There now, Senator Paul Martin has become a socialist: We know how this government has found means of imposing direct taxation on private income, indirect taxes in order to redistribute wealth; it takes money from some individuals to give it to others. I think that is precisely the role of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) to redistribute wealth. Now, rain is to be redistributed, precipitations are to be redistributed; nature is going to be socialized.
I do not mean that I am against scientific research, but this research should not be conducted at the expense of people, as it was noted during the years 1958 to 1965. In 1964, the Prime Minister of Canada was quite surprised to learn that tests could be conducted on cloud seeding. Either the minister was ill-informed or did not want to give explanations or information about it because some time later, I put questions on the order paper to throw some light on the subject.
According to the answers I was given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport in 1966, the federal government sponsored experiments on the seeding of clouds from 1959 to 1963. In 1964, the Prime Minister knew nothing about it or pretended not to know anything.
The Progressive Conservative government sponsored such experiments from 1959 to 1963. During those five years, such experiments cost some $607,000,099.23 the Canadian taxpayer. What purposes did they serve? They increased rainfall by 15 to 20 per cent in some areas of Quebec, mainly Abitibi and Lake St. John, and in the Timiskaming riding in Ontario.
Not only was the federal government making and sponsoring such experiments, but so was the government of the province of Quebec at the same time. Owing to losses caused by such rainfalls, the UCC got in touch with and made representations to the government of the province of Quebec, particularly to the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Rene Levesque. According to that organization, in 1964 losses to farmers in the Abitibi constituency alone exceeded $1 million.
In 1964, it rained in Abitibi for 69 consecutive days. It was not a very heavy rain, but when rain falls every day needless to say that the soil gets soggy and there comes a time even a light rainfall will have harmful effects.
Weather Modification Identification Act
On May 14, 1965, Mr. Rene Levesque, another one who wanted to "socialize" the weather, and who is today the leader of the Parti Quebecois, turned down requests from the residents of the Lake St. John area. He had received, at that time, a petition signed by 60,000 women and requesting that these experiments be ended. Mr. Levesque answered: No, there is no question of stopping the cloud seeding.
In June 1965, Mr. Levesque was forced to change his decision, and he "ordered" rain to stop falling in the Lac Saint-Jean area. This minister could control elements by allowing or asking firms such as Weather Engineering to practice cloud seeding, so as to bring about precipitation. So, Mr. Rene Levesque ordered rain to stop falling, so that, during the summer of 1965, in the Lake St. John and Abitibi regions, the people might enjoy 90 days of sunshine.
Mr. Speaker, if governments dare meddle with the weather,-science has advanced enough today to achieve some success-and if they do it at the expense of populations, we do not agree. That is why we made a great fuss at the time and brought pressure to bear in order to have those tests stopped.
Those who want to make those tests should go where there are no people to harm. I have here a letter addressed to my colleague from Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) and signed by Mr. J. P. Lalonde, secretary of the Air Transport Committee, which refers to a request of the Royalair Company Limited.
The company was asking for a licence of what was then called "air control operations". Those people did not want to talk about rainmaking operations to avoid alarming the population.
In his letter, Mr. Lalonde includes the ruling of the Air Transport Committee explaining cloud seeding in detail. A solution of silver iodide is used, or else "Weather cord" bombs, invented by Weather Engineering, are dropped from an aircraft into the clouds to be seeded. Part of the ruling reads as follows:
The seeding services are ensured by the applicant. ..
. . .Royalair Ltd...
... jointly with the Montreal company known as Weather Engineering Services Limited, hereinafter called Weather Engineering. The object of cloud seeding operations is to increase rain-or snow-falls.
That is the purpose of the operation. That is why I am wondering whether, this last winter, there may not have been cloud seeding operations which increased considerably the snow-fall in several areas. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prevent Bill S-ll from being referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for detailed consideration, but I simply wish to say why it is necessary to pay special attention to a matter of which many are not aware yet, and which is very important. The bill simply requires that companies wishing to make such experiments must obtain a permit, a licence, and in the explanatory note of the bill introduced by the hon.

April 5, 1971
The Rainmaking Act
member for Timiskaming (M. Peters), namely Bill C-24 there is the following comment:
Following the advent of rainmaking equipment and its commercial use which may infringe on the rights of others; it appears that control licensing and regulations must he adapted to protect the public and make possible the payment of compensation where damage is deemed to result from such use.
I think that the hon. member for Timiskaming goes further than the hon. Senators, because he asks that, if losses are caused by this research, the ones suffering these losses be at least reimbursed.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the government of Quebec, through Hydro-Quebec, through lumber companies, carries out or has carried out such research. We know that the federal government had this kind of research carried out for five years which was, indeed, very expensive. We want closer supervision in that field. The fact requiring permits for experiments of this kind is not sufficient, in my opinion, and we should prevent these experiments above territories occupied by the Canadian people.
Those are the remarks I wanted to make on the matter, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Public Bills
October 20, 1970-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of Bill C-24, an act to govern, license and regulate the operation of rainmaking equipment in Canada-Mr. Peters.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the understanding that we had at five o'clock, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch):
That the order for the second reading of Bill C-24, an act to govern, license and regulate the operation of the rainmaking equipment in Canada, be discharged and that the subject matter of the said bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
This is the public bill which appears as order No. 2 on today's order paper in the name of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). The purpose of the motion is to refer the subject matter of the bill to the same committee to which the bill from the Senate has just been referred.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we are quite willing to do this. My only comment, in view of the terms of the government organization bill, is to ask why it is necessary to do this. I would have thought the government would simply include a clause that the government control the weather by regulation; then we would not need to do what we are doing now.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: If we accept the motion, of course, it would be clearly understood it is the subject matter and not the bill itself that is going to the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what the motion says.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is it the pleasure of the House to accept the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, pursuant to authority in the Broadcasting Act, consider the advisability of directing the Canadian Radio-Television Commission to hold a public hearing in order that it may consider the possibility of the establishment of a third VHF Television Station in Toronto, and if possible select a suitable applicant in order to provide better service for the three million people in the greater Metro Toronto listening area.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion would require the government to direct the CRTC, pursuant to the authority in the Broadcasting Act, to widen the terms of its public hearing, set for September 1971, in order that it might determine the best way to meet the need for better television service in the Metro Toronto area. Any decision based upon the stated terms of the inquiry would do little to improve a very bad situation, would disregard a likely solution and would lock out correction for some years to come.
Metro Toronto should and could have a third VHF-TV channel, independently owned and non-network, and centrally located so as to provide the whole metro area with adequate coverage of general news, political happenings, candidates and cultural activities which it now lacks.
Toronto will not get such a locally oriented VHF channel unless the terms of the public hearing are widened so that applicants may demonstrate how this service can be given. A VHF station located as far away as Paris, Ontario, as the terms of the public inquiry would now

April 5, 1971

require, would not provide the quality of service nor the total coverage which is essential. The proposed UHF- ultra high frequency or shorter range-channels, one French and one English, to be considered at the same hearing, even if economically feasible, would provide limited or pocket coverage only.
Metro Toronto will not have the benefit of such a widened and full hearing essential to obtaining this locally oriented station with complete coverage unless Toronto business, elected representatives and the public demand it. The cable TV supplement in most of the area and in particular in Mississagua, in my riding, is not available and where it is available is expensive. This proposed truly Metro Toronto station would eliminate the need and thus the cost of cable television for many. All of Metropolitan Toronto will not have cable TV service for years to come. In Mississagua alone, over 100,000 have been waiting for over two years for a hearing to extend the existing service. This new station would provide a most desired coverage quickly and at no cost to the public.
The relatively poor television service for the Toronto area, and the confusion and mystery which surround the whole subject, arise from the fact that there has never been a public hearing for the purpose of establishing just what can and should be done in order to improve the service. In this day of public participation, it is not right that the CRTC should, within the confines of its own office, decide what channels are available for what areas and then hold a public hearing to establish what applicant should obtain the licence. The hearing should also be directed as to what channels might be made available and what can be done to improve the over-all service. In expropriation cases, a department of government must submit to a hearing as to whether it has selected the proper site, which of course invites representation as to more suitable ones. It would not be acceptable for a department of government to say a decision has been made as to what land is to be taken but the public will be allowed to come forward and suggest what may be built on it. A public hearing, confined to the selection of an applicant, falls far short of establishing what is the real need in the area and the means of answering or fulfilling the need. The hearing, as set for September, should be widened and include the consideration of the return of channel 13 to Toronto.
For its vast viewing audience of perhaps four million people, Toronto has the poorest TV service in North America. Other large centres including Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo and Cleveland, all smaller than Toronto, have three VHF stations. Montreal has four, two French and two English. Toronto has two. By international treaty in 1948, Toronto was alloted three channels but subsequently, in the early 1950's, the CBC-then the governing body-traded channel 13 away to Kitchener and Rochester. The two Toronto Channels, CFTO and CBLT, are the flagship stations of the national networks, CTV and CBC, and because of their national obligations they cannot devote much time to local news and public service. Although they cover happenings in Toronto, by the
Request for Third T.V. Station in Toronto nature of their network commitments it is generally the type of incident thought to be of national rather than local interest.
Because the choice to the Toronto viewers has been so limited, many residents in Toronto, perhaps 50 per cent, have turned to Buffalo and other United States border cities for selection. While enjoying this United States entertainment, they are inflicted with news and comment on both the local and national scale of United States happenings. Many residents of the Toronto area are more aware of United States political developments than Canadian. As a result, they are disadvantaged and cannot be completely informed or in tune with the Canadian scene. Both Canadian and United States advertisers confirm the immensity of the Toronto viewing audience enjoyed by the Buffalo and Rochester stations. It is said that Canadian advertisers spend approximately $13 million a year in United States border stations. I believe about half of this is from the Toronto area.
Toronto-based firms advertise over Buffalo stations because they cannot obtain time on either of our national networks. United States firms, with subsidiaries based in Toronto, advertise over these same United States stations for the same reasons. Very little, if any, local Toronto advertising is carried by either of the Toronto network stations. It would seem that enough advertising is diverted to Buffalo and Rochester to carry a local independent station which would cover all of the Metro Toronto area. Ontario dollars cross the border in this everincreasing flood and in return we in the Toronto area get United States comment and opinion. While we support these United States stations with our advertising dollars and are exposed to their news comment and opinion, many aspects of our community life are unreported and thus are lost from the Canadian scene.
The Toronto area with its many cultures and activities represents a tremendous source of program material and talent. An independent and truly Toronto VHF station would provide opportunities for this talent and would make a substantial contribution to program production. This would go a long way toward offsetting the United States cultural penetration into southern Ontario. We have the programming material, the advertisers to pay for it and the desire to listen to and watch our own culture. Should we not demand it?
At one time Canadians spent more time listening to United States radio than their own. As more Canadian stations were licensed, listening to United States stations diminished to practically nothing. The same could and should apply to TV. With the licensing of the second TV network station in Toronto in the early 1960's, United States viewing by Toronto residents dropped from 70 per cent to 50 per cent. As was demonstrated in the case of radio, a third channel would make a substantial further reduction with a saving of Toronto dollars and an immense boost to our culture and morale. In 1967 an application was filed for an independent Toronto station by CFRB. The Board of Broadcast Governors had earlier stated that if someone could find a way they would

