1971-02-17

PRIVILEGE


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, notice of which I have given to Your Honour. My question of privilege arises out of the point of order that I raised yesterday concerning the business of the House wherein I found myself being denied my right and, indeed, my obligation as a member of the House to examine every bill that is placed before the House by the government. I also find that what would appear to me to be a prima facie case of privilege in the denial of these rights is in direct conflict with the Standing Orders of the House. It is this aspect of my point of order on which I am basing my question of privilege.
The duties and responsibilities placed upon members under the Standing Orders of the House, and in particular the unnecessary conflict caused yesterday in those duties and responsibilities by the government calling an order that put the House into committee of the whole on a bill, resulted in my being deprived of my right and obligation to examine bills. Standing Order 5 reads:
Every member is bound to attend the service of the House, unless leave of absence has been given him by the House.
Standing Order 65(8) reads:
Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House and,-to sit while the House is sitting.
Further, Standing Order 6500) provides as follows:
In a standing or special committee, the Standing Orders of the House shall be observed so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.
Still further, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 55(1) provides as follows:
The Standing Orders of the House shall be observed in committees of the whole House so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the seconding of motions limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.
It follows then, Sir, that every member of the House is under an obligation to attend the House in committee of the whole. If he is a member of a standing committee or of a select committee which is empowered to sit while the House is sitting, he is also under a duty to attend that committee meeting.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the day to day business of the House known as Government Orders should be so arranged as to reduce the incidence of such conflicts of duty which weigh upon a member, and that is the position in which I as a member of the House found myself yesterday. Obviously, when the House is in committee of the whole to consider a bill, no committee should meet. No standing committee of the House should meet while the House is in committee of the whole because the committee of the whole House, as the name implies, means just that, the committee of the whole House, and it would preclude and pre-empt any other meetings of standing committees notwithstanding any other orders made by the House.
My rights, Mr. Speaker, have been transgressed. I found myself in the position yesterday of having to be in three places at the same time to attend to my responsibilities with respect to the examination of three important bills, on two of which I had amendments. I look to you, Mr. Speaker, as the custodian of our rights and privileges to protect my rights as a member of the House notwithstanding what the rules may be. Accordingly, I would like to move a motion, with leave of the House, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr, Baldwin):
That Standing Order 65 be amended by adding thereto next after sub-order 12 thereof the following:
(13) A standing, special or joint committee shall not sit while the House is in committee of the whole to consider a bill.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East gave notice of the question of privilege which he proposed to raise today. The hon. member had indicated yesterday, when he brought the same problem to the attention of the House on a point of order, that he might in due course give thought to the possibility of submitting the problem to the House by way of a question of privilege. The notice was given within the required time but barely so in the sense that there was not all that much time for the Chair to consider all the implications of the important point raised by the hon. member. At the same time, because of the fact that he had brought up the situation yesterday I have been giving consideration to it. I have been wondering and discussing with my officials whether the point is well taken and whether we are in difficulty and contravening in some way not only the rules of the House but the privileges of our Parliament by allowing standing committees to sit at the same time as the committee of the whole House.
I suggested to hon. members yesterday, in commenting on the point of order raised by the hon. member for St. John's East, that there was nothing new in the House sitting in committee of the whole at the same time as standing committees were sitting, and there were some muffled comments from some hon. members suggesting

February 17, 1971
Privilege
that perhaps I was wrong. I immediately thought that maybe I was and backtracked a little bit, saying that perhaps I was wrong, that I had nothing to back my suggestion up that for many years, for generations of parliamentarians, we have had special committees, standing committees, joint committees, many kinds of committees, sitting at the same time as the House was sitting either as the House or in committee of the whole.
I have since consulted authorities on the subject, hon. members and others who have been in this institution for many years and others who have experience of the history of our Parliament over a period of 100 years, and with great humility may I say that my suggestion of yesterday has been confirmed. It has been suggested to me that not one year has gone by since confederation when this kind of situation has not happened, that is to say, where we have had special committees or standing committees of the House sitting in competition, if I may use that word, with the committee of the whole.
I really find it difficult to conceive in my mind why it should be worse or more offensive to the concept of parliamentary privilege to have a committee sit while the House is in committee of the whole than it is for a committee to sit while the House is sitting as the House itself. I just cannot understand or conceive that the committee of the whole is more important than the House itself. This is the suggestion that is being made in the motion moved by the hon. member, that we should not have standing committees sitting while the committee of the whole sits. He is suggesting that although standing committees should and could sit while the House is meeting, they should not and could not sit while the House is sitting as a committee of the whole. This I find extremely difficult to accept.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Except for the votes.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member makes the same protest as was made yesterday, but I would suggest to the hon. member for Edmonton West and to other hon. members who may want to protest that this has been a practice of the House for 100 years. It may well be that we have been wrong all along. I am not saying that we have not been in error in past years and that the practice should not be changed. What I do suggest to hon. members is that this practice has been established for a long time.
Should we change the rules if there is something wrong with our practice? It may well be that we should change the practice. But hon. members know that the new Standing Order 65(8) has been approved by the House. This change was recommended by a committee of which the Speaker was not a member. I might say that in those years I thought the Speaker should have been a member of the committee, but ever since then I have thanked the good Lord that I was never a member of that committee because every time points of order were raised I would have considered myself personally involved. I can now deny all responsibility for any of the decisions that were made. But not having been a member of the committee and, at the same time, distinguished members of all parties of the House having been members of the committee and having made recommendations
to the House which were accepted by the House of Commons, I find it difficult to accept the contention that the rule should be changed simply by order or ruling on the part of the Chair. Certainly I do not want to give my judgment priority over the judgment of that committee. It was a very good committee which made what were, I thought, valid recommendations in some respects in any event, which recommendations were accepted by the House.
I say all of this in a general way. This is my natural reaction to the point that has been raised by the hon. member for St. John's East. I said yesterday that I thought there might be a very legitimate grievance in the sense that there should be an effort made by the different House Leaders to get together and make sure that we do not put ourselves in the position of having a very important bill before the House requiring members to be present because of the vote and other situations while at the same time there are three important committees sitting in competition with the sitting of the House.
I believe that there is something awkward, something wrong, with that position. Should it be changed by the type of motion that has now been proposed by the hon. member for St. John's East? I doubt it very much. I would think this might be the kind of situation that should be looked into by the Committee on Procedure and Organization rather than by another committee of the House. I would be prepared to look into the matter because of all of this and because of the very interesting point made by the hon. member. I am not prepared to make a ruling now but to look into the matter further, study the situation and make a ruling in due course.
In passing I might refer to the point made by the hon. member that Standing Order 5 requires that an hon. member shall attend the service of the House. I have always thought, and I still do, that the service of the House is discharged by an hon. member whether he attends the House as it is at present, the committee of the whole or a standing committee of the House. I believe this Standing Order requires that there be service of the House, and for many reasons I would think that hon. members do not hesitate to consider themselves as having attended the service of the House at the end of a month when they have been attending meetings of standing committees. I say this by way of passing comment. The point is very important and fundamental and requires the consideration of the Chair rather than merely passing or fleeting remarks such as those I am making now.
I am prepared to follow the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John's East and the suggestions made during the short debate we had yesterday that this matter be considered. My thought was that I would attempt to have a meeting of House Leaders. I am prepared to have such a meeting either today or tomorrow to see whether we might as the House of Commons and parliamentarians together find a solution to the problem which will be acceptable and will satisfy hon. members

February 17, 1971

that we can operate efficiently sometimes in spite of our rules.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief suggestion. When Your Honour is considering this matter I hope you will differentiate between the House when it is sitting with the Speaker in the Chair and when it is in committee of the whole so far as voting is concerned. When there is a vote in the House members are called to the chamber by the bell whether they are attending committees or wherever they may be. When the House is sitting in the committee of the whole and there is a vote it is a standing vote with no names recorded. This is a very important matter when we are dealing with bills clause by clause.
My other point concerns the roster system. In view of our rules I think this system should be examined because ministers are never present when urgent questions arise.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Calgary North, but I am not sure that the roster system should necessarily be considered in relation to the point raised by the hon. member for St. John's East. The matter of voting is important. It was brought to the attention of the Chair a moment ago by way of an obiter dictum coming from the hon. member for Edmonton West. This very important aspect of the matter will be given consideration by the Chair in consultation with hon. members. The Chair has a responsibility but hon. members as members of this institution also have a responsibility, and I call upon them to share the responsibility with the Chair.
[Translation~\



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in both official languages-Mr. Lessard.

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

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1972, was presented by Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
Main Estimates
Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the estimates which have just been tabled contain $14,352 million in budgetary expenditures and $989 million in non-budgetary expenditures, the latter being for loan, investment and advance items for which authority has to be sought in appropriation acts. It will be understood that there are other non-budgetary expenditures which do not appear in the estimates and rely for their authority on other statutes, such as the loans to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation authorized under the National Housing Act.
These estimates are $1,004 million higher than the forecast expenditures for 1970-71 and $1,442 million higher than the main estimates for 1970-71. If one compares these estimates to forecast expenditures for 197071, it will be found that as usual more than half the increase, or about $560 million, is accounted for by increases in statutory items, those items whose magnitude is determined by provisions of some Act of Parliament now in force.
Most prominent among these increases in statutory items are those for the programs under which the government gives unconditional transfers to the provinces or shares in the costs of health, welfare, and post-secondary education with the provinces. In addition there are increases to be met in the cost of servicing the public debt, in student loans, in contributions to the unemployment insurance fund and in contributions to the government employees pension funds. There is also one instance of a large reduction in a statutory item, that for carrying costs of wheat reserves and advance payments

a reduction occasioned by increased shipments which have reduced quantity expected to be in storage and because of higher repayments of advances.
Again comparing 1971-72 main estimates to forecast expenditures for 1970-71, there are substantial changes being made in the expenditures in respect of which the federal government is able to exercise greater discretion in deciding on the pattern of resource allocation. These changes reflect new initiatives and new emphasis in areas most of which are generally accepted to be of the highest priority to Canadians, including:	regional economic
expansion, occupational training for adults, Indian and Eskimo affairs, bilingualism development, northern development, grants to industry by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, citizenship development.
These estimates also contain proposed expenditures for a department of the environment, consistent with proposals contained in the proposed Government Organization Act, 1970. In a similar vein, the estimates contain a proposed budgetary allocation to a ministry of state for urban affairs and housing which would be created under the authority of the proposed Government Organization Act.
The new department of the environment is to be made up from the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and from certain programs and activities drawn from the Department of Energy Mines and Resources, the Department of Transport, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the Department of National Health and Welfare. In examining the year to year

February 17, 1971
Main Estimates
changes in estimates levels for these departments these transfers should be borne in mind. All of these responsibilities would be financed in the new department given Parliament's approval of the Organization Act and of these estimates.
Another large apparent increase in the estimates, that for external affairs, reflects a decision of the government to combine under the direction of external affairs the administrative support services for the overseas operations of several departments. It is hoped in this way to achieve greater efficiency in such support services. The increase in external affairs is offset by decreases in the other departments.
Last year when I tabled the main estimates I drew the attention of hon. members to the new form of the estimates which I said evidenced our attempts to "improve the process of resource allocation and to better inform Parliament and the people of Canada of the objectives, operations and costs of the departments and agencies of government".
Because of the importance this administration attaches to informing the people of Canada about the processes and decisions of government, we are going one step further at this time. The tabling of the estimates is being used as an occasion on which to provide a greater amount of information about the estimates to the people of Canada in the form of a special booklet which will be distributed to all members of the House today and which is being made available to the press. The booklet will be available through Information Canada across Canada upon request of members of the general public. It is entitled "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent"-a taxpayer's introduction to the spending plans of the government of Canada for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1971.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I cannot claim authorship. The booklet describes the process by which the government reaches its decisions in the allocation of resources to recommend to Parliament in the estimates. It describes as well the allocation recommended for the particular year 1971-72 in terms of the priorities of the nation and consequently of the government.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, if it had not been indicated that the document that was handed to me a few minutes ago came from the President of the Treasury Board I would have thought that this was also one of the products of Information Canada because it seems to me that this document tends to dissimulate and to conceal from the Canadian public the size-here I refer not to the nature of the expenditures but to the totality-of the expenditures proposed by the government which of course must be raised by taxation from the Canadian public. Perhaps this may be seen as some justification for the insistence of the Minister of Finance that he was going to increase taxes by his legerdemain in connection with revisions of the income tax; perhaps this is one of the reasons.
We see that there is an increase of some $900 million in the budgetary expenditures for this year, and we are going to see how this is done. I have not had a chance to examine all the tables to see just where this money is going to go. One increase outside those to which the minister referred briefly-I do not know who had a look at it-is another $25 million for the four DDH destroyers in the Department of National Defence. The Minister of National Defence is now of the opinion that these ships are too specialized. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) was Minister of National Defence when the plans were being advocated and it was decided to build the ships. But we also know that in 1963 the plans for four new ships were scrapped by the Department of National Defence because the then minister thought the ships were not specialized enough. All I can say is that along with a lot of the expenditure and reorganization in the Department of National Defence which has cost a great deal we have had some six damn fool years with the net result that the armed forces are now in green uniforms. Were it not for the economic conditions in the country today and the fact that so many of the men are caught by their pensions, we would not have half the men that there are in the forces today. This is one of the contributions that went through a few years ago before the coming to this house of some of the clappers at the back of the ministry who now talk about the green uniform. If they had known the armed services of some years ago, they would recognize what a different force it then was.
Having said that, it is interesting to note that even though we are now considering Bill C-207 the government has gone ahead and organized the estimates book on the basis that this legislation is going to be passed. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has been suppressed. We are to have a department of the environment, and all the representations of my colleagues from the Atlantic provinces and from others from the Pacific coast with regard to maintaining the identification of fisheries are going to go for naught. Why? Because the coffin has been nailed down. The book of estimates, which no doubt was printed many weeks ago, was set up in this form. The government has no intention of acceding to any suggestions that might be made, and I do not suppose they would even accede to the representations of the present Minister of Fisheries and Forestry who would like to continue in that role and give some entitlement to the important fishery industry.
We will want to know, and we will study this, how much all the ministries that are now being proposed under Bill C-207 will cost. It will be a very interesting question to put forward. We know that these estimates will go before the committees, but notwithstanding the statements made by the President of the Treasury Board last year and again this year that the new format of the estimates will render them more readily intelligible so that they will convey greater information, I put it to you that it is the government and not Parliament that proposed the new rules of the House. I can point to the members and ministers who are responsible for the new rules. We were then steamrollered into passing them.


February 17, 1971
Frankly, I would say that this House and the public of Canada now know less about the spending programs of the government under the new rules because the estimates cannot be discussed when they are reported back to the House from the committees except in a very superficial way on opposition days. There is now less information and less control of these estimates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is due to a combination of a number of factors and I, who have been here for some years, regret that we are not in a position to at least consider some of the departments in the House because the President of the Privy Council will move a motion in a few moments to refer the consideration of the estimates to the various appropriate committees. I do not mean a nuts and bolts operation in the House, but I wish that the estimates could at least be considered in the House so that the House could have control over them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is another example of the so-called directed bureaucracy with which we are being saddled, and I think it is a crying shame that government in Canada should be taking that trend.



TELEVISING OF PROCEEDINGS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43. I shall be brief. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
In view of the Prime Minister's method of communication yesterday, the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization presently investigating the possibility of televising House of Commons proceedings, be given explicit instructions that if such televising of this House is agreed to by the committee, it should be shown only at late night and avoid the early family and children viewing hours.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no agreement. The motion cannot be put.



MAIN ESTIMATES. 1971-72 REFERENCE OF VOTES TO STANDING COMMITTEES

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion
Main. Estimates
pursuant to Standing Order 59 having to do with the referral of the estimates to the various standing committees. I move, seconded by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury):
That the Estimates of sums required for the service of Canada for the year ending March 31, 1972 be referred to the several Standing Committees of the House as follows:
The list is very long, Mr. Speaker. It may be possible to send you the motion and maybe the House would agree that we could dispense with reading this very long list.


