1971-04-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask leave to move a motion on a matter of major significance and timeliness. It is prompted by the failure of the government to convey to the United States government its views on the TAPS oil tanker route. In order that the interests of the people of Canada may find expression, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That this House formally oppose the TAPS oil tanker route proposal as an unwarranted and unacceptable threat to the ecological rights and economic interests of Canada; and this House instructs the Secretary of State for External Affairs to transmit the above resolution to the Secretary of State of the United States of America, and since the protection of ecological heritage is increasingly the concern of the international community, that a copy be also transmitted to the Secretary General of the United Nations.


Mr. Speaker:: As the House knows, a motion under Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: wish to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether there is anything he can report to the House briefly by way of progress with regard to the difficulties on the railways and, specifically, whether he can report any favourable developments with regard to the avoidance of a strike by the engineers on Monday?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I was in touch this morning with the Minister of
Labour who is personally involved in the negotiations doing his utmost to avoid a strike that would, without any question, do great damage to the economy. He reported to me, and I use his own words: "The negotiations are proceeding slowly but satisfactorily."


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact that there has already been a withdrawal of services by engineers in the western part of Canada which is already doing grave damage to the economy, particularly in the west, has the government acted on the suggestion made in the House yesterday that an approach be made to the engineers who have withdrawn their services to return to work in the expectation that the whole problem will be resolved along the optimistic lines reported by the Minister of Labour?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I recall his intervention in the House recently, the Minister of Labour said he had made such an appeal.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that is the way I remember it, but I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether, in view of the potentially drastic damage that may be done to the economy if a strike does develop on Monday, and particularly if it continues for any length of time, is the government at this point simply counting on the fact that a settlement will take place on Monday, or is the government giving any consideration to keeping the House on hand over the weekend in the event that it may become desirable, in the view of the government, in light of all considerations to consult the House and to present measures to the House with regard to what might become a real tragedy in view of the amount of unemployment that already exists in the country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would agree with me that it is better for negotiations to proceed without their being any threat of government action. Therefore I hope the Leader of the Opposition was not serious in suggesting that the work of the Minister of Labour and of the other conciliators should be subject to being interrupted or put at a disadvantage by the threat of government action.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all of us wish the Minister of Labour well in his endeavours to bring about a voluntary settlement between the railways and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. In view of the statement that has just been made by the Acting Prime Minister, and in view of the great concern across the country, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he will undertake to make a statement in the House if there are any favourable developments today?

April 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Nothing would give me greater pleasure, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister.
As to the 56,000 non-operating employees, the newspapers report that the improved job security program provides better additional benefits against unemployment.
Could the Acting Prime Minister tell us if this part of the regulations means that in case of unemployment, there will be different benefits than those provided by the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take that as notice. I do not get the import of the hon. member's question.



IMPENDING STRIKE BY LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS-EFFECT ON PROVINCIAL ECONOMIES

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask the Acting Prime Minister if he would assure the House that the grave concern of the governments of various provinces, including the province of Prince Edward Island, is fully appreciated in light of the tragedy which would befall the economies of several provinces, especially Prince Edward Island, if the present embargo on perishable goods should continue for any length of time because of the labour situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that the government is very much aware of this situation. This is the reason why it is bending every effort to get a voluntary settlement and why the Minister of Labour is absent from the House today, engaged in these very delicate negotiations.



IMPENDING STRIKE BY LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS-GOVERNMENT ACTION-REPLY TO SASKATCHEWAN LEGISLATURE RESOLUTION

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, as these railway engineers have not had a contract for a year and have attempted to bring about negotiations but without success, would the minister say when the government is going to end its dilly-dallying on this problem which is striking a serious economic blow not only in general but particularly in western Canada where everything is tied up and the farmers are in serious condition? I would ask the minister as well what reply the government gave to the legislature of Saskatchewan which passed a resolution asking for action rather than uncertainty and optimistic promises?


Mitchell William Sharp: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this does not mean that the right hon. gentleman has lost his faith in collective bargaining and in voluntary settlement.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no! Lest there be any mistake, the people of western Canada have lost all faith in this government and I join with them.



IMPENDING STRIKE BY LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS-ACTION TO KEEP SHIPS WAITING FOR GRAIN IN VANCOUVER HARBOUR FROM LEAVING

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? Has any attempt been made to retain the ships that are in the harbour at Vancouver since there will be no grain on hand immediately and even after settlement of the strike these ships will have to wait for grain to arrive in order to load? Is the government taking any action to keep these ships there?


Mitchell William Sharp: I shall
refer this question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board who is directly responsible, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the hon. gentleman would hope with me that there will be a very quick settlement of this dispute so there will be no unnecessary delays.



IMPENDING STRIKE BY LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS-PAYMENT OF SHIP DEMURRAGE CHARGES BY GOVERNMENT

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister can assure the House that demurrage charges by ships waiting because of the strike will not be foisted on the farmers but will be assumed by the federal government?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Some weeks ago I asked the minister if he would look into reports about an American corporation buying a number of Canadian cemeteries. Has he made this investigation and can he tell us the nature of the corporation making these purchases?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The matter is still under lively investigation in the department, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. There are widespread reports in respectable and responsible j ournals concerning the alleged blood -

April 2, 1971

shed in East Pakistan which is said to have reached the proportions of genocide against intellectuals and young people. Can the minister advise if through our own sources the government has any information on these events, and can he also bring us up to date on the *condition and safety of such Canadians as are in East Pakistan?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately we have no direct communications which would enable us to decide the extent of the bloodshed going on in East Pakistan. We are very deeply concerned. I should add, however, that bitter experience should have taught us the dangers of attempting to intervene in civil conflicts of this kind. We have had some examples where our intervention would not have helped those who were supposed to be the victims. I can add, however, that the government is ready to help in a constructive way in humanitarian effort that may be launched.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the reports from New Delhi to the effect that the governments of the United States, the Soviet Union and India are all endeavouring to bring an end to the fighting in East Pakistan and that there are parallel discussions to this end going on in the United Nations, is the Canadian government taking any part in these discussions or is it on its own initiative making any attempt to resolve the conflict that is going on in Pakistan?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the situation is that the government of India has made representations to the Secretary General of the United Nations in a note in which I understand charges of genocide are made. The Secretary General has not yet decided whether he will take action or what action he will take. I have also seen the reports referred to by the hon. gentleman about action by the governments of the United States, the Soviet Union and India. It is our understanding that no substantive discussion is currently taking place between the United States and either country on the situation in East Pakistan.


Mr. Real Caouefle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
What is Canada doing about the conflict in Pakistan and what representations has it made to the government of Pakistan?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, our problem is that we do not yet
Inquiries of the Ministry
have facts. I believe it is important, before we take any action, for us to know what is going on and not to have to depend, as sometimes happens, upon newspaper reports which may or may not have substance.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue who I believe is supposed to be present in the House today. In his absence perhaps I could direct it to the Acting Prime Minister or to the acting minister. In view of widespread reports that pawning or scalping of T-4 slips is taking place, to the ultimate detriment of many taxpayers, can the minister say if any steps are being taken to prevent this practice?


Mr. Baldwin:: Come on, where is the minister? There is no reply. This is a pretty sick spectacle.



COMBINES


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; I believe he has notice. In view of reports of harsh and unprecedented raids on daily newspapers in New Brunswick and on the Irving interests in general by officers of his department, may I ask what part his department played in this matter?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, of course I do not accept the hypothesis on which the question is based. The procedures followed were quite normal and standard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: They arose out of an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act which was made public some time ago by the parties being investigated. Of course, we do not make such inquiries public. The actual proceedings taken yesterday were taken in the name of the Attorney General of Canada on the advice of the law officers of the Crown.



RAIDING OF OFFICES OF NEW BRUNSWICK NEWSPAPERS BY POLICE AND OFFICIALS-POWER OF SEARCH USED

John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether it is not a fact, in view of his mentioning the Minister of Justice, that the method adopted by the government was the use of a writ of assistance, the most arbitrary form of search that is open to the authorities? Is that true or is it not?

April 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is untrue, but the proceedings were instituted not by me but by the Department of Justice and questions as to detail should be addressed to my colleague, the Minister of Justice.


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister does not know and says it may be untrue, is he able to tell us that writs of assistance were not used?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that what was applied for and granted by the courts in New Brunswick was a search warrant under the Criminal Code.



BANKRUPTCY


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Shefford want to ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Has he received any representations from the Minister of Justice of Quebec with respect to the restrictions which that government publicly announced yesterday afternoon by tabling in the National Assembly a bill amending the Bankruptcy Act? Is he aware of these representations and will he take them into account before introducing his bankruptcy bill in this House?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have not received representations. I have had notice from press reports that a report was tabled in the Quebec National Assembly. We will take copies of the report and study them, and in so far as they may be useful representations we will of course take them into account.



AIR CANADA


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can he give the House any information with regard to the status of the Air Canada contract for Lockheed Tri-Star aircraft in view of recent developments that I believe have taken place with regard to the negotiations between Lockheed and Rolls-Royce? Also, would the minister say what beneficial effect, if any, these contracts will have on Canada's air industry?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker. My colleague, the Minister of Transport, is following this matter very closely. I will bring this question to his attention for reply when he is next in the House.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister arising out of the policy review report issued by the United States Secretary of State, William Rogers, in which he says that the United States government will want to consult with the Canadian government regarding any policies concerning foreign ownership. In view of the statement of the minister the other day in answer to a question that such consultations will take place, at what point in the process of developing legislation with respect to foreign ownership will such discussions take place? Will it be after the report to be submitted to the cabinet by the Minister of National Revenue, after a white paper, or after legislation has been prepared for presentation to the House?


Gerald William Baldwin: Or after the election?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the more hypothetical questions that can be asked. Since the report has not been presented by the Minister of National Revenue, I do not know what will be in it. Until we have some indication of what recommendations may be made by him and what the general line of decision by the government will be, I really cannot find any basis on which to give an answer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Possibly I could be more specific. Can the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that there will be no consultations until such time as a firm policy has been reached and the government's policy has been placed before the members of this House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the hon. member's question because I am often accused of not having consulted with the United States government about intended changes in their policies until it is too late.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
view of the suggestion by the Secretary of State for

April 2, 1971

External Affairs in his policy review to the effect that discussions are going on between the Canadian and United States governments regarding Georges Bank, the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the boundary between Canada and Alaska, are such discussions now going on, by whom are they being conducted and when may we expect a report from the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding these discussions?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, negotiating with the United States government. I have announced this on a number of occasions in answer to questions in the House. On negotiations of this kind I would expect that I would report the conclusions when they are reached. It is necessary to reach some conclusions on these border problems and I would not expect to report to the House until the negotiations are completed.



INDUSTRY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the decrease in exports of manufactured products this year is in part due to the sharp drop in productivity in the manufacturing industry, will the minister take the first opportunity on motions to advise the House what steps he and his department intend to take to bring the yearly increase in productivity at least up to the average of the past 10 years?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I regret the absence of the hon. member in the committee on Tuesday where I fully reported on this subject. The observation he has made on a number of occasions that in 1970 we had a decline of 4 per cent in export of manufactured products compared with 1969 is of course true. In January and February, however, we have reached 39 per cent for manufactured products in our export picture, which is only one per cent less than in 1969.


George Harris Hees: Has the minister looked at the DBS figures recently? If so, he will have seen that exports of fully manufactured products are down this year compared with a year ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
[DOT] [DOT] [DOT]



NATIONAL DEFENCE


John George Diefenbaker: My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. It
Inquiries of the Ministry
has to do with the oath of allegiance that is now being used for those joining the armed forces. Has there been any change in the wording of that oath of allegiance recently?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there has not been any change since I have been Minister of National Defence. I will have to inquire to see whether there was any change at an earlier date.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister this because there has been some suggestion that the oath of allegiance is going to be changed to remove the Queen, to whom allegiance is sworn as the sovereign of our country. The minister emphasized on two occasions the other day an oath of allegiance to Canada. He emphasized the words "to Canada". I wish he would look into this and report at the beginning of the week on the wording that is now being used.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I remind the right hon. member that the Queen is the Queen of Canada, and in that sense it seems to me that my remarks are perfectly consistent with the oath as it now stands.


John George Diefenbaker: Then the minister is having no part in what is taking place, apparently, in the citizenship department which has given notice that it will remove the Queen's name from the oath of loyalty?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



FISHERIES


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry whether his department is investigating a major fish kill in the vicinity of the Eurocan pulp and paper plant at Kitimat. If so, can he report whether any progress has been made in determining the cause of this kill which apparently, according to Canadian Press reports, has led to dead fish being piled two feet deep on over a half a mile of beach?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: This particular fish kill is under investigation. No definite connection has been established between the operations of the industries in the area and the kill in question.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Can the minister give us any indication of the cause of this major disaster to fish life in the area?


John (Jack) Davis: It is not a major disaster. The object of the exercise is to determine the cause of this kill. There have been similar kills before big industry moved into the area.

April 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



UNEMPLOYMENT IN FOUR EASTERN COUNTIES OF NOVA SCOTIA-MORATORIUM ON PHASING DOWN OF FEDERAL SERVICES

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. It is prompted by a telegram I have received from the Cape Breton Metropolitan Alliance for Development at Sydney. In view of the fact surveys indicate that the unemployment rate in the four eastern counties of Nova Scotia has reached 25 per cent, can the Acting Prime Minister give an assurance that an immediate moratorium will be placed on any phasing down of federal services in this area which would further aggravate the burgeoning unemployment there?


Mitchell William Sharp: Without accepting the accuracy of the figures put forward by the hon. member, I will certainly take his suggestion into consideration.


Robert Muir: I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister would tell the distinguished clergy, businessmen and labour unions of the Alliance what he has just said? My supplementary is to the Solicitor General. I would ask him through you, Mr. Speaker, whether he would use his good offices to prevent the closing down of the RCMP detachment at North Sydney. He might also ask the Minister of Labour to try to prevent the closing of the unemployment insurance office at Sydney.


Mr. Speaker:: These are, of course, representations, and the hon. member has to assume that his suggestions to the ministers will be considered.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the substantial increase in the use of consumer credit in Canada, making Canadians the second largest users of consumer credit in the world, does the minister plan to bring in legislation this session designed to protect the rights of Canadians in connection with credit reporting and the use of data banks? Does he intend at the same time to bring in appropriate amendments to the Small Loans Act?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Laws relating to credit reporting are being dealt with generally by provincial legislatures. A number have already acted on this question or are in the process of acting. As the hon. member knows, we have amended the Bills of Exchange Act to help correct some of the abuses in this area, and in December we tabled the report on bankruptcy and insolvency, which made a
number of recommendations to deal with the problems of a credit-oriented society. I am currently working on possible revisions of the Interest Act and the Small Loans Act and I hope to introduce those amendments at some point.


James Aloysius McGrath: Within the jurisdiction of the federal
government, does the minister propose to bring in a measure to license data banks in Canada so as to protect Canadians from the use of misleading information against them?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 

NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlhmoulh-Halifax East):: My
question is for the Minister of National Defence. In light of the seriousness of the situation, would the minister bring us up to date on the technical operating status of the CF-101 Voodoo fighters and perhaps give some indication whether the situation has affected or is likely to affect our position within NORAD?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. I should emphasize that several press reports indicating that all the CF-101 aircraft have been grounded are not correct. Canada is maintaining its status on an alert basis to respond to any requirement of NORAD. It is a fact, however, that for the time being training flights of additional 101 aircraft have been cancelled because of a technical problem with regard to the engines which is now under intense study by both the aircraft company and the department. It is hoped that at an early date the problem will be resolved so that the full complement of aircraft will be available for use. I emphasize again that all the requirements of the NORAD alert are being met.


J. Michael Forrestall: Do I gather correctly from the minister's statement that the CF-101 is operational and is
flying?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, some of them are operational and flying, those that are necessary to meet our obligations with regard to the alert. It is also true we have had difficulties, as the hon. member knows, particularly arising from the crash at Comox several weeks ago, with some of the CF-lOls which have older engines. These have now been grounded so that technical changes can be made.



ACTION TO CURTAIL CIGARETTE ADVERTISING

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
[Mr. Davis.)
April 2, 1971

Bearing in mind the fact that at this time the annual cancer fund campaign is under way across Canada and also that cancer authorities have urged the cessation of cigarette advertising, would the minister check with his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare to determine when and what action might be taken to curtail the promotion of this unsafe product?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have not had a cigarette since 7 a.m. on August 10 last.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, answered this question the other day. We have, of course, been consulting together on this question for quite some time.



FINANCE


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
In the brochure "How Your Tax Dollar Is Spent", page
23, the Minister of Finance is said to expect to borrow $1.9 billion. In view of the fact that the public debt is in excess of $38 billion, could the minister say whether serious consideration is being given to the possibility of obtaining funds from the Bank of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: That question was studied many, many years ago and it was decided that the policy suggested would be highly inflationary.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to direct to the Acting Prime Minister.
In view of his answer to the question I asked a while ago to the effect that using funds provided by the Bank of Canada would cause inflation, would the minister advise whether the government is considering the possibility of preventing provinces from borrowing abroad, also to curb inflation?