April 5, 1971
Request for Third T.V. Station in Toronto entertain an application for such a station. By a series of moves, CRFB found a way to return channel 13 to Toronto which is now used by Kitchener and Rochester. The moves were: (1) a CBC repeater in Haliburton to be moved from channel 5 to 4; (2) CBLT-CBC Toronto-to be moved from channel 6 to 5; (3) CKCO-TV Kitchener to be moved from channel 13 to 6; (4) WROC-TV Rochester to be moved from channel 13 to 6.
The applicant had the necessary agreement from each station involved and the Department of Transport gave approval from a technical standpoint. In June, 1967, when the Board of Broadcast Governors gave its decision on the application to transfer the Barrie station, channel 3, to Toronto, it commented on the CFRB proposal as follows:
The board advised the minister that at the public hearing announced for November, 1967, the board would wish to hear an application from CFRB Limited for the use of channel 13 in Toronto, provided the application is forwarded to the board by the Department of Transport, as a technically acceptable application, in time for the November hearing.
As a condition to obtaining such a hearing for the return of channel 13 to Toronto, CFRB offered to hold their agreements with the other stations involved in trust, for the successful applicant, and in addition it offered to set up a chain of UHF stations throughout southern Ontario and to support them financially until they were economically strong enough to become independent.
On April 1, 1968, the CRTC replaced the BBG and on December 10, 1968, the CRTC wrote to CFRB returning their application with the simple comment, that channel 13 had not been allocated for use in Toronto. So without a hearing, without considering CFRB's proposal in detail, and without giving any reasons, the CRTC reversed the position of the Board of Broadcast Governors and denied this service to Toronto.
Recently the CRTC announced that it will hold hearings in Toronto on three kinds of proposals: for channel 6, southwest of Toronto and in the Belleville area; for an English language UHF station in Toronto, and for the CBC, a UHF French language station in Toronto.
From the information which I have received, south of Toronto means in the Paris, Ontario, area and even with extra and expensive gadgets on aerials only a part of the Toronto area would be covered, and with an uncertain signal. This is not good enough. Because of the urgent need for this local Toronto station, which in a sense would be for central-southern Ontario, I ask that the CRTC be directed to widen the terms of the hearing so as to ascertain whether channel 13 can be returned to Toronto and, if it can be, to choose an applicant to provide such service.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the comments of the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell) in support of his motion concerning the radio and television situation in the city of Toronto. I agree with and endorse fully his remarks about U.S. intervention into that market, about Canadian content
and about the needs of that important city, and about the three million residents of the city who are indeed a considerable number and not by any means an insignificant force in Canadian politics today.
While I sympathize with him as a Toronto member and with his desire to do more for his people, I have to take a totally opposite tack and suggest that while the consideration of the needs of the people of the city of Toronto is a very valid one for those who come from there, it is important that this chamber understand as well that there is a vast land beyond the limits of that city. The people who reside in the other parts of the country-and I represent a substantial city that falls within that category-have come to feel that all the regulations imposing restrictions on radio listening or television viewing, on Canadian content, and so on, apply to them more than the privileged people who live within a few miles of the U.S. border. They are meant not for those who live in Montreal, Toronto and all cities that lie along the U.S.-Canadian border, but they impose hardship for those of us whose residence happens to be so far from the border that we cannot get U.S. programs by the simple expedient of putting a special antenna on our roof. The result is that people in my constituency, and they are typ cal of people in many other cities, feel that they are treated in a second-class manner. We feel that we are being treated as second-class citizens in this respect.
I am a supporter of the chairman of the CRTC and recognize that he has a very difficult task to carry out. I believe that Pierre Juneau is doing a thorough, conscientious and courageous job in that capacity and so are the members of his commission. I support their motivations in respect of Canadian content. I also believe in them and support their endeavours respecting the very necessary policy of regulatory control on cable television and community antenna systems which are part of the technology being adopted for the future of this country. Our failure to control technology will cause us dismay and disgrace in years to come, because technology will control us if we do not control it.
I accept the difficulties that they experience and the time they have to take to formulate a policy of control. But I say to them that while they are doing that task, they must remember that a great many of our citizens find themselves close to the U.S. border and therefore in a situation where, without regard to the policies, motivations or controls of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, they are receiving all the programming they can handle. People who are far from the border cannot receive these programs; they are dependent on the commission to bring programs to them. That is a viewpoint which does not seem to be adequately heard in the circles in which it needs to be heard.
The motion that is before us this afternoon is a typical one, namely, that the board should be holding hearings in the city of Toronto to expand the service there. I say that the service in Toronto is already adequate if not more than adequate. What the commissioners should be doing is concentrating all their efforts on getting on with the policy of controlling cable diffusion of broadcasting signals. They should examine the situation in my constit-

April 5, 1971

uency where, for example, until a short time ago there was only one television station-Canada's first privately-owned television station, CKSO.
I say that a television station operating in a monopoly position in Sudbury amply demonstrates that they are worthy of praise in the operation of their station. They have done, and continue to do, a first-class job. Only after many complicated hearings and a rather complicated formula for which I congratulate the commission, has it been possible within the last two years to resolve the problem so that a second service could be introduced to Sudbury. Now the Conrad-Lavigne interest in Timmins will provide the CBC network coverage in Sudbury, while CKSO will provide the private network coverage in the area. This is a very laudable solution and I support it.
But the people of Sudbury are pressing for a choice of more and more viewing all the time and a method has to be found to expand the formula under which the commission brought a second service to the area while respecting the rights of the existing operators. Under that kind of formula the commission should be searching to bring some kind of cable system into all areas of the country like Sudbury, where viewers up to now have been content with one channel but are now looking forward to a second channel and, naturally, want more. They want what other Canadians along the U.S. border have had for several years without regard to regulatory policy.
There are two English radio stations in Sudbury, Mr. Speaker, providing both AM and FM service, and one French speaking station. But here again, the people want more. There is pressure to have a CBC radio station established in Sudbury, but the answer has always been that the traffic does not warrant it. There is no cable service. For years it was felt that the introduction of cable would prejudice the introduction of a second Canadian TV channel. I urge the commission to go all out in an attempt to find a formula whereby cable service can be introduced without undue prejudice to the existing operators.
One third of Sudbury is French speaking, and this proportion is higher in the environs of Sudbury. French speaking viewers have access to a relay station in the CBC network but there is no local programming. I would like the CRTC to explore ways of introducing this service to Sudbury and the more remote areas. I am sure residents of the city of Toronto already have a choice of all the viewing they can handle.
Dealing with radio, Mr. Speaker, a short time ago the last of the radio operators to carry ethnic programs in their various native languages took those programs off the air because he could not afford the effect they had on his earnings. It was not so much a question of the advertising revenue during the hour that the programs were broadcast, but the listener ratings were affected and this reduced his earnings for the whole of the programming. As a result, the various ethnic groups have since been asking, "Surely there is some way whereby we can be
Request for Third T.V. Station in Toronto
provided with our native language programs which we enjoy so much. Surely these programs cannot harm many other people." Those programs were broadcast on Sunday mornings and not during prime time. On behalf of all the people in the city of Sudbury, I say to hon. members of this chamber and through them to the people of the city of Toronto, please remember our complaints. But we in turn must remember that some areas of the country have no television service yet and those people are lucky to have even one radio station.
Again I congratulate the CRTC for the job it is doing in trying to provide service. The commission has worked hard. As I say, it has found a formula for the introduction of a second channel to Sudbury, something we have been trying to get for 15 years. Now I frankly say to the commission: Never mind Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. Direct all your time and attention to Sudbury and similar regions throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, I know that other hon. members wish to take part in the debate. In conclusion, I repeat that in my view the CRTC has been doing a good job. It should continue to do so, and I urge it to give top priority, not to areas that are next to the U.S. border but to the Sudburies of Canada where its attention is badly needed.


Robert James Borrie: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) has just made my speech. I can appreciate the intention and the principle of the hon. member's motion. To me it is symptomatic of the frustrations all members of this House, indeed the public, share in attempting to influence and understand the purpose, action, or lack of action, of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. In my humble opinion, it appears that the commission is not staying abreast of the desires of television viewing audiences. If it were, there would be no need for the hon. member's motion.
I admit that the CRTC is faced with many and varied problems, but I would suggest its problems could be somewhat lessened by the immediate adoption of fixed public interest policies which would provide stability in the broadcasting industry. At the moment the public and licensed operators are kept in a continuous state of agitation. What decision will emanate from on high next? With recent precedents from which we may judge, Mr. Speaker, your guess is as good as mine.
If I were considering entry into any endeavour, the last I would choose would be television. There is no established policy to guide an applicant. The hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell) may through his motion gain a hearing in Toronto, but I question whether an applicant would appear before the commission. If an applicant did appear and proved acceptable, he would likely be advised that a short-term licence would be issued but no guarantee would be given that the terms of the licence would not be changed.
Television equipment and manpower are expensive commodities. The person or syndicate entering or expanding in the industry must be given an opportunity to make a fair return on the investment required. However, with present conditions and over-all control of the

April 5, 1971
Request for Third T.V. Station in Toronto media, private enterprise may be forced to the wall. As a taxpayer and a legislator I am not prepared to accept the burden of state control and state operation of the media.
My last remark may be considered by some to be an exaggeration, Mr. Speaker. It is. It is intended to be just that. My reason for the statement is an attempt to awaken Parliament, and the minister responsible for the CRTC, to a creeping paternalism that instead of improving quality may choke it completely. Imagination and originality are hard to foster when you are being throttled by regulation and more regulation. As control of the broadcasting media becomes more stringent, the possibility of state financial involvement increases. Restriction is not being exercised only by the CRTC. We are being asked by the hon. member for Peel South to direct the CRTC to hold hearings for the purpose of possible establishment of a third VHF outlet there.
There have been pronouncements that the House may soon be asked to abolish tobacco advertising on television and radio. If we support that move, where do the media make up the loss of revenue? I do not object to the intent of possible legislation, Mr. Speaker; all I ask is that the entire means of communicating tobacco advertising be treated equally.
As much as I sympathize with the hon. member's motion, I regret that I will not be able to support it. Policy decisions regarding the direction of television to Canadians residing in the central and northern reaches of the country prevent me from being generous to those who already have sufficient outlets to cater to their entertainment and educational needs. Television outlets are desired and required in many localities in my own constituency. Indeed, there are residents at McBride and Valemount, short distances from microwave, who would most happily accept one outlet. Efforts to interest CBC in extending service from Jasper, Alberta, for the few miles into the two localities in British Columbia continue to be met with study after study.
Dissatisfaction is also being experienced at Fort Nelson where the CBC frontier package fails to provide allround acceptable programming. Until these inequalities are overcome-which are also part of the commission's responsibility-I would not favour a hearing as proposed in the motion. I could be easily swayed if the hon. member would support extension of television services to regions not as densely populated as those near the 49th parallel.
There is considerable concern, Mr. Speaker, about the role being fulfilled by the CRTC. When an hon. member must resort to bringing Parliament's attention to a situation which automatically should be resolved by terms of reference to the CRTC through the Broadcasting Act, it is not surprising that the public takes strong exception to recent proclamations of policy regarding Canadian content. Those of us who choose to live miles north of the 49th parallel are prevented from receiving broadcast entertainment of comparable value to our southern counterparts. We who are developing our country far from