James Aloysius McGrath: We want to hear it.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. MacEachen, seconded by Mr. Drury moves:
That the Estimates of sums required for the service of Canada for the year ending March 31, 1972, be referred to the several Standing Committees of the House as follows:
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 relating to the Department of Agriculture
Vote 30 relating to the Canadian Dairy Commission


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: I am quite willing to proceed with the reading of the motion, but I am just wondering whether hon. members would want me to. Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker :: I am grateful to hon. members. [Editor's Note: The balance of the motion follows:]
Votes 35 and 40 relating to the Canadian Livestock Feed Board Vote 45 relating to the Farm Credit Corporation
To the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 relating to the Department of the Secretary of State Vote 20 relating to the Commissioner of Official Languages Votes 25 and L30 relating to Information Canada Vote 50 relating to the Canada Council
Votes 55 and LOO relating to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Vote 65 relating to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission
Vote 70 relating to the Company of Young Canadians
Vote 75 relating to the National Arts Centre Corporation
Votes 80, L85 and L90 relating to the National Film Board
Vote 95 relating to the National Library
Vote 100 relating to National Museums of Canada
Votes 105 and L110 relating to the Public Archives
To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 , 20, 25 , 30, 35, 40 and 45 relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs

February 17, 1971
Main Estimates
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence
Votes 1, 5, 10 and L12 relating to the Department of External Affairs
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 relating to the Department of National Defence
Votes 15, 20 and L25 relating to the Canadian International Development Agency
Vote 30 relating to the International Joint Commission Vote 35 relating to Defence Construction (1951) Limited
To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs
Votes 1, L5, 10 and 15 relating to the Department of Finance Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, 25 and 30 relating to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce Vote 1 relating to the Department of Customs and Excise Vote 5 relating to the Department of Taxation Vote 25 relating to the Department of Insurance Vote 25 relating to the Economic Council of Canada Vote 30 relating to the Tariff Board Vote 35 relating to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics Vote 40 relating to the Standards Council of Canada
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 relating to the Department of the Environment
To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 relating to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 relating to the Department of National Health and Welfare Vote 1 relating to the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs and Housing
Vote 5 relating to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Votes 15, 20 and L25 relating to the National Capital Commission
Vote 25 relating to the Prices and Incomes Commission Votes 45 and 50 relating to the Medical Research Council
To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, 20, 25, 30, L35, L40, L45, L50, L55, 60, 65 and 70 relating to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Vote L75 relating to the Northern Canada Power Commission
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Vote 1 relating to the Department of Justice Vote 1 relating to the Department of the Solicitor General Votes 5, 10 and 15 relating to Correctional Services Vote 10 relating to the Tax Appeal Board
Votes 20 and 25 relating to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration
Vote 1 relating to the Department of Labour Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 relating to the Department of Manpower and Immigration
Vote 5 relating to the Unemployment Insurance Commission Vote 25 relating to the Immigration Appeal Board
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates Vote 1 relating to the Governor General and Lieutenant-Governors
Votes 1, 5 and 10 relating to the Privy Council 
Votes 1, 5 and 10 relating to the Department of Supply and Services
Votes 1, 5 and 10 relating to the Treasury Board
Vote 15 relating to Canadian Arsenals Limited
Votes 15, 20 and 25 relating to the National Research Council
Vote 20 relating to the Auditor General
Vote 20 relating to Canadian Commercial Corporation
Vote 30 relating to the Public Service Staff Relations Board
Vote 35 relating to the Science Council of Canada
Votes 115 and L120 relating to the Public Service Commission
To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works
Votes 1, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, 35 and 40 relating to the Department of Public Works
Votes 1, 5, L10, 15 and 20 relating to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources
Votes 25 and 30 relating to the Atomic Energy Control Board Votes 35, 40, L45, L50 and L55 relating to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
Vote L60 relating to Eldorado Nuclear Limited Vote 65 relating to the National Energy Board
To the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections Vote 15 relating to the Chief Electoral Officer
To the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization Vote 1 relating to the Senate Vote 5 relating to the House of Commons Vote 10 relating to the Library of Parliament
To the Standing Comittee on Regional Development Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, L25 and L30 relating to the Department of Regional Expansion
Vote 35 relating to Cape Breton Development Corporation
To the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Department of Communications Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Post Office
Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, 25, 30, L35, 40, 45, 50 and 55 relating to the Department of Transport Vote 60 relating to Canadian National Railways Votes 65 and 70 relating to the Canadian Transport Commission Votes 75, 80 and L85 relating to the National Harbours Board Vote L90 relating to Northern Transportation Company Limited Votes 95, L100 and 105 relating to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Adopted on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this is without reflection on you, but with respect to the motion that was moved by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) perhaps it would have been better if Your Honour had read the list of estimates for referral and then we would have caught some of the mistakes that have slipped into the wording of the motion. I am not aware that Bill C-207 proposes to do this, but according to the second page of the motion we have two new

-h

Febriiarv 17. 1971

departments, the Department of Customs and Excise, and the Department of Taxation. Those departments do not exist.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will realize that I was quite ready to read right through. I enjoy the sound of my voice-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: -and I was willing to go through, but hon. members insisted that I dispense.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They did not insist. The government did.


Mr. Speaker:: This is the only reason I did not proceed with the reading, but at the same time I do not think I have authority to go back and again put a motion that has been carried on division.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if I may refer to the point of order raised by the hon. member I myself noticed in the motion the reference to the particular departments mentioned by the hon. member, and I made inquiries. I did not have an opportunity to look at the book but it may be that the book does not contain those phrases. If it does not I will be happy tomorrow to move to correct the motion on my own account.


James Aloysius McGrath: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have examined the estimates and I notice there are votes there for the department of the environment. I suggest to the House that there is no such thing as the department of the environment, and the government is anticipating something the House may not do.


Mr. Trudeau:: Oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: Oh, fuddly-dud, or whatever it was you said. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the government has no right to anticipate what the House may do. I submit to Your Honour that there is an amendment before the committee of the whole House which would change the name of the proposed department, and presumably the House may agree to that amendment. Where would that leave the estimates for a department that does not exist?


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order is an interesting one, but I would think that at that point the estimates would have to be amended. We might be anticipating that stage of the proceedings. I realize the difficulty that has been pointed out by the hon. member and by the hon. member for Edmonton West, but again I say that if the House decided in its wisdom to accept the amendment now being considered in committee of the whole, and which I assume in due course would be approved by the House, then it is the estimates that would have to be changed.
Questions



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date did the government indicate its intention to construct a federal building at Amherst, Nova Scotia?
2.	Were properties purchased for this proposed site of the federal building and, if so (a) what was the total cost of securing the property in question (b) on what dates were the government properties secured (c) on what date was the preparation for the site completed?
3.	Were designs prepared and made public of the proposed new federal building for Amherst and, if so (a) on what date were the designs completed (b) on what date were they released to the public (c) what was the total cost for the preparation of the designs in question?
4.	(a) On what date was a decision reached to abandon the proposed design for the new federal building in Amherst and for what reason (b) were plans then initiated for the preparation of a new design and, if so (i) on what date did work start on the preparation of a new design for the federal building (ii) at what cost?
5.	(a) On what date was a decision reached to abandon the construction of a new federal building at Amherst (b) for what reason (c) what was the total cost to the federal government associated with the preparation of the plans to start such a federal building?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. On
February 14, 1966 when the 1966-67 Estimates were tabled.
2.	Yes, (a) $71,404.25. (b) November 21, 1966; April 3, 1967; August 17, 1967. (c) December 31, 1967.
3.	Designs were prepared but they were not made public, (a) October 1967, April 1968, April 1969. (b) The designs were not released to the public, (c) $22,100.
4.	(a) February 17, 1970-due to a change in client requirements, (b) Plans were initiated for the design of a single-purpose new post office building, (i) August 4, 1970 for a new post office; (ii) The new post office is being designed by departmental staff at an estimated cost of $2,600.
5.	(a) February 17, 1970. (b) A change in client requirements. (c) $22,100.


PROPOSED ENLARGEMENT OF POST OFFICE BUILDING, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date did the government initiate plans to extend the federal building used as the post office at Amherst, Nova Scotia, and was property purchased to facilitate the proposed extension and, if so, on what date was property purchased and at what cost to the federal treasury?
2.	On what date were the proposed plans to extend the post office abandoned and what was the total cost to the federal treasury of the planning and property purchases, including the

February 17, 1971
Questions
obtaining of options from property owners in the area for the sale of their land?


Arthur Laing: 1. Plans to extend the federal building were initiated on August 11, 1967. It was anticipated that an addition might be required at some future date so vacant land was purchased for this purpose on February 1, 1963, at a total cost of $17,202.56 for land, survey, and legal fees.
2. Plans for the extension were abandoned on January 28, 1969. The total cost was $21,202.56 including an estimated amount of $4,000. for the preparation of plans and specifications by the departmental staff.


DE HAVILLAND STOL AIRCRAFT PROJECTS-FUNDS PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Skoberg: For each fiscal year 1967/68, 1968/69, 1969/70, 1970/71 (estimated), what financial amounts have been provided by the government to The de Havllland Aircraft of Canada Limited regarding its STOL airplane projects?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned, for the DIP Program the following amounts have been provided:
Years	Amount
1967/68	$ 556,073
1968/69	1,699,917
1969/70	2,434,323
1970/71	(estimated)	1,819,480
In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, under the Defence Research Industrial Research Program, the following amounts have been provided to de Havilland Aircraft of Canada for STOL research:
1967/68	$125,960
1968/69	15,943
1969/70	31,167
1970/71 (estimated)	100,000


PRIVATE CANADIAN CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA AND NAMIBIA
Mr. Rowland: 1.	What was the total value of private Canadian capital investment both loan and equity in (a) South Africa (b) Namibia for each year 1963 to 1969 inclusive?
2.	What is the projected total for 1970 in each country?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the
Dominion Bureau of Statistics is concerned: 1. The total book value of private Canadian direct investment in the Republic of South Africa and Namibia at each year end from 1963 to 1969 is shown below:
Years ended December 31, 1963-1969
1963	1964	1965 1966 1967 (millions of dollars)	1968	196929	30	32 36 47	55	70

Investment in Namibia historically has been included with totals for the Republic of South Africa. The Namibia share of the $70 million shown above for 1969 reached a total of almost $2 million at the end of the year. As investment in this territority prior to 1969 was concentrated in one company, the confidentiality provisions of the Statistics Act preclude giving separate data for 1968 and earlier years.
2. This information is not available.


PUBLICATIONS ISSUED ON DRUG QUALITY
Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many publications have been put out listing drug products with criteria of quality since the Drug Information Bulletin "Rx" commenced monthly publication?
2.	To how many physicians, dentists, hospital pharmacies, etc., is the Drug Information Bulletin "Rx" sent?
3.	What is the total cost of printing and publishing of the Drug Information Bulletin "Rx"?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. One, dealing with Parcost, the Ontario government drug plan.
2.	44,000 English; and 12,000 French.
3.	1970-71 Main Estimates of the Food and Drug Directorate provided $208,000 to cover cost of salaries and printing.


RADAR SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS FOR MARINE TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many radar surveillance systems are there in Canada for marine traffic movement, and how many additional systems are contemplated at the present time?
2.	Where is each marine radar surveillance system located?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. (a) Four, (b) Two.
2. Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver. Contemplated: Chedabucto Bay, Quebec.


CANADIAN REPRESENTATIVES AT INTERNATIONAL WHEAT CONFERENCE
Mr. Southam: 1.	(a) Who are Canada's representatives now sitting in at the Geneva conference dealing with proposals to review and renew the International Grains Arrangement (b) who are the Canadian advisors assisting Canada's representatives at this conference?
2.	Will Canada have Cabinet representation at this conference similar to the conference held in Geneva in the spring of 1967 and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Will the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board make Canada's position clear in connection with this Geneva conference and, if so, on what date?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: 1. A number of officials from the Federal Government and from other organizations were named to the Canadian delegation for the International Wheat Conference. As the conference
February 17, 1971

has continued for some weeks not all have been in attendance at the same time. The following made up the delegation designated for the conference:
Delegation leader: Mr. M. S. Schwarzmann, Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade and Industrial Policy, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Alternates: Dr. R. P. Poirier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Agriculture; Mr. D. H. Treleavan, Commissioner, Canadian Wheat Board; Mr. R. M. Esdale, Marketing Advisor, Grains Group, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce; Mr. C. W. Gibbings, Commissioner, Canadian Wheat Board.
Advisors from Government: Mr. E. J. Bergbusch, Permanent Mission of Canada to the Office of the United Nations; Mr. G. E. Blackstock, First Secretary (Commercial), Office of the High Commissioner for Canada, London; Mr. A. F. Burger, Commercial Policy Division, Department of External Affairs; Mr. S. W. Garland, Marketing and Trade Division, Department of Agriculture; Mr. A. L. Halliday, Chief, Special Trade Activities Division, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce; Mr. P. A. Lapointe, Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Canada to the Office of the United Nations; Mr. W. Lavoie, Counsellor (Economic), Canadian Embassy, Paris; Mr. B. Macdonald, Multilateral Institutions Division, Canadian International Development Agency; Mr. W. J. O'Connor, Chief, Grains Division, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce; Dr. C. F. Wilson, Grains Group, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Advisors from other organizations: Mr. R. C. Atkinson, President, National Farmers Union; Mr. G. E. Franklin, President, Manitoba Farm Bureau; Mr. G. L. Harrold, President, Alberta Wheat Pool; Mr. Dobson Lea, President, Unifarm; Mr. A. M. Runciman, United Grain Growers; Mr. H. B. Sneath, Manitoba Pool Elevators; Mr. W. Snell, Canadian Wheat Board, London; Mr. J. I. Stevens, Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee; Mr. E. K. Turner, President, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.
2.	It is not contemplated that a minister of the Federal Government will attend the present wheat conference but the ministers concerned are in close and regular contact with the delegation. Indeed, ministerial attendance has not been registered by any government for the conference. With respect to ministerial attendance in 1967, this was during the conclusion of the Kennedy Round when ministers from a number of countries were in attendance.
3.	Reports will be made to the House as appropriate during the course of the conference.


UNEMPLOYED IN RETRAINING COURSES, ONTARIO AND QUEBEC
Mr. Valade: How many unemployed people In (a) Ontario (b) Quebec are taking retraining courses?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Statistics on the number of persons presently receiving training who are unemployed prior to
Questions
the commencement of their training will be available following the end of the fiscal year.
2. In the 1969-70 fiscal year, 26,000 full-time trainees in Ontario, and 47,000 in Quebec were unemployed immediately prior to entering training.


CANADA COUNCIL GRANT TO PROFESSOR HODGE
Mr. Stewart (Cochrane): 1.	Has a Canada Council grant been given to Professor Hodge of Toronto University who is presently on a sabbatical leave at Moose Factory, Ontario and, if so (a) how much is the grant (b) what was the purpose of the grant (c) was the grant limited to a specific field (d) was the grant conditional upon the writing of a thesis (e) does it have anything to do with customs or living conditions of Canada's native people?
2.	Is the recipient of a Canada Council grant thereby precluded from political activity while studying throughout the duration of the grant?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. Professor Hodge won a Leave Fellowship in the Council's 1969-70 competition, (a) $8,000. (b) To enable Professor Hodge to engage in study in his field during his leave of absence from the University of Toronto, (c) Yes, urban and regional planning, (d) No. (e) Yes. Professor Hodge's specific field of study during tenure of his Fellowship is the economic development of Indian communities in Canada.
2. No.


COMMERCIAL VALUE OF STORED BUTTER
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): What was the commercial value of stored butter on (a) January 31, 1970 (b) January 31, 1971?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Information is available only with respect to butter stored to the account of the Canadian Dairy Commission. The cost to the commission of butter in storage to its account on January 31, 1970, was $43,523,480.39; on January 31, 1971, $43,323,067.14.