PUBLIC WORKS


Stanley James Korchinski: Since no one seems to want to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works I should like to ask him whether he would care to
Inquiries of the Ministry
go back to his office and answer a letter I addressed to him two months ago about a post office he promised two years ago?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Paul Yewchuk: My question is for the
Acting Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the parliamentary secretary. Can we be told whether there is a plan for the employment of Indian students this summer and, if so, what is the nature of that plan?


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: There are programs under way. For example, we plan to employ 300 Indian students directly within the department this summer.


Paul Yewchuk: I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could inform the House how Indian students apply for this particular type of work?


An hon. Member:: Through their Member of
Parliament.


J. Judd Buchanan: I believe it is through the Public Service Commission, but I would be happy to check on that matter.
 * *



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Solicitor General. Has the RCMP been in contact with the Paris police over the killing of Mario Bachand, a former member of the Company of Young Canadians?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Did Bachand approach the RCMP before he was assassinated with a view to returning to Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This supplementary is perhaps the kind of question that should be placed on the order paper.

April 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Since changes have taken place in the mentality of Canadians in the last few years, is it the minister's intention to introduce a change in the oath of allegiance to enable Canadian soldiers to commit themselves only for and on behalf of the Canadian people?



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Can the Acting Prime Minister say whether or not we can expect the government to designate a minister to take charge of the implementation of the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women some time before Easter?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems that the matter is now under consideration by the executive. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Acting Prime Minister is sitting on the edge of his chair anxious to answer the question I asked him about the status of women. I wonder if the minister may have the permission of the Chair to answer the question at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: If there is agreement, certainly there is no difficulty from the standpoint of the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has been studying very carefully the report on the status of women and the matter has been given a priority rating in general government policy. The government has also been considering whether the assignment of responsibility should be given to a minister, and it would greatly help if the government organization bill were promptly proceeded with in the House so that we could get ahead with this assignment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Act responsibly and bring in a special bill.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Does he intend to take any special action to prevent the closing down of the Slater Shoe plant in Montreal, a company which has existed over the past 103 years and which provides jobs for 175 persons?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the government has already taken certain steps to assist the footwear industry as a whole and Slater Shoe in particular. For instance, we have contributed to payment of consultant services for Slater Shoe in order to help increase their productivity. Nevertheless, the company decided not to continue its operations.



SHOES-MEETING WITH MANUFACTURERS

Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. A while ago the minister indicated that he would be holding meetings with representatives of the shoe industry. Have those meetings been held, and is the minister in a position to indicate what conclusions were reached at the meetings?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, they have not been held for one reason, in particular. The meetings were supposed to be held after a full investigation into the nature and precise penetration of import of footwear into Canada had been made. Unfortunately the department and DBS have not up to now been able to develop the kind of information needed. Some of the companies have been slow in giving us the proper information. I understand the information is coming forward now and that these meetings should take place within the next few weeks.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of housing. Is Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation participating with the Ontario government in the financing of the 30,000 new homes which the Ontario government intends to build this year? May I also ask him whether CMHC is considering the new approach of the Ontario government whereby 75 per cent of the financing is provided by institutional lenders, 20 per cent by the government and 5 per cent by the purchaser?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, of course Central Mortgage and Housing is participating. We have made known our allocations in public housing and in other programs to the Ontario government. Although I have not yet had an opportunity to compare the precise figures announced by the Ontario government the other day with ours, I am sure they will dovetail.
IMr. Speaker.]
April 2, 1971

With regard to the second part of the hon. member's question, it would almost take a statement on motions to go into this question which is a complicated issue. Simply put, we are providing a major program of public housing for which we put up 90 per cent of the financing. In the case of section 16, limited dividend housing, we put up 95 per cent of the financing. I am sure the hon. member is aware of how our programs operate in that sense.



PLAN TO PROVIDE HOMES FOR METIS-PARTICIPATION BY PROVINCES

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. Some time ago it was reported that there was a policy in effect to provide federal and provincial assistance in the housing field for the Metis people. Can the minister say whether any provinces have joined with the federal government in this respect and how the plan is progressing?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we have been very eager to get something going in this more specialized field for the native people, in particular the Metis. On the Prairie provinces last year we were encouraged by the activity of the Metis people themselves in joining in a research program to identify their needs and particular requirements. We are now conducting negotiations, which I think will be successful, with some of the Prairie provinces to move on from research to actual housing on the ground.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister look into the particular situation of underprivileged families living adjacent to Indian reservations where the Metis people are not eligible for the housing provided the Indian people under the Indian Affairs branch?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Some two weeks ago I asked the Minister of Finance, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, whether the Prices and Incomes Commission had conducted any studies relating to the possible imposition of wage and price controls, either generally or on a selective basis, and what would be the implications of such a policy. The minister said that he would look into the question. I have no doubt that he consulted the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the minister indicate whether such studies have been completed and, if they have, whether they will be tabled in the House?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there are no studies in the sense the hon. gentleman refers to them, but both the
Inquiries of the Ministry
Minister of Finance and the government have made it clear that we have considered from time to time a number of various options which are available to the government, as well as the implications of those options.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to understand that no actual study is presently being conducted concerning the possible implications of such control measures, that it is simply being considered in a general way and that no concrete plan has been developed on a contingency basis?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, very careful consideration has been given to a number of different proposals and their implications. I think the hon. gentleman is using the word "study" in the sense of a royal commission report or a document that would be tabled. As the Minister of Finance has made clear, the government has carefully considered in detail the implications of a number of proposals. If there is, of course, to be any change in government policy or any legislation introduced based on the various alternatives, this will be announced in the House in due course.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to get information from the minister this morning, though usually it is very easy. I would ask the minister pointedly whether the government has developed a contingency plan with regard to the imposition of wage and price controls?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think I just answered that. The government has carefully considered a number of different alternatives, a number of different proposals, and a number of different contingencies.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Chair calls orders of the day I will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands for a last supplementary on this subject.



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

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the reported statement by the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission that wage increases should be restricted this year to 4 per cent, may I ask the minister whether this represents government policy and whether he is able to assure the wage and salary earners of this country that the cost of living will not exceed 4 per cent?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Certainly that would be a very desirable objective, Mr. Speaker.
If this is the conclusion of the question period, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions simply to table a report.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

April 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table two copies each in the two official languages of a report by the Prices and Incomes Commission entitled "Sheet Metal Wage Settlement, London, Ontario."



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, April 1, 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.
One clause 14-Establishment of Ministries of State.
The Chairman:: Order, please. When the committee rose yesterday clause 14 of the bill was being considered.
Yesterday the hon. member for Lotbiniere moved, with the consent of the Committee, an amendment to clause 14. Hon. members will recall that the Chair took under advisement the procedural acceptability of the amendment. If I may, I would now rule on the matter. Perhaps first I should read the amendment:
That clause 14 of the Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be amended by deleting lines 23 to 25 and substituting therefor the following:
"Parliament may pass an Act amending the Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and having the effect of creating a Ministry of State."
Last evening I indicated I had some doubt concerning the procedural acceptability of the amendment. I indicated, however, I would like to think about it and would be prepared to hear today any hon. gentlemen who might wish to argue the procedural acceptability of the amendment. I might say that in the intervening time I have confirmed my preliminary thought that the motion is not procedurally acceptable on two points. First, it is declaratory, and as such I do not think comes within the purview of the clause we are presently considering. The second point, which I also think is important, is that as all hon. members know, Parliament is its own master and may enact legislation or statutes as it wishes within the confines of its constitutional authority. In effect, the amendment of the hon. member for Lotbiniere confirms this. I believe the amendment is a nullity in the sense that it is not necessary to say what is obvious, and the
[Mr. Speaker.!
obvious of course is that Parliament may legislate at any time to do the things it wishes to do within its constitutional authority. These are the points which would seem to indicate the amendment is out of order. However, if hon. members wish to present argument I would be pleased to hear it.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest to your first remarks concerning the admissibility of the amendment I submitted yesterday with regard to clause 14 of Bill C-207. You question the merits of the amendment, and for the most part you base your decision on two points.
First, you say that this may be more in the nature of a statement than of an amendment. You add that there is no need to speak of the power of Parliament as this power is evident.
I would like to comment on your second point first. There is no evidence, at the present time, that Parliament is its own master, with regard to clause 14. It is neither certain, nor clearly indicated that Parliament will be able to appoint ministers through the agency of government, or to participate in a debate on the establishment of new ministries.
Mr. Chairman, it is obvious, and I agree it is, that when the government wants to set up a Crown corporation, a ministry of state or a federal department-and there are numerous precedents to enlighten us in this regard-it is clear that Parliament has its word to say about it and that it must pass legislation, that is to say, the government's desire to establish a particular department must be approved by Parliament.
But the procedure proposed in clause 14 is an exceptional one which does not give Parliament this authority to legislate on the establishment of a ministry of state. This is, indeed, what can be read in clause 14, and I quote:
[DOT]-the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, establish a Ministry of State for that purpose.
Nothing is said about Parliament, and I will point out that this is a truly exceptional procedure as regards the setting up of a ministry.
It is precisely this concern which prompted me to move an amendment which is not a substantive one, and there is the second point of my argument.
Indeed, one can conclude from the heading of this clause that the substance of the matter is the establishment of ministries of state. Essentially, the question is therefore to know if we are in favour of the establishment of ministries of state or against it, and I will point out that my amendment does not aim at changing the substance of the matter directly or indirectly. The amendment that I have moved deals only with form and procedure, and I am not against the establishment of ministries of state, because I would then change the substance of the matter. In the 4th edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, it is clearly stated that the substance of the matter cannot be altered, but that the form and procedure can be.
April 2, 1971

The government proposes in clause 14 the terms "Governor in Council" instead of "Parliament" and "proclamation" instead of "legislation."
Mr. Chairman, I will respectfully point out that even if I agree with you that it is not necessary-because obviously Parliament is supreme-to refer to the powers of Parliament, if we do not wish to use the terms "Governor in Council" or "proclamation", it is necessary to make things clear to state who will have the authority, if we do not agree about the procedure.
This is why althoug it seems obvious to us members that Parliament is the supreme authority, it is not evident from clause 14 because this clause denies Parliament this supreme power to legislate on the establishment of ministries of state, of departments and of Crown corporations.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I moved precisely opposed this procedure.
Then, Mr. Chairman, you give a general indication saying that we are free to make recommendations and give advice, which we appreciate respectfully.
You say that the amendment would appear to be a statement of some sort.
noon)
In fact, this is not a statement but a simple change in procedure with respect to the creation of ministries of state.
Here is a part of the amendment:
Parliament may pass an Act amending the Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and having the effect of creating a Ministry of State.
During the debate yesterday the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) told the House the amendment was out of order because it anticipates the intentions of the government.
I refer the House to Hansard of which everyone has a copy.
Mr. Chairman, if the argument of the hon. member for Ottawa West were right, we should logically say the same thing about this clause.
Indeed one can read this in the bill:
-the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, establish a Ministry of State for that purpose.
This clause therefore presupposes the intentions of the government and legislates, without giving Parliament any justification, on the necessity of creating ministries of state.
In other words, if my amendment has no bearing on an immediate and concrete reality, neither does clause 14: it relates to the possibility that some day the government might want to establish a ministry of state. In short, one is no better than the other.
Mr. Chairman, if the argument of the hon. member for Ottawa West seems in order to you, I respectfully submit that the same goes for my amendment; they both amount to the same thing.
Government Organization Act, 1970
The clause stipulates that the "Governor in Council may"; in the amendment, you can read: "the Parliament may". These are the same circumstances. The only change, Mr. Chairman, is in the procedure, the manner, the means, and not in the substance, the principle.
The principle is clearly indicated in the heading:
Ministries of State for Specified Purposes.
Mr. Chairman, thus this is not a future statement, since clause 14, at that rate, could also be a future statement, as the clause stipulates: "the Governor in Council may". As a matter of fact, what is clause 14 but a statement? It says:
Where it appears to the Governor in Council that the requirements for formulating and developing new and comprehensive policies in relation to any matter or matters-
Mr. Chairman, these are such general terms that they are merely a statement of intent. Clause 14 is a statement of intent, some sort of a blank cheque to the government which one day or another, depending upon requirements, will establish a "ministry of state".
It is not mentioned whether this is a specific legislation. The names of the ministries are not mentioned and it is not said how many there will be. It is not specified in which fields they will work, study, formulate or develop their programs. The bill merely states that there will be "ministries of state" according to the "requirements for formulating and developing new and comprehensive policies"; all it says is that there will be ministries in relation to any matter or matters. It does not legislate in any specific field.
For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if it can be said that my amendment is declaratory, clause 14 is also declaratory on the same ground. And if it can be legislated truly on a statement, granting that clause 14 is a statement of fact, since it really is, why should we not have the right to legislate at the same level?
This is not a question of money, but of legislating at the same level. For these reasons-and I apologize for taking so much of the time of the House to explain and defend the amendment which I proposed-it seems to me that the amendment does not deal with substance but with procedure, and that this is an excellent opportunity for the government, if it is willing to accept the amendment, to prove that it considers the substance, namely, the creation of "ministries of state"-if it is really necessary-more important than the ways, the means, the procedure to achieve it. If the government feels that the substance is more important than the form, then why should they not make concessions about the form, about the means of reaching the same end, that is the setting up of "ministries of state", of passing legislation in areas relating to "new and comprehensive policies".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I am not able to support the procedural validity of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, but I rise, for a moment or two, not just to add to the arguments against it but to suggest to him

April 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 that even it Your Honour does rule his amendment out ot order, all is not lost. If we have sufficient votes, we can still achieve the same purpose that he has in mind. In other words, I see his amendment as, in effect, an expanded negative. Let me put it this way. The constitution of this country and the rights of Parliament are such that we could, by act of Parliament, at any time establish a ministry of state. What clause 14 seeks to do is to give the authority to the Governor in Council to do it without coming to Parliament. The hon. member for Lotbiniere wants to make sure that before such Ministries are created Parliament has to legislate on them. So, all we have to do is defeat clause 14, and if my analysis is correct, of course that does support the contention that the amendment is really an expanded negative. So, although I anticipate that you will rule the amendment out of order, I trust that when the votes are called there will be enough of us here to defeat clause 14.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, speaking on the question of order which Your Honour has raised, as I understand it, the hon. member for Lotbiniere is trying to indicate that the sole right to establish ministries of state should not be left with the government. I know, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, that there is always a residual right in Parliament, but obviously, for practical purposes, the passage of clause 14 will mean that that right will be taken away from Parliament. There is no question about it. As I understand what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has indicated, we can achieve the same objective by defeating the clause.
I have not been around here as long as he has, so perhaps I am not as naive as he is about the government's intentions. I fully realize that we would like to defeat this clause. Justice indicates it should be defeated. However, when the time comes the government will call in its storm troops and the clause will pass.


Mr. Reid:: Because you do not have any on your side.


Gerald William Baldwin: While I go along with what Your Honour has indicated, the question remains as to whether or not what the hon. member for Lotbiniere wants to do is, in fact, achieved by these words, whether it is his intention that the establishment of a ministry of state by order in council should be subjected to parliamentary decision at a given time. I support that proposition. If he does not bring forward an amendment in those terms, and Your Honour should rule this one out of order, I probably will. In other words, if a ministry of state dealing with an important segment of the social and economic life of this country is established by proclamation, having in mind that the government intends to pass this clause willy-nilly, my belief is that the establishment of such a ministry should be dealt with by Parliament.
I very much doubt if the amendment as moved contains those particular views, and it may well be that Your Honour will rule it out of order. But if that is the hon.
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).1
member's contention I would support him on another motion along those lines, or I might move one myself.


Russell Clayton Honey: With respect to my caveat last night, perhaps 1 may now rule on the point of order with respect to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. As I have indicated, it is a very important matter and has serious constitutional implications. As such, we must give it serious thought.
As I indicated, and as hon. members have indicated in their arguments when assisting the Chair in arriving at a decision, the purport of clause 14 would be to permit the Governor in Council to establish a ministry of state by proclamation. The hon. member, and others who have argued on the substantive matter in the debate, have indicated that they do not agree with it. Of course, this is a matter for argument, and what the hon. member for Lotbiniere seeks through his amendment is to have the government establish these ministries by separate statutes.
I have indicated, and other hon. members have indicated, that we are merely stating the obvious with respect to a declaration by Parliament because Parliament, within its constitutional authority, is supreme. For those reasons, and for the others which I mentioned earlier, I feel I must not accept the amendment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make some comments on this clause, and I would like to begin by expressing my regret that more members of the government and more government supporters have not deigned to take part in discussion on the bill.


Mr. Boulanger:: What about last night? You weren't even here.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I read what was said last night and I recognize that a few of them deigned to take part in the debate, but what they said seemed to be irrelevant to the discussion on the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But I am pleased that, even though what they had to say was irrelevant for the most part, a few of them at least summoned up enough gumption to take part in the debate. I hope this trend will continue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am wondering whether this sort of attitude on the part of the government-


Mr. Deachman:: We want to get on with the job.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I hope hon. members opposite are not getting too excited already. It will be very bad if they are going to get excited at this stage of my remarks. I am just wondering whether this attitude on the part of the government supporters is preparation for charges of opposition obstruction?


Grant Deachman: After 17 days debate.
April 2, 1971


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If so, I want to tell the hon. member from Vancouver, and others over there who seem to be getting a little excited, that if this is their strategy it represents a very woeful misconstruction and miscalculation on the part of the government.