densely populated regions of Canada must forgo many material benefits, and the arbitrary regulations imposed on CBC, our only television outlet in most cases, further limits our viewing pleasures.
CRTC policy of imposing exceptionally high Canadian content without consideration for population disparity is not acceptable. Proposals were published a year ago February 1, public hearings were held and from the announcement of finality by the commission we are led to believe that public input assisted deliberation. If this were the case, it appears to me that greater concessions would have been made. With the combined opinions of broadcasters, actors, writers, members of the public and Members of Parliament, why did the commission proceed with its uncompromising Canadian content policy? Speculation is only possible. Broadcasters were divided and accommodating in their presentations, but who could fault them? The licensing powers of the commission are exceptionally wilful. Writers and actors could be considered partisan, and Members of Parliament as political influence. In the case of the latter, Mr. Speaker, I suggest we know public opinion and are more prepared to cater to it.
Regulations adopted by CRTC are loading the dice against the broadcasting industry. No corresponding conditions are applied to magazines, newspapers, movies or billboards. Is this fair? Mind you, with some actions of the CRTC we cannot help but wonder if it ever intends to be fair. As may be seen from the hon. member's motion and my comments, I believe it is time a review of the commission's references was made, keeping in mind that public desires are of greater importance than has been shown to date by the present body.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, upon reading the hon. member's motion my first reaction was one of surprise. As an individual who spent considerable time in Toronto getting my university and legal education, it seems to me that if there is an area of the province with a surfeit of radio and television coverage, it is Toronto.
I was also surprised when I received a communication from my riding indicating that notwithstanding the fact we have two excellent radio stations in Sarnia and programs that can be picked up by antenna from London and Windsor, the feeling of parochial and local pride was such that the writer felt we should have a local station in the Sarnia area. It seems to me this is the kind of situation the CRTC is faced with, looking at what might be termed as parochial pride as against a legitimate need for television coverage requested by individuals.
I support the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) and the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell), who moved the motion, who indicated in their comments that initiative should be taken by the CRTC and that they should not be limited by the scope of an application. This is an area where direction might be given to the general public, particularly those who wish to establish independent stations. Without this kind of expertise and initiative we will be faced with the situation where a group with the money, power and know-how can have a
April 5, 1971

surfeit of coverage and another part of the country will not have enough.
Because I support the hon. member's motion, not that a third station be established in Toronto but that there be a public hearing to decide whether such a station is necessary, I shall resume my seat, simply indicating that some initiative must be shown by the CRTC beyond the scope of an application.


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately because of the shortage of time, largely occasioned by the very reasonable proposition put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Jerome) that we deal with another item of business prior to this one, I do not have time to deal at length with the motion put forward in the name of the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell).
Rather than get into the substance of that, I should like to say in the minute that remains that some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the CRTC-and I have no doubt they are levelled in good faith-fail to point out that the CRTC is simply carrying the talks assigned to it by Parliament. When one speaks about hearings, the scope of hearings and Canadian content, the onus has to come back on this chamber because the CRTC is bound by an act of this Parliament known as the Broadcasting Act. When we speak about Canadian content and whether the CRTC is doing its job, I think it is important to do this in the context of our Broadcasting Act. It was we who decided what the broadcasting policy should be, and we are responsible for it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The hour set aside for the consideration of private members' business has expired. Hon. members will have noticed that the matters presented during this hour were rather airborne: they dealt with weather modification activities and broadcasting. However, they did not attract very great numbers to participate and the flight was not a success. The pilot was not successful and probably should lose his licence.
The House will resume at eight o'clock with item No. 8, an act respecting investment companies.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments
Investment Companies Bill
made by the Senate to Bill C-3, respecting investment companies.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this bill was considered by the House earlier this session and following third reading on December 14, 1970, was referred to the other place. Having completed their consideration of the measure, their Honours recently gave third reading to the bill, incorporating amendments.
A detailed explanation of the purpose and intention of the bill was given when it was before the House for second reading and I am sure hon. members will join with me in not wishing all that detail to be repeated at this time. I propose to limit my remarks, therefore, to a brief outline of the amendments made to the bill in the Senate. At the outset it can be said that none of the amendments depart from the broad purposes or objectives of the proposed legislation. All are intended simply to clarify the existing provisions or, in some cases, to define more precisely the scope and application of the measure.
In this latter category, three distinct changes might be noted. Firstly, by virtue of an amendment to subclause 4 of clause 2, the concept of excluding from the scope of the legislation companies that are essentially industrial, commercial or manufacturing enterprises has been extended to include such of those companies that for one reason or another have one or more subsidiaries interposed between themselves and their actual operating subsidiaries. As the bill stood before amendment, not all such types of companies would have qualified technically for a statutory exemption and it would have been necessary for them to seek exemption individually from the minister. The government sees no objection to the extension of statutory exemptions contemplated by the amendment.
Secondly, the granting of statutory exemptions to companies that carry on an investment business exclusively on the basis of funds borrowed from Canadian chartered banks, formerly contained in clause 2(3) (d) of the bill, has been deleted although the minister's discretionary power to exempt such types of companies remains. This statutory exemption stemmed from the view that practically every company from time to time has occasion to borrow funds from banks in connection with its day to day operations and it was not considered necessary to bring all such companies under the legislation if, as it was thought, they were likely to be granted discretionary exemptions.
The Senate accepted the view that the automatic exclusion of such companies might possibly create a preferred position for the chartered banks vis-a-vis other financial institutions. The amendment is intended to remove any such possibility, and the government has no objection to what is essentially a change from a statutory to a discretionary form of exemption for all or most such companies.
Thirdly, clause 2(3) (d) has also been changed to specify an additional class of company entitled to a statutory exemption from the legislation. I refer to family invest-

April 5, 1971
Investment Companies Bill
ment companies that otherwise would fall under the act by reason only of the fact that they borrow funds from members of the immediate family of the principal shareholder. It was intended to exempt any such cases under the discretionary exemption provisions of the bill. It was subsequently suggested, however, that a relatively large number of companies would likely be involved and the amendment is intended to relieve all these companies of the necessity of seeking ministerial exemption. As the amendment does not alter the intended scope of the legislation, the government has no objection to it.
The other amendments made in the Senate are directed primarily toward clarification of the intents and purposes of the legislation. The definition of "business of investment" in clause 2(1) (b) has been slightly altered to make it clear that the use of borrowed funds to purchase investment real property includes the use of such funds to make improvements to investment real property. The application of the asset and borrowing tests in clause 2 has been clarified. A new subclause 6 has been added to clause 6 to relieve the auditor of an investment company of any liability to which he might otherwise be subject as a consequence of filing with the minister and the directors of a company pursuant to subclause 5 a report on matters affecting the well-being of the company that in his opinion require rectification.
Clause 9(5) was amended to provide an additional set of circumstances in which the minister might grant an exemption from the prohibition against investments and loans where there is a conflict of interest. Clause 15, restricting the power of a Canadian-controlled sales finance company to sell or dispose of its undertaking, was changed to apply only to the sale or absolute disposal of the whole or any substantial part thereof.
Clause 16 was amended to make it clear that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation may, in connection with its functions as a lender of last resort, employ only those funds made available to it from the consolidated revenue fund expressly for that purpose. Clause 32 was slightly altered by the replacement of the words "to ensure" by the words "necessary for" in relation to the authority of the Governor in Council to enact regulations to carry out the provisions of the act.
That completes my remarks concerning the amendments made to the bill in the other place. As I mentioned earlier, none of these affect the principal purposes and objectives of the measure and we are satisfied that the bill as amended will be an effective measure in filling the gap that now exists with respect to the supervision and inspection of financial institutions. In closing, I would like to thank members of both chambers, particularly those who served on the respective standing committees, for their efforts in improving this important legislation during its Parliamentary process.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I heard that automatic response from the back reaches of
the government party. It indicates the attitude of some members with regard to legislation. The members responsible for that attitude should look at the chequered history of this bill. I do not know who was the misbegotten progenitor of the bill, but whoever was responsible for it must forever hide his head in shame.
This bill originated from the attitude of "big brother-ism" that is so prevalent among certain ministers of the Crown. During the second reading debate on the bills, as recorded at page 576 of Hansard for October 26 I traced its rather nefarious and chequered history. I was going to say "unwanted" because it is really something that should be hidden.
There is a certain bar sinister in this particular bill. It first began as Bill S-17 in the other place during 1968-69. That was the time when the attitude was prevalent that this government had been elected to save the people. We saw what happened to the bill in the other place. When our confreres there got rid of Bill S-17, all that was left of it was the title clause. With the aid of their able counsel, they rewrote it from stem to gudgeon, but then nothing happened.
We dealt with the bill again last year. It came back to this House as Bill C-179. It actually got through second reading. Because the finance committee was preoccupied with the white paper on tax changes-another exercise in complete frustration for a lot of people-and because of the misbegotten ideas on the part of the government, the bill was referred to the justice committee. To the credit of my colleagues on the justice committee, they took one look at the bill, threw up their hands in disgust and tossed it in the wastebasket, never to resurrect it. There it died.
The bill is now before us in modified form as Bill C-3. It received second reading, went before the finance committee and there it received a number of amendments as a result of the efforts of government and opposition members. Ultimately it made its way to the other place. The net result is that further housekeeping has been carried out. Actually, it is more than just housekeeping because it tidies up a number of details of the bill that left many members of the Commons committee very uncomfortable as a result of hearings on this bill.
Although the representations from the public sector had justice on their side, there was no predisposition with regard to this particular section by government members and their advisers in the administration to pay any attention to the representations that were being made. However, like the ever-wearing drop of water, the further representations made before the Standing Committee on Finance had their effect. Therefore, we have the amendments before us.
I am not going to discuss the pros and cons of the amendments. I think they are all improvements to the bill. On behalf of the members of the official opposition, I am prepared to accept them to that extent. However, the history of this legislation has not been one of the more edifying experiences of this administration.
I want to refer to the current debate on another bill. There is a good deal of opposition to a lot of very bad