DAIRY PRODUCT PROCESSING PLANTS WHERE BUTTER STORED
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): What processing plants for dairy products store butter and receive storage fees?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The following dairy processing plants have stored butter for the account of the Canadian Dairy Commission in fiscal 1970-71: Cooperative Agricole de Abitibi East, Amos, Quebec; La Chaine Cooperative de Saguenay, St. Bruno, Quebec; O. Couture & Fils, La Durantaye, Quebec; Cooperative Agricole de Granby, Granby, Quebec; Cooperative Agricole de Lac Megantic, Lac Megantic, Quebec; Creamery Lor anger, St. Eitienne des Gres, Quebec; Place-

February 17, 1971
Questions
ments des Bois-France, Victoriaville, Quebec; Produits Cailette Incorporated, Maskinonge, Quebec; ShefTord Dairy Limited, Lawrenceville, Quebec; Cooperative Agricole de Maniwaki, Maniwaki, Quebec; Cooperative Agricole du bas St. Laurent, Mont-Joli, Quebec; Vermette & Fils, St. Agapit, Quebec; Ault Milk Products, Winchester, Ontario; Free's Creamery, Sunderland, Ontario; Kingston Creamery, Kingston, Ontario; Villa Nova Milk Products, Villa Nova, Ontario; Medway Creamery, Ilder-ton, Ontario; New Dundee Cooperative Creamery, New Dundee, Ontario; Pembroke Creamery, Pembroke, Ontario; Stacey Brothers, Mitchell, Ontario; Teeswater Creamery, Teeswater, Ontario; United Dairy Products Cooperative, Toronto, Ontario; Dairy & Poultry Pool, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Saskatchewan Cooperative Creameries, Regina, Saskatchewan; Manitoba Dairy & Poultry Pool, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Central Alberta Dairy Pool, Red Deer, Alberta; Northern Alberta Dairy Pool, Edmonton, Alberta; Crapaud Creamery, Crapaud, Prince Edward Island; Morell Creamery Cooperative Association, Morell, Prince Edward Island.


SALE OF SURPLUS ONTARIO AND QUEBEC BUTTER TO DEFICIENT PROVINCES
Mr. Fairwealher: Will the Canadian Dairy Commission sell surplus butter from Ontario and Quebec to provinces which are deficient at the export price?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No.


EMPLOYMENT OF DR. GABRIEL SAAB BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Does the federal government employ Dr. Gabriel Saab and, if so (a) is he employed by the Department of Agriculture (b) what is his status (c) what is his annual salary?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Dr. Gabriel Saab is (a) under contract with the Economics Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture for the period October 8, 1970 to March 31, 1971, to (b) co-ordinate special projects in the Province of Quebec related to agricultural adjustment requirements, with a salary of (c) $2,000 per month-contract maximum, $12,000.


LINKING OF SPECIAL DRAWING RIGHTS TO DEVELOPMENTAL FINANCE
Mr. Fairwealher: Does the government share the view of the Committee on International Development, headed by the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson, that the linking of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) to development finance would be a useful new aid possibility and, if so, what steps has Canada taken to obtain acceptance of this idea by other governments?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government has not yet arrived at a final position on the feasibility and desirability of establishing a link between special drawing rights and development finance. We do, however, regard it as an important proposal requiring serious consideration.
The question was considered both at the last annual meeting of the Commonwealth Ministers of Finance in Cyprus and the last annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Copenhagen. It is also under current review in various international institutions such as the IMF and UNCTAD. We ourselves will be giving the matter further careful thought and will be participating in the various international discussions. We would hope in this way to obtain a clearer view of the complex and significant issues involved and to determine the extent to which there might be general international support for establishing a link.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Rynard: 1.	Since January 1, 1965, how many post offices have been closed in (a) Ontario (b) Canada?
2.	Since January 1, 1965, how many post offices have been built or are projected for areas with under 2,000 population and what have been the costs of each?
3.	Since January 1, 1965, what was the total cost for all post office facilities operating from private residences or stores?
4.	What is the present cost for a new post office established within the last five years for (a) postmaster (b) caretaking (c) heat and light (d) capital depreciation?
Return tabled.


PAYMENTS UNDER TEMPORARY WHEAT RESERVES ACT-GRAIN SALES AND STOCKS ON HAND
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	Since the Temporary Wheat Reserve Act was introduced, what amount of money has been paid out by the government?
2. In the past 20 years, for (a) wheat (b) oats (c) barley (d) rye (e) flax (f) rapeseed (i) what was the total sales in terms of dollars (ii) what was the total stock on hand at commercial position at the end of each crop year (iii) what was the total domestic disappearance in each year (iv) what were the total exports in each year?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Notices of Motions Nos. 9 and 183 are acceptable to the government.



CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING INCORPORATION OF NCS FOUNDATION AND TRUST GENERAL DU CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 9-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the NCS Foundation and Trust General du Canada regarding its incorporation under the Canada Corporations Act.
Motion agreed to.

February 17, 1971

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 183-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all papers including the policy documents and position papers presented by representatives of Canada in Washington at the three-day Conference on the Environment sponsored by the Atlantic Council of the United States.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Notices of Motions Nos. 175 and 195 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO INCORPORATION AS MUNICIPALITY OF INDIAN COMMUNITY, CAPE MUDGE RESERVE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 175-Mr. Barnetl:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of British Columbia on the subject-matter of the incorporation as a municipality of the Indian community on the Cape Mudge Indian Reserve.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 195-Mr. Forrestall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, notes, papers and memoranda since March 20, 1970, having to do with the development of National Parks in Nova Scotia including the existing National Parks and proposals for any additional National Parks.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to please call Notices of Motions Nos. 136, 166 and 192.



SURVEY OF PRIVATE MORTGAGE MARKET

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 136-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the survey of the private mortgage market undertaken by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in September, 1969 to determine whether adequate private funds for housing are available.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing advises that a series of interviews was held in September, 1969, to obtain an indication of the mortgage lending intentions of the approved lenders for 1970. It will be appreciated that,
Motions for Papers
in order to maintain such a close liaison with the approved lenders, discussions of this nature must be considered to be in absolute confidence, and it would therefore not be in the public interest to have them disclosed. If the content of such informal surveys were disclosed, the approved lenders would not be prepared in the future-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary is making a speech and presenting an argument. Under the rules he is entitled to indicate briefly why this motion is not being acceded to by the government. I suggest that he is going beyond what has been accepted practice until now when he makes the kind of statement he is making to the House.


James Alexander Jerome: I was just about to conclude by asking the hon. member whether, under those circumstances, he would withdraw his motion.


Mr. Gilbert:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
ADVERSE EFFECTS OF CHANGE TO FLOATING DOLLAR Motion No. 166-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence and other documents between the government and firms or interested parties concerning adverse affects of the change to a floating dollar announced by the Minister of Finance in June, 1970.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the government has reviewed the documents requested in this motion and has found that in most instances the correspondence related to private information about the writers' business operations. As this information is considered to be highly confidential may I ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion?


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the government was a lot more selective in its assurances than it led the House and the public to believe last June. I would ask that the question be put.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPY OF POLICY STATEMENT ISSUE TO MANPOWER OFFICES JANUARY, 1968

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 192-Mr. Lundrigan:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the policy statement or directive issued to Manpower Offices by the Department of Manpower and Immigration in January, 1968 as referred to by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on Tuesday, January 27, 1971.
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, the directive requested in this motion is part of the department's operational instructions intended to provide guidance and direction to staff in carrying out their work. As

February 17, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
such it is considered confidential and may not be tabled. Perhaps the hon. member might kindly withdraw his motion.


Mr. Lundrigan:: I have no intention of so doing, Mr. Speaker. I did not expect to get the directive in any event.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


James Alexander Jerome: May I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has he any comment to make on the report that the control of Home Oil has been sold? I ask this question knowing that the minister has been following this matter closely and therefore I assume he can give the House this information.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, Home Oil has not been sold. The parties involved, including potential buyers and the vendor, are in communication with me. I have no further report to make at this time. To the best of my knowledge and information, it has not been sold.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the minister indicate to the House, not in terms of a long statement, the nature of the measures he is taking to try to preserve control of this company in Canada?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as these negotiations are extremely confidential with respect to the parties involved, I think it would not be useful if I were to say too much, except that my position has been that it is in the interests of Canada to maintain control and majority ownership in Home Oil in Canadian hands, if that can be done. I have been doing my best in meeting with the parties to persuade them of this position.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the minister making any recommendations to his colleagues that would put other Canadian companies in a position to compete with American companies in the acquisition and control of companies such as Home Oil?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think probably, under the constitutional practices to which we adhere, that my advice to my colleagues is not something that I ought tp
report in this House. I can certainly assure my hon. friend that I am doing everything possible within the law to maintain this as a Canadian company.



PROJECTED TAKEOVER OF HOME OIL BY UNITED STATES COMPANY-IMPORT OF LETTER OF INTENT

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I direct a supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. It relates to the answer he gave to the Leader of the Opposition in which he said that he had no knowledge of the sale. Does the minister have knowledge of a letter dated January 18? It is a letter of intent relating to the parties and in it his name is mentioned in connection with the sale in question. If the minister has knowledge of this letter, does he take that letter to mean that there is no sale or that there is a sale?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there is no such documentation of which I am aware; I am not sure of the specific letter to which my hon. friend refers. Any documentation of which I am aware was referable only to proposals or possible sales. I am not aware of any documentation which implemented an executed sale agreement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the letter I am referring to is the letter filed with the securities commission of the United States and is dated January 18. I cannot pinpoint it more closely except to say that it is a letter of intent. I suggest that the minister has knowledge of the letter. I ask, therefore, if he has knowledge of it and whether he was part of the negotiations leading up to the sale?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I scarcely think that I could be a part of the negotiations. I have been kept aware of the proposals.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is the minister aware of the letter?


John James Greene: I am aware that there was a written document-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John James Greene: -which, to the best of my knowledge and as I stated, purported to be a proposal or a possible agreement of sale. But it certainly did not constitute a binding agreement of sale. It was only a proposal or a suggestion that might lead to sale.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since the unemployment pattern for several months now has followed a consistent pattern in that over 40 per cent of those who are unemployed are under 25 years of age, and since the government has now had ample oppor-
I:

February 17, 1971

tunity to be aware of this pattern and to prepare some programs to meet it, what does the government intend to do for single unemployed persons who are not eligible either for unemployment insurance or for manpower training allowances?


An hon. Member:: Fuddle-duddle.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if we want to add anything to the measures we have already taken we will announce it in the House.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister a civil question.


Mr. Benson:: And the hon. member received a civil answer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Am I to
take it from his reply that the government does not intend to do anything about the 277,000 young people who are out of work, and that the government does not give a damn what happens to these young people?


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He does not give a damn.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands knows that he cannot ask a question in those terms. Perhaps he would consider rephrasing the supplementary question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


An hon. Member:: If it is in a parliamentary language.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
ask the minister if he has made any representations or offers to the provincial governments that in the case of single unemployed persons who have not established residence the federal government will meet the full cost of providing welfare for those persons who in the main are being rejected by the municipal authorities?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party knows, I think, under the Canada Assistance Plan we cost share 50 per cent of social allowances going to such single people as he has referred to. There is to be no disqualification on the ground of residency. If the hon. member knows of cases where this in fact is being done, since it is contrary to the Canada Assistance Plan I wish he would let me have the information.
Inquiries of the Ministry



UNEMPLOYMENT-ACTION TO KEEP PEOPLE ON FARMS INSTEAD OF MOVING TO INDUSTRIAL AREAS

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who also has an interest in agriculture in the sense that he answers for the Wheat Board. Since the thrust of government policies is either designed to or has the effect of moving large numbers of people from the farming areas to areas of industrial unemployment, thus aggravating the unemployment situation, will the minister not review with his colleagues this very serious problem to see if there cannot be a change in government policies in order to keep people on the farms?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's supplementary question, of course, is in the form of a suggestion or representation to the minister.



PLANS FOR SUMMER EMPLOYMENT FOR STUDENTS

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Since at the end of April several hundred thousand students will be turned loose on the labour market without much prospect of employment, is he now in a position to outline to the House what plans are being made to employ students during the summer months?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is nothing we can announce today, Mr. Speaker, but we hope to make an announcement.



GROWTH IN LABOUR FORCE-RELATION TO UNEMPLOYMENT FORECASTS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the report from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics that the Canadian labour force grew in 1970 at a much slower rate than the average during the last five years, despite the comment of the Prime Minister in Regina that the labour force had grown at an extremely rapid rate during the last three years, would the Prime Minister say whether the government's forecasts of reduced unemployment are based upon an assumption that the participation of the Canadian people in the work force will continue to be depressed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I could point out that the rate has been slower in the last year than it had been in previous years and still be an extremely rapid rate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister to answer my question. I asked whether the projected reduction in unemployment made by the government is based upon a continued depression of the rate of participation of Canadians in the work force?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance has often said, the projections we put to the country we

February 17, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
put to the House at the time of the budget. This will be done.



PROGRAM TO PROVIDE JOBS FOR UNIVERSITY GRADUATES

John Gilbert: My question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of a recent survey by the University of Toronto which indicated a 30 per cent drop in job opportunities for graduates and the recommendation that they seek jobs in other countries, does the minister have any intention of bringing forth a program to provide more job opportunities for these graduates or to provide financial assistance while they seek employment?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the over-all situation for graduates, particularly those with advanced degrees, will naturally respond very quickly to the upturn in the economy which is expected to take place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: There are now no specific programs
designed for university graduates which are not of the usual sort available to everyone.



UNEMPLOYMENT-DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCES ON SETTING UP WORK CAMPS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre) I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Have there been any discussions between the minister, or an other member of the government, and the provinces with regard to setting up summer camps or work camps in various parts of Canada?
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there have been many discussions about a lot of subjects. I would hate to indicate that any particular subject had been excluded therefrom. With regard to the details of any programs which we are seriously considering, an announcement will be made in due course.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of National Revenue.
Since the Department of National Revenue has established new assessments, regarding returns which had already been accepted for 1968 and 1969, and in view of the fact that an official of that department has informed me, in a letter dated February 15, that claims would be sent right and left throughout Canada to approximately 9,000 people, could the minister tell us whether, through this method, he intends to recover enough money to
make up for what he was unable to collect from the 700,000 unemployed, or whether this is merely-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he seems to be launching out into a speech instead of asking a question. If he intends to put a question, I would ask him to do so as fast as possible.


Roland Godin: Could the minister tell us whether by this procedure he intends to recover sufficient funds to compensate for his loss, due to the 700,000 unemployed Canadians or if he merely intends to show the incompetence of the department during the years 1968-


Mr. Speaker:: The remainder of the question indicates that the hon. member was trying to advance an argument.

\_English]



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmoulh-Halifax East):: My
question is for the Minister of National Defence, but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Supply and Services or the President of the Treasury Board. It is in connection with the report that the completion cost of the DDH-280 program has now increased by $25 million. I ask the Minister of Supply and Services whether this amount of money has now been alloted to the Sorel Yard, whether it will be divided between the two yards, the Sorel yard and Davie yard, or will there be an additional claim against the treasury of Canada by one or the other yards for $25 million?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, in the past several weeks the Minister of National Defence has given assurance to the House that he was undertaking a very complete review of the DDH program. He made that commitment shortly after taking over responsibility for the department. To the extent that my department is involved in the program, I have been working with him on that review. The minister will be appearing before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence tomorrow morning at which time he proposes to table the full report. It is a comprehensive report. In light of that, I do not think a partial or piecemeal answer would be appropriate at this time.


J. Michael Forrestall: I accept the suggestion of the minister. The matter will, indeed, be thoroughly gone into tomorrow. In anticipation and to give us some idea of the situation, may I ask if the $25 million has been paid to the Sorel yard?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker. There has been no payment of that amount to the Sorel yard.

February 17, 1971



POST OFFICE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieile):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Referring to a statement made at a press conference dy the President of the CNTU last Sunday in Montreal that a letter had been sent to the Prime Minister, soliciting an interview at the earliest possible date in order to obtain clarification of the federal government's policy concerning the CNTU, has the Prime Minister received such a letter and is he prepared to meet the President of the CNTU for such discussions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not received a letter, but a telegram concerning this matter and I have effectively replied, informing the President of the CNTU that I am prepared to see him. I suggested that the meeting take place on Friday, unless he prefers some day next week, and I have as yet had no reply from him.


Roch La Salle: Are we to infer from the Prime Minister's agreement to meet the President of the CNTU that he is prepared to discuss or negotiate further the case of the Lapalme workers, in view of the circumstances?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Since the letter has been made public, the hon. member knows that the gist of the telegram was that the government is discriminating against the CNTU, an allegation which I refuted in my reply as it applies to the facts I mentioned. I invited the President of the CNTU to come and discuss that point and any others, if he so wishes.


Mr. George Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a supplementary question to the Prime minister.
Can he say whether he anticipates that specific offers will be made to the former employees of G. Lapalme Inc. in order to give them some hope of finding work shortly?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when we made our second series of offers in December, we stated that they were final. Since then, there have been no further offers and I do not anticipate any. I would naturally be delighted to receive the suggestions of members of the official opposition as to what steps should be taken in the interest of the public.