Grant Deachman: Seventeen days?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And it is especially so if the government intends to charge a united opposition with holding up the creation, for example, of the Department of the Environment.


Mr. MacEachen:: The NDP have not opposed that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What we have in this bill are a few excellent proposals, of which the Department of Environment is one, associated with a lot of junk, of which this clause is one example. It is like the situation in a housing shortage where a fellow who owns a house has a lot of junk furniture, and he insists that the person buying the house must also buy the junk furniture at a very high price or else he will not get the house. I would suggest that if people in the business community behaved the way the government is behaving with regard to this bill, the Department of Justice would probably be very active in encouraging some attorney general to prosecute.
If the government wants to proceed with the valuable sections of the bill, let it do so. Let it separate the bill and not try to be smart. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was trying to be smart again this morning, suggesting that the government was anxious to get the bill passed. If the government is anxious to get the bill passed, then let it drop aspects of the bill such as this. Let it separate the bill and not continue to try to foist something off on the House and the people of Canada.
I understand the embarrassment of hon. members opposite with regard to participating in discussion on this bill. With justification, the bill has been described as a pork barrel measure. In fact, I was accused by one distinguished and eminent editorialist of not understating the situation when I said there was a pork barrel in this bill. The editorialist said there were several pork barrels in it. But in any case it is certainly a pork barrel measure we are now discussing, and nobody likes to be characterized as a pig, even by association. If you praise the construction of a trough with too much enthusiasm, you may have some difficulty in avoiding the charge or the reputation of hoping to wallow in it.
I say that if the government spent anything like as much energy trying to help the unemployed people as it is devoting to this measure, a lot would have been done by this time to help the unemployed. Of course, patronage on a large scale by the government is not confined to this measure. Ever since the election of 1968, we have seen the government looking after its friends outside, one by one.


Prosper Boulanger: Get Mr. Diefenbaker back in the House. I understand his English.
Government Organization Act, 1970


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Sir, criticism goes beyond the pork barrel aspect of the bill.


Prosper Boulanger: I understand Mr. Diefenbaker's English better.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am sorry the hon. member has difficulty with my English. I will try to speak slowly enough so that he can understand it. I think the message is getting to him judging from the fact he feels it necessary to interrupt me, and to carry on a constant conversation. It seems he is not too happy to hear the things that are being said about the bill, but there will be lots of time for the hon. member and his colleagues to take part in the discussion.


Prosper Boulanger: I took part last night.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The hon. member will have to do better. As I was saying, criticism of the bill goes far beyond the pork barrel aspect. The part of the bill we are now considering would allow the government to set up, and then dismantle, a whole series of departments without any parliamentary approval. This is what was worrying the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
The pitfalls are obvious. This is another step in the degradation of Parliament. I do not pretend that Parliament is the totality of democracy in Canada, but in this country it is certainly one of the most vital and basic links in the democratic chain. Any attempt to whittle down its rights is an attack on the democratic process, and that this is the effect of this bill has surely been adequately demonstrated already. Why then is there this determination on the part of the government?
The hon. member for Lotbiniere said on Wednesday that the setting up of these new structures now is simply a means of trying to hide inefficiency. I certainly go along with that analysis. The government knows, or ought to know by this time what the basic problems are, but it seems to be attempting to give itself a sort of panel of panic buttons to press when it is faced with some kind of unexpected event. In other words, we have another instance of government by ad hoc measures; this time we might call it institutionalized ad hocism. After three years in power, government is still looking at machinery instead of dealing with issues, and still dealing with structures instead of concrete reforms. This clearly became a government by way of improvisation. Look at the action with regard to Denison, just off the top of the head. Look at the action with regard to Home Oil, just off the top of the head. It was not part of any policy. Yet this government, Mr. Chairman, is supposed to be a program government, a government that knew what it was doing. This doesn't say much for its over-all competence or its ability to forecast.
Once again, as in so many spheres, we are faced with ambiguity and uncertainty. This time, the government intends to institutionalize these two characteristics by process of law. It must be the first time that a democratic government has openly admitted its own
4864

April 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 incompetence and lack of foresight. We have had enough experience with improvising, Mr. Chairman, to deepen our concern that a provision such as we are now considering would increase the certainty of ambiguity and the certainty of confusion.
Three sources of deep concern about this measure relate to the integrity of Parliament. This measure represents an attack on the essential dignity of the Member of Parliament. I realize there is a problem in this age of growing executive power, but the solution of this government for the great majority of government Members of Parliament, is to try to include them in the charmed circle of executive perquisites. In other words, the sweets of office are handed around to everyone.
We have another dimension to the extent of confusion now, Mr. Chairman, the confusion that exists among ministers and parliamentary assistants. The ordinary Member of Parliament is usually considered to be expressing his own views unless he is explicitly expressing government views. Until the era of this government it was assumed that ministers expressed government policy when they spoke, but not now. It all commenced with the debate on NATO in which the Minister of Communications expressed totally different views from those of the Ministers of External Affairs and National Defence who had some responsibility.
More recently there has been the matter of Alaskan Oil. We have the Secretary of State for External Affairs expressing disapproval of the Alaskan and Pacific route, but indicating that he does not intend to oppose it. If he is at sea, where are the other ministers who share responsibility in this matter? For example, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is reported to have said yesterday that, as he sees his duty it is to stimulate public discussion on these matters. One would have thought, Mr. Chairman, that his duty would be to develop policy instead of jumping around like a cat on a hot tin roof. We follow the minister all the way from Denver to his meeting the other day with representatives of the oil industry, and what do we find? We find the minister busily engaged in developing, not public opinion and certainly not informed public opinion, but simply in creating confusion in the minds of the Canadian people and, I am sure, in the minds of the American people as well.
Then we have the Minister of Communications getting into the act. The delightful climax is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources suggesting to the Minister of Communications that others should think before they speak.
I am pointing this out at some length, Mr. Chairman, to remind everybody of the degree of confusion we have with the present size of the cabinet and the number of parliamentary assistants. We hear about all kinds of escalation these days. In view of the experience we have had, and in view of the proliferation of ministries and parliamentary assistants contemplated by this bill, I think it might be described as an escalation of confusion.
There are two results which are felt by the ordinary Member of Parliament, Mr. Chairman. There is increased
pressure on government members to conform to the party line and there is the degradation of the basic task of the parliamentarian which is to cast a critical and appraising eye on the executive power. It means more than ever that the only authentic Member of Parliament will be on the opposition side of the House if these measures carry. It shows the basic contempt with which the government views its own backbenchers, and it is another step in the direction of executive control of Parliament.
In short, Mr. Chairman, this clause of the bill constitutes an admission by the government of its own inability to pursue defined long term policies; it constitutes an admission of incompetence and a further attempt to substitute improvisation for planning and God knows, Sir, we have had enough improvisation. I say that it is no wonder the ordinary member on the other side of this House is unwilling to debate. I ask myself whether most of them are afraid to involve themselves because of the possible effect it might have on their future. It is no wonder that they want this debate to end quietly and soon. In general, their silence is an eloquent expression of their shame and I suppose that feeling does them some credit, but it is not enough. I say to them, through you, Sir, that if they believe in Parliament, if they believe in the control of government by Parliament, if they believe in themselves as parliamentarians, they should be raising their voices against this sham version of participatory democracy. By their silence, they are voicing their shame but at the same time they are displaying their servility.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Chairman, despite some of the suggestions of members opposite that they are anxious that this debate be terminated, I want to let them know that outside of a very short participation on second reading I have not appeared at all on the debate in committee. However, at this particular point I think one must pause and examine the implications of what is really a new bill within a bill, an entirely new principle in the structure of government. Yet they want us merely to gloss over this and, because it has been proposed by them, to bow low three times or more in subservience to that superintelligence that they seem to have arrogated to themselves. They have assumed the mantle of omnD science. They say that this is good for this country, that this is good for Parliament and that therefore we should rubberstamp it. I do not want to attribute motives to hon. members, but the unseemly and undignified urge to get on with this legislation seems to be a direct measurement of the kind of aspiration of some hon. members for the positions which would be created under this bill. I have no hesitation whatsoever in asserting that and repeating it. It is their desire for promotion that urges some hon. members to try, shall we say, to impose a gag on hon. members on this side. Yet what are the facts? Should not hon. members reflect for a moment on what is being proposed today?


Prosper Boulanger: It is the hon. member who ought to reflect.

April 2, 1971


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: When the hon. member from Montreal, who is known for his piping voice, speaks, it usually indicates that the gauge is set at high and that the whistle will be shrill. But the shrillest whistles come from empty places, Mr. Chairman.
If you will look at what is proposed here, Mr. Chairman, and how this ties in with the power of the office of the Prime Minister of Canada, you will see that it will require not a 20 minute intervention but a number of interventions to expose what is being done to some of those people whose apparent greed for office tends to blind their reason.
Let us look at some of the justifications which have been put forward. I am surprised that neither the Prime Minister nor his parliamentary secretary have ever been present to take part in the debate on this very fundamental reorganization of the principles of cabinet responsibility to this House. They are responsibilities not to one man but to this House. That is something that seems to have escaped those opposite. This is one responsibility that should not be shirked by the Prime Minister. It is not for another minister to pilot through this part of the bill. It affects the prerogatives of the Prime Minister, and he should be here to defend his case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: So far, there has been no appearance by the right hon. gentleman.


An hon. Member:: There has been a delegation of nothing.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Has nothing been delegated? It is not the duty of another minister nor the responsibility of another minister to pilot through a cabinet restructuring of this kind. This is a fundamental abdication of responsibility on the part of the Prime Minister.


Jean-Luc Pepin: How?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who has exercised the responsibility of a privy councillor, should know better and should know that that is the responsibility of the Prime Minister. I am not speaking of the other parts of the bill. I am speaking of this particular part.


An hon. Member:: He does know and he does not care.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is not correct.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister can wave his hands in protest all he wants, but this is all within the responsibility of the Prime Minister.


Prosper Boulanger: Why does the hon. member not read the bill?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce suggests that there can be delegation of responsibility. Not one minister has said anything in justification of this clause.


An hon. Members:: There is no gag.
Government Organization Act, 1970


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Simply because this clause appears in a bill it seems that we are to treat it as a law, as a ukase from on high, as though this were the imprint of God which should not be questioned. That is not the way this House will take it; and, as far as I am concerned, I say that if this is to be the attitude of the government, it will take that much longer to get the bill through.


Prosper Boulanger: Blackmail.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, this is not
blackmail.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is trying to gain the floor on a point of order.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I have heard the argument developed by my hon. friend from Edmonton West. Can he refer to any law or constitutional practice to demonstrate that a minister in whose name a bill appears must be present in the House and cannot be represented by another minister when his bill is introduced and debated in the House?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am very pleased to answer that question. I will say this: ministers, on occasions, have been represented by other ministers, yes. They have discussed legislation and so on and so forth. I will reply to the minister by saying that no Prime Minister has ever ducked the responsibility or the obligation of setting up a new ministry or altering the composition of his cabinet. That is not the responsibility of either the President of the Treasury Board or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. That is in no way their responsibility whatsoever.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member should check the record.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister can check the record all he wants. I will say to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that he is trying to drag across the trail a very smelly red herring.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not at all.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The government says that it wants to have a flexible response. That seems to be the theme underlying the whole principle of this part of the bill. The government wants to be in the position of being able to exercise a flexible response, so that action can be taken and so that it will not have to come to this House to justify that action. It takes too long a time. Of course, if one wants to take that argument to its ultimate point, one can say that the government which allows the greatest degree of flexible response is a dictatorship, a straight dictatorship. Under that system all that has to happen is this: one man makes up his mind and, there and then, the changes are made. If that is the sort of

April 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 flexible response you want, then I suggest to you that you have not gone far enough.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What you ask for is what you get.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Nevertheless, the tendency is there. This is the action of people who are impatient with democracy. This clause seeks to give the Prime Minister the power to create at some time five ministries of state. It is the Prime Minister who is to get these powers. He will do that whenever he sees fit. It is not the government at large that is getting the power. It is not the cabinet, or the governor in council that is getting the power, it is the Prime Minister. Let not the President of the Treasury Board look at me with amazement or incredulity on his face. Let us get down to brass tacks, Mr. Chairman, and admit that there is not one ministry that exists or one minister who occupies his office without the complete approval and sanction of the Prime Minister. He put the ministers there and he can also remove them very rapidly. This could and does happen.


Prosper Boulanger: Where did the hon. member get his information?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Look at what happened to the hon. member for Trinity.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Let us briefly-and I may need more time to speak on this subject later- review the power of the Prime Minister of Canada, or the power of the office of the Prime of Canada, as compared with the power of the President of the United States and the power of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. At the present time, even without this bill, the Prime Minister of Canada is a more powerful individual within the structure of the government of Canada than is the president of the United States or the prime minister of Great Britain. Some people may be amazed at this fact. I assure hon. members that this particular step that is now being proposed by the government in this bill takes that power much further. There can be a manipulation of the cabinet and the entire structure of government by one man.


An hon. Member:: You are a bunch of puppets.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What is the purpose of the creation of ministries of state? We could have a minister of state for economic affairs. We could transfer the functions of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Minister of Finance and put them all under a minister of state for economic affairs. This would take in one large ambit of the government. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of National Defence and a couple of other ministers could be grouped under one title. The duties of the Attorney-General of Canada, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General could all be wrapped up in one ministry of state for home security. There could be five czars within the cabinet.


Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Chairman, may I direct a question to the hon. member?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: After I finish my speech. At this moment I do not have time to answer but after my remarks the hon. member will have the opportunity of asking me questions.

This can be changed by order in council. Who but the Prime Minister controls those who make the orders in council? The Prime Minister governs the people who do this work. This is the nature of the beast. I am not referring to the present Prime Minister, but the office of any Prime Minister. I am not talking about the personality of the present Prime Minister, I am discussing the position, powers and responsibilities of that office and what can be done. This Parliament is being asked to give even greater powers to that office. I object to that, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My time is very short, but I intend to come back to this charge with regard to the powers of the office of the Prime Minister. Under this set-up, no government member will dare challenge that. Why cut off your nose to spite your face? I am brutally frank about this.
The executive already has too much power vis-a-vis Parliament. It is on behalf of Parliament that I want to speak. Hon. members who are wholeheartedly behind this proposal are being deluded by the so-called request for a flexible response and so-called efficiency. This is being done in the same way that members have been deluded and inveigled into giving up their rights, some in very small slices but others to a considerable extent.


Prosper Boulanger: Their rights to what?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Their own rights as members. This is something the hon. member fails to recognize.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The only right that the hon. member recognizes is that he can sit in his seat, raise his voice and heckle by uttering nonsense. That is all he can do.


Mr. Drury:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. Is the President of the Treasury Board rising on a point of order?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Chairman. I want to know whether the hon. member will permit a question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Of course, I will permit questions from the genial minister.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am most interested in this analysis. I would like to know in what way the rights of Parliament would be derrogated, eroded or reduced by the appointment of a minister of state to look after the affairs of women, as has been suggested?

April 2, 1971


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The affairs of-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The female sex.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is not the purpose that I am discussing Mr. Chairman. It is the fact that such a ministry, having been set up, could be completely abrogated by an order in council without any discussion in this House. If the ministry is set up, the members of this House would not have one word to say about the duties and powers of such a ministry. Even the act of setting it up would be the result of the thoughts of one man, or a small group of men, who would have the exclusive right to determine the nature of the order in council setting up that ministry.
There are variations provided for in clause 16. The Governor in Council may by proclamation make changes from time to time. Parliament would not have the opportunity of discussing them. To that extent, Mr. Chairman, the rights of members are being abrogated. The composition of the cabinet is being provided for in a manner whereby this House will not have the opportunity to say one word about it, yet the cabinet is supposed to be responsible to this House. What a contradiction in logic is that? Although the cabinet is supposed to be responsible to this House, we are now being asked to state that we will not have anything to say about the duties assigned to ministers or anything of that nature. I notice that my time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am not going to ask for an extension at this time.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The hon. member's time has just expired. He may continue if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question.


Russell Clayton Honey: I understand there is unanimous consent. Before the hon. member continues, he may want to accept a question from the parliamentary secretary.


Albert Béchard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I have no objection to the hon. member continuing his brilliant speech, which contributes nothing to the debate, but I should make that subject to a condition, that he reply immediately to the question I want to put to him.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I accept no condition set by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary, but I will tell him that it was not my intention to pursue my remarks now as they would extend far beyond the few minutes I would be granted. I shall therefore reply later this afternoon, and I am prepared to reply 100 times, if he so wishes.


Albert Béchard: Once should be enough.
Government Organization Act, 1970


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the comment made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bechard) who is imposing conditions on the right to speak of an hon. member. It seems to me that he is assuming certain rights, since all hon. members have the right to speak, and since it is not up to one of them or to a Parliamentary Secretary to grant such right.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I wish to point out that I have as much right to speak as the hon. member for Lotbiniere who is giving us, for the fifth time the same senseless speech.