April 5, 1971

*thinking which is contained in Bill C-207. Government supporters seem to have shut their minds to any criticism, and this is another classic example. Bills that are bad in their origin, bad in their thinking, completely misbegotten and ill-drafted are still put forward as though they are works of art inspired by the greatest intelligence. It is as though they have been handed down on tablets of stone from on the mountain. For the umpteenth time the government is coming forward and saying, with its majority in the other place and its committees, that it has accepted further and further amendments. I am sure that if we started on another round, there would be further refinements.
This is a classic example of the advantage of taking a second look or even a third look at a proposition. If enough people expose the deficiencies of a particular measure, their arguments will finally be recognized: even people who were blind will see. If we take the original bill, S-17, and compare it with Bill C-3 as amended, the difference is like that between night and day. This does not say much for those in whose department the bill had its origin and it says even less for the cabinet committee which screened it. They must have been anticipating the holidays, or maybe the preoccupations of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans), then the Postmaster General, took up most of the time of the cabinet. As hon. members know, this bill passed through its early stages at the time the Post Office was going through its travail.
In any event the cabinet committee which screened the bill certainly muffed it. Then it went to the Senate. The eminent members of that body saw how bad it was and rewrote everything but the title. Again it has been presented, I would say with a considerable amount of slapdash. This is one for the hopper. I cannot say I am overly impressed. We have now reached the stage at which representatives of the sales finance companies and Senators in the other place are, I suppose, reasonably satisfied that they can live with this legislation. All right. These amendments improve Bill C-3. It is better now than when we saw it and when we passed it, and I am therefore prepared to recommend the motion before us to my hon. friends.
As I say, this is a classic example of second and third thoughts improving legislation. I only hope the same process can be applied to Bill C-207, because I believe the paternity of that bill is suspect, the product is even worse and the participation in debate in this House from the other side has been non-existent, as though hon. members opposite wanted to put the whole thing away from them, using not a 10-foot pole but a great, long 30-foot rod to stand away from it. And so they should. They have learned a lesson from Bill C-3. Let them apply it to BiU C-207.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.
Weights and Measures Act WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT

Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: moved that Bill S-5, respecting weights and measures, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Stanley Ronald Basford: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


James Aloysius McGrath: On the
surface, Mr. Speaker, this appears to be a fairly innocent piece of legislation. It is a companion bill to one we have already passed, a measure which is presently before the other place, Bill C-180 dealing with packaging and labelling.
In essence, the trend of the amendments to Bill S-5 is to bring the Weights and Measures Act into line with modern practices and, in certain instances, to prepare the way of the introduction into this country of the metric system. There are several new clauses which are deserving of mention before the legislation receives third and final reading. Clause 10(p) provides for the application of sections of the Weights and Measures Act to coin-operated vending machines, machines which are now in widespread use. One of the difficulties likely to arise in connection with this amendment, desirable and necessary though it is, appears to be lack of adequate enforcement. I do not believe there are enough inspectors in the department at the present time to enforce the provision.
This is one of the points about which concern was expressed in committee, taking account of the great number of coin-operated vending machines in existence in Canada, more particularly those dispensing soft drinks, coffee and that kind of thing. We hope the minister will be able to reassure us in this regard, because there are occasions upon which these machines do, in fact, defraud the public.
New ground is also covered in clauses 18 and 32 of the bill which deal with oil deliveries. An attempt is made to correct a fraudulent practice, one which we hope is not widespread but which does take place from time to time, that is to say, the robbing of the public by oil vendors who deliver fuel oil to homes. Perhaps I can best describe this practice by quoting from report No. 17 of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs as follows:


Mr. Anderson:: ...the practice of "riding the ticket" to which Mr. Basford referred earlier is the practice which we are trying to overcome.

April 5, 1971
Weights and Measures Act
"Riding the ticket" means that the operator of a fuel truck can insert a ticket iinto the printing mechanism of his meter, pull down a lever, and punch a zero on it. The ticket remains locked in the printing device until the delivery is completed and then, he pulls down the lever a second time and prints the total gallonage.
In other words, if the driver has an order to deliver 200 gallons of oil, in effect he can deliver only 150 gallons of oil, indicate that 200 gallons have been delivered on his meter and take the other 50 gallons for his own use or sell it elsewhere. This is a fraudulent practice that has crept into the delivery of fuel oil, one that requires regulation. In this regard we are worried whether or not the minister has enough inspectors on staff adequately to enforce the provisions of this amendment. We feel these inspectors are very necessary and essential in preventing the continuance of this type of practice.
There are two provisions dealing with sections 18 and 32, both of which are consequential upon each other. We hope that the minister will give us, in view of the importance of these amendments to what would otherwise be a piece of housekeeping legislation, some elaboration and explanation before the House consents to third reading. Perhaps the most important of the new provisions in the bill now before us is clause 27, which states:
Every person who alters or adjusts the odometer of a motor vehicle in such a manner that as a result of the alteration or adjustment the total number of miles indicated on the odometer is other than the total number of miles travelled by that vehicle is guilty of an offence.
The second part of that particular clause, which is consequential, provides:
(2) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (1) if he establishes that the alteration or adjustment was reasonably necessary for the purpose of making repairs to an odometer or to any other part of a motor vehicle directly related thereto.
That is a very important new aspect of this bill. It takes into account what has been a fairly common practice, especially with the sale of used cars, namely, tampering with the odometer in order to mislead the public into believing that the motor vehicle in question has in fact not travelled the number of miles it has in fact travelled.
There are certain questions that were raised in committee and which I think deserve to be brought up at this time in respect to this particular clause. First of all, on the surface this would appear to be an area of provincial jurisdiction. For example, we do not know how many of the provinces have amended their motor vehicle acts to make this practice an offence. We know some provinces have done so, and we are wondering exactly what would be the effect of this amendment which extends the jurisdiction of the federal government into an area which on the surface appears to be one solely for the provinces.
Having said that, I should like to reiterate a matter put forward by myself and other members in the committee, namely, that this new clause in the bill will have the effect, hopefully, of getting the provinces to pass legislation to protect the public from unscrupulous automobile dealers, especially used car dealers, who all too often
have made it a practice to tamper with automobiles and to sell them to the public by misrepresenting their true mileage. I think this matter is worthy of mention here.
I hope the minister will enlarge upon what I have said and perhaps inform the House how he intends to enforce this provision. Perhaps the minister can inform us whether or not he has had consultations with the provinces in regard to the constitutional aspects of this provision. Certainly in provinces that have not legislated in this area, the initiative of the federal government will be welcomed. But we should also like to know what is the position of this amendment in cases where the provinces have acted and made the appropriate amendments to their provincial motor vehicles act. Which law will take precedence, the provincial or the federal? I think this matter deserves attention.
I think these are new and important amendments that have been introduced into the bill. Down through the years this legislation has served the public of Canada well in its regulation of weights and measures, and is now expanding into areas where it can continue to protect the public. As I say, we are concerned about its constitutional aspects. We are concerned that we may be enacting a law that is powerless, by virtue of constitutional limitation, notwithstanding the importance of these specific clauses, to protect the public from fraudulent and in many cases criminal practices which unfortunately have become all too common in our modern society.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I feel I should reply to my hon. friend-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise hon. members that the minister would need the unanimous consent of the House to speak now. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I feel I should say something in reply to the very helpful comments and questions put by my hon. friend from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), who as leader of his party in the Committee on Health and Welfare was very helpful in the examination of the bill and in dealing with the amendments that were made in committee and undoubtedly improved the bill. I thank him for his thoughtful remarks this evening which were directed to the substance of the bill, and for some very legitimate and proper questions that he asked in relation thereto.
This is, as the hon. member pointed out, a bill that is really a complementary measure to the packaging and labelling bill which this House passed a couple of weeks ago. When we were introducing the new omnibus consumer packaging and labelling bill to Parliament, it seemed a proper and opportune time to revise the Weights and Measures Act, which is a very historic act in Canada but one which, if we are to keep pace with technological developments, needs to be revised from time to time. Now is the proper time to make that revision.

April 5, 1971

The hon. member for St. John's East referred to a number of important provisions of the act and to amendments which were made during the course of the committee's hearings on the bill. For example, he mentioned clause 10 (p) of the bill which relates to the measurement of liquids dispensed by vending machines, in regard to which up to now there has been no regulation at all. I think this is a conservative statistic that will appeal to hon. members opposite: according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, as of 1968, which are the latest available figures, there were some 14,000 coin-operated, liquid vending machines in Canada. These machines dispense coffee, soup, soft drinks and a multitude of liquid products.
Whereas there has been no regulation covering those machines in respect of whether they must give a proper measure or money's worth, so to speak, this bill of course will provide the power to regulate that kind of measuring device, as it is called within the bill, to ensure that it gives an accurate measure and that there is no misrepresentation or deception in connection with the measurement it provides.
The hon. member for St. John's East also mentioned clauses 18 and 32 and the provisions relating to the delivery of oil by oil delivery machines. Another statistic we may place on the record is that there are some 3,000 fuel oil vending trucks in use in Canada and of course most of those, if not 99.44 per cent of them, are operated by honest merchants delivering oil in an honest and proper way. Our inspectors, however, have found-as the hon. member for St. John's East pointed out-that there are some cases of what is called riding with the ticket. This bill will deal with that practice.
The hon. member for St. John's East also referred to clause 27 and the device on a motor vehicle which measures the mileage. I am sure all of us have had the experience of buying a used car and wondering whether or not the mileage shown on that car is in fact the true mileage. Clause 27 is designed to deal with that problem. The hon. member asked whether we had had consultation with the provinces in this connection and in connection with the whole bill.
I assure him, as I assured members of the committee, that we had written to all provincial motor vehicles branches with relation to proposed section 27 and the regulations relating to odometers, and had a response from one which indicated they did not like the wording in clause 27 because they believed it might create problems. Consequently I proposed an amendment before the Standing Committee to which this bill was referred. This clause is designed, hopefully, to avoid any difficulty such as the earlier draft may have created.
As I say, every member of this House has probably wondered when buying a used car whether the mileage was correct. Clause 27 at least is a substantive provision of the law which will make it an offence to tamper with odometers or mileage indicators on a car for purposes of deceiving the public. The hon. member asked whether we could enforce this provision. That is a very good ques-
Weights and Measures Act
tion. I am not sure whether or not we can enforce it, but at least we will have a substantive prohibition in the law of Canada against such a practice, which we did not have up until now.
If there are those who have any indication that a dealer or salesman is tampering with the odometer of a motor vehicle, I would hope they would report that fact to us so we could investigate and determine whether there is a case which would warrant bringing these people to court. I am the first to admit that enforcement will be a problem. But up until now there has been no prohibition against this practice, and now we have the prohibition I can assure hon. members we will endeavour to enforce the clause.
There are, of course, other steps which we hope will be taken. I know that the provincial motor vehicles departments are considering the provision of a registration or log book for each motor vehicle, in which the mileage and the repairs to that vehicle would be recorded. In other words, there would be a history of motor vehicles something like a ship's log book or registration book. This is a matter which is under provincial jurisdiction and I understand provincial governments are looking at this sort of thing in order to cut down the abuse and malpractice that goes on.
There is also the hope that the motor vehicle manufacturers could develop an odometer which is tamper-proof. I understand that the North American car manufacturers and instrument manufacturers are devoting a good deal of attention to the development of an odometer which cannot be tempered with and which will in fact show the proper mileage of a motor vehicle.
The hon. member for St. John's East also mentioned an important provision in this bill which allows the usual well known measurements in Canada in units of the pound, the inch and so on, and also makes legal the Canadian use of the metric system. Of course, the government indicated in a white paper tabled in this Parliament last February that we think Canada should convert to the metric system and that a number of steps will be taken to encourage Canadians to use the metric system, make it available to them and make them knowledgeable in respect of it. This bill makes legal the use of the metric system. It does not make it obligatory or mandatory. When it is made mandatory in Canada, another amendment to this act will be required.
The hon. member mentioned enforcement. I advise him we have 178 inspectors in Canada. These are the weights and measures inspectors of my department. All these inspectors are working at full tilt. We are trying to make our operation as effective and efficient as possible. Whenever we receive a complaint of under-inspection or under-enforcement, we endeavour to correct it. If the hon. member has specific evidence that the act is not being enforced in some respect, I would like be the first to hear about it so we could take remedial action. Naturally, the effectiveness of enforcement depends upon our financial resources to a great extent, but I believe generally the Weights and Measures Act has been well enforced by my department. I assure him we endeavour to make it effective.
4928