Georges-J. Valade: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Since the Prime Minister invited suggestions, could he ask his colleague the Minister of Labour, who seems to have positive suggestions to make, whether he is prepared to advise the House as to the suggestions he intends to make to the former employees of G. Lapalme Inc.?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can see, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member does not have any ideas.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Has he withdrawn the offer he had made to the former employees of G. Lapalme Inc. on their last visit on Parliament Hill where he met with them?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the government appears to be advocating the benefits of the Mackenzie Valley route as the route for the pipeline from the north to the United States, a view with which I agree, will the minister assure the House that before any decisions are made, the aboriginal rights of the native peoples of the territories will be settled in a way that justice will be done to their claims?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member read closely the statement I made on the subject last August, he will remember that we told the companies concerned that we would take the necessary steps to protect the interests of northern residents during the construction of the pipeline, and that we would give the matter priority.



RECOGNITION OF ABORIGINAL TITLE OF OLD CROW TRIBE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY OIL PIPELINE

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister assure the House that the aboriginal title of the Old Crow Indian people, who have been in possession of their land for centuries, is going to be recognized by the government before any pipeline construction begins?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the Indians' rights was clearly defined when the Indian policy was submitted in June 1969. As regards the Indians of the Old Crow Tribe and the problems relevant to their fishing and trapping rights, I assured them on the occasion of my two visits there that we would do everything possible to protect their interests in any future negotiation.



STATUS OF WHITE PAPER ON POLICY

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: My supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern

February 17, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Development arises from the last response he gave. Can he tell the House what has happened to the 1969 white paper on Indian policy? Have any of its recommendations yet been implemented, and does the government still consider this white paper to be the basis of its Indian policy?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we made certain proposals to the Indians in June 1969, which brought them to hold discussions with the government. I hope that in the next few weeks we will be able to establish a permanent committee made up of department officials and the main representatives of the Indians, so that once and for all fruitful discussions may be implemented between the Indians and the government. I must say that the Indians are satisfied with this development.



ADMINISTRATION OF FUNDS BY NORTHWEST TERRITORIES COUNCIL-PROTEST BY NATIONAL INDIAN BROTHERHOOD

David Orlikow: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has he yet given consideration to the communication he received from the National Indian Brotherhood protesting the announcement that funds allocated to his department to meet the needs of Indians in the Northwest Territories are to be administered by the Northwest Territories Council, and the fact that this decision was made in the absence of consultation with the Indian people concerned, or their approval?

Hon. Jean Chrefien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: Mr. Speaker, the matter was settled a long time ago when the House asked the government to give greater powers to the territorial council. As a matter of fact, the hon. member was one of the movers of the project. It had been understood that it would be in the interests of all residents of the North to be administered by their local government, and I may add that four natives of the north were elected to the Council of the Territories in the last election.


David Orlikow: In view of the statement the minister made a few moments ago that the government's policy is one of consultation with the Indians, does he not think that before making such a transfer of funds the Indians concerned, and their organizations, should have been consulted?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's supplementary is really in the form of an argument. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Yukon in a moment. I have to invite the co-operation of hon. members because we shall be running short of time very soon and a number of members are anxious to ask questions.


Erik Nielsen: Since, obviously, it is government policy to transfer authority to administer this fund to the Northwest Territories Council, when will an
announcement be made that similar authority is to be transferred to the Yukon Council?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the question is fundamentally different because, in the Northwest Territories, the majority of the population is made up of Eskimos or Indians. On the other hand, in the Yukon, the Indians represent only a small proportion of the population and they continue to be governed according to the methods used in the past. Should this policy be changed, we shall inform the House in due course.



PROPOSED CONFERENCE ON TRANSMISSION FROM NORTH TO MARKET

Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of recent reports that United States oil import restrictions will be dictated only by transmission capacity, will the minister consider convening a conference to discuss oil pipeline requirements in the north to bring northern oil to the market?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Government policy has already been announced with respect to the future construction of a North South pipeline. We are looking forward to the building of such a pipeline but no tangible offers to this effect have yet been received from the industry involved. Whenever we do receive such offers, we intend to inform the companies interested as to the acceptability of the project from the point of view of both resources and populations living in the Northwest Territories.


William Skoreyko: What I wanted to know from the minister was whether he is prepared to initiate these talks with regard to pipeline requirements.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's suggestion into consideration.



FAILURE OF INTERNATIONAL WHEAT CONFERENCE TO REACH AGREEMENT ON PRICES-STEPS TO ASSIST CANADIAN INDUSTRY

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: have a question for the minister reporting to the House on behalf of the Canadian Wheat Board. I consider it to be a matter of urgency. Now that the International Grains Arrangement is in the last stages of collapse according to the minister's statement last Thursday, will



February 17, 1971

the minister tell the House at the earliest moment possible what emergency steps are being taken by the government to assist the Canadian grain industry in view of this major setback?


Otto Emil Lang: As I have said before, it is our hope that orderly marketing and a measure of orderly pricing in the international wheat market will remain. The minimum under the International Grains Arrangement which is still in effect has not been maintained in practice but a certain amount of order has been established, notwithstanding. This measure of co-operation is expected to continue so there has been no dramatic change as a result of the failure to reach a further agreement.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Are we to
assume from the minister's answer that negotiations are going forward without any diminution of staff or any lessening of the possibility of reaching a full agreement?


Otto Emil Lang: I believe the statement I made to the House several days ago put the situation quite clearly. I said that some discussions are continuing toward a certain conclusion at this stage, that the question of a more firm agreement with firm pricing provisions would be watched carefully, so that when it seemed appropriate to enter upon fresh discussions they would be begun again.



WHEAT-SUGGESTED USE AS BUILDING INSULATION

Paul Yewchuk: Is the government considering an alternative use for wheat as suggested recently by the scientific community, that is, its use as a building material, as an insulator.


Otto Emil Lang: I am not sure that this particular suggestion has been brought to our attention. I was a little surprised myself at the suggestion that a cubic foot of this insulating material could be produced for eight cents when a cubic foot of wheat is worth a good deal more than that. But I will be glad to look into the matter further.



INQUIRY AS TO REPEAL OF TEMPORARY WHEAT RESERVES ACT

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Having regard to the indication in the estimates this afternoon that the amount of money available under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act for the current year will be very much reduced, does this signify a firm intention on the part of the government to bring down legislation this session to repeal the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act?


Otto Emil Lang: The proposal of the government to do just that had been made clear prior to the tabling of the estimates. The figure referred to by my colleague in the estimates was the figure which would have occurred under the existing law were no change made in it, except for the effect of interest rates and other factors.
Inquiries of the Ministry



REASON FOR SHIPS HAVING TO WAIT TO BE LOADED AT VANCOUVER

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the minister now inform the House how many vessels were waiting to load in Vancouver on Monday, or as of today if he would prefer to give that information?


Otto Emil Lang: The last report I received from the Wheat Board indicated that nine vessels were loading and that none were waiting. If the situation has changed today, I would be glad to check. At different times there have been four or five vessels waiting for berths but they did not wait very long, and grain is continuing to move at nearly record levels.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that there seem to be no estimates in the book he tabled today providing for the 10 and 15 per cent increases in veterans disability pensions and allowances, can the minister tell us how these increases are to be put into effect?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the warning issued by the Secretary General of QFL concerning working conditions on the site of the international airport in Ste. Scholastique, and especially in view of the warning that certain unilingual Englishspeaking managers are treating their Francophone employees with utmost contempt, is the government inquiring or considering an inquiry on this matter?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised of the difficulties to which the hon. member has referred and have asked for an inquiry. Up to this afternoon, I have not received a report.

February 17, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry CITIZENSHIP



HIRING OF ALEXIA ALEXANDROVICH BANDY BY BRANCH

Mr. Sieven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Information Canada. Would the minister please inform the House under whose recommendation Alexia Alexandrovich Bandy was hired for the Citizenship Branch under Information Canada in the Vancouver area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the question might be taken as notice.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The minister knew the question was coming, Mr. Speaker.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is familiar with the matter. I should like to direct the question to him, if I may.


Mr. Speaker:: That is hardly a point of order, but I am sure that the hon. member should be given the opportunity to ask his question at this time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Would the minister please state under whose recommendation Alexia Alexandrovich Bandy was hired for the Citizenship Branch of Information Canada in the Vancouver area?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should have thought that that was the kind of question that might be put on the order paper, but will draw it to the attention of my colleague.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is going to bring it to the attention of his colleague, then may I pose a supplementary. Is the minister stating that the qualifications of people hired by this government will now be that they be known Maoists and fifth columnists?



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Currently, the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission is trying to get the United States to provide some $200,000 needed to finish the work on the Nadina spawning channel in northern British Columbia. This work has been stopped because of the failure of the United States government to match the Canadian contribution to the Fraser River rehabilitation project. Since the spawning channel-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might ask the question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I was just trying to lay the groundwork so the minister would understand the basis of my question. Since the spawning channel will return to both nations much more than the relatively small amount of money required to complete it, will the minister communicate with the United States authorities on this matter and report back to the House so that work can resume on this very worth-while project?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the lack of knowledge of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I should like to ask the minister whether he is giving any thought to changing the Companies Act to prohibit the issuing of non-voting stock by Canadian corporations? It is the voting stock of corporations that is being sold to foreigners who put up the money.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, since the premise on which the question is based is wrong, I cannot answer it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who gave a legal opinion, whether any thought is being given to amending the Companies Act in this regard?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we amended the Canada Corporations Act last session and we are working on a second revision for introduction but it won't be for some time. We will, of course, look at the situation to which the hon. member, I take it, referred to see whether such a provision should be included in the second revision, but it will be a good time in the future.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. Barry Mafher (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question I wanted to ask the Minister without Portfolio reporting for Information Canada who was in his seat up to a moment or two ago. Perhaps Your honour would allow someone to take notice of my question.
Having in mind the return made yesterday by the President of the Privy Council indicating a very marked increase in the number of employees, and in the cost thereof, of the various government information departments since Information Canada came into being, I

February 17, 1971

wonder whether the minister would consider making an early statement on motions indicating the cause of this curious situation?


Mr. Speaker:: I gather the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has a supplementary to a previous question.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs is now in a position to respond to a question that he took as notice on Friday regarding Canada's latest response to the United States position on Georges Bank?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Canada's response to the position that was quoted by the hon. member was to the effect that the United States had already acquiesced in the issuance of the permits in question since in 1964 Canada began issuing oil and gas permits in the Georges Bank area on the basis of the median line principle established by the 1958 Geneva Continental Shelf Convention to which Canada and the U.S.A. are both parties. Canada notified the United States in writing of the issuance of these permits and received a written reply indicating United States acquiescence in this action. We were thus surprised when in late 1969 the United States indicated it did not acquiesce in, or recognize the validity of, such permits.


POLLUTION
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the hearings in Washington yesterday on the proposed Alaskan pipeline and the remarks of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich to the effect that the Canadian anti-submarine role in continental defence might be affected if the United States persisted in their proposed oil tanker route along the west coast without full consultation with Canada, may I ask the minister whether this statement reflects government policy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker it is my understanding that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich spoke in his own right as a Member of Parliament. I do hope that other Members of Parliament will follow his example from time to time, particularly on questions of this kind. He made this statement without consultation with the government.


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


Randolph Harding: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will allow the hon. member a supplementary, but I must advise the House that I did not grasp the full import of the question asked by the hon. member. He knows that he cannot ask whether a statement made by a member, as a member, outside the House represents government policy. That type of question should normally be asked in a direct manner. However, since the question has been asked the hon. member may put a supplementary.


Randolph Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister did not answer the question. Is the government prepared to take into account any of the bilateral agreements that we now have with the United States in an effort to persuade the United States government to hold full consultations with Canada regarding the danger that the oil tanker route from Valdez, Alaska, to Cherry Point, Washington, poses to our entire west coast area?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to do so and I will be doing so. I think it is important, however, that the people in that area, whether they live in Canada or the United States, should speak out now on this issue which affects their futures more particularly than the futures of those in other parts of the two countries.


AIR TRANSPORT
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On a number of occasions I have addressed questions concerning the ruling of the CTC as it affected Wardair of Edmonton. I wonder whether the minister is now in a position to say if the situation has been resolved, or what action has yet to be taken in order to bring it to a head?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather difficult question for reasons which the hon. member will appreciate. In the first instance, an appeal has been lodged with me and has not been yet disposed of. Therefore, so far as the appeal itself is concerned I am not free to make any comment. In the interim, however, I understand that Wardair has filed with the commission certain evidence to support their ability to cover deposits and the like, and it is my understanding that they will be able to continue operations as usual beyond the extended period granted, which was till March 1.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: When does the minister think he will be in a position to give a decision on the appeal?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I seem to remember that it was only two or three days ago that the formal appeal came in. The notice of appeal was filed two or three
February 17, 1971

Inquiries oj the Ministry
weeks ago. I will, of course, try to dispose of it before the expiration of the extension given by the CTC, but I take it that this will not make any difference to the carrying on of Wardair's operations.


FINANCE
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is diverted to the Prime Minister. Was the^ Minister of Labour outlining government policy in his criticism of the role of the provinces in the fight against inflation? If so, is this the basis of the government's refusal to enter into any new cost-sharing agreements to create jobs or to pay welfare budgets?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the first point, my I say this is not a matter of policy but a matter of opinion. With regard to the second point, this is not an assertion of fact. The facts are not as the hon. member has related them.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: In light of the statement of the Minister of Labour, is the government concerned that provincial deficits will be inflationary and, if so, is it reconsidering its refusal to provide any further assistance to them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There has been no refusal. On the contrary, we have extended assistance to the provinces on an increasing scale as this booklet indicates, and as the various statements by ministers have indicated.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON POSSIBLE LIFTING OF BAN ON CYCLAMATES
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This is a matter of deep concern to many people who, for health reasons, have to use cyclamates. In view of the fact that cyclamates have been banned in diabetic foods and other foods but are allowed in diabetic medication and infant medication, and in view of the fact that cyclamates can be bought over the counter, will the minister make a statement on motions clarifying whether he proposes to lift this ban and whether the sale of cyclamates is legal or illegal?


John Carr Munro: Yes, I will make a statement shortly.


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, February 16, 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.
On clause 2-Short title
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order which relates to the fact that in the bill now about to be considered by the committee of the whole, as in several other bills we have considered recently, there is a reference to the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970. I wonder whether sometime soon we might have an indication as to when we shall see the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970?


Mr. Turner (Otlawa-Carlelon):: I hope before the end of this session, Mr. Chairman.


The Chairman:: Order, please. The House is again in committee of the whole on Bill C-207. When the committee rose last evening clause 2 of the bill, with the amendment by the hon. member for St. John's East was being considered.
Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I am glad to see the hon. member for Gaspe getting ready to participate in the debate. I welcome this participation and look forward to it. He is the first member of the Liberal party representing a fishing constituency to show any interest in this particular subject at this stage of our proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: Hon. members opposite should restrain themselves because this matter is of some concern. My point of order relates to the tabling in the House today of the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1972. Those estimates contain a section dealing with the department of environment and, therefore, set out certain items for the current fiscal year in respect of a department which does not exist. That is the substance of my point of order.
In addition, this fact places members of the committee under a severe handicap because we are discussing at the present time an amendment which would have the effect, if it is approved by the committee, of changing the name of this department. This government has been so bold as to anticipate the approval of this measure and has brought estimates forward in the name of the new department. I submit to the Chair and to the committee

February 17, 1971

that this is a contemptuous act on the part of the government. It shows contempt for this House and for this committee. This fact has circumscribed and, indeed, prevented members of the government party from making any useful contribution to the debate. Their hands have been tied by the government they support. The publication of these estimates explains why we have not had any participation by members on the government side of the House, particularly those representing fishing constituencies.
This matter was put to His Honour, Mr. Speaker, before the House went into the committee of the whole in the form of a point of order. It was arranged at that time that should the committee of the whole House see fit to accept my amendment, the government would have to amend the estimates. My point of order is based on that ruling by His Honour, and I want this ruling reiterated by you as the Chairman of this committee. The committee should in no way be circumscribed or circumvented by the government anticipating that members will give approval to this particular part of the bill setting up the department of the environment. In so doing, the government makes this committee a bit of a farce, to put it mildly. This action makes this committee merely a rubber stamp.
Before I pursue my remarks at this stage of the proceedings I should like you, Mr. Chairman, to make a ruling on the effect this act by the government will have on the deliberations of this committee. This committee is charged with the responsibility of studying this bill clause by clause, amending it where amendments are necessary. I should like a clear ruling from you, as the Chairman of the committee, as to the effect this will have. How will it affect our deliberations in light of the amendment now before the committee?