An hon. Member:: That does not mean anything.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. Will the hon. member for Lotbiniere please resume his seat? I recognize the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I wish hon. members on the government side would stop their filibuster so the hon. member for Lotbiniere can carry on.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere has the floor.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, at this point of the debate on clause 14, which provides that the Governor in Council may by proclamation, establish a ministry of state, without going through the normal procedure, that is through legislation, I object once more to this manner of proceeding. Since the amendment I moved has been rejected, I wanted to intervene at this time to bring in new elements to this debate.
To replace my hon. colleagues in the context of this debate, I should like to set forth some basic principles that govern Canada. Canada is a sovereign country, although its charter is a foreign document. Our political system is a constitutional monarchy, in a federal system, in a parliamentary and democratic system, in a responsible government.
Mr. Chairman, the executive now consists of the Governor General, the Prime Minister and his cabinet. The Prime Minister is the major element.
The Governor General merely acts on behalf of the sovereign and on the advice of the cabinet. He summons, adjourns and dissolves parliament. He sanctions legislation and officiates at ceremonies. His main responsibility is to ensure the continuity of the state and to choose a Prime Minister in some rare and exceptional cases.
The members of the cabinet must normally be elected members from the party of the majority or from the party which obtained the confidence of the House.

April 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
Mr. Chairman, such is the spirit of the statutes which govern Canada. Therefore, it may be seen that the Governor in Council is nothing more than a ceremonial institution, and that it is not the Governor in Council who can establish "ministries of state", but rather the cabinet.
According to the British North America Act, parliament is composed of the Queen, the Senate and the House of Commons. The House of Commons remains the corner stone of the Canadian parliamentary system. Only the House may propose bills involving expenditure of monies or imposing new taxes.
Mr. Chairman, this is still the spirit of the legislation governing the Parliament of Canada. Well, clause 14 pushes aside parliament, which is still the supreme institution according to our statutes, to say that the cabinet itself will establish by proclamation and not by legislation the "ministries of state". The executive power is responsible to the elected representatives of the people for its actions and decisions. The House can overthrow the government by a non confidence vote, but the Prime Minister may at any time ask the Governor General to dissolve parliament and call a general election.
Therefore it means, Mr. Chairman, that according to the intent of the laws governing Canada, this House still remains a supreme institution. The government must answer to parliament for its decisions and administration.
But, in clause 14, the government gives itself an exceptional right not to proceed through parliament, concerning the establishment of "ministries of state". There is, in Canada, a genuine separation between the judicial and the political powers on which is based the principle of the independence of courts.
But parliament, Mr. Chairman, is still sovereign, under Canadian laws concerning the powers not dealt with under the BNA Act, including human rights.
Mr. Chairman, this shows again how the government, through clause 14, violates the laws which, since 1867, govern the administration of Canada. Parliament-and this is where things become most interesting if we consider the intent of the laws governing us-exercises control over the action of the executive power and can withdraw its confidence if necessary.
This means, Mr. Chairman, that it is not the government or the cabinet which gives parliament its power, but parliament which gives it to the government. It is an important factor of our parliamentary system and shows that if one wants to be logical, parliament should confer to the government the power to create those ministries of state and will in effect be creating them. It does not fall on the tool of parliament to create those ministries but on parliament itself.
Parliament must consider bills and the supremacy of the legislative power has never been challenged in Canada.
However, Mr. Chairman, the present government is challenging the supreme authority of that legislative institution, by introducing an exceptional legislation concerning the establishment of ministries.
I see that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is frowning, but I suggest to him that his department was indeed created by an act passed by the House of Commons while those ministries will not be established by an act of the House of Commons but rather by a proclamation of the governor in council.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock?


Russell Clayton Honey: It being one o'clock I do leave the chair. The committee will resume at two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, before lunch, I was demonstrating that clause 14 is in direct contradiction with the spirit and the letter of the legislation governing the land since 1867.
Parliament, always according to the spirit and the letter of the legislation governing Canada, exercises control over the actions of the executive power and can deny its confidence if need be. This has occurred in Canadian history. When you read the history of Canada, the mere fact that in some instances parliament denied its confidence in the government through a non-confidence motion or by overthrowing it proves to what extent the influence of parliament exceeds the executive power where decisions are concerned.
Parliament must study bills always according to the spirit of the law. The supremacy of the legislative power in this regard has never been questioned in Canada.
It is done nevertheless in the everyday political life. One quickly realizes that the balance of power now tends towards the executive on account of the great number of statutes. For instance, under the omnibus bill before us, we can no longer exercise complete control over all aspects of the legislative program submitted to parliament.
That is an extremely important point. The government made parliamentary reforms, they invented new ways of legislating in presenting, for instance, measures which we call omnibus bills and which include different parts often without any relation with one another. It is a kind of package deal that the House is asked to pass at top speed.
It does not take more time to pass a complex piece of legislation than a very simple one. Such a thing is inconceivable but it is done without hesitation under the guise of efficiency. Such is the system towards which parliament is moving progressively while losing little by little its control over the legislative power.
We can no longer thoroughly and objectively examine complex bills as we would a very simple measure. Bills from a member of the opposition have no chance of going through because the system is inadequate or because it is a bill the cabinet has decided not to approve.

April 2, 1971

The government has now decided to legislate through regulations without consulting the members and thus weaken the legislative power.
Now what is the object of clause 14 if not to legislate by creating "ministries of state" through a regulation or a royal proclamation instead of doing it by means of a debate and a vote in the House.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to give an explanation on a particular point. I do not object to the creation of ministries of state nor to the underlying principle, but I object to the form, to the procedure through which we are going to create ministries of state.
That will have the effect of increasing the power of the government to legislate by proclamation or regulations without consulting the House. It is that aspect of the question which prompts me to fight so desperately in the hope of bringing my colleagues, and particularly the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), to revise their positions.
More and more, observers believe that the most important changes in the political institutions of Canada are no longer the result of the work of parliament, but rather of structures which properly speaking have no legislative power and which come directly under the jurisdiction of the executive power. For instance, the federal-provincial conferences as well as the different ministries of state which will be established.
Mr. Chairman, those ministries of state do not come under the jurisdiction of parliament, but under that of the executive power which will legislate more and more not through the democratic action of parliament but through its own authority, by way of royal proclamation or regulations.
Mr. Chairman, the rise of technocrats and the delegation of the responsibilities of the House to Crown corporations, to offices, to boards, to the cabinet itself, as it is done by Order in Council, have contributed and contribute more and more to a loss of prestige by parliament.
Mr. Chairman, more and more this government is legislating, controlling and influencing the Canadian policy not by using such a wonderful tool as parliament but on its own and through its own creatures, by establishing corporations not under the control of parliament, and by setting up, for example, regional information offices at the service of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about which members of parliament are not allowed to say or know anything.
By proclamation, the government would give itself the power to create ministries of state, to appoint directly ministers of state at the head of these ministries, and this would therefore entail the expenditure of public funds which would escape control by parliament and we would get no information except, of course, the piece-meal information which the government agrees to give us.
Needless to say, Mr. Chairman, as members we are already in quite a precarious position in the eyes of the Canadian people as we cannot play the role we were given regardless which side of the House we are sitting,
Government Organization Act, 1970 namely of being informed and of transmitting this information to our ridings. We can no longer do this now because of the increasingly encroaching powers of the technocrats on members' actions.
This is basic. Several Liberal members behind the curtains are justified in complaining as do the Conservative the NDP and the Creditiste members, that the technocrats now have more importance and influence than the members, and this is nonsense.
The technocrats do not have to report to the people whereas the members do. In passing, let me say simply that each one of us regardless of his political views, will be responsible before our citizens at the next general election.
This means that if we are to account for our actions to the people we represent in parliament we are entitled to influence the policies and the administration.
Such are the spirit and the letter of the legislation governing our country. Mr. Chairman, when the executive, under the guise of efficiency, creates tools directly responsible to it and not to parliament, when the government arrogates the powers of parliament and delegates them to tools not responsible to the people, the prestige of parliament is being degraded, as well as the role of the member, whatever his political allegiance. We then prove inconsistent and indeed undemocratic.
We are all for efficiency and for "developing new policies" as prescribed by clause 14, since our present policy is antiquated and unintelligible. We wish the development of a new policy in various fields. We should like to know in which particular field these ministries will act, under whose authority and, precisely what responsibilities the ministers appointed to head them will assume. In addition, we should like to know whether these ministers will be responsible to parliament.
I ask myself the following question: will these ministers answer questions put by hon. members? In fact, the bill clearly says that the Governor in Council will appoint them. Therefore, if the minister heading the ministry condescends to reply, we shall get answer but, otherwise, they will do as does the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) concerning the CBC; they will provide no answer.
Mr. Chairman, this is why I fiercely oppose this clause that runs counter to the spirit and the letter of the legislation governing Canada since 1867.


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Chairman, there are probably some reasons why, after 17 days on this bill, a government member might be prompted to enter the debate. I suppose one could respond to the provocation of the charges from the opposition which in many cases are unworthy of hon. members opposite-charges of greed and of self-seeking, charges that somehow members over here are afraid that if they became involved in debate they would jeopardize their future, charges which came from amongst others the Leader of the Opposition and are unworthy of him and of his party.

April 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Gerald William Baldwin: I have to leave because I have not had my lunch.


James Hugh Faulkner: My remarks might give the hon. member for Peace River indigestion, so perhaps he should leave for his lunch. After 17 days of listening to the fatuous charges made by members of the opposition in lieu of argument, one thing is certain and that is that government backbenchers could not be inspired to get into this debate on the basis of dealing with argument. We have not had much in the way of argument. What we have is a badly disguised filibuster which has recently degenerated into a pure farce.
In the past three days we have had four contributions from the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


An hon. Member:: They have been good ones.


James Hugh Faulkner: Last night we had a corporal's guard of Tories led by my good friend the hon. member for St. John's East, who had to speak twice because there were not enough members here to systematically delay the passage of this legislation.


Mr. McCleave:: You wouldn't listen to him once.


James Hugh Faulkner: The only point he really made was that somehow in our traditions there is a contradiction when you have the committee of the whole house meeting and standing committees meeting at the same time. At no point did he make the same objection to the House meeting, with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, at the same time as committees were meeting, which is something that happens every day in our practice. According to him, somehow the contradiction develops when the committee of the whole house is meeting and the standing committees are meeting. The hon. member, Mr. Chairman, has more intelligence than that, and one cannot help but feel he was searching for arguments to use up the time, to delay further the passage of what is really, in all respects, a very innocent piece of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Hugh Faulkner: Hon. members opposite groan. That is the level of their arguments now, a series of groans. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to examine some of the things that were said-


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I ask the hon. member a technical question, and may I point out he is a former deputy speaker of the House? How is it possible for the committee of the whole house to meet when Mr. Speaker is in the Chair?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants had done me the courtesy of listening to my remarks more carefully he would be able to appreciate the distinction. The argument being made last night by his colleague was that the committee of the whole house should not be meeting while standing committees are meeting. The point I am making is that the same objection was not made by the hon. member for St.
John's East with respect to committees meeting at the same time as the House is meeting with Mr. Speaker in the Chair. Apparently it seemed to him that the House was not as important as the committee of the whole house.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with some of the things that have been said in this debate. This bill has been described by various members in pretty strong terms, and I suppose in none stronger than those used by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. If you go through his remarks, Mr. Chairman, you will see he made some very strong claims. He claimed that Parliament was being bamboozled. That seems to me to be a reflection as much on the members of his own party as it is on the members on this side of the House. He quoted with approval the remarks of the hon. member for Carle-ton-Charlotte who described "the mercenary provisions" of this bill. He went on to describe the bill as having all the hallmarks of the dictatorship of the majority. He went on to describe it as a fraud, a political swindle, and he also described it as a piece of skulduggery, placing shackles and bridles on Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: Hon. members opposite approve. I hope they approve, when I conclude my remarks, with as much enthusiasm as they approved these fatuous charges of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. That is how he, an ex-prime minister, one of the senior members of this House, described the government organization bill. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that his strong language is nothing more nor less than exaggerated nonsense. The tragedy is that he is not alone. He has the support of another very senior, very respected member of this chamber, the leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Could it possibly be that both of them are right?


James Hugh Faulkner: The hon. member will have his chance to speak again, Mr. Chairman, and we will listen with bated breath to his fourth or fifth contribution to this debate. I would like to quote some remarks made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, as recorded at page 4788 of Hansard:
Yet here the government Is asking for authority, without referring to parliament and merely by proclamation, to set up such a department, to extend the powers of that department-
Mark that, Mr. Chairman.
-to extend the powers of that department and, when it deems it advisable, to end that department.
It was offensive to the hon. member that the government could do this sort of thing.
Parliament is not to have any opportunity whatsoever to discuss the matter. Mr. Chairman, this is an amazing attitude for the government to take.
At that point the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert interjected:
It is scandalous.

April 2, 1971

This inspired the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands to continue:
It is nothing short of scandalous that the government should ask for the power to set up departments of government without referring to the Parliament of Canada-
That is an interesting suggestion, Mr. Chairman, particularly in light of what was put on the record on February 2 by the President of the Treasury Board. I draw the attention of the committee to recent changes made under the Manitoba Executive Government Organization Act. I point out that at the time of those changes, we hardly heard cries of dismay from members of the New Democratic Party. There were no alarms raised at that point. What were the powers that the Manitoba legislature, under that act, provided for the Lieutenant Governor in Council? I quote from the act:
Notwithstanding any act of the legislature the Lieutenant Governor in Council may determine the organization of executive government and of the various departments thereof, and for that purpose may
(a) establish, vary, or disestablish any department;
This is precisely the power that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands was describing in these rather extravagant terms in respect of the present bill before the House. Under the Manitoba Executive Government Organization Act, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may also:
-determine or vary the duties and functions of any department and transfer any duties and functions from one department to another;
(c) determine or change the name of any department.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if what is happening here is so offensive to the traditions of Parliament, if what is happening is so inimical to the traditions of this Parliament, surely it is equally offensive and inimical to the traditions of the legislature of Manitoba. It appears to me that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has two standards, one to apply to a government which does not share his political philosophy, and another to apply to a party which happens to be the government at the time, and which does share his philosophy.
That was not the only claim that that hon. member made. He also went on to call into question the matter of control. All hon. members know that the appropriations of ministries of state pass through our committee system and before the House. But the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands did not deal exactly with this point. These were his remarks, as recorded at page 4788 of Hansard.
There is no opportunity in the House except for a vote. It is true that a member may specify a particular item on which he wants a vote taken, but there is no opportunity for discussion.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that is simply not true. If the opposition want to debate an item of the estimates, and they know this as well as I do, they simply put forward that item and forgo the temptation to put in a resolution which pre-empts it. There is no reason why any item in our estimates cannot be debated in the House of Commons. I think it is misleading to suggest that there will be no opportunity to debate these appropriations.
Government Organization Act, 1970


An hon. Member:: How long?


James Hugh Faulkner: I woudl like to look briefly at this bill which has engendered so much opprobrium, which has been called in such extravagant terms a bill to undermine Parliament and jeopardize parliamentary traditions.


Gerald William Baldwin: The bill is for the benefit of Liberal backbenchers.


James Hugh Faulkner: What are we talking about? What are the powers we are talking about when we deal with ministers of state? I have before me clauses 14 and 15. Basically, the ministries of state for designated purposes are to be set up to formulate and develop new and comprehensive policies in relation to any matter or matters coming within the responsibility of the government of Canada. Surely, that is not such an outrageous proposition. A ministry of state would simply be set up to respond, in a flexible way, to immediate needs. It seems to me a little extraordinary that hon. members opposite can see in such a provision a threat to our democratic institutions, and such a threat to our Parliament, that it has required them to protract this debate for 17 days. When one compares the particular powers sought in this bill with the powers which are available to the Manitoban Lieutenant Governor in Council, one really questions the sincerity at least of members in the NDP in protracting this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Hugh Faulkner: The fact is that this is an entirely relevant provision, relevant to the needs of government in the 1970's. There is nothing insidious about it, there is nothing dangerous about it, and it escapes me completely as I am sure it must escape Canadians at large, why the official opposition would protract, delay and procrastinate for 17 solid days of legislative time, debate on a bill which simply provides for these meaningful and relevant powers.


Mr. Osier:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Can he tell us how much mail he has been getting on the subject after 17 days of debate? I did not receive any.


James Hugh Faulkner: That is true. I am hoping to get more mail after my speech.


Gerald William Baldwin: You will, and you will not like it.


John Mercer Reid: It will all be from you.


James Hugh Faulkner: If I may sum up, because my time is limited, as is everybody else's-


An hon. Member:: Take all the time you want.


Robert Jardine McCleave: We are Conservatives, not hoodlums.


James Hugh Faulkner: I know why hon. members opposite are so generous, because when I speak it takes the burden off others in protracting this absurd filibuster into 18 and 19 days. But I am not prepared to go on to that degree, much as I admire and respect hon. members opposite.
4872

April 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 The point is that clauses 14 and 15, which deal with ministries of state, do not set up a department to manage a program. In the bill itself it is indicated, and it was indicated by the President of the Treasury Board, that ministries of state will be more or less small, highly specialized groups, probably temporary in nature in some cases, to deal with a specific problem. I really fail to see how any member opposite, with any understanding, even as minimal as it often is on the opposite side, of what our needs are today in government could possibly object to that provision.
Now, I want to turn to another clause which has also come in for some criticism, and which relates to parliamentary secretaries.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is the one that is so dear to most of our hearts.


