1971-03-10

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MAZOWSZE FOLK DANCE AND SONG ENSEMBLE

Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House I rise to bring to your attention the presence in the ladies' gallery of ambassadors of Polish culture, the Mazowsze Folk Dance and Song Ensemble, who are visiting us in our national capital today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
* *



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
Hon, Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 17 (2) I gave you notice of my request to raise a question of privilege at the opening of today's proceedings arising out of a statement attributed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) at a meeting last night of the Kingston Junior Chamber of Commerce. The minister is reported to have said:
-and I've been asked by people "when are you going to legislate the white paper on taxation" and the simple answer to that is never.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Apparently there was loud cheering and clapping at that meeting. My question of privilege is that the minister has made a statement of policy of the greatest importance outside the House, which is not subject to direct comment, on a matter on which he has rejected giving forthright answers in the House and, because of the equivocal nature of the statement, has created further confusion and doubt in the House and in the country on the subject of proposed tax reform.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave):
That a transcript of all of the remarks of the Minister of Finance to the Kingston Junior Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday, March 9, 1971, be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and that the Minister of Finance be invited to appear before the said committee to explain his remarks concerning the implementation or rejection of the white paper on tax changes, and to indicate clearly both
the timing and the method to be used for any tax changes so as to remove the doubt and confusion now existing in Canada about the government's tax policy, which contribute in large measure to the present economic recession in the country.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has given notice to the Chair of his intention to rise on a question of privilege in the sense that he has just indicated.
The hon. member knows that the Chair must determine whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. After having considered the situation as carefully as possible, I must conclude that the circumstances are not such that the Chair could ask the House to consider the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton West.

Hon. members know that on many occasions in the past it has been suggested that it was tantamount to a breach of the privileges of the House when a ministerial statement of policy is made outside the House. I suggest to hon. members that this is a practice which has been adopted over a long period of years. Although hon. members may feel that this gives rise to a grievance, and thus some hon. members might be dissatisfied with such procedure and they may want to suggest that such statements should more properly be made in the House rather than outside. With respect, I suggest to the hon. member for Edmonton West that it cannot be judged that there is a prima facie case of privilege. In the circumstances I cannot put to the House the motion proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps at this point I might refer to the motion offered by the President of the Privy Council on Monday and indicate the conclusion I have reached after giving the matter much thought.
On Monday last, when the President of the Privy Council offered a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 59 to send supplementary estimates to certain standing committees, the hon. member for Winnipeg