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East has placed a point of order before the committee. I will make a ruling or comment on his point now, unless other hon. members would like to deal with the matter.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Chairman, if I may very briefly, I should like to say that when one is considering what actions make a farce of this committee's proceedings, one should remember that it is the hon. member who just spoke who should be doing some soul searching rather than making accusations.


An hon. Member:: That's a good way to start.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Muir:: Why don't you try some fiddle-faddle, too.


James Alexander Jerome: Hon. members should understand that if estimates are tabled when legislation is before the House proposing a change in the name of a department then, at one time or another, an amendment to the substantive legislation or to the estimates will be necessary. If, as the hon. member has proposed, we should take account of the situation at this stage, then the estimates would be tabled in the name of the present department and when
Government Organization Act, 1970 the legislation is passed an amendment would have to be made to the estimates.
There is absolutely no difficulty involved in making a change to the legislation or a change in the estimates tabled by the government. The hon. member knows that in either case an amendment will have to be made. If the present amendment carries, then we must anticipate that no amendment will be made to the estimates. If the estimates were tabled under the present name of the department, then obviously we must anticipate some kind of an amendment to the estimates. When the legislation is passed, one way or another, there is a very great possibility a change in the form of the estimates will have to be made. This is simply a matter of attempting to accommodate both pieces of legislation before the House at the same time. There is nothing anticipatory or malicious about it.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? Would he point out for the enlightenment of the committee where in this book we may find the estimates for the Department of Fisheries and Forestry?


An hon. Member:: Come on; get up.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. Is the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate rising on a point of order?


John Howard Lundrigan: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Until two o'clock today the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. John's East was simple and clear cut. There was no complication to it whatsoever. As a matter of fact, we had been anticipating a favourable response from the government benches which would indicate that there would be a department of fisheries and the environment. Today, by the omission of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry from the estimates, to all intents and purposes this department has been eliminated. Therefore, a complication is introduced. If the amendment were approved by the Parliament of Canada today, other strings would have to be pulled and other amendments made to existing publications and documents. Perhaps, therefore, the government will not be as eager to accept a most legitimate amendment. So, I cannot accept the position of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council. I cannot accept the argument that we are not being jeopardized in this House of Commons by the introduction of these estimates.
The fact is there is a new complication. I submit this will make it much more difficult for the House to accept the amendment which, until now, was clearcut. I think the rights of members have been jeopardized and I think the position taken by the parliamentary secretary is a little on the arrogant side. Perhaps the House of Commons will not accept the bill. Members might decide to throw it in the wastepaper basket. I have looked over these estimates and I cannot isolate fisheries from the environment. I do not know now what are the estimates of the department of fisheries. We are fighting for a livelihood in five provinces which depend almost exclu-

February 17, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
sively on fishing. I suggest there must be a clear indication that members of all parties can effectively vote for our amendment which is an effort to get some status for the fishing industry of Canada.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I was going to say a word or two on the remarks of the parliamentary secretary.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. I recognize the hon. member and, of course, am anxious for him to speak to the procedural point if he wishes to do so.


Randolph Harding: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to speak to that. It seems to me when amendments are moved to bills by individual members they are moved with the feeling that they will improve legislation. I see absolutely no reason any amendment would be rejected merely for the reasons given by the parliamentary secretary. The amendment was before this House yesterday. We might well have voted on it yesterday or last evening before the estimates were tabled. I want to say that if this is the reason for turning down this amendment, it is one of the most silly reasons I have ever heard from the government side of the House. I wish to suggest that if there is a basic reason that the name should be changed, this Parliament should not hesitate to make that change, regardless of the estimates having been tabled today.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, I rise briefly to speak on the point of order raised by my colleague the hon. member for St. John's East. It is quite evident now, after a cursory study of the estimates tabled today, that the department of fisheries has been swallowed up and is losing its identity. We who come from Atlantic Canada have presented our views during this debate on the government reorganization bill and have been critical of this aspect of it. We now realize that our worst fears have been confirmed. We now realize the government, by its action, has literally ignored Parliament because it has assumed, rightly or wrongly, that this bill would be passed without any amendment, even though there is an amendment before the Committee at the present time which would radically change it.


Mr. Davis:: It would only change the name.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: As the minister of fisheries has stated, it would only change the name. I have paraphrased it correctly. When the minister says it would only change the name, this is an indication of how little importance he attaches to the name, fisheries and forestry of Canada. When one says it would only change the name, this implies that the fishing industry is only a secondary industry and of no importance. This is the very gut issue we have been debating in this House. This is the very thing we, as members from Atlantic Canada, have feared since we first saw the government reorganization bill. I really do not know what members opposite can do to bring some sense to the present government. We really are asking only that the name be changed to the department of fisheries and the environment in order to give
recognition to this primary industry which has been recognized by the statutes of Canada since confederation. By abolishing the title department of fisheries, and by not giving the name recognition, I have said before and say again that we lose all the advertising value that would accrue to this industry if the department carried the name fisheries and environment.


Mr. Hogarth:: What about forestry?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: All right. That is a very good point. I am glad to hear from one of the members sitting over there. Honestly, Mr. Chairman, I had thought that crowd had died. If the hon. member feels that way, he should move an amendment and we will support it. These members of the Liberal party-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I have the floor, if you will allow me to finish.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. With respect I think the hon. member may be dealing with the substance of the argument more than with the point of order. Of course, I will recognize him again but I would hope that after we have dealt with the procedural point of order, the Chair could rule and then we could continue with the arguments.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was answering an interruption by the hon. member for New Westminster. That is one of the fishing constituencies of British Columbia. I really believe he should express his concern on this matter rather than interrupt hon. members who are honestly trying to bring reason and order out of the chaos which has been created by the wording of this bill. I appreciate his interruption and I am willing, as I am sure my party is, to endorse the amendment which he proposed, that we should include forestry in the title of the department.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: What about forestry?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The hon. member says, what about forestry. If he moved an amendment that the title of the department should be fisheries, environment and forestry, or environment, fisheries and forestry, we on this side would support it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: What about the wildlife service?


An hon. Member:: And what about renewable
resources?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: We have had departments with lengthy titles before. We have the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and we have had departments set up in order to gratify the ambitions of one or more ministers of this government. If the hon. member wants to make it the department of environment, fisheries, forestry and renewable resources, I will say to him that we have tolerated everything else and we will tolerate that. So, I suggest to the hon. member that he go back to his own

February 17, 1971

seat and move this type of amendment so that we can get on with the business of the House.
We are as concerned with this issue, Mr. Chairman, as are members of the government, but it would appear that progress on the government reorganization bill will be slow because the government started out by mixing apples and oranges, that is, mixing all types of government changes. They put a small amount of sugar on the cake when they named the department of the environment, and of course there are no members on this side who would not like to see our environment cleaned up. We are well aware of what has happened as a result of the pollution of our environment, and we in Atlantic Canada are perhaps suffering more than any other section of the country.
For these reasons, I am pleased to endorse the point of order of the hon. member for St. John's East, and I hope my comments will help you, Mr. Chairman, in reaching a decision on this very important matter.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if I can support the point of order that has been raised. However, I am sure it will be of some concern to you, Mr. Chairman, because it indicates how far away we have come from the previous procedures of the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has to take a lot of the blame.


William Arnold Peters: Many of us have to take the blame.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is why he is so quiet.


William Arnold Peters: But I am sure that, under normal circumstances, it would be ridiculous to table the estimates of a number of departments, the names of which we proposed to change, while we were still in the position of discussing what we were going to do with these departments. Normally, a government would be willing to make some kind of arrangement. A minister would be able to say that he would accept the idea of having, for example, a department of the environment, plus forestry, plus fisheries. But that is not the way it is done any more. The civil service in this country is so strong now that it is probable the decision to make this change in the estimates was made eight or nine months ago, and now the minister is in no position to make a decision for his colleagues as to whether or not he could accept this amendment.
The point I am making is that you, Mr. Chairman, have a responsibility which I do not envy because if we, as individual Members of Parliament, have any role to play, if there is any point in our discussing the organization bill, it should be to bring forth ideas from various parts of Canada which are affected and to put forth as strongly as possible the views of the people whom we represent. Sometimes, although not often, we were able to make our points strongly enough so that cabinet members saw some merit in them. Unfortunately, I am of the opinion that we have now reached the stage at which the cabinet members cannot make the decision, even if they agree with us. The decision is made some place else. There are 100 or 200 smart young boys who run around making
Government Organization Act, 1970
these decisions to throw in pollution or environment, and the parliamentary process is no longer able to reverse them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Arnold Peters: I am sure the minister does not have such contempt for Parliament that he would decide to stop the filibuster by bringing in the estimates which annihilate the whole argument because a decision has already been reached. It is surprising that we are now faced with a fait accompli. Nowadays, Parliament is continually being faced with a fait accompli. One of my colleagues said that these situations did not arise during the Diefenbaker years when his government had a majority. The reason is very simple. The right hon. member for Prince Albert understood Parliament and understood the parliamentary process.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Arnold Peters: He could make a decision. So could other former cabinet ministers, such as C. D. Howe who made a snap decision on a piece of legislation that was before the House. He made the decision during the recess between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m., so when the members reassembled he said "we do not intend to proceed with the bill". He recognized the validity of the point that was being made and decided that the government would not proceed with the bill.
Today no cabinet minister can make such a decision. Every member here is wondering whether or not there is any point in moving a motion to change anything in the reorganization bill when we can see that the decision is a fait accompli, when we know that some smart young fellow made the decision six months ago, as is shown by the estimates. I do not say that the decision was made by departmental heads, because I have known the mandarins of the civil service long enough to know that they do not make that kind of change. Once they are used to the forestry department, they keep that department. I am sure that all the people who are in that department now have a vested interest in it and wish to keep it that way. I am sure that is the case with the fisheries department. Obviously, this decision has been made by somebody else, and I suggest that this somebody else is disregarding parliamentary procedure. Most of us, and you in particular, Mr. Chairman, will have to be concerned with whether or not there is any point in continuing our discussion on the reorganization bill if, in fact, the decision on it has already been made and is irreversible.


Mr. McCleave:: I have not had a chance to check the blue book on spending, so I do not know whether the astronomic observatories have shifted their spending program from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to the National Research Council. Perhaps one of my colleagues might look up that point while I am talking. In the meantime, I wish to make a point that has not been made so far this afternoon but which I think none the less is a germane point, namely, that Your Honour has to decide what is in a name and for what it stands. I have a very simple proposition, that it

February 17, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
would be wrong for you to accept a program which called for spending by a department of environment and fisheries because the motion to establish that department has not been decided upon by this committee.
So, we start with the fundamental proposition that it would be wrong to attempt to change the name of the department in the manner suggested by the hon. member for St. John's East without having a decision of the committee and, later, a decision of the House. That is obvious. Therefore, I suggest it is equally wrong for any minister of the Crown by his will, or suggestion to present a change of name without anybody here having the opportunity to make a decision, first in the committee and then to approve it in the whole House. Of course, here, I am leaving out the aspect of the decisions made by people in the other House, and the final step, the signature by the representative of the Queen. So, I say in that respect alone, the point of order raised by the hon. member for St. John's East is a perfectly legitimate one.
We all have our names and we all have our identifications. Until those are changed by some lawful act, and not just a statement of intention to change them, we are imprisoned within the names that we have. Sir, may I quote to you from page 58 of our rules Standing Order 58(14) dealing with the business of supply and ways and means. It reads:
In every session the main estimates to cover the incoming fiscal year for every department of government shall be referred to standing committees on or before March 1 of the then expiring fiscal year. Each such committee shall consider and shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the same back to the House not later than May 31 in the then current fiscal year.


Erik Nielsen: That is for every existing department.


Robert Jardine McCleave: That is it. The hon. member for Yukon, with that great and instant depth of knowledge that he possesses in the law, points out exactly what I am trying to say. The reference is "for every department of government." Here, we are being asked to take some whim of the man who gave us fuddle-duddle, or of the minister of fisheries. I do not know who brought this about, but we have not okayed it yet. Furthermore, we may not do so for some considerable period of time. This is a sort of Throne Speech debate without limitation. The bill has at least seven different objectives, and so we may spend some time on it. We may even go some time beyond the date of May 31, which is mentioned in the Standing Order. I suggest it is fundamental that we deal with things according to the names which they have, rather than according to the names people suggest. The hon. member for St. John's East has a perfectly valid point of order.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the point of order, I do not think there is a matter of any substance before the House. This House can place any name it wants on this department and the estimates, of course, would have to be reprinted to reflect that name. Several members opposite have raised a ghost that does not exist.
They intend to spend a lot of the time of the House debating whether they have the power to change the name of this department. Why not put it to a vote? They have already made one proposal and, as I say, the House has the power to put any name it wants on this new department.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the minister permit a question? He has the statutory responsibility at the present time of presiding over the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister tell me, as a member of this House charged with that responsibility by the people of my constituency, where in the blue book which was tabled today I can find the estimates for his Department of Fisheries and Forestry?


John (Jack) Davis: Under the heading "Environment."


Erik Nielsen: Surely, the minister is not asking the members of this committee to swallow the proposition that the government can place any name it wishes on a departmental estimate?


James Alexander Jerome: He said this House.


Erik Nielsen: This House can do so, but the Standing Order which was read by my colleague a moment ago applies to the existing Department of Fisheries and Forestry, whose estimates do not appear in the estimates that were tabled. The department of the environment is not yet in existence. Each statute establishing a department starts with the words, "There shall be a department of-" and then follows the name of the department.
So far as this committee and the House are concerned, there is no such animal as a department of the environment. Therefore, how can the minister come out now and say that the government or the House of Commons can name this department anything they please, considering the Standing Order read by my colleague? The fact is that the department of the environment is not yet in existence. The law, by virtue of our Standing Orders, requires that the estimates of each existing department be tabled. The estimates of the existing Department of Fisheries and Forestry have not been tabled, and since the department of the environment is not yet in existence the law is not being complied with. It is that simple.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask a supplementary question concerning the referral of the estimates to a particular standing committee, something which is customary. Since the government has changed the title of this department in the estimates tabled today, does it also anticipate that the present Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry will be changed to the standing committee on the environment. At the moment that standing committee is composed of ten members, whereas the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, which has been in existence long before I became a member of the House, is composed of 20 members?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer to that question is that it would be our intention to refer the estimates put forward in the blue book under the heading "Environment" to the

February 17, 1971

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. Perhaps, in my own words, I could interpret what has happened. It takes some time to prepare all these items contained in the estimates, and it was expected that this government organization legislation would have been passed by now, or certainly would have been at a more advanced stage. So, all of the items which are presently administered under Fisheries and Forestry are under the heading "Environment" in the blue book.
Anyone who reads the second page of this bill will see references to fisheries, forestry, wildlife, water, meteorology, and so on, are presently under Fisheries and Forestry, but the branches, divisions and agencies of which will be transferred to the department of the Environment if that name, as presently printed, is retained in the bill. If the amendment now before the House is accepted and the department is called fisheries and the environment, these estimates would have to be reprinted under the heading "Fisheries and the Environment".


James Aloysius McGrath: But I do not have the right to anticipate that parliament will pass my amendment.


John (Jack) Davis: I would not bet on it.