James Hugh Faulkner: I am surprised at the hon. member for St. John's East.


James Aloysius McGrath: It affects all my deposed friends over there.


James Hugh Faulkner: The hon. member has had some experience with regard to parliamentary secretaries. Would he like to see the leader of his party stand up and say, if elected, God forbid, as leader of his country, that he would abolish this provision in the bill?


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the hon. member permit a question?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am running out of time. During this debate no mention has been made of the responsibilities of parliamentary secretaries, and there are some experienced ex-parliamentary secretaries opposite who know what those responsibilities are and who are perfectly aware of the history of parliamentary secretaries in our tradition. Instead, we were faced with a blanket charge of greed, self-seeking ambition and all sorts of odious charges which are really unworthy of hon. members opposite. What I find so interesting is how the line of argument has changed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Do you want us to lobby for you?


James Hugh Faulkner: In 1959 this was not the argument hon. members opposite were using. On March 24, a resolution was introduced to the House which I would like to quote.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. Hon. members should know that they should not disturb the Chairman when he is reading the Bible.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that you are reading the Bible in the middle of my speech, but never mind.


Gerald William Baldwin: He was reading the section which says "They shall begat-"


James Hugh Faulkner: The resolution reads as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the appointment of parliamentary secretaries to ministers, to provide for the payment of salaries to them at the rate of $4,000 per annum out of the consolidated revenue fund and to authorize the re-imbursement to them of reasonable expenses incurred by them in the discharge of their duties.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


James Hugh Faulkner: That was a resolution introduced in 1959 by none other than the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I know that the hon. member is not the kind of hon. member who, despite his party, would deliberately try to mislead the House, but I think the hon. member must agree that that act replaced one which the Liberal government enacted dealing with parliamentary assistants.


James Hugh Faulkner: I missed the point of order of the hon. member, but I am advised by the President of the Treasury Board that it was insignificant. However, let me proceed. Now that I have read the resolution and all hon. members are aware of it, let me point out that what is more interesting than that simple resolution is the argument that was developed by the right hon. gentleman in defence of the resolution. I think his arguments are dead on. It is not often that I agree with him but this was one time in a debate when he was absolutely dead on. I am surprised that he did not employ the same arguments in the debate dealing with the bill before us. As recorded at page 2186 of Hansard, in defence of the resolution providing for parliamentary secretaries and their emoluments he said:
Our purpose is at all times to improve and strengthen Parliament as an institution; to make possible an opportunity for members in various parts of the country to learn of the operations of the departments and to participate in a specialized manner in doing those things which are allotted the departments-


Gerald William Baldwin: We had members who were capable of doing it.


James Hugh Faulkner: I would like to continue reading what I consider to be quite a relevant quotation. It continues:
After all, the major question is to keep Parliament in a position of not being unchanged and unchangeable.
That was the justification and that, of course, is precisely the justification being used today. He had more to say as follows:
We maintain ancient traditions; we change to meet those changes that come about through the complexities of modem government.
We change some of the forms, but maintain the mandate. We alter, to meet altering conditions, the techniques of Parliament. We do not change the great abiding things that have remained with us as our legacy from the generations past.

April 2, 1971


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Does the House agree to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Hugh Faulkner: I am very grateful, Mr. Chairman, and I will only be a few minutes.


James Aloysius McGrath: Now, you have another 20 minutes.


James Hugh Faulkner: The arguments which were relevant in 1959 in support of the very useful initiative of the Conservative party are equally relevant in 1970. Probably even more so, since the calibre of appointees is higher.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: I got a lot of support there from the parliamentary secretaries.


James Aloysius McGrath: You didn't get any from your
predecessor.


James Hugh Faulkner: It appears to me to be somewhat curious that the arguments have changed over a period of some ten or eleven years. I don't want to use up any more of the time of this chamber, Mr. Chairman, because I am sure that after this convincing intervention there will be a disposition to take the vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Francis:: Vote.


James Hugh Faulkner: I want to repeat that it does seem that the argument about the bill as a threat to Parliament, and as a threat to our institutions amounts to nothing more than arrant nonsense, and that these charges are presented with synthetic indignation. We should call it what it is at this point, shameful and shameless obstruction of government business. I think the opposition will be held accountable for it when they meet the people.


An hon. Member:: When is that?


James Hugh Faulkner: In my view, Parliament deserves much better from the opposition than we are getting and have heard during the past 17 days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member indicated he would accept a question and I have a very simple one. In view of the fact that the same members on the other side have sat all through this debate, are we to assume that they are the candidates for ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman-


Prosper Boulanger: On the same point of order-


Gerald William Baldwin: It was not a point of order.


Prosper Boulanger: On the same point of order; wouldn't you think that after inviting us to speak, the opposition
Government Organization Act, 1970 would have had enough for their money for a few days? They realize how good we are now.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. I don't think questions of order of that type should be directed to the Chairman, who, after all, is an innocent bystander not seeking any particular honour.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I think the strength of our parliamentary institution has been well proven in the last couple of days. We are strong enough to withstand the last question; we are strong enough to withstand the last speech; we are strong enough to withstand the fact that one side of this chamber decided a couple of days ago that the other side should not be allowed to speak. In our turn, however, we would permit the parliamentary secretary to continue his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You are all heart.


Robert Jardine McCleave: We are all heart, we are all democracy, we are all soul and we are going to make this institution work despite the efforts of hon. gentlemen opposite to turn it into a computerized 1984 type of operation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: I don't have to pay much attention to the odour of those who are preaching for higher calls to know that we are heading exactly in the right direction when we criticize this bill. I rise from higher motives than simply to cast aspersions-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Jardine McCleave: -on the preachments of those opposite. I rise to speak on Bill C-207, an act respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto. I rise from the rather special position of having been the first person in the House to speak on this particular measure, to cast doubts on the way it was presented to us.


An hon. Member:: What date was that?


Robert Jardine McCleave: That was so long ago that my hon. friend opposite has now about ten more grey hairs and by the time he goes back to his constituents to try to explain it he will be completely bald. I rise to carry on the point I made then, that this is seven bills in one. I am not even going to touch on the part that deals with parliamentary secretaries and this should please my hon. friends opposite very much. Within the time allotted to me, I am going to deal especially with Part IV which refers to ministries and ministers of state. On its face, Bill C-207 bears the sponsorship of the Prime Minister of Canada.


James Aloysius McGrath: Where is he?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for St. John's East has asked where the Prime Minister of Canada is today.


An hon. Member:: Read the newspaper.
24081-28J

April 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Robert Jardine McCleave: The right hon. Prime Minister of Canada, who sponsored this bill, has never spoken on it in this House, but he has answered some questions about it during the question period. I shall refer to them later. Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I have known of any newlywed in Canada to visit Niagara Falls without his wife.


Prosper Boulanger: That is not very funny.


Robert Jardine McCleave: It is not very funny, Mr. Chairman, and I am glad somebody is speaking up for the wife of the Prime Minister today.


Prosper Boulanger: From a socialist I would expect it.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I could finish the second, third and fourth parts of my speech if necessary at a future time without being interrupted by the hon. gentleman opposite.
I think it has to be pointed out over and over again to the House of Commons and the people of Canada that this is the first time in my memory a bill has been debated so long without the presence of the person associated with it. That is rather unusual, and since the bill involves the reorganization of the government of Canada, I think we should have some indication of the thoughts of the right hon. gentleman from Mount Royal on it and his ideas about the organization of the government which he heads. Be that as it may if we don't get his views now perhaps we will get them at some other time.
I am going to deal, Mr. Chairman, with Part IV which refers to ministries and ministers of state, and I will not be drawn into a discussion of the question of parliamentary secretaries. However, I should be glad to answer the hon. member for Peterborough on that at a future time. Last week or the week before in this chamber, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings asked the Prime Minister a question about the ministries of state and I followed with a supplementary question. The answers clearly showed the Prime Minister envisioned that the housing and urban affairs policy of his government would be established by the creation of one ministry of state, that the science policy of this government would be established by a second ministry of state and, according to a speech by the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing, that possibly matters under the aegis of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women would be the responsibility of yet another minister of state. This accounts for three of the five ministries of state.
I should like to repeat in committee this afternoon a question I asked the other night which was answered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. Now, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is an engaging chap, and I think he was struck by my point, but he could not answer on behalf of the government, nor could any minister and the Prime Minister himself was not here. The question was this: Are we to take it that whenever there is a vacuum in the ministry, that the vacuum can be filled by an ex parte action, so to speak,

taken by the Prime Minister and his government? I say that is exactly what this House is being asked to approve when it approves part IV of this measure. In other words, immediately after this measure is given royal assent the right hon. gentleman can set up his ministry for housing and urban affairs. No one in this chamber will have the right to stand up and say that this or that should be in the legislation, or that certain powers should be given to the minister and certain powers withheld. It is as simple as that, Mr. Chairman. Don't you think it is important and does not anybody on the government side think that this is important? Does no one in the opposition think that this is an important matter?


An hon. Member:: I do.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I ask, why have we not, in this debate, concerned ourselves with urban affairs? The Prime Minister told the House that he wishes to set up a department dealing with urban affairs. Oh yes, we all buy esoteric theories and listen to guff and probably talk a lot of guff; but we do not talk about the things that concern Canada and the urbanization of this country. Would it not be a pity if, without debating urban affairs, we passed this bill and thereby gave some fellow in the ranks of the government who was preaching for a call the right to set up a department of urban affairs which might possibly contravene the provisions of the British North America Act relating to federal responsibilities. Urban affairs constitute the fastest growing problem within our nation. Should we not be debating that subject now? Heavens above, Mr. Chairman, if we do not debate the subject, how can we even go back to our people and say that we had the gall to represent them in Parliament? How can we say that if we allow this opportunity to slip by? I say to the Prime Minister that this particular debate ought to be an urban affairs debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: The right hon. gentleman also said that science policy would be subject to a pronunciamento from the government. Which hon. member would he pick to guide our science policy? I see two hon. members who, in my opinion, might perform this task adequately. Should not they and others on the government be listening to what we on this side say? Should they not listen to our opinions? Are we supposed to crouch in some miserable position, and forget that we are in Parliament. Oh, come on now. The hon. member who suggested that we are spending too long on this debate may wish that we had spent 1,000 days more on it if he wishes Parliament to remain in being. The Minister without Portfolio who I suppose has responsibility for the recommendations of the royal commission on the status of women, if anyone can be said to be in charge of them, has suggested, I think, that the subject of women should come under the portfolio of one of the new ministers of state. Will this mean that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the only woman in the House, will be included within the responsibilities of that portfolio.
April 2, 1971


An hon. Member:: She can look after herself.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Are the rest of us in this House not to say what sort of jurisdiction that minister will have?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is that what we have come to in this Parliament? Is none of us to be allowed to express his opinion on subjects like housing and urban transport, the area in which we face some of our greatest problems?


James Aloysius McGrath: Don't forget Information Canada.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Are we not to be allowed to speak on science policy? The committee of the other place studying this matter had volumes to say on the subject, and did not show in any favourable light any government going back as far as 1935. I am trying to make my remarks as broad and as non-partisan as possible, you see. It showed all governments in a bad light; science policy, like Topsy, has been allowed to grow and grow. It is as simple as that, Mr. Chairman.
Once in a while I have tried to be non-partisan in my speeches, although this afternoon I have been partisan. Sometimes I make suggestions which may not be valid until ten or 15 years have passed. At any rate, I have tried to make suggestions to the best of my ability. I say that this is good or that is bad and, somehow, we reach a consensus. Apparently, we are being told at present that the computer knows what is good and that we need not trouble ourselves about some matters. Oh, no, Mr. Chairman, that is not good enough. If that is what Parliament is to be all about then, for goodness sake let us put it in the form of a resolution so that some of us can get out while there is still time and preserve our sanity.
Let us look, specifically, at how ministers of state are to derive their powers. The hon. member who preceded me mentioned clauses 14 and 15. I shall read clause 14:
Where it appears to the Governor in Council that the requirements tor formulating and developing new and comprehensive policies in relation to any matter or matters coming within the responsibility of the Government of Canada warrant the establishment for the time being of a special portion of the public service of Canada presided over by a Minister charged with responsibility for the formulation and development of such policies, the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, establish a Ministry of State for that purpose.
If I may, I should like to mention something relating to my home province. If we are to be parochial in our thinking, let us at least talk about the environment from which we began our careers. When the Fathers of Confederation sat down together over 100 years ago, they did two things which now appear to be self-contradictory. If oil is discovered in commercial quantities off the coast of Nova Scotia, it will be seen that the positions of the Fathers of Confederation were contradictory indeed. The British North America Act provides that the boundaries of the province of Nova Scotia shall remain as they existed before confederation. If that is so, then the boundaries of Nova Scotia clearly extend to Sable Island, that spit of land cropping out in the Atlantic which has swallowed up so many ships and lives. Later, when defining the responsibilities of the Parliament of Canada, the
Government Organization Act, 1970 British North America Act, in a subsection of section 91, provides that the Parliament of Canada is to have exclusive jurisdiction over aids to navigation and the like. Sable Island is specifically mentioned. In my opinion, two parts of the British North America Act are contradictory. One part indicates that the province of Nova Scotia is to retain the jurisdiction it exercised over the territory that was Nova Scotia before the coming into effect of confederation, which brings in Sable Island.
The old maps show Sable Island. Nova Scotia, before confederation, had to provide navigation safeguards with respect to the island. But, another part of the British North America Act provides that the federal government or the Parliament of Canada shall have exclusive jurisdiction in certain areas. It mentions navigational safeguards, and specifically mentions Sable Island. I do not know how one can resolve this contradiction. I presume that the provisions of this subsection would not affect earlier sections of the British North America Act. Be that as it may, I submit that because Sable Island is specifically mentioned in the subsection I have just mentioned, the government could establish a ministry charged with responsibility for Sable Island, if I read clause 14 correctly.


An hon. Member:: They have horses there.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, there are horses there, but they are not horses on the payroll.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Not yet.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Be that as it may, we would never have the opportunity to talk about that matter until it was either decided in court or the estimates of the particular ministry came before us. We would never be able to give the flavour of our opinion on what should be established under that ministry of state, and that is completely wrong. The purposes of the government would be better served if they took any one of these matters and allowed members of the opposition and the government to speak about what they think the legislation should contain. I say to the President of the Treasury Board that we should be told government thinking in this regard because it would play a large part in helping us make up our minds and conducting the debate. It is as simple as that. I make that point as seriously as I can.
I only have four or five more minutes in which to speak. I have three quotations I would like to put on the record. If I do not have enough time, perhaps I could yield to someone else and do this at a future time.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The quotations are from a debate in the House of Commons in London on November 19, 1964. The debate was on second reading of the machinery of government bill. I will put these quotations on the record as quickly as I can. I quote from the speech of Mr. Selwyn

April 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 Lloyd which appears at page 655 of the record of the debate:
In our view, changes in the machinery of government should be made after and not before discussion in Parliament, for the very good reason that such matters fall for the judgment of right hon, and hon. members not just as party men or women, but as individual Members of Parliament, custodians of its traditions and rights.
In that debate a leader which appeared in the London Times about the advantages of the extra ministries and the argument for extra parliamentary secretaries was quoted. This was quoted by Mr. Lloyd, at page 663, as follows:
The present rule, which was re-enacted after deliberation only seven years ago, makes 70 the upper limit. Mr. Wilson will have 83 salaried members of the government on the benches with them. Add to that the unpaid whips and the usual bevy of parliamentary private secretaries and the number of MPs attached to the government will be between 130 and 140, not far short of half the parliamentary Labour Party.
Of course, their numbers are much more than ours.
If this is to be the practice in the future there simply will not be enough ministerial backbenchers of the capacity and independence required to man the committees which ought to be keeping watch on policy.
I will not read the final quote: I do not think I can compress it into a moment or two. In conclusion, I suggest to the Prime Minister, not by way of fighting words but as kind advice, that it would be better to get our advice when establishing new ministries. There may be a long debate at the start, but there will be shorter debate after the ministries are established. I thank the committee for its indulgence.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, the right hon. member for Prince Albert rendered this House a great service in speaking on Tuesday with his devastating analysis of Bill C-207. I was delighted to see that his message appeared to be getting through to the backbenchers and even a few frontbenchers across the floor. I listened with interest to the discourse and representations of the hon. member from Peterborough a few minutes ago, preaching for the preservation of his present position as Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State.
An. hon. Member: He already has the position.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I said he was preaching for the preservation of his present position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State. We listened to his speech with certain reservations because he has a conflict of interest.
Most hon. members call this an omnibus bill. I think most members know the meaning of the word "omnibus." With the Prime Minister's liking for the romantic, and travel, it will take a very large omnibus to hold all the new ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries at one time. There is now new hope for the SST jumbo jet program recently cancelled in the United States. It will take one of these huge planes to carry this expensive throng. The planes now at the disposal of the Prime Minister will be made obsolete by Bill C-207 if he wishes to take his cabinet with him.
Cracks are beginning to show up in the government wall, a wall that many of us had come to believe was invincible. When men lose their taste for debate and lack the courage to stand up and oppose, then the leader of such men can indeed become invincible. Despotism must have support. No despot has ever ruled on the strength of his own initiative or his own character. He must rally men around him who are willing to be used as pawns in a cruel game designed to systematically rob the people of their heritage. But cracks are now showing up in the wall, Mr. Chairman, and the great one-man show across the floor is nearing the end of the last act. The curtain will be rung down on the sorriest melodrama ever played in this House. As result of the railway engine drivers' strike, the only thing moving in Canada today is the Liberal gravy train.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Members opposite may shout and jeer, but it is true. Everything else, employment, the CNR, the CPR, western grain and potash shipments, British Columbia lumber-are any government members from British Columbia present?-Consolidated Smelters, at Trail, B.C., and Hudson Bay mining at Flin Flon have all stopped. They are either dormant or dead, but the Liberal gravy train rolls merrily on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
e (3:10 p.m.)