April 5, 1971
Weights and Measures Act
One last remark is in respect of parking meters which are also dealt with under this legislation. Heretofore there has been no regulation relating to the sale of time. Under this legislation there will be. In respect of parking meters, I am sure all of us have been concerned-just as persons buying used cars have been concerned about the shown mileage-that parking meters in which we put our nickels and dimes may not be working properly. This legislation will relate to the sale of time and a device designed to measure time would include a parking meter. This provision will allow us to regulate the construction of parking meters to ensure they are constructed, designed and developed in such a way as to provide accurate measurement and ensure that they in fact work properly for all Canadians who put nickels and dimes in them.
I believe I have dealt with all the important matters which were raised in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to which this bill was referred. I think the bill has been improved by the committee-I thank the hon. member for St. John's East for his contribution in the House and to the work of the committee in examining the amendments made to the bill, and I commend it to hon. members.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question? In view of the increased necessity for surveillance under the new provisions of the bill-here I am thinking of clauses 10, 18 and 27-does the minister envisage a substantial increase in the number of inspectors employed under the Weights and Measures Act in order to adequately enforce these new clauses?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I would not anticipate a great increase. I think we may need a few additional people at the head office in order to examine and inspect the devices that are submitted for sale in Canada, particularly the new devices that are developed and which under this act must be approved for sale in Canada. Undoubtedly, the workload of inspectors, whether or not we have a new act, will increase. Our population is increasing, the number of retail outlets is increasing and the number of ordinary measuring scales is increasing, all of which generally requires us from year to year to have more inspectors.
However, we are finding that while we have more devices to inspect, there are technological improvements in the devices, which makes it less necessary to inspect them as often as before. This is a broad generalization, but while the number of devices increases, their perfection increases also, and therefore we have to inspect them less often. Also, this law allows us better enforcement provisions with regard to the devices which we now inspect. For example, the hon. member mentioned oil delivery machines. We already inspect all the fuel oil vending trucks. We will have a better enforcement provision under which to inspect them. We have found there are practices which under the law we are unable to deal with. This new law will enable us to deal with them.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the House permit one final question? It might assist us if the minister were to put on the
record the number and which provinces have already acted in the areas covered by clause 27, dealing with automobile odometers. How many provinces have enacted amendments to their motor vehicles acts to cover the provisions of clause 27?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I apologize to the House. I know that there were questions on this matter in committee and I thought I had them with me, but I find that I do not. I must therefore go by memory. I believe that two provinces have laws relating to the setting back of odometers and a number of other provinces are considering it. The hon. member will understand if I do not name the provinces that are considering it, because it is up to their ministers of highways or their attorneys general to make that announcement when they introduce amendments. As I understand it, the provinces that have some provision relating to odometers on cars are British Columbia and Alberta.


Gerald William Baldwin: Rather than make a speech, something which I rarely like to do, I would ask the minister a couple of questions. He answers questions so delightfully. My question relates to clause 27. I notice the distinction between the amendment which changes subclause 2 of 27 and the original subclause, the one dealing with automobiles. In my view this provision has the effect of changing the burden of proof.
I am not making a big point of it; I just want to know whether in the opinion of the minister's legal adviser it would now be necessary for any person charged with an offence under this clause to establish affirmatively that the adjustment or alteration was reasonably necessary. Is it the minister's view that this clause now puts the burden upon the person charged to establish innocence?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Not entirely; and I think that is not quite the effect of subclause 1 and subclause 2 of clause 27. If one looks at subclause 1 of clause 27, it deals with every person who alters or adjusts an odometer on a motor vehicle. The standard of proof there is the usual standard of proof; the Crown will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the odometer was altered.
Under subclause 2 the accused is then entitled to show that the adjustment was reasonably necessary. But the standard of proof under subclause 1 is the same as it has always been. The Crown will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the odometer was adjusted. Having proven that beyond a reasonable doubt, there is the presumption that the court would make and that the clause makes, that the odometer was adjusted or altered for an illegal purpose, at which point the accused is entitled to rebut that presumption under subclause 2.


Gerald William Baldwin: I thank the minister for that answer. I am sure he will find it useful when perhaps after the next election he is engaged in defending clients. He may even have a chance to defend someone under this particular clause.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am expecting to be here then.

April 5, 1971


Gerald William Baldwin: The other question relates to the same clause. There was some discussion between the minister and the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) on the question of the provinces having adopted views along these lines and incorporating them into legislation. Has there been any discussion among the provincial ministers with regard to provincial governments changing their sale of goods act or comparable legislation in order to permit a breach of this particular clause? Such matters are, of course, punishable under the Criminal Code. Nevertheless has there been any thought of permitting a breach of this provision to be regarded as being ground for a civil action for damages, for cancellation of a contract, for setting aside a contract, and so on?
I recognize that this is entirely within provincial law, but it would seem to me that it is an avenue which might be pursued. It is one thing to punish a man for doing what is wrong, and another to put a provision in a bill requiring that a certain thing be done. In addition to that, let us consider the remedy of the person who is suffering. There may be some doubt about what the federal government could legislate. There have been instances, to which I can refer, under the Criminal Code where provisions were included which in effect dealt with civil offences. I am not suggesting that the minister consider doing that. I am suggesting that he might pursue that question in a reasonable way with the provinces and urge them to ensure that their own codes dealing with the sale of goods and automobiles provide that this sort of offence would vest in a person who has been wronged the right of cancellation or rectification.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The remarks of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) are well taken. I think he is correct in assuming that under the federal Weights and Measures Act, which is clearly based on the federal jurisdiction over weights and measures as specified in the British North America Act, we could not determine the rights between vendor and purchaser of a motor vehicle, and of course we have not purported to do so. Nevertheless, I think that his remarks, in so far as they were directed at provincial governments and at my making suggestions to them, are well taken. That is why two of the provinces have already regulated this matter. I know that one other is definitely intending to do so, and possibly more may do so.
Also, and in a more general way, many of the provinces are considering complete revision or amendment of their sale of goods acts, a turn of events which comes about because of the amendment made by this Parliament to the Bills of Exchange Act last June, which became effective November 1 last, where we said with respect to the rights of a person signing a promissory note that those rights travel with the note even if it is sold and passed to an assignee a holder in due course.
As the hon. member and I both said in the House last June, this measure opened the door to the provinces to revise their own laws relating to the sale of goods, and contracts between vendors and purchasers. Some of the
Government Organization Act, 1970 provinces have already gone through that door. In my own province of British Columbia the Attorney General has introduced amendments to the provincial sale of goods act. As a result of a conference on consumer affairs held last November in Toronto, I know that a number of other provinces are thinking along the same line.
I would join with the hon. member for Peace River in urging the provinces to revise these laws because many of the laws relating to the sale of goods had their origins in days when people were buying horses and buggies, rather than automobiles, refrigerators, stoves and all the things a modern family buys. Many of our laws were written in those old, old days and now we need new laws. This is what my department is all about. So far as the federal department is concerned, we are endeavouring to write those laws and introduce those reforms in Parliament. The same thing needs to be done at the provincial level, and I think the question asked by the hon. member for Peace River is a very valid and proper one. He asks me to urge the provincial governments to revise their laws relating to the sale of goods. I hope he will join me in doing so.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
Russell Clayton Honey: Order. When the committee rose at five o'clock this afternoon clause 14 of the bill was being considered.
On clause 14-Establishment of Ministries of State.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the message that I-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Just before we adjourned for dinner the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants suggested it was time the House entered into a debate on housing and said there would not be an opportunity, once this bill was passed, adequately to discuss housing problems.
I agree with him wholeheartedly that housing is an important problem, and indeed on a number of occasions this Parliament has paid considerable attention to it. One of the purposes of this bill, as outlined by the Prime Minister, is to make it possible to establish a ministry of state responsible for urban affairs and housing, in the hope that we will have a rather more elaborate, rather
24081-31J

April 5, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
more satisfactory policy in respect of housing so far as the federal government is concerned, and that consequently all Canadians would be able to benefit.
However, I would point out that in this particular debate the issue is not whether our housing policy is satisfactory or not, but whether the government should be so reorganized at this juncture to enable it to establish, hopefully, a more effective housing policy than we now have. If, as the lawyers say, it would help the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants at all, I am prepared to admit that the current policy and housing programs of the government, while good, still could be improved-and one of the purposes of this bill is to seek to do that. Therefore, the hon. member would not usefully occupy the time of the House were he to make a case which we already admit, namely, that further improvements in housing policy in Canada are not only useful but needed.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I ask the minister a question? Is it the intention of the government, after the passage of Bill C-207, in view of his present interest in housing, to remodel this chamber into a number of compartments and rent them, or does he have any more sophisticated plans for the House of Commons after Bill C-207 becomes law?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, my inadequacy in this matter demonstrates in one more way the necessity of getting this bill passed and the ministry of urban affairs and housing established.


John Howard Lundrigan: Would the minister not be satisfied to bring forward a package on urban affairs, with such a bill containing specifically the ministry to be established and all its duties, responsibilities, costs and bureaucratic structure, so that this House-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The minister sought the floor on a point of order. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants already had the floor, and I think little can be gained in committee by continuing the question and answer period.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the point that I made in my first speech in this debate, which has been made by other members since then, was that this was a very mixed bill, with as many as seven different principles in it, all of which can give rise to confusion. I can be as confused as anybody else in the House, either due to my own natural talents or other people's natural talents, but I do not mind sharing my confusion and perplexities with others.
I said we should have a housing debate because the right hon. Prime Minister, who is the sponsor of the bill, in answer to a question asked by me said that the ministry of urban affairs and housing was one of the ministries of state that would be created. All I am asking is that before anything like that takes place I, and other hon. members on this side of the House, be given a chance to express their views. I see the former mayor of Toronto and other hon. members opposite who should be able to contribute suggestions on what such a new ministry should do.
This is the perplexity facing us, Mr. Chairman. If we do not put up a fight now-and I may suggest a solution to the fight-it will be lost entirely. The thing will be heard, there will be a minister, he will be given his terms of reference under the bill and it will be very difficult to change anything. The terms of reference are set forth in clause 15 which provides:
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 have been in this House for 12 years-not as long as some other members-and we have had to deal with such things as the creation of new ministries. But on those occasions each of us could say what we thought should or should not be included in the measure, and we could move amendments and make suggestions. In that way our constituents could see what we were doing and could write to us with suggestions that they felt should be advanced. Surely it is participatory democracy when voters can say, "Why don't you put this forward as an idea regarding housing?"
Who can say that the minister, the government, Central Mortgage and Housing or any small number of people have all the wisdom in the world? We know that the former minister in charge of housing, the hon. member for Trinity, went around the country and gathered opinions from thousands of people. Many of these found their way into his report on housing.
This is the dilemma that we find ourselves in on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman, and indeed I think members on the other side are in the same dilemma. The Prime Minister has spoken about the new ministries in relation to science and housing, and the minister who speaks for housing has talked about one based on the Bird Royal Commission on the Status of Women. That is three out of five. Given all that, we have no chance whatsoever to say what we think. Clause 15 says that a proclamation shall specify the matter or matters in relation to which the minister is to formulate and develop policies or the powers, duties and functions to be assigned to the minister.
That is our dilemma, Mr. Chairman. We do not know where we are going when we give these powers. That is what it boils down to. The President of the Treasury Board has the task of piloting this legislation through the House, and I suggest to him that we must have a bridge to all sectors of the House. Some of the new ministries may have to be established in a hurry. If the matter were put before us for debate as early as possible, we could probably agree beforehand on a time limit within which resolutions could be moved, or amendments and suggestions for changes in the powers of a particular ministry. These could be presented to Parliament. Surely a group of people of good will, from all sides, could get together and set limits for the debate within practical terms.