Mr. Whicher:: May I remind hon. members that although no department of environment exists as of today, it is equally true that these estimates will not take effect until April 1, 1971. They are for the period from April 1, 1971, until March 31, 1972. I know members of the opposition want to get on with the business of the House in a businesslike way, and surely they know it takes a long period of time to print a book such as the blue book. I suggest that the civil servants have been working on these estimates for almost a year and a half. Hon. members must give the government some consideration when criticizing it. In their opinion, on April 1, 1971, in other words, a little over one month from now, this new department will be called the department of the environment-


James Aloysius McGrath: The government has no right to make that change.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: If the House wishes to change the name and to say to the government, "You are wrong," this is the time to say that to the government. I suggest that we had better do it in the next five minutes, because we shall never have a better chance in our lives. The government must take the responsibility for what happens, as must this Parliament which represents the people of Canada. The House can say to the government either, yes or no. So, I say to my hon. friends to my left, we have been considering this bill for about 13 days; let us get on with the business of the House. The hon. member for South Shore said earlier that the passage of this government reorganization bill will be very slow indeed. What he did not say, but what he meant I am sure, is, "If you do not bow to our wishes." In other words, Mr. Chairman, he is threatening not only Parliament but the people of Canada, who are asking us to get on with the business of running this country.
Government Organization Act, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Let me say in conclusion that the people of Canada are not interested in the kind of nonsense that some hon. members Eire bringing forward this afternoon. Some hon. members have threatened-


An hon. Member:: That is a reflection.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: -to talk for the next 30 or 40 days if we do not do as they wish. May I remind hon. members that there are many serious problems in Canada which need to be tackled. The government wants to tackle them and we backbenchers want to tackle them. We are a little sick of arguing whether a department should be named this, that or another thing. If hon. members do not like the name that is proposed, they may bring in an amendment as they have done. But let us not talk for one week; let us have the vote and get down to business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I have not participated previously in this debate. With all respect may I say to the hon. member for Bruce, who may have imputed motives to hon. members, and may I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry as well as to the hon. member who sits muttering in his seat and who says more when sitting down than when standing up-


An hon. Member:: What is the point of the hon. member's remarks?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am coming to that. I say that the argument with respect to the point of order does not hinge on the name. It is not whether the name ought to be the department of fisheries, forestry and the environment, or the department of the environment, fisheries and forestry. That is merely the catalyst for the point of order. My hon. friend from Bruce says, "Let us go on with the business of the House; the people want Parliament to go on with the business of the country; let the committee get on with its business." I agree. Every Member of Parliament wants to carry on the business of the House and of the country, according to the laws of the land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The point of the matter is not the name that is being discussed; as I say, that was the catalyst for the point of order. If one were to follow the logic of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, as he is now called, and of the hon. member for Bruce, we might as well close shop. Since the government can anticipate the expenditure of X dollars with respect to all sorts of departments, it need not come back and ask for more money. The argument of the minister and of the hon. member for Bruce, if accepted, would tear to shreds something we know as supplementary estimates. I know, as does the hon. member for Bruce who sat in a provincial body before coming here, that the government cannot cross all the "t's" and dot all the "i's" with respect to any department's expenditures for one year. It cannot be that accurate before the production of the blue book. Provision must be made for contingencies; the depart-

February 17, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 ment, or the government, must come before parliament or a committee of the House and file supplementary estimates.
After the supply bill becomes law, and further expenditures are incurred, the departments concerned must file supplementary estimates to take care of the new expenditures. Supplementary estimates will need to be filed to take care of the additional expenditures of the new department and for contingencies with respect to the old department that were not foreseen. No one suggests that the government should not shoulder its responsibilities and not try to plan ahead. The argument has been over the name of the department. I submit that the nonsense spoken by the hon. member for Bruce, and I will put it in the best light that I can-


James Aloysius McGrath: It is naivety.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -displays a naivety about our entire constitutional framework and the way the system is supposed to work. This type of bill creates confusion. Hon. members are trying to embark on a cogent debate on the various clauses of the bill, but it deals with so many subjects that the debate, as one hon. member has said, is as wide as the Speech from the Throne. Although we have been talking on the bill for 13 days, we are still dealing with one subject matter; and we must deal with many more subject matters.
May I say that confused logic has brought about this point of order. The reason for the point of order does not lie in the name change being sought. It is the logic behind some of the answers with respect to the catalyst that brought on the point of order that disturbs me very much. If we follow those arguments to their logical conclusion, we might as well close shop and call a spade a spade. Then, I suggest that the hon. member for Bruce and other backbenchers who come here will only find that their problems have been compounded and not solved.


James Aloysius McGrath: We might as well all go home.


Steve Eugene Paproski: And the President of the Treasury had the nerve to call this a filibuster. Shame.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for St. John's East raised the point of order at the beginning of the committee discussion. I want to thank him for bringing this very important matter before the committee and to thank all hon. members who have contributed and been of assistance to the Chair. The hon. member for St. John's East and other hon. members have asked me to make a clear ruling. I do not know whether I can do that, but I shall try. I will briefly refer to a few arguments that I think are important.
It was urged very strongly on the Chair by many hon. members who spoke that the tabling of the estimates this afternoon in the form in which they are will make the acceptance of the amendment now before the committee more difficult. In essence, the amendment will add the word "fisheries" to the name in that part of the bill now being considered as set out in clause 2. I understand the argument. I agree that it will make it more difficult.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Russell Clayton Honey: I agree. From my knowledge gained in the years that I have been in this chamber, I think it will be more difficult to do that.


James Aloysius McGrath: But?


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member says, "but". I was just going to say but it is not an argument that the Chair can take into consideration when ruling on the point of order. As hon. members know, my ruling must be made in accordance with the Standing Orders, practices, procedures and authorities that we must follow in the committee. I must assume, of course, that hon. members will exercise their undoubted right to speak and vote. One of my responsibilities as Chairman of the committee is to ensure that privilege to hon. members.
I think that the debate on the point of order has been a very useful one. I must assume that hon. members, if and when the amendment comes to a vote, will, as they will on all questions relating to this bill, exercise their rights as Members of Parliament. I cannot assume, of course, that they will do otherwise, because all hon. members are anxious to protect their rights and privileges.
There is another point I wish to make. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants referred to Standing Order 58(14). Again, a cogent and logical argument was presented. It is not one that the Chair can give effect to in making the ruling, because the referral was made by the House earlier this day on division.
Another point which was urged on the Chair by the minister and the hon. member for Bruce may very well be a good argument, but certainly not one the Chair can consider. The argument is, and I am paraphrasing, that the committee has spent a long period of time on this bill and should get on with its business. That may be a good argument from a substantive point of view. I do not want to pass judgment on that. My position as Chairman, is to ensure that within the Standing Orders and the practices of the committee, hon. members have every opportunity to which they are entitled to debate this amendment, clause or any other clause in this bill.
While the arguments made by members on both sides appeal to me, I have to make my ruling on what I consider to be the legal position. I have to rule that the tabling of the estimates today should not interrupt or in any way interfere with the debate on the amendment before the Committee. I have to make that ruling.


James Aloysius McGrath: I do not know what my position is under the new rules, but it seems that Your Honour's ruling has placed the committee in a difficult, if not impossible, position. We do not have estimates for the Department of Fisheries and Forestry in front of us notwithstanding the statute, which is the law of Canada. We are discussing an amendment to the government's organization bill. The government has been presumptuous, and shown contempt, by anticipating that the House will eliminate the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. I find that this

February 17, 1971

committee is placed in a difficult, it not impossible, position. I cannot see how we can proceed.


James Alexander Jerome: Sit down then.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Sit down if you don't want to proceed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Notwithstanding the interjections made by the hon. member from his seat, which is all he has been doing since this debate started, I feel we cannot proceed as a result of Your Honour's ruling.


Russell Clayton Honey: As the hon. member for St. John's East is entitled to do, he has appealed the ruling of the Chair. My position is to state the appeal to Mr. Speaker. Will the committee now permit me to do that?


Steve Eugene Paproski: I would like to call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The Speaker is not in the Chair. At this point I have no authority.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Will you settle for 4:25, Mr. Chairman?


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if hon. members opposite are prepared to stand this clause for a moment and go on with the next clause of the bill.


William Arnold Peters: That does not follow.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are in a complete mess. Why should we wait?


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The committee has some difficulty. The hon. member has appealed the Chair's ruling to the Speaker, as he is entitled to do. The difficulty is that, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker is not in the building at this moment. He will be returning, but I have no information as to when. This is something the committee will have to decide. I express a preference when I mention the alternatives. One is that as Deputy Speaker, if the committee so wishes, I could take the Chair and rule on an appeal on my own ruling. I do not want to do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has been done before.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says it has been done before. I understand that is the case. I would do that very reluctantly. Of course, I am at the service of the committee. The alternative is to stand the matter of the ruling on the appeal as well as the amendment, by unanimous consent of the committee, and proceed with another part of the bill now under consideration by the committee. I will be pleased to hear from hon. members as to which course they wish to pursue.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the suggestion seems eminently sensible. The committee agreed yesterday that, in the absence of the minister concerned, we would not proceed with those parts of the bill until such time as he was in the House. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has explained his absence this afternoon. I suggest that we proceed with Part III of the bill, which does not involve a minister who is absent, nor does it 23966-104
Government Organization Act, 1970
involve a department whose name is being changed for which an appropriation is being entered in the estimate book, which after all are only a set of proposals as is the bill.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I submit with respect to the suggestion made by Your Honour, that Your Honour has no jurisdiction to continue the sitting any longer. The point of order having arisen pursuant to the Standing Order, the ruling which has been appealed must be put to Mr. Speaker before we can continue. Beauchesne's citation 59(4) requires Your Honour to maintain order in the committee of the whole and decide all questions of order subject to an appeal from the House. I submit that the question of order must be put to Mr. Speaker forthwith. It is very unfortunate that His Honour is not here so that this can be done. I urge upon Your Honour that the jursidiction to do anything else simply is not here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, surely we do not have to spend any time on that point of order. The hon. member for Yukon is perfectly right. The rule has to be followed unless there is unanimous consent. Either there is or there is not unanimous consent.


Russell Clayton Honey: That is the very point the Chair tried to make when I indicated that I was without jurisdiction and subsequently made suggestions. Of course, there must be unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Russell Clayton Honey: There is no unanimous consent. The committee is adjourned. I say, subject to correction, that I have no jurisdiction as chairman of this committee. As the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre have pointed out, I have lost jurisdiction unless the committee is unanimously prepared to give it to me.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No, it is not.


Russell Clayton Honey: The Chair put the question and there was no unanimous consent. I think I have lost jurisdiction, and I do not feel I should try to assume it in the absence of unanimous consent.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: On a point of order, I understand there has been an appeal from your ruling while the committee was discussing clause 2 of the bill. Subject to Mr. Speaker's ruling on that question we obviously cannot proceed on it. Do I understand, however, that because an appeal has been made on this particular point of order Your Honour has no jurisdiction to continue while the committee considers other parts of the bill which are unrelated to the point at issue? I do not think hon. members would want to say that you had no competence, or no jurisdiction to preside over this committee while it dealt with parts of the bill unrelated to the point of order or the appeal in question.

February 17, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Erik Nielsen: As to the point just raised by the President of the Treasury Board, I believe the ruling is clear. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has pointed out, in the absence of unanimous consent the committee cannot go on with any business-


An hon. Member:: No.


Erik Nielsen: I heard the word "No". I do not know where it came from.


An hon. Member:: I do.


Erik Nielsen: Unanimous consent was not forthcoming.


James Alexander Jerome: What rule is that?


Erik Nielsen: I have just shut the book and I have forgotten the number. I did quote it in my previous remarks. I do not think the committee can proceed with any business until the question has been dealt with.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I do not wish it to be thought that it was I who said no to the question asked by Your Honour in the last few minutes. I heard one of the members opposite mention my name, but I cannot recall saying "No" at that time. I would just like to have that on the record.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, since Your Honour is still in the chair and talk is still going on, I wonder if I may say a word. I trust hon. members realize that if we follow the rule, if we do not give unanimous consent to vary the practice, then Your Honour, you, the same person, will take the chair. At that point we shall have the same debate over again and Your Honour will be called upon to rule again. It will be a ruling on your own decision, and from that ruling there would be no appeal.
It would seem to me that if I were appealing this ruling-and I did not do so-I would prefer to have someone else pass judgment on it than to ask you, Mr. Chairman, to pass judgment on a ruling you, yourself had made. I would think, therefore, that those who want an appeal would be serving their best interests if they were to give unanimous consent for the House to carry on with Part III or Part IV of the bill, then come back to this question when Mr. Speaker himself is back in the chamber to hear fresh argument as to whether Your Honour, as chairman of the committee of the whole, made the correct ruling. I have some thoughts about that ruling but I shall not express them now. I just hope we can carry on.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I did not refuse unanimous consent and I want the record to show that.


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes.


James Aloysius McGrath: I am trying to facilitate the procedure of the committee and help Your Honour. There has been some difficulty in understanding the procedure. However, it has been well outlined by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I feel that what he has said is very relevant and it is my impression that if the Chair were again to ask for unanimous consent it would be forthcoming.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Russell Clayton Honey: Well, I will do that, but it will be on behalf of the committee. I have indicated my position. I think it is a correct one in accordance with our Standing Orders and practice. However, if the committee wishes me to do so, I will again ask if there is unanimous consent. In order that we may be clear on the point, I understand that if there is no dissent the committee will proceed to consideration of clause 12.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 12-National Research Council.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise only to ask whether the President of the Treasury Board, who has this institution under his jurisdiction, intends to make a statement as to the general work he proposes doing as a result of this alteration or extension of his powers. It seems to me the committee would be glad to hear him now if he has a general statement to make.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Since our examination of the bill has now been going on for some 12 days, I would hesitate to lengthen the proceedings by repeating what I had to say at the outset of the debate in relation to this particular function. I am sorry the hon. gentlemen was not here then.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In that case, the hon. gentleman will be able to recollect what I said and perhaps there is not much point in my further burdening the committee today.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Russell Clayton Honey: Is it agreed that the committee should now proceed to consider Part IV of the bill?
On Clause 14-Establishment of Ministries of State


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Part IV deals with ministries and ministers of state, and it seems to me we ought to follow the practice we have followed up to now. When we dealt with Part I, the minister-designate for the department of the environment was present. I understand that when we deal with part II the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be in attendance. Since Part IV deals with ministries and ministers of state, I think the Prime Minister should be here because it comes directly under his jurisdiction. He is the one who is to select these ministers of state. He is the person who will allocate various responsibilities to them from time to time. This is an entirely new procedure, establishing ministers of state, and it seems to me that only the Prime Minister is in a position to tell the committee why he is introducing this innovation, what are the reasons behind appointing ministers of state, why the number is to be five, and so on. There are a great many questions here which, it seems to me, with all deference to the President of the Treasury Board, do not come within his discretionary power. The Prime Minister ought to be

February 17, 1971

here for this part of the debate. If he canonot be here at this time, let us move on to another part of the bill until the Prime Minister can attend the committee and take part in the discussion.


Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Chairman, I trust I am correct in assuming that we are dealing with clause 14 in Part IV of the bill, which has to do with the appointment of ministries and ministers of state. As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has just said, the person who is responsible for explaining this part of the bill is the Prime Minister. At the moment the proceedings in the committee remind me very much of a group of children playing house. The President of the Treasury Board has not got a clue what the Prime Minister has in the back of his mind with regard to these new appointments. If he has, then perhaps he will rise in his place and tell the committee who are the appointees that the Prime Minister has in mind. Again I say, with no disrespect to the President of the Treasury Board, that the minister does not have a clue who is going to fill these places.
More important still than the actual bodies that will fill these places is the question why there are going to be filled and what the responsibilities of the appointees will be. The minister probably does not know even that. I support the suggestion of the previous speaker that this is too broad a clause for the committee to discuss unless we have before us an expert witness who can explain-


An hon. Member:: What about Lloyd?


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Well, even he cannot specify the matters in relation to which ministers must formulate and develop policies. So, with great respect, Mr. Chairman, I strongly recommend to the committee that we stand this clause and move on to another part of the bill about which we can get some factual information from some responsible person on the other side of the House. Once more may I say I mean no offence to my good friend the President of the Treasury Board.