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Does the Prime Minister and his supergovernment really believe that the Canadian people are going to swallow one bitter pill after another, without ever calling him to account? The Prime Minister is custodian of the public purse, public welfare and Canadian institutions. There seems to be an assumption on the other side of the House that the Prime Minister can transcend all the rules of procedure and all the traditions which have been developed and nourished in the Canadian Parliament over the last 100 years. He is the sponsor of the bill before us, yet he has not been present at any of the debates in connection therewith.
There seems to be a misconception in the minds of those on the other side of the House as to just what is the role of the Prime Minister. There is surely some confusion as to whether or not the Prime Minister is even a mortal man. The Prime Minister does not own the public purse. He does not own the Canadian people. He does not own the institution of Parliament, all rumours to the contrary. The Prime Minister has confused his sacred trust with outright ownership. I go on record as informing him that he does not hold clear title to anything in Canada except his own personal property, like the rest of us. Parliament and the Canadian purse are the property of the Canadian people. The bill we are now debating makes the dangerous assumption that the Prime Minister is free to disburse funds at pleasure. It makes the assumption that the Prime Minister can dip into the public purse to reward obedience and servility on the part of his loyal subjects on the benches opposite. No Prime Minister in the history of Canada has ever

April 2, 1971

approached the august chair of chief minister with such total disregard for the responsibilities which are traditionally accepted and discharged by the holder of that high office.
All of us in this House know that the office of Prime Minister carries with it implied privileges which are not accorded to other parliamentarians. There are also responsibilities connected with that high office which do not have to be assumed or discharged by any other Canadian. Tabling legislation in this House in the sure knowledge that a clear majority of members supporting the government will ensure its passage is not a privilege; it is a responsibility. When a government holds a clear majority it is a public trust as well as a responsibility for the Prime Minister to ensure that the legislation tabled by him does not transcend the established limits of authority vested in him by the Canadian electorate.
Bill C-207 is a complete rejection of the responsibility assumed, presumably in good faith, by the Prime Minister. It constitutes a clear denial of the sacred trust vested in his high office; and I am prepared to challenge him to take this bill to the Canadian people by way of a referendum. If it is so important to him to have these super powers, let him get them directly from the people by their consent and I shall not complain. But he knows, as we know, Mr. Chairman, that the Canadian people would reject him and his preposterous demands out of hand. There is no justification for the powers the Prime Minister seeks in the bill before us. A Prime Minister who cannot govern with the largest cabinet in the history of this country is not likely to do any better simply by expanding it still further. Adding pomposity to the present Prime Minister's arrogance is not likely to get us better government.
I think the real issue here is that he has come to the end of his string, and I will not be a party to shoring up a weak and confused leader by delivering up the public purse. Nor will I submit to the insidious and arrogant subterfuge which characterizes this bill as being necessary to the preservation of the Canadian environment. We have lots of law on this subject. We have had for 100 years law on our statute books to deal with this situation. Statutes already in force forbid anyone to pollute our streams, our soil and our air. Why not use the laws we already have? Certainly we need an improvement in the quality of the environment-and we intend to get it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I understood the hon. gentleman correctly. Do I understand him to say that since we already have adequate laws to protect the environment, we do not need this new department?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I never said we did not need a department of the environment. My contention is that we do not need to pay such an extreme and unreasonable price for one.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. This might be an appropriate point at which to remind hon. members that we are considering clause 14. I think it is fair that the debate be allowed to range over part IV of the bill because the
Government Organization Act, 1970 clauses are interrelated, but I should point out that the establishment of a department of the environment is dealt with in another part of the bill. I believe we should confine debate now to the issue of the ministers of state.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but clause 14 is one of the clauses which must be passed if we are to obtain a department of the environment. The other day-one of my constituents stopped me on a street in Napanee and asked, "Why do you criticize Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Benson so much; they haven't done anything"?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I thought that was a very good point. This bill is a sugar-coated pill and the inside of the pill is more bitter by far than anything so far perpetrated here. We on this side are being asked to vote, so to speak, in favour of motherhood and in favour of unrestricted abortion, all with one show of the hand. There is no record of such shameless conduct in the history of Parliament, with the possible exception of the use of closure by a former Liberal government in order to subvert this institution for its own purposes. As was pointed out by my right hon. friend from Prince Albert, if we agree to let the Prime Minister re-make Parliament in his own image we could have a ministry of the environment. I would not willingly give him that kind of power in return for any concession.
I would not be prepared to give the Prime Minister unrestrained powers even if he promised to provide one million jobs in the coming year. The price would be too great to pay, and I would not be prepared to take his word on that score since he has steadfastly refused to reverse policies which have inflicted on our people the highest rate of unemployment since the great depression. As my friend said "he has done nothing".
Why would a Canadian Prime Minister need, or even want, a larger cabinet when he already has the largest, the most cumbersome and the most expensive cabinet in Canadian history? I should add that it is also the largest cabinet in the western world. By way of contrast, the United States cabinet consists of 12 departmental ministers and two non-departmental ministers in the persons of the vice-president and the permanent ambassador to the United Nations, for a total of 14. Great Britain appears to be able to get by with a cabinet of 22 ministers; and Britain has a population of some 55 million people. We are not likely to impress other nations with our assumed pre-eminence or importance by giving virtually every member of the government party a fat cabinet post. I believe we would project an image far different from the one the Prime Minister envisions.
It is obvious to anyone who can think at all that the only way in which a government of such a size could be kept under control would be for the Prime Minister to keep the ministers on a short leash-I think he is doing that now-and force them to wear muzzles. There is no other way in which such a monstrous machine could be piloted and guided by one individual. And, with the

April 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
exception of three or four courageous souls, we have seen for ourselves that the ministers and members across the floor are already kept on a short rein. I wonder how much more a man will endure in order to qualify for one of the lucrative cabinet positions being dangled before him.
One former minister now sitting as an hon. member across the floor has exhibited uncommon courage on many occasions since he forsook the financial rewards and the prestige of the cabinet rather than renounce his lofty code of ethics and his personal honour. I refer to the hon. member for Trinity. He placed his duty to his constituents above the rewards of high office, and many hon. members on his side of the House would do well to follow his example. A few days ago that hon. member took his government to task for the disastrous and inhumane manner in which they have mismanaged the national economy. I would like to repeat one of his comments on that occasion. He said: "In my opinion, as a nation we should be ashamed". He was referring to the massive unemployment in our country but his comment applies equally well to the bin we are debating. If we in this chamber, on both sides of the House, allow the Prime Minister to railroad such a bill through this Parliament, then we should all hang our heads in shame.
Not a single member of this House has a moral right to allow the Prime Minister to take unto himself the powers of a reigning sovereign or of a dictator. If we must do this in order to get a department of the environment, then I submit this is too great a price. Nor do we need a minister of the environment alone. We have already seen that this government takes away more than it gives in the downgrading of the Department of Fisheries, at a time when it has never been more important to us to have an effective fisheries ministry and a forceful and dedicated fisheries minister. Foreign nations are raping and depleting our fishing grounds and, in the process, are putting our fishing and fish processing industries in jeopardy. Scientific effort in the area of inland and offshore fishing technology and fisheries protection should be accelerated-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. I appreciate that the debate on this clause has been very wide and I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I think I have a responsibility to ask him to try to be as relevant as possible to clause 14, or at least to part IV of the bill. With respect, there is nothing within the purview of the committee this afternoon relating to the matters with which the hon. members has been dealing.


Mr. Lundrigan:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, clause 14 deals with the creation of a number of ministers of state. In this bill the government is also downgrading the role of the fisheries and eliminating from the roster system of the House one of the most important portfolios in the government. Surely the hon. member's remarks are relevant. As a matter of fact, I hope to be able to make three or four 20-minute speeches on the point the hon. member is now making. I submit that his argument is certainly within the purview of clause 14.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for Frontenac-Len-nox and Addington.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, I remained seated because I fully expected you would be making a ruling on the hon. member's point of order.


Russell Clayton Honey: I am prepared to make a ruling. I think generally I agree with the hon. member. If the hon. member who now has the floor is relating his remarks to the creation of a new ministry, or at least the designation of a ministry of state for the purpose of fisheries, or for the purpose of youth, and so on, as many hon. members have already done in this debate, then I think there is relevancy in his remarks.
I have not tried to hold any hon. member too closely to the subject, but with respect I think the hon. member who has the floor and who is making a very good contribution was not previously completely germane to the clause. But I think he will be now.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your vindication of my statements. I was just saying that a scientific effort in the area of inland and offshore fishing technology and fisheries protection should be accelerated under a fully-fledged ministry, not downgraded. This is but one more price we are expected to pay for the department of the environment, and the price is too high.
The clause that would create the department of the environment has been called the motherhood clause and we are told that if we refuse to let the bill go through we will be accused of being against the preservation and improvement of our environment. I disagree heartily, Mr. Chairman. I call that clause a red herring, and I support the view of the right hon. member for Prince Albert that the clause should have been submitted to this House as a separate bill in order that it could receive adequate study and attention and the support of all parties in the House.
It would be a sad occasion, and it would be the low point in the history of this Parliament, if this bill should ever be enacted into law. If that should happen, then the day on which it is proclaimed should be declared a national day of mourning, which should be observed on that day in each succeeding year as a reminder to the Canadian people that the sacred institution of Parliament was lost to them for all time by default. It will do everything within my power to alert the people to the danger that threatens the future of their institutions and their birthright if this bill becomes law. Bill C-207 is an arrogant attempt to subvert Parliament and to vest suppressive power in the office of the Prime Minister. I will do everything in my power to rouse my people to righteous indignation against this giant step in the direction of dictatorship.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Chairman, we have heard some very interesting interventions in this debate on part IV of the bill. I was particularly interested in the intervention of the hon. member for Peterborough who so far has been the only member on the government side to contribute to the debate today. He seemed to indicate there was
April 2, 1971

some sort of urgency in this country that required the expeditious passage of this legislation, and I think a word or two should be said on that particular point.
Looking at the order paper, one would not get the impression that there has been a great deal of urgent public business prepared by the government for the consideration of this chamber. It is of interest to note that at second reading stage there are six items. The first is the Yukon Territory minerals bill, the second is the young offenders act, the third the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, the fourth the unemployment insurance legislation, fifth the weather modification bill, and sixth the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act. Of those measures, I submit only three have any real substance and are of national importance-the young offenders bill and the two measures standing in the name of the Minister of Labour. In that connection I think even those measures would not take very much time of the House if the government were to indicate some willingness to remove the controversial and overburdening provisions contained in them.
After second reading we have two measures at the report stage. The first is legislation to provide for a grant for a heavy water plant in Nova Scotia. Then there is legislation dealing with weights and measures. On third reading we have the textile bill. So I do not see how the government can indicate it has a great, exciting program which has been held up by the discussion on this very important piece of legislation. In respect of part IV of the bill which is before us this afternoon, which is the proposal to create five new ministries of state, I would like to ask the government why we should consider increasing the size of this country's cabinet at this time.
Reference has been made to the size of the cabinet in the United Kingdom and the cabinet in the United States. I think it is of interest that in his state of the union address, the President of the United States proposed a reduction in the size of his cabinet. I should like to refer to an article by Lubor J. Zink in the Calgary Herald of February 19, 1971. The article states:
Paradoxically, Mr. Nixon says he can do with fewer cabinet ministers while Mr. Trudeau says he needs more.
Calling for a "sweeping reorganization of the executive branch" in his state of the union message last month, Mr. Nixon proposed to reduce the present 12 cabinet departments in Washington to eight.
We have 29. The reduction in the United States is a one-third reduction in the size of the cabinet. The article continues:
This, he said, we needed "if the government is to keep up with the times and with the needs of the people."
Mr. Nixon wants to retain unchanged four of the existing departments (state, treasury, defence and justice) which have clearly defined and indispensable roles, but seeks to consolidate the remaining eight into four which would be responsible for human resources, community development, natural resources, and economic development.
"Under this plan," Mr. Nixon said, "rather than dividing up our departments by narrow subjects, we would organize them around the great purposes of government. Rather than scatter-
Government Organization Act, 1970
ing responsibility by adding new levels of bureaucracy, we would focus and concentrate the responsibility for getting problems solved."
It's an imaginative and bold attempt to end the buck-passing paper-pushing practice among proliferating federal agencies which, Mr. Nixon said, have created "hopeless confusion for form and function."
No doubt the entrenched bureaucratic empires and their political protectors in Washington will fight Mr. Nixon's sweeping reorganization program tooth and nail.
I suggest that Bill C-207 interests the bureaucracy in this country because, after all, if there are to be up to five new ministries there will have to be supporting staffs. I think the comments of the editorialist in the Calgary Herald of February 18, 1971, are of interest here because a year or two ago we had a good program announced by the Prime Minister in which the public service was to be controlled and cut by 25,000 persons, as I recall the announcement of August, 1969. When all the smoke cleared we found that perhaps 300 people actually had been removed from the public service. In any event, that program has fallen by the wayside because now I believe there is a proposal to increase the public service by 8,000. I would quote from the editorial in this regard:
The great program to reduce the civil service in numbers is being replaced by a great new round of hiring. There is an allowance for hiring an additional 8,000 civil servants. This is one way to reduce unemployment, but it cannot be considered productive nor a realistic way of enlarging the nation's work force.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, if there are to be new ministries there cannot help but be a larger supporting staff and I do not see any demonstrable need for such staff at this time. There certainly is no evidence that any member of the present administration is over-worked. We have a situation in which the Secretary of State I believe is now sojourning around southern France, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is travelling around the South Pacific in a Boeing 707.
The ambitions of the Minister of Labour are a little less grandiose: he has gone to Montreal. I suppose he is working there in an effort to solve the transportation problem in this country. The locomotive engineers have been without a contract for ten months or more. This is a field of endeavour which is completely under the government's jurisdiction. If we have such an effective and hard working Minister of Labour, I wonder why in the past ten months he was not busy encouraging the parties to reach a contract instead of waiting for a strike to develop before doing anything and going where the action is.


An hon. Member:: The next thing we know, you will suggest the whip.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: What whip?


An hon. Member:: A whip to beat them into
submission.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I would like to see some of them earn their pay. Perhaps you want them to be like the minister of communications now that the Post Office has been removed from his jurisdiction. What conceivable reason is there for that man to be sitting on the treasury benches

April 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 and pulling down a full-fledged cabinet minister's salary? Yet you want to add to the number. This administration has demonstrated that it is unable to organize its affairs on a rational basis. We find that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is also responsible for the Wheat Board, and neither function is being discharged in a proper way. Recent immigrants to this country have advised me that while in theory the new immigration system may be fine, in practice it is not working. It has been pointed out to me that in practice a great number of immigrants to this country are unskilled and have nothing to contribute to the country except problems both for themselves and for the country.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: It is true. We are getting people in our country at this time whose only asset is muscle. This is not what is required by Canada at this time. It is perfectly obvious that the minister does not understand how the grain should be moved in this country. We find a situation where the train engineers started booking off sick last week on the west coast in protest against the long delay in respect of a solution of their problems. Now a week has gone by and certain grades of wheat are not on hand. Certainly the terminal facilities at Vancouver should be used in a better manner. Yet the minister says he must keep the amount of grain in storage at a low level so that there can be efficient handling. I say the fact is that he does not want to pay storage on the grain.
The government talks about the creation of new departments and we are told that these new ministers are needed to formulate policies and programs. What is the Privy Council office doing? What is the Prime Minister's office doing, and what are the senior planning executives of the departments doing, if we are not getting the required planning and formulation of policy and need more ministries?