April 5, 1971

That is where the whole friction in this debate occurs, because we are simply afraid to give such sweeping powers to any government. If we were on that side and the people over there found themselves-in reduced numbers, of course-on this side, I am sure they would be standing up and making exactly the same argument. When you have classic battles between the powers of the executive and the powers of Parliament, once in a while Parliament has to dig in its heels and say, "Only so far and no farther." We must have our say.
That is what I am asking for, Mr. Chairman-and not only on behalf of members on this side of the House. I will not embarrass anyone on the other side-although I could name members-but I think I am speaking for them as well. There are members who would like to say what they think should be contained in any new department dealing with housing and urban affairs, or a science ministry. God knows, the mistakes in the science field are legion and nobody in this place can be exonerated from them. For the past 35 years we have been making mistakes. Perhaps it would be better if we were all made more accountable for mistakes in that field.
The recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women have caused a great deal of excitement in Canada. It may be that the least likely source in the House would come up with the best ideas. Nobody has a monopoly on ideas: 22, 24 or 28 cabinet ministers have no monopoly on ideas. We are here to swap ideas. You will notice that I have not turned this into a housing debate, Mr. Chairman, but when the time comes to deal with urban affairs and the housing problems of the nation I do not want something presented to me on a platter. I would rather consider ten ideas even if only one were accepted.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge with
appreciation the fact that we did not get into a housing debate. I think the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants has quite sincerely expressed the dilemma which faces a number of people who have intervened in this debate. There is an unwillingness to hand over to the executive greater powers than it now has. In other words, what is being sought here is is a delegation of parliamentary authority to the executive, but there is a feeling that there will not be adequate provision for calling them to account. I am afraid this is based on a misapprehension to some degree.
The House leader for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition knows about the ability of the executive in the United Kingdom. It is granted a unitary form of government rather than a federal one and has a much larger lower chamber than we have, and consequently one would expect a somewhat larger membership than ours. The United Kingdom, of course, is the source of most of our parliamentary traditions. The executive of that country has a total limit placed on their members of ministerial and quasi-ministerial rank, and within those members the size established in respect of interrelationship is left entirely to the executive to determine. There is no necessity, no demand even, that changes within this framework will be set in advance, as is being suggested here, apart from Parliament.
Government Organization Act, 1970
Our tradition in the functioning of the executive has largely been derived from the royal prerogative and has been more conditioned by the desirability of having from the outset the strictest of parliamentary control, which has brought a consequent lessening of that prerogative. Departments and ministers with the authority to head departments in this country, I suggest, have been up to the present established through a special statute setting up the department. Subsequently funds are provided in the usual fashion on an annual basis through the Appropriation Acts.
However, there still remains, as I pointed out before, the prerogative right of the Governor in Council to appoint in unlimited numbers ministers without portfolio not in charge of departments as such, having functions and duties which are defined by the Governor in Council and are not subject to prior parliamentary approval at all. There is, however, one element of parliamentary approval which must be sought, which is not related to the nomination or definition of these functions. Parliamentary approval must in every instance be sought to provide the funds with which the staff must be paid to enable the minister effectively to discharge whatever responsibilities he has been given. In addition to that, Parliament is asked for and grants-or up to the present has always granted-the amount of the annual salary for ministers without portfolio.
What we see here is a proposal which will have the flexibility of the prerogative in relation to the appointment of ministers without portfolio. I think our recent experience has demonstrated that the kind of flexibility which is necessary to appoint a minister quickly in response to a seen need, to appoint a minister in charge of a particular, new function, to appoint a minister who will address himself largely to a new problem which has arisen and to provide for proposed policies and solutions which eventually can only be implemented by Parliament through the provision of the necessary funds, is useful in an era when change appears to be the rule rather than the exception. Frequently, if one can respond rapidly and effectively, the problem-I have heard speeches to this effect-will be less than it otherwise would be if allowed to drag on without being met quickly.
What is sought here is to provide that feature, that flexibility of response and, further, to provide, under the designation or title of ministers of state, for the appointment of ministers who will be in terms of responsibility and stature the equivalent of ministers heading other departments. Consequently, they will receive the same salary and those other considerations given to a minister but they will not normally be in charge of a large operating function or the running of programs for which normal departmental organization is required.
Such a minister will need, in order to fulfil his functions, a staff consisting of relatively few highly skilled people who will assist him in the process of analysis and development of policy. If the policy development as subsequently approved by Parliament calls for the establishment of a large number of public servants to put the

April 5, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
policy into operation, at that time, I suggest, we could proceed under the first part of this bill to establish government departments and the duties, responsibilities and manner of functioning of certain people will all be clearly set out in the statute.
For those limited number of cases in which there is a problem and in which the immediate need does not call for the operation of subsequent programs but for the seeking of solutions, particularly in those fields where jurisdiction is not exclusively federal but is mixed and calls for a good deal of consultation with the provinces rather than the operation of programs by themselves, this is the kind of instrument, it seems to me, that can more adequately meet our needs.
As I indicated, although this bill provides that the Governor in Council will be able to name the minister without the necessity of further parliamentary approval, it is, as I think all hon. members will understand, impossible for that minister to have a staff to do the work of analysis, of problem solving and of proposing, unless funds are provided to him for that staff. This money can only be provided by Parliament through either the main appropriations, if that is the appropriate cycle when it occurs, or through supplementary appropriations if it occurs at some time other than the beginning of the main estimates cycle.
When one looks a little more into the kind of proposal that is being made here, and relates it to the kind of parliamentary tradition into which we have grown, I think it will be seen that a great many of the apprehensions and fears expressed are perhaps groundless. I suggest that this proposal will not then appear quite as alarming as the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants quite honestly, I think, suggested it was.
One other advantage of this kind of proposal may be seen if one considers the kinds of problems that a minister of state might deal with, as suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway the other day. This is something that has arisen relatively recently and consists of an area of interest, or an area of problems which does not fit neatly into our classical patterns of government organization or, indeed, thought. These problems range at a variety of levels horizontally across the whole government apparatus. A minister who will look at the Canadian perspective with this particular aspect of it in view will, I think, be able to make many useful suggestions which can be implemented. They could be implemented, not necessarily by himself or by a department which he might head but by other departments and other agencies.
When he has done this particular job and there does not appear to be a continuing need for this kind of analysis and policy suggestion, then keeping the apparatus in being any longer clearly would not be a useful application of the resources provided by the taxpayer. Then it ought to be dispensed with and our energies devoted to other problems which might take on new forms as suggested by clause 14. I think this, in so far as parliamentary operation and particularly parliamentary control is concerned, is of some significance.
One point made during the course of this debate was that this bill, as an omnibus bill, was unsatisfactory in

that it covered so many subjects that it was impossible for hon. members and for the House to focus adequately on a particular principle and give it the kind of consideration which clear focusing would allow. It was said that because of the wideness, range and number of topics involved, focusing in relation to this bill was very difficult.
p.ra.)
In terms of the ministry, it would be of considerable assistance to the House, particularly during the interesting 40 minutes per day which we have, if in relation to a current problem there was one minister who was clearly charged with responsibility for that particular item. To again refer to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, at the present time there is no minister to whom the members of the House can point the finger of responsibility: it is diffused.
The Prime Minister obviously cannot provide detailed answers for the whole range of subjects in which the administration is engaged. Consequently, the House does not get a satisfactory accounting. The ministry is not as accountable to the House as it would be with the kind of focusing which clause 14 would make possible. With this kind of arrangement, rather than Parliament having its powers eroded and losing authority it would, if intelligently used, find its real power-knowledge and power, in this world in which we live, are synonymous-through increased accountability and responsibility of minister for specific needs.
Rather than have what the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants is afraid might be the case, I suggest as strongly as I can that not only is it the intention of the government that it should be so, but Parliament, particularly the House of Commons, will find its power, authority, credibility and-to use a rather overworked term- relevancy enhanced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his contribution in spite of the fact that a large number of government members have spoken on this issue in the past few days. Most have used their time whimpering, whining and bleating about filibustering. The minister at least made an effort to attack the problem. It is refreshing to see someone go to the root of the issue rather than talk nonsense about filibustering.
I have examined the record. On this particular issue, probably the most important one in the bill, only 2| days have been spent. Up to the present time approximately 9J>
hours have been used to debate this particular measure. I say to those members who are wringing their hands, whining and crying about filibustering, that there are five important areas which can be the subject of the creation of ministries of state. Three or four have already been identified by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants. They are housing, science and the status of women.
April 5, 1971

Information Canada has also been mentioned, although the government has not tied itself down on that. How in the name of heaven can hon. members on the government side say that we are filibustering? How dare they say that? How can they have the unmitigated audacity to say that we should be expected to discharge our responsibility in 2J days? I will deal later with the very good speech made by the minister.
Within the four corners of clause 14, the government has intimated in no uncertain terms its intention of setting up three, or possibly four, ministries of state which they have identified. There will be at least five, but the government has identified three, and possibly four. The minister talked about the differences between our system and that of the United Kingdom. While we should constantly examine the practice in the United Kingdom in a variety of matters, we in Canada should make our own rules. We should adapt, change and pattern ourselves according to our needs. I do not believe in blind obedience to the practice of the United Kingdom. If members opposite want that, that is up to them. We in this party and other opposition parties believe there is much to be derived from a thorough and constant examination of the British system, but adapted to meet the requirements and needs of Canada.
The minister may be aware that there is a statute in the United Kingdom, passed in 1937, the salaries of ministers act, which deals with more than salaries. It identifies and establishes certain ministries. Although it does not identify them, it provides for a number of secretaries of state. My point is that the United Kingdom Parliament has in fact legislated. My suggestion to a constitutional lawyer opposite would be that having legislated, the prerogative of the Crown has gone, except within the limits of the statute.
The minister attempted to make the very best of a bad case. I think he knows he has a bad case, but I give him credit for trying to put the best face on it. He might succeed. We have been very careful. We have briefed and informed ourselves. We know the weaknesses. I will point some out now. Others in this party will also have something to say about them.