Mr. Andre Fortin:: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the remarks of the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) as well as those of the hon. member who spoke before him, and their arguments have seemed valid to me. When one reads Part IV of the bill under consideration, the first question which comes to mind is whether the increase in the number of Ministers of State, Ministries of State and parliamentary secretaries is justified.
That part of the bill tends to increase the number of ministries, and to appoint new Ministers of State, as well as parliamentary secretaries. Why? What will be the role of those ministries? For what purpose are they established? What will be the duties of the new Ministers of State and their salaries? Why appoint more Ministers of State? What justification is there for creating a chief executive officer's position?
Government Organization Act, 1970
Mr. Chairman, those are questions that we of the opposition are asking ourselves. If, to speed up our discussion, we attempt to refer to that same Part IV so as to find answers to questions which are essential ones-since they concern the expenditures of public funds-the only thing to do is to read section 21 entitled "Duties of Minister". The duties of those ministers will be the following and I quote:
In addition to the powers, duties and functions specified in the proclamation establishing a Ministry of State, the powers, duties and functions of the Minister for that Ministry extend to and include such other matters as are assigned or transferred to the Minister or the Ministry by or pursuant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, that is extremely vague, it does not specify anything, does not justify anything.
Before ascribing intentions to the government, we would be grateful if it gave us, through the sponsor of this bill, a justification for Part IV, otherwise we will have to object at least to that part of the bill.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, with reference to the point just made by the leader of my party with regard to this particular section of the bill, in view of the fact that just before we reached this Part we had been making very rapid progress and actually passed a complete Part of the bill-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: One clause.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -the complete Part III of the bill-and in view of the fact that it does not appear the Prime Minister is in the chamber, I am wondering whether this might not be the appropriate point for the committee to revert to Part II of the bill and deal with the matter raised in connection with the ruling of the Chair.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, far be it from me to interfere with the smooth operations of this committee. If there is an opportunity for a decision to be rendered, I would be quite pleased to continue the next thrilling episode of my remarks at a later stage; but until that is the situation I will proceed with the few remarks I have to make on clauses 14 and 15.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but I still want to raise the question whether or not the Prime Minister is going to be here. We can discuss clause 14 and the hon. member can make his speech, but surely we ought to know from the President of the Treasury Board, who is piloting this section of the legislation through the committee of the whole, whether the Prime Minister will attend the committee at some stage when the committee is discussing both Part IV, which has to do with ministries and ministers of state, and Part V, which has to do parliamentary secretaries.
I do not want to repeat what I said before but these are matters coming strictly within the purview of the Prime Minister of Canada. There is a very little value in our simply talking to ourselves in this committee; we should

February 17, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
be able to ask the man who is advancing these ideas, and who will be exercising the very extensive powers we are being asked to give him, what use he intends to make of them. If we are not to make a farce of this committee, if we are not to make it some little debating society held in the corner while the Prime Minister and other ministers go about their business, then surely the Prime Minister ought to be here.
I do not intend to urge that we do not proceed at all, but I am saying that none of the clauses in this Part IV should be passed until the Prime Minister is here either to make a statement or to answer questions and give the committee of the whole some information regarding the reasons for the very extensive and unusual powers he is asking Parliament to vest in him. For that reason, I hope before the hon. member for Peace River continues the President of the Treasury Board will indicate whether we will have the advantage of the Prime Minister's presence at some time while these two parts of the legislation are being discussed.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. If it meets with the approval of hon. members of the committee the Chair might now take the appeal to Mr. Speaker. Is that generally agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair, and the Chairman of the Committee made the following report:
Mr. Speaker, the question is an appeal oi a decision of the Chairman of the committee of the whole under the provisions of Section (4) of Standing Order 55 as follows:
When clause 2 of Bill C-207, an Act respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, was being considered in the committee of the whole at yesterday's sitting, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) proposed an amendment as follows:
"That clause 2 of Bill C-207 be amended by striking out the words 'Department of the Environment' where they first appear, immediately after clause 1 on page 1 thereof, and substituting therefor the words 'Department of Fisheries and the Environment'.
When the committee resumed at this day's sitting, the hon. member for St. John's East raised a point of order as to the procedural position of the proposed amendment in view of the tabling this day of estimates covering the department of environment, which Part I of Bill C-207 would establish.
The Chairman ruled that the amendment had been proposed in accordance with the usages and practices of the House, and that in relation thereto the tabling of the estimates had no procedural effect on proceedings on the proposed amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If it meets with the approval of the House, the Chair is prepared to hear argument from hon. members before making a determination or ruling in respect of the hon. member's appeal.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rose on the point of order which is the subject of the appeal to Your Honour because I felt then, as I do now, that hon. members of the whole House have been placed in a difficult if not impossible position by virtue of the fact that the government has proceeded to give effect to

what was heretofore merely a proposal to set up the new department of environment.
In connection with the amendment to Bill C-207, I suggested that the proposed name, the department of environment, be changed to the department of fisheries and the environment. My amendment was moved before the estimates for the fiscal year 1971-72 were tabled in the House today. These estimates indicate that the government has anticipated how the committee would react to the proposals set out in Bill C-207. I maintain that the government has no right to anticipate Parliament in this manner, just as I have no right to anticipate that the House or the committee might accept my amendment.
I submit to you, Your Honour, that I might have assumed my amendment would be accepted by the committee and taken steps to put this into effect. I have the same rights and responsibilities in this House as the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), or any other member of the House whether he sits in the treasury benches or elsewhere.
The rights of this House are at stake, and my point of order is simply that the committee of the whole has been placed in an impossible position because of action taken by the government. Obviously, members who sit on the government side of the House will oppose my amendment because the estimates tabled today by the government constitute or represent a clear instruction to supporters of the government as to how they should vote in respect of my amendment.
For those reasons I raised this point of order when the House went into the committee of the whole today to resume consideration of Bill C-207. I might point out that the government could have proceeded in the normal manner by bringing in supplementary estimates if, in fact, the House gave authority to the government to set up the new department of environment. The government could then proceed with the consideration of supplementary estimates are supposed to be reported to the House in government.
The second point I should like to bring to Your Honour's attention is that we are now in the midst of a debate which will substantially change the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. Not only will that department be changed in name but also in substance. As a result of this measure, we will be creating a whole new department which will take in the old Department of Fisheries and Forestry. In this connection, I should like to raise another point for your consideration. I am placed in a difficult position, as are other hon. members of the House, by virtue of the fact that nowhere in the estimates tabled today can we find estimates in respect of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. After all, this is still a department of this government by the law of this land. These estimates are supposed to be reported to the House in accordance with orders of this House and the laws of this country.
For these reasons, I submit to you, as I submitted to the committee, that members of the committee have been placed in an impossible position in considering my amendment. This is the result of action the government
February 17, 1971

has taken in tabling estimates and by anticipating that the House would support the government rather than my amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is another of those questions which is in part substance and in part procedure. It is always difficult to separate the two in respect of questions of this kind. This is a difficulty I face as well, but I shall try to relate the main portion of my remarks to the procedure rather than the substance.
On the point of the substance, may I express complete agreement with my hon. friend who has just taken his seat, and with other members on this side of the House, regarding the way in which the government has, time and time again, presented Parliament with a fait accompli. This blue book tabled today contains many matters of policy which we now realize have been settled. Far too much of our time is spent in dealing with matters already determined before they reach us. I do not like this and I do not think it is good for Parliament. I think the government should lean over backwards to avoid this kind of thing.
I agree with my friend that it is particularly offensive that the estimates should have been tabled today during a debate on the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) yesterday, because these estimates indicate that the matter has already been decided. There is going to be a department of environment and there is no chance that the amendment will carry. As I say, I find that offensive, and this is a practice which is indulged in far too often. I do not like it.
You have been called back into the Chair, however, not to listen to our grievances against the government, for you are well aware of them. You have been called back into the Chair to rule on a point of order. Specifically, you are asked to rule whether the Chairman of the committee of the whole was correct in the ruling he made an hour or so ago. I rise in that respect to urge you to confirm the ruling of the Chairman. What did he rule? He ruled, Mr. Speaker, that the tabling today of the book of estimates does not alter the position of the amendment moved yesterday by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). He ruled that we may still debate that amendment and may have a free vote on it. That free vote may be meaningless on the government side but that is a point of argument which may be used in the debate. I confess, however, to some mystification concerning why my hon. friend from St. John's East appealed the ruling. The ruling was on his side. It was to the effect that the tabling of the blue book of estimates today with its reference to the department of the environment made no change.
I was a little surprised yesterday that there was not a procedural argument about the amendment. The Chairman gave the government side the opportunity to bring forward procedural argument if members on that side wished to do so. They did not. The Chairman ruled the
Government Organization Act, 1970 amendment was in order and was properly before the House. The only kind of point of order that would upset things today would be a point of order against the propriety of the amendment before us. But the Chairman of the committee of the whole ruled today that the amendment he ruled in order yesterday is still in order, is still debatable, and that we still have the right to vote on it. It would seem to me that my friends to the right have not completely comprehended the situation when they appeal against a ruling which really is on their side.
While I am on my feet may I just express the hope that, since the spokesmen for the government side have already indicated there is still complete freedom to vote for the amendment, some of them over there will prove that freedom by voting for it when the vote comes.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we in the Ralliement creditiste are in agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
First of all, we deeply regret-and we have said so many times-that the government goes ahead without taking into account the decisions of Parliament. We feel that in doing so it violates the rights and privileges long ago secured by Parliament.
On the other hand, the fact that we now have to call on your expertise is due to a number of things and mainly to the publication of a Blue Book which took place simultaneously with the presentation of an amendment aimed at changing the name of a department.
Now, the Blue Book just published by the government anticipates evidently on the vote of the House. The normal conclusion is that our present debate is an exercise in futility, not as it concerns the ability of Your Honour, but the substance of the argument.
I feel that the decision of the committee chairman was valid-we want him to know that we do not deny his ability-and, accordingly, we suggest that your good judgment and good offices should serve Parliament, protect the rights of the members and take into consideration the proceedings of the House.
This is one-sided legislation that anticipates on the decisions of Parliament, that scoffs at the views expressed by the opposition members and at their work, allegedly because whatever comes from the opposition is bad.
Mr. Speaker, you will no doubt forgive this remark issuing from a deep sense of frustration: "If this is Parliament, it is only a joke!" If Parliament is indeed the place where legislation is made, account should be taken of the Standing Orders which provide that all hon. members, whatever their political allegiances, must be allowed to contribute to the debates and legislation.
This is why, Mr. Chairman, we rely on your ability and hope that your ruling will be in favour of Parliament and not of the government.

February 17, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is not the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who is confused concerning the point of order he raised but obviously the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who did not fully comprehend the purpose of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, I did.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for St. John's East is not complaining about the fact that his amendment is accepted and is before us for debate. To clear up the mystification of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre with regard to the appeal by the hon. member for St. John's East, what he is complaining about, and what he complained about before the Chairman of the committee of the whole, was not the fact that his amendment was accepted but rather the fact that the government, having already made the decision that the new department of the environment was to be created, in fact has denied this committee the opportunity to make a free decision concerning the name of that department.
The evidence that the government has made the decision lies in the tabling of the estimates today. During the debate on the point of order, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) referred to Standing Order (14) which reads as follows:
In every session the main estimates to cover the incoming fiscal year for every department of government shall be referred to Standing Committees on or before March 1-
The rule continues. The important words are "the main estimates to cover the incoming fiscal year for every department of government". These words obviously refer to a department of government in existence. The government having made the decision to table its estimates in the form in which they have been tabled, designating the new department of the environment, leaves us with the situation that the department has in fact been named.
While the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says we are not precluded from debating the amendment moved by the hon. member we are, in fact, precluded as a committee from making a free decision on that amendment. The decision has been made and this shows the government's utter contempt for Parliament and parliamentary procedures. The government has made the decision, so any debate concerning the name or the amendment of the hon. member for St. John's East is an absolute exercise in futility. The fact is that the law as evidenced by the Standing Orders of this House requires the government to table estimates of the departments in existence. The government has done that and, in doing so, has changed the name. That is the essence of the complaint of my friend; that is, the function of this committee has been usurped by the government. That was the point of his appeal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As hon. members know, the Chair, under the rules and practice, has the power to call a halt to the advice which is being given to the Chair. I would think I have heard quite enough at this point to
reach a decision and give a ruling but at the same time, since this is an important matter, I would not like hon. members to think they have been deprived of their rights to enlighten the Chair, which does require enlightenment from day to day. I notice there are a few hon. members who still wish to take part in the debate and I will hear them provided they do it as briefly and succinctly as possible.
s (5:10 p.m.)


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I will just take a minute if that is possible. As I understand it, the hon. member who challenged the ruling suggested the government had gone over the head of Parliament by naming in the blue book the department of the environment instead of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. May I respectfully point out that everything in this blue book is an estimate or an anticipation. These figures in the blue book are not facts; they are simply estimates on which the government has instructed civil servants to work a year and a half ago and which it has brought here to Parliament. Now, parliament has the opportunity on every single estimate in that blue book to change those figures. We have the right to do it. May I respectfully point out that we also have the right at any time to change the name of a department, and if perchance Parliament decides that there should be no department of the environment, all we have to do this afternoon is to vote against it. We could vote against it at any other time that a responsible motion is brought forth to change the name of any department.
The hon. member suggested that the blue book was brought in here as a completely factual document. May I respectfully point out that the budget figures in the estimates are for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1972. This book, in reality, is dated April 1, 1971, and in anticipation of April 1, 1971, the government has named this department the department of the environment. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the opposition, that the government has in no way interfered with the power of Parliament. We have the right to do as we wish today, tomorrow or any day in the future.


Paul Yewchuk: I will be very brief in my comments. I just want to reiterate, in a slightly different way, what has already been suggested by other hon. members. What strikes me about the tabling of the estimates today in relation to the debate that is going on is that it makes the debate appear to be a complete hoax. It indicates that the government has made a decision on the result of the vote and there is no question in my mind that the tabling of the book with the change in name to the department of the environment will have a definite influence on how government members will vote on the amendment put forward by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I think, therefore, that the government should have either withheld the tabling of these estimates until the vote was carried out and the bill was passed, or they should withdraw them now and bring back the blue book containing the present name of the department.

February 17, 1971


Gerald William Baldwin: May I take advantage of your generous suggestion, Mr. Speaker, to make a brief contribution I am moved to do this by the eloquent remarks of the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) who had in mind the conditions which existed in earlier days. If Your Honour were to follow through what happens to these estimates in the standing committees and when they come back to the House, he would recognize that we are in fact inhibited in making any amendments. The only amending procedure would be by a substantive motion brought by a private member in the form of a public bill which, as Your Honour knows, has a great chance of being voted upon. Otherwise, I do not see how amendment would be possible. What has happened has been that blue book of estimates, brought in with a message from His Excellency, has merged the estimates with the existing statutes. There is, therefore, no chance or opportunity for a member of the House under the present practice to amend them. Under Standing Order 14, the estimates are peremptorily referred to the committees. If consideration is not completed by a certain date, they are assumed to be completed.
How can any member of the House, acting as a member of a particular committee which is dealing with this issue, move to change the name of the department? When the estimates come back to the House for final passage before May 31, how is it possible in the limited debate which is available to members of the House for any member to make a motion which would successfully bring before the House the opportunity to divide on this issue? At one time the rules of the House made this possible, but if the issue is that any member of this House is preempted from attempting in any way to put back the name of the department as has been suggested by the hon. member for St. John's East, then he has lost that opportunity. His amendment is overshadowed and merged because of the particular action on the part of the government at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does the hon. member want His Honour to rule that the Chairman was wrong and that the committee of the whole cannot now proceed with the amendment of the hon. member for St. John's East?


Gerald William Baldwin: I hesitate to do this. His Honour is well versed in this issue and I would hesitate to suggest to him what decision he should make. It would be wrong for me to do so.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: There is just one question which I would like to pose to Your Honour. Would the government have taken this action had there been a minority government?


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their contributions to this interesting debate. I might say at the outset that I will not attempt to reply to the question posed by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell). It is certainly beyond the very limited responsibility of the
Government Organization Act, 1970
Chair which is simply to rule on the procedural aspect of the matter before the House.
I have before me the report which came from the Chairman of the committee of the whole by way of an appeal under Standing Orders. I see that the Chairman ruled that the amendment had been proposed in accordance with the usages and practices of the House and in relation thereto. As has been suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the point is, from a procedural standpoint, that an amendment was proposed by the hon. member for St. John's East and there was some question as to whether or not it was in order. The Chairman of the committee of the whole ruled that the proposed amendment was in order.
From a procedural standpoint the question now is whether the tabling of the estimates today has the result of making the amendment no longer correct procedurally because, let us not forget, this is the only point on which the Speaker or the Chairman can rule. The point raised by the hon. member for St. John's East, and by some of his colleagues in the House, may be very valid from a substantive point of view. There may be something morally wrong about tabling estimates which assume that an amendement proposed by an hon. member in the course of a debate is not going to be accepted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: At the same time, this relates much more to the aspect of tabling the estimates than to the procedural aspect of the amendment before us. The Chairman has ruled that the amendment is in order and that its procedural acceptability is not affected in any way by the tabling of the estimates, that Parliament as an institution is free to consider it objectively and to decide on it without relation to the tabling of the estimates or what may be in those estimates.
It seems to me that this ruling is a very fair one, and I would hesitate at this stage to say that the Chairman's decision should be overruled. I must come to the conclusion that I agree with the Chairman of the committee of the whole, and I am in full agreement also with the reasons he gave in support of his ruling.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now resume the committee of the whole.
And the House having resumed in committee:


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Order. When the committee's deliberations were interrupted we were on clause 14.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Are we
reverting back now to Part I, clause 2, which is what we were on when the ruling of the previous Chairman was appealed?
February 17, 1971

Government Organization Act, 1970


Jean-Thomas Richard: Is it the committee's wish to revert to clause 2?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 2-Short title.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Is the committee ready for the question?