Mr. Dinsdale:: They are running in different directions.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I would also ask why the government should be allowed to establish departments at will. This is an indication, to me, that this government has no understanding at all of the parliamentary system of government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: They are like a football team with no quarterback or coach.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: They are unduly influenced by the presidential system. They will not accept the fact that we have a combination of the executive and legislative branches within one chamber and that the executive branch's responsibility is to the legislative branch. They want to have a clear hand at organizing the executive the way they see fit. This also flows from their feeling that just because they had the greatest number of people elected in the last election, whatever they say goes-without any consideration for the people who did not necessarily support their party in the last election. They should remember that while they may have 154 members and the majority of seats here, they did not receive a majority of votes in the country and that they have certain responsibilities to those people.
In this country we may elect our dictators, but we should not be acting under that principle. The desire to have the right to proclaim new departments without reference to Parliament is just like the desire of the government to set the time for discussion in this place. It is the same type of thinking that produced rule 75C that is behind this bill, where they want this House to delegate absolute power to the executive to proclaim new ministries without further reference to this chamber- ministries that are supposed to be parts of this chamber.
The government has forgotten that we have a parliamentary system and think they are already operating under a presidential system. The roster system is another example of this. As hon. members on this side have pointed out in the last three years, the government has no right to set up a roster system which relieves attendance in this House when members are present in the city of Ottawa. They forget their responsibilities to Parliament.
It is important to members of this House, perhaps more to some than to others, to remember that this parliamentary system is one of the bulwarks protecting the Canadian identity, and that if we further reduce parliamentary processes so as to implement presidential processes we will be reducing more and more our reasons for a separate Canadian identity. I think hon. members from the province of Quebec should be particularly conscious of this fact, because if we adopt presidential processes and make ourselves look more like the Americans, we will also, with the pressure of their presence already on this continent, tend to become part of the United States. If we look and act like them in everything we do, we may as well have their standard of living and become the real thing rather than a pale imitation. So I think it is very important that we stop going along this road toward a denial of the British parliamentary system for some sort of presidential system which would give us the worst of both systems.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to rise again this afternoon. Because hon. members opposite knew I was going to speak, they gathered here in large numbers today.


Mr. Jerome:: I just want to interject for one moment on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. There has been discussion about a couple of measures on the order paper pertaining to a government measure and to a measure under the name of the hon. member for Timiskaming, a private member's bill. The government measure, Bill S-ll, deals with rainmaking equipment, and the bill in the name of the hon. member for Timiskaming also deals with this subject.
I make this suggestion, which I think will meet with unanimous consent of the House, that just prior to four o'clock the House might be disposed to pass, without

April 2, 1971

debate, Bill S-ll on second reading and refer it to the committee and, furthermore, might be disposed to give unanimous consent to drop from the order paper the bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Timiskam-ing but refer the subject matter of the bill to the committee at the same time. I thought I should inform Your Honour of this prior to reaching private members' hour at four o'clock. When the hon. member for Peace River is ready, perhaps we could do that and call it four o'clock.


Jean-Thomas Richard: The Chair has taken notice of this suggestion, but it will have to be made when Mr. Speaker is in the chair.


Gerald William Baldwin: I would be quite willing to take my hon. friends away from the land of milk and honey in which they have been recently, and if Your Honour wishes to assume the chair at this time I will reluctantly forgo my opportunity to make further comments on this bill. The suggestion of the parliamentary secretary is perfectly agreeable to me.


Jean-Thomas Richard: This will have to be done at four o'clock when Mr. Speaker is in the chair.


Gerald William Baldwin: Do I hear an hon. member on the opposite side say it is four o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gerald William Baldwin: I must say the whole thing reminds me of what the great bard said:
Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
The government, in their attempts to whistle through what they knew were bad, repugnant and objectionable proposals, included them with other measures in respect of which, although this House has had the opportunity to discuss them in a sharp and spirited way, there has been no disposition to prolong the debate. But on these particular measures the government proceeded, in spite of the clearest warning from this side of the House that these two particular parts of the bill were obnoxious and objectionable and would be opposed. When I hear the hon. member for Peterborough stand up and say that we were wrong in taking the time we have in discussing part IV of this bill, may I point out that he is not entitled to do so because we filed a caveat and made absolutely plain what we intended to do.
I say to the President of the Treasury Board that if he does not like it, he knows what to do. There is Standing Order 33 available to him any time he wants it. I will let him look at the Standing Order, but I will inform other hon. members that it is the rule with regard to closure. If the government does not like the fact that we are taking time, which we feel is our duty as responsible members of this House and as members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, in opposing this measure, they have a recourse which is available to them under the rules.


Prosper Boulanger: Yes; but filibustering is another matter.
Government Organization Act, 1970


Gerald William Baldwin: This is not filibustering; it is an opportunity to awaken the country to the dangers of this measure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: We have been discussing this matter for 17 days, but how many letters have hon. members opposite received? We have spent an extremely limited amount of time on this part.


An hon. Member:: You were not here.


Gerald William Baldwin: Let hon. members read the digest Hansard with regard to the debate on this particular part of the bill. Let me tell them we intend to make progress. We intend to stick to our guns, to see that the country is informed through the aid of those people whose duty it is to report intelligently, as I am sure they will, the debates in this House with respect to this issue. We intend to make certain that the people of this country, suffering under the misdeeds of a tyrannical and oppressive government, with heavy unemployment and with the cost of living going up, will look at this cause and the other causes which follow it and see them for what they are, until the volume of mail which flows to members of the opposition and, hopefully, to members of the government will be such as to compel the government to withdraw the bill.
Having disposed in those few sentences of the contribution of the hon. member for Peterborough, I want to turn my attention to the President of the Treasury Board whose remarks in connection with this part of the bill at second reading stage have been reviewed by many. I was not here at the time the minister made those remarks on second reading, but having read them since I wonder from what ancient barrel he dredged-up the material with which he made his speech at that time. Talking about ministers of state, the President of the Treasury Board had this to say, as recorded at page 2769 of Hansard:
In essence, the government organization bill deals with the constant challenge facing Parliament and the government to be as efficient as possible-
God help us!
-in doing those things which are in the interest of the Canadian people and society. This challenge is imposed upon us by the rapid changes taking place today, and our response in this regard must be positive. Both Parliament and the government must be flexible;-
I don't know what this bill has got to do with Parliament.
-both must adapt their procedures and structures; and in the final analysis, the test is whether they are continuing to respond effectively to the needs of the society and of the world with which they must deal.
As recorded at page 2771, the minister went on to say:
We in Canada have a somewhat more restrictive tradition.

April 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
The minister there was referring to the method by which ministers are appointed and selected, and departments established, in the United Kingdom.
Fundamentally, of course, the prerogative vested In the Crown to establish ministerial offices and fill them remains as untarnished here as it ever was.
I disagree with that statement. The minister is saying- this is the gist of the argument he made previously and has made since-that this bill, so far as it deals with the appointment of ministers of state and the establishment of ministries of state, is only restoring to the government the rights which it held with regard to the prerogative of the Crown as it existed in earlier times. The minister should see the show "Cromwell." Maybe he has seen it already.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The bill is to limit that prerogative.


Gerald William Baldwin: Maybe the Prime Minister saw a preview of "Cromwell" some months ago, before the show came to this city, and that is why this bill is before us. But the fact is that there is no more prerogative right left in the Crown to establish ministries, as the President of the Treasury Board seems to suggest. He was saying in his statement on January 26, and I quote it again:
Fundamentally, of course, the prerogative vested in the Crown to establish ministerial offices and fill them remains as untarnished here as it ever was.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: "Ministerial offices."


Gerald William Baldwin: I disagree totally with that statement. I take issue with it. It cannot be substantiated. It must be taken subject to the general common law and statute law that the prerogative right can be affected by Parliament. Parliament has used that right from the time of confederation in the establishment of ministerial offices, ministers and departments. Once Parliament has seen fit to interfere, to enact legislation as it has enacted it, the prerogative right of the Crown is diminished and lost to that extent.
When we read the various government organization acts and the various legislative proposals which established departments of the government at one time or another, there is only one assumption which can be drawn from them, and that is that the prerogative right of the Crown to establish departments has been taken away by Parliament. And what the government wants to do is restore to the Crown this prerogative right. Mr. Chairman, civil wars were fought and parliamentary revolutions have taken place, all of which have settled this question once and for all and beyond any shadow of doubt. That right now remains in this Parliament.
What this bill seeks to do is take that right away from Parliament and give it back to the government. This we shall not permit. This we shall only allow if the government sees fit to impose closure.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: You have misunderstood.


Gerald William Baldwin: There was no misunderstanding. I read the minister's remarks quite correctly, and there is no question about them at all. He went on to say:
This created a problem for Parliament, and for this House in particular, because the accountability of the government to Parliament was much more confused, diluted and imprecise than it should have been.
There is no question about that, Mr. Chairman.
In other words. Parliament was the weaker as the result of a ministerial system which had failed to keep pace with the demands placed upon it.
That is no excuse for bringing forward a measure of this kind to allow the government the untrammeled right to establish five ministries of state and appoint an unlimited number of ministers of state. I suggest to the President of the Treasury Board that he must seek further to find either constitutional, political or social reasons to justify a measure of this kind. I would like to continue, Mr. Chairman, but I see it is four o'clock, and in view of what has been said may I call it four o'clock?


Prosper Boulanger: Before we call it four o'clock, Mr. Chairman, we have two more minutes left and I wonder whether the hon. member would permit me one question. When he talked about legislative men and businessmen, I would like to know the meaning of the words "sufficiently informed to take a vote."


Gerald William Baldwin: "Sufficiently informed to take a vote" is when the members of this House and the people of the country, as a result of the vigilant, praiseworthy efforts of this opposition, are able to find out what has been going on.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Gerald William Baldwin: that Bill C-36, relating to the control and management of the water resources of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
April 2, 1971

He said: Mr. Speaker, we have only an hour, so my remarks will not be long; and I am sure members on the government side will not filibuster this bill to the stage that we will not have a chance to vote on it. This bill was drafted and brought forward as a private member's public bill for the reasons set out in the explanatory note. As a member of this House with great interest and concern for the water resources of this country, it is my view that while government proposals were aimed in the right direction and contained some measure of remedial action against pollution and misuse of water resources, they did not go to the root of the issue. In my opinion, the federal government was not given the power it is entitled to exercise in a constitutional sense. The Fisheries Act, the Shipping Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and other measures have been on the statute books for a great many years. If this legislation had been used it would probably have been sufficient to prevent a great many of the problems which we and the next generation will have to face.
The official aspect of the problem has been apparent to a great many people in the northern part of Canada, and for that reason this bill was presented to the House. The Navigable Waters Protection Act has been in force for a great many years, since well into the last century. The act contains provisions and sanctions which specifically prohibit certain action with regard to the use of navigable waters. For many years prior to the time it was discovered by Sir Alexander Mackenzie, and for many years piior to that by the native people, the Peace River has been one of the important, main arteries of navigation in northern Canada. Some years ago the province of British Columbia was permitted to erect a very substantial dam on the river, known as the Bennett dam. I have never rejected the need for the proper development and use of water resources in the north for the production of power, Mr. Speaker, but I think it must be done under rules and regulations which take into account what is best for the nation as a whole. This was not the case with this particular dam.
The federal government of the day, a Liberal government, failed to insist upon the province of British Columbia and the hydro agency which was acting as a Crown agency for the government, filing an application under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, filing the plan and a statement of its requirements indicating the amount of water to be impounded by the construction of the dam. The federal government and the provincial government of Alberta of that day failed to consider the possibility that the erection of the dam would cause to those agrarian dwellers below the area where it was constructed, a substantial amount of damage. Construction was allowed to proceed and no attempt was made to compei the province of British Columbia to comply with the Navigable Waters Protection Act
At the time I asked a number of questions. I pressed the government and the then Minister of Public Works who held responsibility for enforcement of the act. I pressed the Minister of Justice, who said that the works being constructed by the agency of the province of British Columbia were works to which the act applied. I
Water Resources Management Act pressed the Minister of Public Works to know whether the government of Canada was proceeding to require the province of British Columbia to file a plan and make application to the department in order to secure permission to proceed under the act. They did not do this, the dam was built and as a result the prophecy of myself and others came to pass. The drainage levels of the river have been diminished. This has happened with the Athabasca delta as well, and it has affected the level in the Mackenzie River navigation system. The result may be permanent damage to future transportation in that area. At the present time we do not know what ill effects it will have.
I could deal with this matter at length, Mr. Speaker, but I know that other hon. members wish to speak and are anxious that this bill receive second reading today. It was for these reasons and because a number of other acts are along the same lines that I introduced this bill. According to the explanatory note, it vests in the federal government the full measure of power which I believe the federal government has to exercise in order to deal with the problems of misuse and pollution of water resources. This is a problem on which we must legislate in the interests of those who come after us, Mr. Speaker. It is not enough for us to legislate for it today; we must legislate for 100 or 200 years hence. The present legislation, while aimed in the right direction, is not adequate and does not go far enough.
I am not suggesting that there is not a role for the provincial government. There is, and there must be, an overriding authority-but that can only be in the federal government. I think it should go a great distance under the existing Constitution. However, if it is found that the existing Constitution does not permit the federal government to go as far as it should in laying down guidelines, then it is for us to alarm the people of Canada so that they will demand that the final and overriding authority be vested in the federal government.
With these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I shall resume my seat. I hope that other hon. members will have the opportunity to make contributions before second reading is given to the bill before five o'clock.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising to speak on Bill C-36 is to outline the current status of the Peace-Athabasca delta project and show that the federal government is co-ordinating with the provinces and is taking action on that very severe problem. In doing so, it may be helpful if I reviewed very briefly the problem in the delta and the establishment of the federal-provincial task force. I should like to summarize particularly our co-operative project with the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. I shall outline and summarize the objective and design of the delta project and the work presently under way.
Hon. members are aware that low water levels have occurred in the delta for several years. This has resulted
April 2, 1971

Water Resources Management Act in ecological change to the natural habitat tor fish and wildlife, with consequent damage to their populations. The contributing factors to the low water level are low precipitation in the Peace and Athabasca river basins and the regulation of the Peace River by the construction of the Bennett dam.
As hon. members may remember, in early January of this year ministerial agreement was reached between the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) for the government of Canada and Hon. J. D. Henderson, for the province of Alberta, to establish a joint task force which would be responsible for investigating the delta problem. Subsequently, the government of Saskatchewan agreed to participate in the study, and the government of British Columbia to provide technical information on its Peace River regulation. Because the problem lies largely within a national park, involves an interprovincial river and has adversely affected the livelihood of the local Indian population, the federal government has taken the lead in initiating and funding this investigation. Treasury Board has given its approval to the project, its cost and timing. We have hired a competent consultant, Mr. D. M. Hornby of Calgary, as project director. Mr. Hornby has been on the job now since mid-January, operating with a small professional staff out of the Peace-Athabasca delta project office in Edmonton.
The key element in mounting a co-operative intergovernmental effort is effective organization. In this case the task force consists of an intergovernmental liaison team, a technical committee and the project director and his staff. The intergovernmental liaison team has a member from Canada, Alberta and Saskatchewan. The chairman of the liaison is Mr. F. J. Forbes, head of the prairie regional section, planning division, water operation and planning branch, Department of Fisheries and Forestry. The team's function is to provide liaison on questions of policy and administrative matters between the project director and the governments involved.
The technical committee consists of senior personnel from federal and provincial agencies who are responsible for resources management in the Peace-Athabasca delta area. This committee provides technical advice to the project director. Co-operation, a point stressed in the hon. member's bill, among the members of the task force has been excellent. To date the intergovernmental liaison team has met three times and the technical committee has met twice, including a field trip to the delta on March 24, 1971, which was just last week.
The joint federal-provincial technical committee recommended that a staged approach be adopted. The first stage would focus on restoring water levels in the delta by the spring of 1972. The objective for the first stage as drafted for the technical committee is as follows:
Within the Peace-Athabasca delta and Lake Athabasca area to assess, by September 1, 1971, the environmental effects of the future hydrologic regime (with Shrum generating station, Bennett Dam In operation) on the following:
(1)	Vegetation pattern
(2)	Fish production
(3)	Wildlife habitat
(4)	Navigation, and
the consequent influence on the socio-economic status of residents, and to recommend what immediate or long-range action, if any, should be taken.
I must stress, Mr. Speaker, that the project is focusing on the immediate problem of restoring water levels by the spring of 1972. Ecologists feel that this is a critical period and that low water levels beyond that time could result in permanent ecological damage in the delta. At the same time, the technical committee recognizes that there are broader environmental issues and long-range implications involved and may recommend additional studies to consider them.
The total estimated cost for the first stage of the project is close to $1 million. Expenditures have been budgeted over a 12-month period ending in March, 1972. The bulk of the expenditure will occur this summer. Expenditure in 1972 will cover the completion of reports and preparation of recommendations for future work. The thrust of the investigations will be ecology, at an estimated cost of $227,000, and hydrology at an estimated cost of $158,000. As noted earlier, the federal government will bear the bulk of the expenditures. Ministerial discussions are under way with Alberta to obtain technical assistance on the project. Also, the intergovernmental liaison team is reviewing the legal aspects of the delta problem.
Having described the Peace-Athabasca delta project, Mr. Speaker, I want to summarize the key developments. First, a project office has been established in Edmonton. The following professional staff for the office has been seconded: a planner from the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, a hydrologist from the water resources division, Alberta Department of Agriculture, and an ecologist from the Canada Wildlife Service; second, a field camp with a capacity for 25 men has been established at Fort Chipewyan; third, a contract was let in early March for an ice-thickness and water-depth survey in the delta. It is a part of the ecological investigations. This work, it is hoped, will be completed shortly. Fourth, contract proposals have been invited for a socio-economic study of the importance of the resources of the area; and fifth, office work is under way on the hydrologic and ecological investigations.
In regard to the purpose of our deliberations this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, which is mainly to assess the need for additional legislation on water resource management, the Peace-Athabasca delta project provides two important conclusions: first, the government in co-operation with the provinces is taking positive action to correct the delta problem; second, the project is evidence that a major intergovernmental effort involving several governments can be mounted quickly under existing legislation. The question then is, what need have we for Bill C-36?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Corbin) has given the members of the House an outline of what is now taking place under the auspices of the task force to which he referred which is