An hon. Member:: Again?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes. Now we have a target. For the first time someone has had the courage to stand up and defend this bill. Other members did not have the courage to do that, because they did not understand the bill. The minister has put up a defence. It was as good a defence as he could find for a bad bill or the bad provisions in the bill. I am going to deal with it. The minister had the courtesy of replying to us. He made his best effort to deal with the matter.
We in this House have instituted a new set of Standing Orders. The minister knows about them. Enough has been said about them in our party and other opposition parties. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants clearly stated his fears about this legislative program. When this legislation is passed, as I assume it will be in due course, the government will be free to exercise the prerogative
Government Organization Act, 1970 of appointing ministers and establishing ministries of state. For example, there will be a ministry of housing, a ministry to deal with, or at least reply to, questions on issues raised in the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, and a ministry of state to deal with housing. There is no question about that.
What would be the case without this legislation? What would be the situation? The government would be compelled, as I think it should be, to go to the House and say it had reviewed the situation, exercising its prerogative as the executive, and had reached the conclusion that the housing situation had been allowed to get into such a mess that something needed to be done about it, including the establishment of a ministry.
On this basis the government would then bring in legislation. A recommendation from His Excellency would probably be required, since payment of money for staff, and so on, would likely be involved. A bill would be introduced into the House and would pursue the normal course. Members of this party, members of the Creditiste party to my left and supporters of the government who had the courage to express their honest views would do so. There would be a debate. Issue would be joined.
If we on this side felt the government proposals were inadequate, we would put forward counter-proposals; we would offer amendments and the proposals would be studied in detail in committee. I do not think this would take a great deal of time, but there would be an opportunity provided for us on this side to say, "Here are the alternatives". This is what the government proposes to take away from us.
My hon. friend from Halifax-East Hants hinted-I believe he was exercising a kind of poetic licence-that he would like a debate on housing. I believe he was giving expression to the frustration we feel, because we recognize that if this bill is passed in its present form we shall be denied the opportunity to express our views adequately on housing, on science policy or other subjects which might form the basis of the establishment of a ministry of state. This is what we are complaining about. The minister said we shall have our opportunity when the estimates come before us. That is a lovely thing to say, after all the government has done to the House in connection with the scrutiny of estimates. If the changes in the rules had not been made in this regard, the minister might have had a better argument.
Let me digress for a few moments. In the course of my experience in the House, some 14 years, my recollection is that there were never more than three Ministers without Portfolio. The limitation was not imposed by statute but probably followed tradition and custom; no government considered that with 22, 23 or 24 cabinet posts available more than three Ministers without Portfolio should be appointed. But in each instance, with respect to Ministers without Portfolio, there was an item in the estimates dealing with their salaries and, from time to time, with their particular staffs. In accordance with the practice followed then, when dealing with estimates an

April 5, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
opportunity was provided for a substantial debate to take place in connection with the appointment. It does not exist now. I shall not get into that argument this evening because there were some aspects of the change which I accepted, though there are others which I have never liked. Be this as it may, the minister is bound to agree that the opportunities which existed for members on this side of the House under the rules before they were changed several years ago are not present today.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Not true.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister may wax indignant. He smiles as he speaks and I do not think he really believes what he says. He knows that the opportunities available to us now are nothing like they were before the rules were changed. That is a statement which in my opinion cannot be denied on the basis of the facts.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I will deny it.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister may deny it but I am talking about facts. This is the difficulty we face. It may be that within a month or within six months of this legislation being passed, a proclamation will be made and the cabinet will promulgate an Order in Council which will provide for the establishment of a ministry of state to deal with housing. Parliament will not have seen the terms of reference. It will have had no say in establishing the conditions under which the ministry has been set up. It may be we shall be given an opportunity to ask questions, but I contend that the representatives of the people of Canada are entitled to suggest what the terms of reference should be in a matter so vital and important. The same considerations apply to the creation of ministries dealing with science, the status of women, and so on.
The minister cannot deny that the government would have the power to establish these ministries, to disestablish them or to vary their functions. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt by members on this side of the House that an opportunity to discuss such matters on estimates in the confines of a parliamentary committee does not permit the free and unhibited discussion which is essential. It is difficult enough for this party, with 72 or 73 members in the House, to staff committees and maintain attendance in the chamber. It is even more difficult for the party to my immediate left, with 23 or 24 members, to do so, or for the Creditiste party to do so. In any case, there is no opportunity for the kind of debate of which the minister has spoken. I think he is speaking only from his experience as one sitting on the treasury benches. He has not had the edifying experience of sitting in opposition.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I have.


Gerald William Baldwin: Obviously the hon. gentleman was not there long enough. That is something we shall try to remedy at the next election.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It was not my fault.


Gerald William Baldwin: It will not be our fault next time, either. I can see the hon. member sitting here after the next election reading my speeches and trying to imitate me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: This is fantasyland.


Gerald William Baldwin: I believe I have answered the minister. I intended to answer him because he had the decency to drive right to the root issue. However, he did not deal with the subject in such a way as to convince me. I listened hard. I am very easy to persuade. If he had made a case, I would have been prepared to say so. But he fell far short of doing so and I cannot accept his argument.
Before I sit down, let me say that one of the problems we shall face if this legislation is passed is a proliferation of ministers. The hon. member for Ottawa East, who was occupying the chair the other day, spoke about reading the Bible, an apt book to be reading at that time. After all, the Liberals are trying to create a land of milk and honey where there will always be a place for deserving backbenchers. Like the armies of the south in the early days, all the generals will be privates. Under those conditions it is a sad, sad story indeed.
What are the dangers inherent in this situation? The first three rows of the government benches will be filled with ministers, with ministers of state responsible for a ministry of state and with ministers of state who have been deprived of the opportunity of administering a ministry of state. Then the parliamentary secretaries will sit behind them.
What about the confusion that we have observed in the last few days when ministers of the Crown have said that "X" is brown and ministers of state have said that "X" is white? Perhaps on this point I could simply read an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal last week.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Take your time; there are five minutes left.


Gerald William Baldwin: The article reads:
Uncle Sam must be puzzled about his Canadian nephews these days. While our energy minister and our northern affairs minister are going hell-for-leather to get the Americans to run their Alaskan oil through a Mackenzie Valley pipeline, our communications minister says it would be "a kind of industrial suicide." Even foreign minister Sharp is asking that the Pacific route be scrapped. Our Prime Minister indicates he doesn't find confusion embarrassing for the government hasn't decided its policy!
The decibels are the message.
There are other ways for Mr. Trudeau to encourage public discussion of a vital issue than set his cabinet running off in all directions. What about some of those parliamentary assistants or articulate backbenchers-mightn't they ventilate provocative views?
As it is we have the two ministers presumably most concerned telling the Americans they must not use the Pacific coast route and must use the Mackenzie route, but the Prime Minister telling the Americans at the same time that Canada hasn't yet decided whether it wants the Mackenzie pipeline.
April 5, 1971

Ministerial contradiction is old stuff in the U.S.A. where the President has the final say. But here in Canada, as in Britain, we have a system wherein the Prime Minister is only the first among other ministers-
The Prime Minister has not heard about that; I guess he has not read this article.
-and cabinet is presumed to be a team that thinks-
Certainly that is a questionable point.
- (and agrees on action) before it urges or acts.
Today's spectacle is absurd and, what is more, makes our system appear absurd. If Greene and Chretien win then Kierans is made to look a dunce and his judgment on other matters becomes suspect. Or vice-versa. There may be dunces in this cabinet-
I should like to debate that point, Mr. Chairman, but it is not relevant at the moment.
-as in others, but it helps nothing to have the Prime Minister encourage them in the name oi freedom of speech and thought to go about running off at the mouth.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The Chair has been lenient with the hon. member because I thought all hon. members would want him to finish the editorial, but I must inform him that his time expired about 30 seconds ago. If there is unanimous consent, the hon. member may continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: I thank the committee for its courtesy; hon. members know how infrequently I speak. I simply ask them to think of the terrible situation we would have with 50 ministers of the Crown, all of them engaged in these antics that have been so adequately described by this highly responsible newspaper in the editorial to which I have referred. Where would the people be in such a situation? What would they think? Who would they believe? I suggest this would be a catastrophic situation, one that this poor country should not be asked to face.
I should like to close by reading from one other article which I think is indicative of what would be the mental condition of so many of my hon. friends on the other side if they were ministers of state, ministers of state without a department of state or parliamentary secretaries. They would not know what they were doing or saying. This article is as follows:
The Texas House of Representatives has unanimously passed a resolution endorsing the job performed by the Boston Strangler in the field of population control.
The resolution submitted by two representatives who believed the Texas House would pass any resolution set in front of its members-
This is the sort of situation we would face. I do not think my hon. friends opposite would go quite that far. I give them credit for stopping somewhat short of that.


An hon. Member:: Don't fool yourself.


Gerald William Baldwin: One of my hon. friends behind me says I would be fooling myself. He may have better judgment than me. This is the situation we would face with 50
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ministers of the crown and 29 parliamentary secretaries trying to govern this poor, unfortunate country. This is one of my reasons-I have a few others yet-for saying we must not allow this bill to pass.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would allow a question.


Gerald William Baldwin: I would be delighted.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I ask him which two members of the opposition prepared the articles from which he quoted.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, on March 8 I inquired regarding Canada's views as to the status and prospects of the Commonwealth committee on security in the Indian Ocean which had been established at the Singapore conference of Prime Ministers. At the time of its establishment there was a tendency in some quarters to regard it as a major achievement. There were accolades for the Prime Minister of Canada, and this country was selected as one of the members of the committee.
My question sought to elicit the views of the gover-ment on their present attitude towards this ill-starred emanation of the Singapore conclave. My mystification as to what Canada now thinks stems from the reply of the minister who said, "We considered that it was a useful initiative and we still think so. However, I am satisfied that the committee will not meet." This latter comment is hardly in the category of rash predictions. But surely there must be a more effective way of dealing with the matter than merely waiting around until so many members drop off that nothing numerically significant is left.
Diplomacy may not welcome an excess of definiteness, but possibly this newly developed machinery for Commonwealth consultation might be used to put the whole matter in true perspective, rather than have this wearisome, withering-away process. I fear we have been too much given to facade building on many matters such as the South African arms issue. If there is really nothing being done nor to be done, it is really helpful to give the impression that something efficacious is in progress or in prospect?
Along with an air of unreality there has been, in connection with South African arms sales, a regrettable
4936

April 5, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion measure of hypocrisy or at least inconstency. More than once we heard of protests, prime ministerial and otherwise, by letter and otherwise, to Britain. But in reference to France, a considerable merchant of arms to South Africa and other areas, not a word. Are British arms more deadly than those manufactured in and sold by France? The minister said the protests are made to Britain because of our Commonwealth membership. But surely this is a strange reply. France and Canada are charter members of the United Nations. That body has made many protests and has passed many resolutions concerning arms sales. Are we to believe that this gover-ment regards the obligations of Commonwealth membership as transcending our responsibilities under the United Nations charter? What an interesting scaling of priorities this would be!
I believe, Sir, we would be well advised to deal with these matters with a greater sense of realism, more consistency and not make pretensions unsupported by the hard facts.