Mr. Peddle:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be accused of perpetrating or furthering a filibuster-


An hon. Member:: You used the word.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: -but there are a few remarks I would like to make before this bill passes into eternity. First, I notice the list of the various ministers of the various departments. It is significant that it contains a Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Order.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I am speaking very much to the amendment, and I will link this up, as the lawyers say. There is also a Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and a Minister of Agriculture. Here are represented three of our great primary industries. What would be the reaction of hon. members who represent agricultural areas if the Department of Agriculture were to be renamed the department of the environment? The same question applies to members who represent great mining areas if that minister became minister of the environment.
I must support the amendment of my colleague from St. John's East, but I would like to go even further. It would create the department of environment and fisheries, but that would take away from another great segment of our economy, the forestry industry. Hon. members may ask what is in a name, and I think of Shakespeare, who said, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. But that is poetic nonsense in relation to this situation. There is a lot in a name. People on Madison Avenue spend millions of dollars trying to come up with names that will be acceptable and appealing to the public.
When the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry becomes the minister of the environment he will be known to a lot of people in Canada as the minister of pollution, or the minister of pollution control. I am not trying to be funny, but I do not want to see our great fishing industry on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts linked directly with a department of pollution. I know that pollution control is essential to the survival of our fisheries, but I cannot agree to linking our fisheries with pollution. It has also been suggested that the name be the department of environment, fisheries and forestry, or in short EFF, and that would be the first three letters of effluent.
For the first time in many years, the department of fisheries has gained great respect not only in my province but in all provinces that have a fishing industry. I travel quite a bit in my province and I know that finally the people are beginning to have a respect for the depart-

ment. But I point out that there are thousands of men engaged in the fishing industry, and I am not reflecting on them in any way, who do not even know the meaning of the word "environment". Unless the minister can come up with some solid, sensible reasons, supporting the proposed name dreamt up by somebody in a back office, I do not want to jeopardize our valuable fishing industry by having it directly linked with a department that has the responsibility for dealing with pollution.
To suggest that the same department of government which deals with air pollution in the cities of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver should have control over the fishery in Placentia Bay, or any other fishery on the Atlantic or Pacific coasts, does not make much sense. In my own riding I have mines, a little agriculture, and a good deal of the fishing industry. There is also some forestry. These basic, primary industries fully merit continuation of recognition in the name of the department that deals with them. I think, whether we like it or not, if the bill goes through as it is, it will dilute the effectiveness of this department and the reputation that it has gained. So, the minimum that I could possibly accept is my colleague's amendment asking for the name to be changed to the department of the environment and fisheries.
I am not overly concerned about the forestry part of it. Although that is a very great responsibility, I think that not too long ago the minister assumed responsibility for forestry matters. Before that, I think that the department was known simply as the department of fisheries. Now, in one fell swoop, the name is to be changed to the department of the environment. That name will be completely without meaning for thousands and thousands of Canadians who are engaged in the fishing industry. I do not see any necessity for it, Mr. Chairman. If there is to be a change in the name, the new name ought to reflect the department's concern with the fishing industry.
I am concerned about what will happen if we just adopt this blanket name, "the department of the environment". Let us consider what might happen if something similar were to be done with the department of agriculture. It might not be so important with respect to the department dealing with mines. We must remember that when we deal with fisheries and agriculture, we are dealing with food products. I do not think I need to remind hon. members how sensitive and how "finicky" people are in their choice of these products. I do not think I need to go into that matter at all. We accept the idea that one of the main functions of the department of the environment will be the controlling of pollution. I am very much afraid that the adoption of the new name, as contained in the bill, will in some way be reflected in our markets for this food product, fish. I will say this: I much prefer the present name of the department. I am not being too conservative when I say that there is no reason for not retaining the name "Department of Fisheries and Forestry". It is a good name and the department has a good reputation in Canada and internationally.


Mi
*
February 17, 1971

I understood that soon the minister is to go to Moscow and talk about conservation measures. He has made his appointment to go as the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. God knows what may happen to him in Moscow if he turns up as the minister of the environment; we don't know. However, that is just a small consideration. I see nothing to be ashamed of in the name of that department. It is a good, sincere and honest name that reflects the industries the department is supposed to promote and encourage. There is nothing wrong with it. I should hate to think that the minister personally regarded the words "fisheries" or "fish" as words with stigmas attached to them; I would not like to think that, although what is happening almost makes one think that such might be the case.
I remember when I was campaigning in my riding an old gentleman in the port of White Bay dragged out a copy of the local St. John's paper; he looked at a picture on the front page showing the Prime Minister with a big rose in his teeth and he said, "Old man, the smell of cod fish would very likely make him sick." That is a bit of a joke. I would not doubt that that is the case with the Prime Minister, but I should hate to think that the minister of fisheries, who has begun to gain a reputation in this field, feels this way. If he wants to be known as the minister of the environment, he will never have the support of my vote. The minimum that I shall accept is that the name of the department shall contain the word "fisheries", to reflect an industry that means so much to so many of us.


Mr. Cyr:: Mr. Chairman, if I take part in the debate on this amendment, it is certainly not because I intend to filibuster, as it has been done in committee of the whole in the past few days, but to correct certain statements made by my hon. friend from Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan).
The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate stated, as recorded at page 3463 of Hansard and I quote:
When Bill C-207 becomes legislation-over the dead bodies of those who are concerned about the fishing industry in Canada, we will represent the only part of Canada which has no department of fisheries-Then we come to the province of Quebec where there is a minister of fisheries-
Mr. Chairman, for the information of the members of this committee, I wish to point out to them that the province of Quebec has no minister of fisheries and that the fishing industry, in Quebec, comes under the Minister of Industry and Commerce, the hon. Gerard-D. Levesque.
Furthermore, it must be noted that Quebec is the only province of Eastern Canada that has full jurisdiction over its fisheries, except for inspection, and this, since 1922, and that it has no department of Fisheries.
The fishing industry, in Quebec, is as prosperous and flourishing as in the Atlantic provinces. The Gaspe fishermen draw a higher income per capita than the fishermen in Newfoundland.
Government Organization Act, 1970
The government of Canada, a few years ago, combined the Department of Fisheries and that of Forestry, and without a department of Fisheries, much more has been done for the fishing industry, in Canada, in recent years, under the clever management of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, the member for Capilano (Mr. Davis). You will agree with me that it would be too long to list now all of the legislation introduced in this chamber by the minister, over the past three years.
That the Act be entitled "Department of the Environment" or "Department of Fisheries and Environment", Canadian fishermen, particularly those from Gaspe, do not care at all.
Mr. Chairman, may I say that, should the fishermen from my district as well as from other areas in eastern Canada, who want to earn their living honestly and energetically, see what has been going on in the House in the last few days, they would be very disappointed with the position taken by some members of the opposition who claim to be concerned about the plight of Canada's fishermen, while, through their illogical-and even valueless-speeches, and through their childish behaviour, they delay the nation's business.
Mr. Chairman, there is not only Quebec-


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member who is now speaking is imputing motives to the members of this committee who participated in this debate. He is accusing us of holding up the business of the committee.


Mr. Bechard:: That is what you are, in fact, doing.


James Aloysius McGrath: I point out to Your Honour, and for the edification of the hon. member who just took his seat, that we have spent less than four hours on this very important part of the bill. 1 also point out that this is an omnibus bill containing seven distinct bills. I submit that the hon. member should be glad we are at least spending a proportionate period of time on this very important aspect of the bill coming, as he does, from a fishing constituency.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: The hon. member who just spoke said yesterday, in his closing remarks to the Chair, that he would speak on this bill until ice or snow would cover hell.


Some hon. Members:: Oh oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: That is exactly what he said, and that is a long time.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Even though it is snowing now, it has not done that.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order,
please.

February 17, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 [Translation]


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Chairman, I can say that the fishermen of eastern Canada are not too much concerned with the titles of legislative measures. Action is more important to them and this is even truer with the minister and the cabinet we have had in Ottawa to govern the country over the past few years.
I furthermore wish to point out that the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate states that British Columbia also has its department of Fisheries. Well, I hear that British Columbia has no such department but that the fisheries are the responsibility of the Department of Recreation and Conservation in that province.
I do not wish to delay unduly the business of the committee, but I feel like those who spoke in the House last night that the motion of the hon. member for Saint John's East is not valid under the circumstances, and I am therefore requesting the co-operation of all the members of this committee so that we may proceed with the vote immediately.


John Howard Lundrigan: Before the next member is recognized, I wish to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Gaspe on his tremendous research. I would like to ask his co-operation when I am preparing the elaborate speech I will make at some time. The hon. member has done a lot of research and is to be congratulated.


Robert Jardine McCleave: There is a very short answer to the interjection made a few moments ago by the hon. member for St. Boniface. It is a matter of how far we have to proceed in making the very important point that the ministry of fisheries should not be abolished in the interests of insensitive technocracy. That is the point we are trying to make.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: The fact that we made our point in four or five hours is an indication of the warmth that we have for the subject. It does not indicate that we are achieving the goal. The one who can indicate that is the minister of fisheries.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I made a mistake a few minutes ago. I would like to correct the situation-

I wish to quote the last sentence of the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's East as reported at page 3458 of Hansard:
I want the minister to know that we are prepared to hold up this part of the bill until hell freezes over.
I used the wrong word when I said "snow". I want to rectify that.
[The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard).]


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member has quoted correctly. We are in a position where we have to be very sure of the strange words that intrude into our debate. However, the hon. member did state the essence of what the hon. member of St. John's East had said. This is such an important point that we make no apology for raising it and for persisting in it. A member from the government side has now talked about the importance of fisheries. That is an important gain from our standpoint. We now have some recognition from a member opposite. He sees the point we have been trying to make.
Is the minister of fisheries rejecting the request of the hon. member for St. John's East that this new department be renamed the department of environment and fisheries? Is it as simple as that, or does the minister think there should be more argument? Possibly we could hear the minister's answer. After all, debate is supposed to be the essence of this place. It is so rare that we get into committee of the whole many of us lose our debating instincts. What bothers the minister about renaming the department the department of the environment and fisheries?


James Aloysius McGrath: It does not change the bill.


Robert Jardine McCleave: It does not change the bill. Perhaps it will strengthen it when the minister is dealing with the spending part for fisheries. I think that is important.
What will make the department of the environment work is the fact that the government will appoint the member for Capilano as the minister. This man commands the respect of members of the opposition. He worked diligently as minister of fisheries and has very definite ideas about pollution. Because of this, the government is lumping together all these factors into this change. The danger is that one member on the government side is qualified to combine a war on pollution with the problem of administering the department of fisheries, and "the government is creating the department of environment which will take advantage of those talents. I am very serious in making this argument. I talked about this before when I referred to the schizophrenic aspects of what the minister is up against. I do not want to make a personal argument or an argument directed ad hominum at the legislation. I prefer not to be in that position. The reason that this organization bill has been introduced and the reason fisheries is being swallowed up in this new department of the environment is the minister. I cannot think of any other reason.
If we were starting this country over again and knew the subjects to be assigned, but did not know the qualifications of a group of men, we might think of renewable resources as befitting a minister. The farmers, fishermen and foresters-would come under that department because they deal with renewable resources. Mining, energy, steel and other inanimate forces would come under another department. However, this is not the way the reorganization is being carried out at this time. The minister may say that environment is one concept and
February 17, 1971

fisheries is a slightly different concept. Perhaps they are so much so that one should really not be submerged in the other. I have not dealt with that aspect up until this time. This is the point in reorganization.
The minister is being told now to take his portfolio of fisheries to the new department. Because he happens to have a lot of experts in that department who have dealt somewhat with the war on pollution, this is the logical place to set up a department of the environment. There is no other department which has so much expertise in it as the department of fisheries to form a department of the environment. I say that, but one year from now, or two or three years from now, what sort of computer approach will be used to form government departments? For the life of me I cannot figure it out. When you have illogical processes at work special attention from the House of Commons is demanded. It is illogical, and other persons are agreeing with me that it is illogical, that on the one hand you should have a person who is interested in the exploitation of renewable natural resources, that is, fish, and on the other hand you have been saying that the water resources of this country should be treated in such and such a way or that there is a war going on against pollution. I say it is a tug of war within the mind of any one person to have to accept what, to me, are conflicting duties and responsibilities. That is why we are making no apologies for doing our best to at least get the "environment and fisheries" into this name, to recognize that there are in essence two departments involved here. Then, hopefully, in good time, we shall do something to carry that measure of achievement a lot further.


James Aloysius McGrath: Some of the concern we have expressed is apparently well-founded. I refer members of the committee to what are supposed to be the estimates of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry in the new blue book tabled today for 1971-72 under "environment". It appears to me that the downgrading process has already begun. We find it difficult at first glance to say exactly what the position of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry is with respect to government plans for the coming fiscal year.
The reason is that the primary responsibilities of the minister in his proposed new department of the environment will relate to pollution and related subjects-clean water, the management of the Canada Water Act, the setting up of water management boards and so on. All these activities will be the primary task of the minister who, if this legislation passes, will become the minister of the environment. This is what the present debate is all about. This is what my amendment is all about.
We are not asking the government to change the act in any way. On the contrary, we support what the government is doing. We support the creation of a department charged with protecting the environment. We repeat that the logical minister to be given this responsibility is the minister of fisheries because he already has the expertise within his department by virtue of the provisions of the
Business of the House
Fisheries Act. All we want to do is ensure that our fears as to the downgrading of the fisheries responsibility will not be borne out as a result of the establishment of the new department. We are trying to take out insurance by putting the word "Fisheries" into the name of the new department. I fail to understand why the government cannot accept this amendment. It does not change anything, but it satisfies us that the government's intentions with regard to the department of fisheries are honourable. Among the many folksongs of Newfoundland there is one which is known as "I'se the boy that builds the boat." I am sure the minister is familiar with it. The first verse goes:
I'se the boy that builds the boat
I'se the boy that sails her
I'se the boy that catches the fish
And brings them home to Lisa
It is poor Lisa that I am concerned about. I am concerned lest there be no fish for Lisa and no fishermen to catch the fish. The minister knows we are concerned about conservation. This is a matter which has been earnestly and honestly dealt with by my hon. friend from Gander-Twillingate on many occasions. We are concerned about the depletion of our fish stocks and the overexploitation of our fisheries resources. We have urgently called attention to the need to obtain a meaningful agreement with the countries which fish off our shores on a sustained yield basis. But we fear that when this new department of the environment is set up the fisherman fishing off St. Mary's, or the bill of Cape St. George, or off the west coast of Canada, will be lost in the shuffle. There will be no one to look after him or to take a special interest in the difficulties he faces notwithstanding the fact that the Parliament of Canada under our constitution has a special responsibility with respect to the administration of the fisheries. It is not a provincial authority. The authority which the federal government and Parliament has given to the provinces is a designated one. This field is really under the sole jurisdiction of the government and the Parliament of Canada and it is in the exercise of this responsibility that we have put forward our amendment.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
Progress reported.
* * &



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. McCuicheon:: May I ask the leader of the House what goodies will be served up to us tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We shall remove the current menu. We shall interrupt the filibuster and give hon. members opposite a little rest. Tomorrow, we shall call the bill dealing with veterans affairs and the bill dealing with

February 17, 1971
Business of the House
the Crop Insurance Act. Perhaps this will put everybody into a better frame of mind and we shall return to the present bill with greater readiness to get on and pass it.


An hon. Member:: Just accept our amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now that we are all in a good frame of mind, will the minister also tell us what we shall be doing on Friday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I cannot tell the hon. member right now. I am dependent upon what happens tomorrow and on the results of consultations with my colleagues and other House Leaders.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the minister for such an honest answer.
At 6.02 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, February 18, 1971