April 2, 1971

to deal with ecological and other problems created in the Peace River-Athabasca delta area. Without decrying or downgrading the work which he outlined, I suggest that if ever there was a classic case of locking the barn door after the horse was stolen, this is it. Certainly I would not agree with the conclusion he enunciated in his last sentence, that the proposal contained in the bill introduced by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is unnecessary. Nothing is further from the truth. Perhaps it is all the more necessary in light of the experience of the disastrous or near-disastrous results that have become apparent from the construction of the Portage Mountain dam on the Peace River in the province of British Columbia.
As the hon. member for Peace River has said, this whole question has become one of increasing and urgent importance. The drafting of the bill is rather novel in some respects. I do not intend to go into the details of its merits, but there is one point which strikes me as being the key point if I understand his intent correctly. He is suggesting the obvious, that in any river or river basin which is interprovincial, in light of the current situation in this country we have a situation where the constitutional jurisdiction with respect to something being done for the general advantage of Canada must be recognized and brought into play. If this is what the hon. member for Peace River is seeking to do with this bill, then the principle should certainly commend itself to this House.
The story of the development of the Portage Mountain dam, which has been christened the Bennett dam in honour of the Premier of my province, has gone on for years. Some of the key decisions in relation to it were made during the period I was not a member of this House, between 1958 and 1962. I therefore did not have the opportunity to express myself on the subject in this forum. During the period when the basic decisions were being made, the government of the province of Alberta appeared to remain silent and uninterested in what was going on across the western provincial boundary. It should have been obvious to anyone with any knowledge what would happen because of the impact of building that dam to hold back the normal flow of the Peace River. It would not only affect the river within the province of British Columbia but the portion which lies in the province of Alberta and, indeed, the entire Mackenzie River drainage system which, of course, involves the Northwest Territories.
The federal government has jurisdiction over the Northwest Territories. I have always been amazed that definitive, joint action was not taken at that time by the government of Alberta and the federal government to make it clear to Mr. Bennett that in the national interest he must be called upon to recognize that something was involved which went far beyond the boundaries of one province and, therefore, directly or indirectly affected all the people of Canada.
I have a bill on the order paper which is not unrelated to the subject matter of Bill C-36. My bill is C-105, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act. By the simple addition of one section to that act, it will state
Water Resources Management Act
"This act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province or any agent thereof." Hon. members may recall that an amendment in these terms was agreed to last year when dealing with the amendments to the Fisheries Act. I proposed an amendment to the amending bill at the report stage.
As far as I know, this particular formula was first incorporated into a piece of legislation in the International River improvements Act of 1955. This is made clear in the explanatory note of my bill which states that many activities of governments, either at the federal or provincial level, and more particularly their agents in the form of Crown corporations such as hydro authorities, impinge on the economy, ecology and whole pattern of development in the country, in much the same way as activities of large private corporations.
This has been one of the uncertainties about the question of whether the province of British Columbia was in fact required to secure a permit other than under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for the construction of that dam. It was in effect being built by the province through its agent the Crown corporation, the B.C. hydro power authority. This is one of the ambiguities this House should take steps to clarify at the earliest possible date. It would be a useful step in augmenting the purpose which the hon. member for Peace River seeks in his bill.
The issue raised by Bill C-36 is highlighted by the fact that a provincial waters act has just been introduced for first reading in the legislature of the province of British Columbia. According to the reports I have received, the minister introducing the bill, Hon. Ray Wil-liston, said it was his intent to introduce this bill for first reading in the current session of the legislature. He said it would be open for consideration and broad discussion. As a result of that, he said it was his intention to introduce an identical or similar bill at the next session of the provincial legislature.
The most significant part of the statement by that minister was that a jurisdictional vacuum exists with regard to water resources, their use, control and management. Because of this he felt that the legislature should move to fill that vacuum before some other authority sought to take it over. I am not privy to all that may have gone on in the considerations of the Lieutenant Governor in Council prior to the introduction of that bill.
I mention it to underline the importance of the subject matter raised today by the hon. member for Peace River. In the previous session there was extensive discussion in the House and in the standing committee with regard to a federal act in respect of our waters. Apart from any other implications, it muddied the waters in the matter of constitutional jurisdiction over our national water resources.
I am happy, therefore, to support the principle of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Peace River although its terminology appears to be unusual, for which reason I cannot say whether I would agree with

April 2, 1971
Water Resources Management Act every particular. However, the idea behind it is one which I feel the House should support, and I for one would like to see the measure referred for consideration to a standing committee of the House. I am sure there are few things which are more important or more urgent today than making wise use from now on of our natural water resources.
Apart from what happened in connection with the Columbia River under the agreement entered into with the United States, what has occurred on the Peace River, Athabasca and Mackenzie river systems as a result of the construction of the dam at Portage Mountain just west of the British Columbia-Alberta boundary is a classic example of the unwise use of our resources. I hope the House will seriously consider allowing this bill to be read the second time so that it can be considered in more detail by the appropriate standing committee.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and make a few observations about this bill. I should say at the outset that I support it, believing that such legislation is a necessity at the present time. The need is well illustrated by the downstream effects of the W.A.C. Bennett dam.
What has taken place in the Peace-Athabasca delta has been widely discussed in the last year or so, particularly with reference to the damage to the ecology which has resulted from an insufficient flow of water down the Peace River since the dam was completed. I have had an opportunity to review the Hansards of the early sixties when this dam was being planned and during the early phases of its construction, and I have found-as my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr, Baldwin) has pointed out-[DOT] that the question of whether the government of British Columbia had applied to the federal government under the terms of the Navigable Waters Protection Act was raised on many occasions in the House of Commons. But for reasons which are unknown to me, the federal Liberal government of the day chose to ignore those questions.
This is a good example of the kind of thing we had in mind when talking about another bill earlier today. In the Liberal cabinet of that day, quantity was not lacking but the quality of the ministers was not necessarily commensurate. If the ministers responsible at that time had really been equal to their jobs, the situation we face today might have been avoided.
There is another lesson to be learned from this. On many occasions the Liberal government in power at the time, like the one which is in power today, blindly opposed any suggestions from the opposition no matter how good or beneficial they might have been, simply because they came from the opposition. I hope the present government and hon. members who are sitting opposite me now and smiling will bear this in mind and do what they can to see that such obvious mistakes are not repeated.
What happened with regard to the construction of the Bennett dam and the destruction which occurred downstream is an example not only of negligence on the part of the governments of the day, that is, the federal government and the government of British Columbia, but also of the manner in which huge interests are able to run roughshod over the desires of ordinary citizens. It also shows that governments ought not to be rushed into proceeding with projects of this kind as soon as they are conceived. This has particular relevance today to the proposal to construct a Mackenzie Valley oil pipeline. It is evident that the government is overly anxious to proceed with this project, though it may well be that research in connection with such schemes has not yet reached the point at which we could ensure that the ecology of the area and the interests of the people who live there would not be adversely affected.
I was interested to hear the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Corbin). He told us that a federal-provincial task force had been set up and described what it would be doing. It appears that one of the most important parts of the necessary studies has been omitted, that is, the effect of the decreased water level of the Peace River on the town of Peace River itself. As is well known, the town has launched a lawsuit against B.C. Hydro for damages done to its water intake system. The town has had to spend considerable amounts of money to reconstruct its water intake system in the river, and so far it has been unable to obtain any sort of compensation for this extra expenditure. The government should give serious consideration to extending its study to include the difficulty which has occurred in the operation of the water intake system owned by the town of Peace River.
I was also pleased to learn that a technical committee and field commission have been set up at Fort Chipe-wyan to study conditions in the Athabasca delta. It is important that we assess the extent of the damage done in the area. It is also important we should determine whether or not this damage is reversible and determine, also, what might be done to repair the damage which exists. I have received communications from the Indian people in the area, their chiefs and their advisers-people who live very close to nature and who probably understand it better than most of our ecologists. They are pointing out the advantages of dams of the type beavers build which would raise the water to the level desired while not impeding the overflow experienced when the water rises in the spring.
The vegetation changes in the area have become obvious. What used to be a wide, swampy area covered by water during part of the year is now grown over with tall grasses and acres of tall red willows. The fall in the water level has greatly impaired the ability of the native people to make a living by trapping. The parliamentary secretary told us that socio-economic studies would be undertaken, but if I remember correctly there was no indication that the committee would include a particular person charged with carrying out such studies.
I think it is fair to say that the chief source of income for the people in the region of Fort Chipewyan, or one of the chief sources, is trapping, particularly muskrat,

April 2, 1971

though other fur-bearing animals also. Fishing has also been adversely affected; there is no question of that. This can be substantiated by the fact that welfare costs in the region have gone up by leaps and bounds in the last couple of years. I would close by indicating that in view of the fact that making a living has become more difficult, the incomes of the people in the area of the Peace-Athabasca delta have been substantially reduced. As a result, we must consider what alternatives we can offer these people.
In this regard we must seriously ask ourselves, who is the fellow who caused the problem in the first place, and see what can be done to hold him responsible at least in part. As I said before, the fellow who is responsible is in fact a group of fellows: the federal government, which failed to look at the situation to begin with; the British Columbia government, which in its rush to construct this hydro project did not give due consideration to the effects it would have on neighbouring communities; and the Alberta government, which was either sleeping at the switch or for some reason or other did not look at the situation at all while the project was being developed.
In conclusion, I think this is a good bill. I do not want to see it talked out and I hope it passes, to the benefit of all Canadians.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, in order to follow up the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Corbin), who has outlined the action that is now being taken, and in order to deal with remarks of other speakers, I am very pleased to participate in this debate, doubly so because I had the pleasure of chairing 34 very interesting and hotly debated meetings of the committee that discussed the Canada Water Act. However, I think I should set one thing straight first. The previous speaker mentioned that the Liberal government in the early 1960s did not take very much action. I suggest to him that there was another government in power in the late 1950s and early 1960s that did not take very much action either, which is why the Liberals came back into power in the early sixties and why the present opposition is still gracing the benches opposite.


Mr. Mahoney:: And will for a long time.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Such humble people over there!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: This is a very important measure now before the House, dealing with a very important topic and in regard to which I can sympathize with the House leader of the opposition. I, too, have become involved from time to time in discussions about interprovincial waters, living as I do along the Ottawa River. However, I think it is very important to point out that the hon. member's suggestions are in many ways the same as the provisions of the Canada Water Act and other measures passed in this House-if I may say so, passed by this Liberal government.


Paul Yewchuk: Ten years too late.
Water Resources Management Act


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Ten years too late it could be; but I would point out that ten years ago the present opposition formed the government of this country, and if this action should have been taken ten years ago, why did that government not take it?


Mr. Benjamin:: One is as bad as the other.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Just to round out this particular point before getting back to the subject of the bill, I would say that when hon. members opposite stop making inaccurate statements about us, I will stop telling the truth about them.
Bill C-36 in many ways catches the spirit of government legislation which has already been passed. Its explanatory note states in part:
The purpose of this bill is to concentrate and use the full powers of the federal government to control and manage the sea and fresh water resources of Canada in the public interest; and the provision, where necessary, for co-operation with the provinces to this end.
Compare this statement with the first paragraph of the explanatory note to Bill C-144, the Canada Water Act, which was proclaimed law on September 30, 1970. It read as follows:
Bill C-144, an act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning of programs relating to the conservation and development of water resources.
There is obvious duplication between that bill and Bill C-36. I should like to examine the Canada Water Act a little more closely, but before doing so I would point out that if my memory serves me correctly we had members of the opposition sitting on the National Resources and Public Works Committee during those 34 meetings on the Canada Water Act, to which I referred, who were very vocal in regard to protecting provincial rights. The suggestion being made in this bill, that the federal government should be taking a stronger stand as far as jurisdiction over water resources in Canada is concerned, conflicts with the previous stand taken by some hon. members opposite.
From a personal point of view I very much sympathize with the House leader of the opposition. I am one who feels that the federal government should have stronger constitutional powers in regard to handling many phases of resource development in this country, one of these being water development. For this reason I am a very strong advocate of the greater use of the elastic clause in the Canadian Constitution.
The Canada Water Act had its origins in two major national meetings, the Resources for Tomorrow conference in 1961 and the pollution conference of 1966. It was conceived in 1967 and drafted mainly in the spring and summer of 1969 under the auspices of the present government. Its concepts were presented to the Canadian public in a policy paper in late August, 1969, and was formally introduced to the House of Commons on November 5 of the same year. After many days of debate in both the House of Commons and the Senate, and

April 2, 1971
Water Resources Management Act
nearly 40 public hearings, it was passed by Parliament on June 26, 1970.
Surely, throughout all this period there was plenty of communication and opportunity for communication. I often feel that communication is one of the cheapest things we have to offer in this world, yet sometimes it is one thing of which least use is made. If we could at all levels of government achieve complete co-operation instead of participating in bickering matches, then in such an atmosphere of harmony we would be able to do far more for the country.
Why did the federal government pass such legislation? First, because it was obvious to the majority of political leaders, to academics and industrialists, to government officials and to the public generally that the pattern of water resource development and utilization across Canada was not fully satisfactory despite some excellent programs in certain areas and on certain topics. Secondly, with the federal government having certain responsibilities in the field of water resources and the provincial governments other responsibilities, a framework for a co-operative program was needed.
In the event that the province should not act and that there is not federal-provincial co-operation in bringing in a constructive program for the proper utilization of water resources, in the final analysis the Canada Water Act suggests that the federal government should act unilaterally. This comment was placed on the record on a couple of occasions by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), the gentleman who still holds that portfolio today. Here is where the elastic clause in the Canadian Constitution would come into play.
We may run into situations in the future concerning the disposition of certain provincial arguments about matters which could involve the subject under discussion today. It is quite possible that this aspect of the Canada Water Act will end up in the Supreme Court of Canada. But surely this is how the laws of a nation are solidified and put on the books once and for all so that they may be changed only by further acts of Parliament as times and as needs require. I think we should be prepared to take our chances in this regard in respect of any act which goes through this Parliament. I think the time is ripe in Canada, if we do not get stronger amendments to the Canadian Constitution, for the elastic clause to be exercised and questioned in the Supreme Court on such issues as this. We cannot continue forever having long hassles over the resources of this country, involving long discussions between federal and provincial governments at a time when immediate action and immediate decision is an absolute necessity.
Unfortunately, the inadequacies of Canadian water resources' development and utilization were abundantly clear. Under these circumstances, the federal government felt it had to equip itself with the legislative authority to meet fully its responsibilities to remedy these deficiencies.
Recognizing on the one hand the divided jurisdiction in water matters and, on the other hand, the very real gains in efficiency and effectiveness by a comprehensive multipurpose approach to water development and utilization, the federal government set out to build a legislative platform for joint federal-provincial undertakings and in the final analysis for unilateral action by the federal government if necessary, but only as a last resort. To this end, the Canada Water Act contains six principal parts. In these six principal parts I think hon. members of this House will recognize that the bill before us in private members' hour, Bill C-36, in fact in some respects overlaps the Canada Water Act.
The first of the six points is consultation-joint examination of problems to reach accord on certain areas and subjects requiring joint action and those most appropriately undertaken by each government alone. The second point involves comprehensive water management-joint comprehensive planning of river or lake basins, regions or coastal strips and joint implementation of those plans. Perhaps there is a very strong case here that the Peace River should be under a river basin plan. The third point is water quality management-joint designation of water quality areas, formation or designation of a management agency, water quality planning, implementation of those plans, a prohibition against the deposit of wastes except as prescribed by the regulations, and the assessment of fees and charges.
The fourth point involves nutrient control-a prohibition against the import or manufacture in Canada of cleansing agents or water conditioners containing more than the prescribed content of nutrients. The fifth point deals with inspection and enforcement-provision for inspectors to examine effluents, cleansing agents and water conditioners; fines for contravention of the prohibitions, plus the power to close the offending plants if necessary.
The sixth point is public information-a program to inform the public of the state of water resource development in Canada, to increase the understanding by the public of the problems of environmental degradation, and to use public leaders in an advisory capacity. These are the key features of the Canada Water Act. How do they work or how is it intended they will work? One of the major considerations certainly is consultation. In summing up I would say that from this examination of current federal legislation one finds that the subject matter of Bill C-36 is largely redundant. Measures to preserve and enhance environmental quality are included in recent federal legislation and, in addition, the government has before the House Bill C-207 which has even further implications for anti-pollution legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. The hour provided for consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order.

April 2, 1971



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the government whip if it is the intention of the government to go on with Bill C-207 at the crack of dawn on Monday?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that we shall go on with it at the usual hour on Monday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The Chair would like to remind hon. members that next Sunday is Palm Sunday. On this day the sound and ring of repeated Hosannas should remind us of mankind's frantic search for salvation, peace and truth.
Business of the House

I conclude with these words of a Palm Sunday hymn: Hosanna! Hosanna! Blessed is the Saviour of the world!

After such a long week in the chair, I wish to thank hon. members for their very good, kind and understanding co-operation. I should be the wiser for having listened to so many speeches. I take the opportunity once again to wish hon. members and the staff of the House a very pleasant and peaceful weekend.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, April 5, 1971