Mr. Andre Ouellel (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on February 22 last, the British government made known its wish to supply South Africa with naval defence material. In the minds of some people, this announcement on the part of Great Britain somehow deprived the committee of any reason for being and, as the hon. member knows very well I think, Nigeria and India, followed by Malaysia, announced their intention of withdrawing from the committee. Other countries, such as Canada, that felt that the terms of reference of the committee went far beyond finding an immediate solution to the problem submitted to its consideration, were ready to convene the committee so that it could examine the longer-term problems now occurring in South Africa and the Indian Ocean.
But as Nigeria, India and Malaysia have persisted in their intention of not taking part in any meeting, whatever the purpose, Canada thus finds itself forced to admit that the committee is no longer representative and, therefore, cannot call a new meeting, because the terms of reference cannot be fulfilled. We regret, Mr. Speaker, that such an opportunity of discussing various problems, and in particular that of South Africa, should be lost.
I would like, in closing, to talk about the comments of the hon. member who saw fit to include in this debate the question of the sale of arms by France. I believe it has already been said, many times, in this House, that Canada, in the speeches of its representatives at the United Nations, as well as elsewhere, had always clearly expressed its complete disapproval of any country selling arms to South Africa.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, my intervention this evening has to do with the possible sale of

the publishing firm of McClelland and Stewart to foreign interests. Perhaps I might take just a moment to explain the situation which existed when I posed the question which has given rise to this debate. The publishing firm of W. A. J. Gage had been sold to United States interests. The publishing firm of Ryerson Press had been sold to United States interests, and it had just been announced that McClelland and Stewart might follow the same route.
On February 18, as reported at page 3509 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) if he was considering any specific action such as the creation of a Canadian book development corporation or the provision of long-term, low-interest loans to Canadian-owned book publishing firms in order to assist their avoiding falling into this kind of sale. At that time the minister said he would look into the matter to see what was being done.
Then on February 19, in answer to a further series of questions from myself and the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce suggested that an interdepartmental committee and the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) were looking into the whole problem of the foreign ownership of Canadian publishing firms. He also said that in that regard they were specifically examining the possibility of creating a book development corporation and means of promoting the sale abroad of Canadian books.
Subsequently, in a speech in this House and on other occasions I suggested five means which the government of Canada might undertake in order to prevent the sale of McClelland and Stewart to foreign interests, and also to preserve the Canadian publishing industry as it now exists and perhaps to see it grow and flourish. I suggested the creation of a Canadian book development corporation which would operate similarly to the Canadian Film Corporation, that is, provide loans for the publication of books in the expectation that any profits derived therefrom would be shared by the corporation.
I suggested the provision of long-term, low-interest loans through institutions such as the Industrial Development Bank. I suggested that more aid should be made available for the publication of scholarly and artistic works by the Humanities Research Council and the Canada Council. I suggested that a Canadian-owned book distribution system be established to operate in rivalry with the book distribution systems which now exist in Canada which are largely U.S. owned, and I suggested the creation of a Canadian book publishing house in the U.S. which would increase potentially the volume of sales of Canadian books.
Subsequent to these events the Secretary of State met with representatives of Canadian-owned publishing houses who made representations to him suggesting steps which he might take in order to maintain the industry in a healthy state. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say, to allow that industry to regain a state of health. In subsequent questions in the House I attempted to learn from the Secretary of State when action as a result of this meeting might be expected from the government. Perhaps understandably, the minister has thus far only
April 5, 1971

been able to tell me that the government is studying the representations. I am using this occasion to emphasize the urgency of the whole question of the foreign ownership of Canadian publishing houses because in the April 3 issue of the Ottawa Citizen there is an article headed "McClelland dickering with U.S. firms" in which the following statements are made:
Ardent Canadian nationalist Jack McClelland is negotiating with Americans as well as Canadians to buy his book publishing firm.
Six weeks after he announced he would sell McClelland and Stewart, Limited to American interests only as "an absolute, last ditch stand," the co-chairman of the Committee for an Independent Canada said he was considering offers from the U.S. following a recent trip to New York.
"It is purely a protective measure on my part", he added quickly in an interview Thursday. "I've had some proposals from Canadians too".
Mr. McClelland went on tcj. say:
He has made repeated requests to the federal and provincial governments for long-term, low-interest capital but apparently has been turned down. Nor has he been able to obtain extensions of earlier loans.
It is obvious that Mr. McClelland wants to leave his firm in Canadian hands but is being forced into a situation, due to inaction on the part of both the government of Canada and the government of Ontario, where he must consider U.S. offers. There is, therefore, considerable urgency involved in this whole question and a statement of government policy is required immediately if we are to prevent McClelland and Stewart from going the same route as Ryerson Press and W. A. J. Gage. I have emphasized the need for action on the part of the government. This position is reinforced by the representations made to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) in a brief entitled, "The Textbook Racket," by Art Smolensky, a senator of the University of British Columbia, and Rob McDiarmid, vice-president elect of the Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia. The specific complaints of the authors of this memoir are-I quote from the memoir-as follows:
Textbooks are too expensive relative to (the student's) ability to pay for them.
In their documentation of that case they provide, with respect to English language textbooks, information relevant to the case that I am arguing this evening. They point out that 80 per cent of all library and 92 per cent of all university bookstore purchases are books not published in Canada; that only 17 per cent of all postsecondary textbook sales are from domestic publishers, roughly half of this number being published on the basis of adapted rights, and therefore less than 10 per cent of all university texts are of Canadian origin. They also quote figures from Ernst-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) said in his intervention tonight that the purpose of raising this question was to draw the attention of the House to the urgency of maintaining a viable Canadian publishing industry. I would simply reiterate what has been stated by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), that this is an urgency of which we are all aware.
In the case of the pending sale of McClelland and Stewart I would like to set forth the following facts. Since the sale of McClelland and Stewart was first mooted by Mr. McClelland, officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce have been in constant touch with Mr. McClelland. At the beginning of March the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce met with Mr. McClelland, at which time Mr. McClelland assured him that although he was going to give U.S. companies the opportunity "to look him over" it was not his intention to sell to non-Canadian interests if at all possible. The government is sure Mr. McClelland would not take any precipitate action which would result in McClelland and Stewart passing into foreign control before consulting further with the Canadian government and the government of Ontario.
Mr. McClelland is continuing to negotiate with private Canadian commercial interests concerning the future of McClelland and Stewart, as well as with federal, provincial and private financial institutions. Of course, it would not be appropriate to comment on these discussions now. As the hon. member has pointed out, there have been a number of studies conducted and one important conference held on the state of the publishing industry. The information which we have now is far more complete than it was previously and, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, there is a very real sense of the urgency of the matter both on that side of the House and on this side. It is recognized that if publishing is to play its role it must be an economically viable industry, and all the departments concerned are continuing on an urgent basis to keep all possible options open to the government.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the facts on which this question is based are as follows: in the first week of March, station CKLW-TV in Windsor was forced to withdraw the program "Rainbow Country" after 22 of 26 episodes had been shown because the CBC, which was the Canadian distributor and the co-producer, had entered into an agreement with American purchasers which banned this series from being shown in Windsor to enable it to be shown by Detroit stations for a higher price. That this is no random example of such a happening is indicated by the fact that earlier in the viewing season the program "Audubon Theatre" had also to be withdrawn after four episodes had been shown, and for the same reason.
There are many amusing aspects of this problem. One is that after entering into a form of agreement not to
4938

April 5, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
allow a series to be shown in Windsor, the CBC was not sufficiently alert to police its programming in order to see that the agreements were carried out. Another is that the CBC is a one-quarter owner of the station CKLW-TV and has agreed to take complete ownership within four years. However, these are not the important aspects, Mr. Speaker. The important aspect is the serious decision by the CBC to sell its programs to American buyers at the expense of Canadian viewers and Canadian stations.
We have to look at this from the viewpoint of both the viewers and the stations. Viewers in Windsor are confronted with the fact that they have available to them only one Canadian station out of some 15 VHF and UHF stations. The station is confronted with the fact that most American programs which are carried by the CBC cannot be carried by the CBC affiliate because the CBC has had to agree that they will not be shown there.
We have already been condemned to reruns of American programs. Are we to be condemned to reruns of Canadian programs as well? Is the CBC, if it can find American purchasers, going to sell the national news to them so that we viewers in Windsor will have to watch our news program on their station?
This is a situation there where CBC has shown a very serious lack of regard for both the station and the viewers in Windsor. It will probably plead commercial necessity; but while it is true that the CBC is not the sole producer, it is co-producer of these programs and it has considerable control over such commercial contracts.
Certainly the purpose of the CBC is not one which can be justified solely in commercial terms. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was established by this House for the purpose of achieving broad objectives. All these objectives might be summed up in the words "Canadian culture". If Canadians in one part of Ontario are not to have access to Canadian culture, or are to have their access to it considerably limited by decisions of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation taken from purely commercial motives, this is not good enough. The CBC has a public duty to Canadian culture and to thousands of Canadians, especially in those parts of the country where it has affiliated stations.
I want to express to this House not only my own dissatisfaction but that of the citizens of Windsor with this action taken by the CBC.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, the CBC reports that in general, full network programs produced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation using its own facilities are released to all stations of the English television network, including affiliated stations such as CKLW-TV Windsor. However, CBC has accepted the practice for over ten years of not including its Windsor Affiliate in the initial scheduling of some of its programs for the following reasons: first, with respect to television series produced in the United States, and acquired by CBC from a Canadian distributor for full English television network release, United States distributors regard Windsor as part of the Detroit market in the United States, and therefore the rights acquired by the Canadian distributor seldom include Windsor. They are controlled in the United States.
Second, with respect to television series produced in Canada, and acquired by CBC from a Canadian distributor for full English television network release, except for the most inexpensive productions the sale of Canadian television rights rarely covers a major part of the full production cost. The largest television market is in the United States. In order to increase the private producer's chances for United States sales, CBC usually defers for a period of some months the right to include Windsor in its network schedule. If the Canadian producer has not made a United States sale in which the Windsor-Detroit market is involved within a specified period, CBC then has the right to schedule the series on the Windsor station.
Third, with respect to television series produced in Canada, and co-financed or co-produced by CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation acquires Canadian television rights but usually defers its Windsor rights for the second reason given above. In order to attract production capital it is essential that United States market possibilities be enhanced. In CBC's view, the encouragement of private production companies is an important consideration in the development of Canadian content. The Canadian market is small in relation to the cost of production of television series. Nevertheless, an attempt is made to balance the private producer's cost-recovery problems against the desirability of including Windsor in the primary scheduling of full English television network programs, and wherever possible this is done.
I say simply, by way of conclusion, that in view of the hon. member's deep and abiding interest in this matter which affects his riding it might be useful to explore reasons one and two in particular with CBC officials when they come before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Tuesday, April G, 1971