March 10, 1971
Supplementary Estimates
North Centre raised a point of order regarding the propriety or, if one wishes, the legality of considering supplementary estimates which are in effect amendments to existing statutes. The hon. member for Edmonton West argued along the same lines. In support of the motion, the President of the Treasury Board claimed that his proposal was amply supported by precedents. He referred to certain guidelines which he suggested should be looked at by the government when proposing such items and that the proposals were entirely within those guidelines.
The minister is right, of course, when he suggests that the introduction and passage of statutory items in supplementary estimates is not an innovation in this House. This is a practice which goes back many years. At the same time, it has never been accepted readily by the House. Our debates record many instances when members have taken exception to the practice. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre himself is not a neophyte in this regard. For example, on March 31, 1952-if he does not mind my going back so far-as reported at page 969 of Hansard of that day he voiced strong objection to an item in the estimates which, he contended, would circumvent section 3 of the Atomic Energy Control Act. Another example of such objection is a statement by the then hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, who stated in part as follows:
You have statutes; you may repeal them; you may amend them; but you cannot do it by supply bills.
Another random selection was picked from page 3,368 of Hansard for March 27, 1961, where the then hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River went on record to oppose this practice and called as his witness the then absent hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Again, on April 1, 1964, as reported at page 1,680 of Hansard, a similar discussion arose.
There are countless other instances which indicate that statutory dollar items have been used in the past but that this practice has not gone unchallenged.
In the situation now before us, the hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre and Edmonton West have distinguished so-called statutory items from those which merely propose a transfer of funds. The members take exception to both types of one-dollar items, but the thrust of their objection is against specific items which they suggest are clearly legislative in intent.
In support of their argument the hon. members suggest that the procedural situation has been radically changed by the adoption of the new rules in December of 1968. They urge that in view of the new supply procedures introduced by these rules, statutory dollar items should not be included in supplementary estimates. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre contends that past practice should not be used as a guide in relation to the present machinery for the consideration of estimates. He suggests that when the House eliminated the committee of supply a new situation was created because it was in committee of supply that formal objection had been taken in the past to these one-dollar statutory items.
Those members suggest that there is now no real opportunity for the consideration of such items by the House itself. That, of course, is not entirely correct since the new Standing Orders do provide for such an opportunity, albeit restricted, under the terms of Standing Order 58. Clearly the Standing Orders do provide the machinery for the consideration by the House itself of specific items in the estimates to which the opposition might take exception. However, this opportunity is undoubtedly limited and depends very much on the number of allotted supply days which might still be available by virtue of Standing Order 58. In other words, under the old rules there was unlimited time to consider supplementary estimates, including items intended to amend statutes. Under the new rules there may be only a limited time to consider supplementary estimates.
Is the difference between the two situations so substantial that the past practice of allowing statutory dollar items in the supplementary estimates should now be disallowed? Should the very limited time allotted by Standing Order 58 be restricted to the consideration of what is strictly supply? There is much to be said to support an affirmative answer to these questions.
The argument proposed by the hon. members for Edmonton West and Winnipeg North Centre is cogent. They contend that any rulings that may have been made in the past about dollar items prior to the changes of the rules do not now apply. They suggest that the rules changes were effected to remove the consideration of detailed estimates from the floor of the House but that no decision was ever made that a motion which is tantamount to a legislative enactment should be removed from the floor of the House. They urge that the items which have a legislative effect should not be allowed to be proceeded with by way of items in the supplementary estimates but should be introduced in the usual way, as is done for all other legislation, by way of a bill.
Let us, if you will, examine the items singled out by the hon. members. The first one is vote 35c. It proposes to amend the Pension Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act. The vote proposes to repeal schedules A and B of the Pension Act and substitute therefor new schedules A and B as found in vote 35c. At the same time, it seeks to amend section 38(2) and section 38(4) of the Pension Act. Second, vote 35c proposes to repeal the existing schedules in the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act and substitute a schedule set out under the vote, in effect amending two sections of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
Schedules A and B of the Pension Act were previously amended by statute, other than an Appropriation Act, in the years 1953-54, 1957-58, 1960-61. Schedule B was amended in 1966-67. None of these amendments was enacted by way of an appropriation measure. Item 10c, affecting the War Veterans Allowance Act, purports to repeal Schedule A of that act and substitute a new Schedule A in this vote. It refers to Schedule A of the War Veterans Allowance Act which was amended in 1957-58, 1960-61 and in 1965 by statutes other than an

March 10, 1971


Mr. MacEachen:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a motion under Standing Order 43 under the following circumstances. Recently, two members of the government have made major speeches and statements with regard to the question of the development of oil pipelines in Canada, the northern part of Canada in particular, which convey entirely opposite points of view. In order to set at rest the uncertainty and concern which these opposing statements have created and to find out what policy, if any, the government has, I ask leave to make the following motion:
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources be asked to appear together at the earliest possible date before a joint meeting of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Peace River. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 the unanimous consent of the House is required before it can be put. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity and the motion cannot be presented.

March 10, 1971
Fisheries



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask leave of the House to make a motion under Standing Order 43. I do so for the following reasons. I ask the unanimous consent of the House for my motion to be considered because of the repeated violations of Canadian territorial waters by foreign ships operating off Newfoundland and especially because of the difficulty in enforcing the 12-mile limit which has recently been proclaimed by the government of Canada. I feel that these foreign vessels, operating at will, are flouting Canadian regulations. Among other things, the situation requires, in my view, a sustained military presence in Newfoundland not only to protect Canadian sovereignty in this regard but to protect the rights of Canadian fishermen. I would therefore ask unanimous consent to move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That the House refer the question of naval and air surveillance of foreign fishing vessels operating in zones adjacent to the Canadian coast to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
That the committee explore the question of repeated intrusions into Canadian territorial waters by foreign trawlers and draggers and that the committee further explore possible methods of detecting and preventing such intrusions by the use of air and naval components of the Canadian Armed Forces.
That the committee give consideration to the possible stationing of operational maritime command aircraft in Newfoundland.
Mr. Speaker, I hope this motion will receive the unanimous consent of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members know that the motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's East requires the unanimous consent of the House before it can be put. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1971 PROVISIONS RESPECTING INSURABLE EMPLOYMENT, COMMISSION, BENEFITS, PREMIUMS, ADMINISTRATION, ETC.

Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-229, respecting unemployment insurance in Canada.


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

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

Mr. Sulaiycky: 1.	What was the cost of providing police service in Banff National Park during the past two fiscal years?
2.	What department bears financial responsibility for provision of police services in Banff National Park?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Reply by the Department of the Solicitor General in so far as it relates to policing services provided by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is as follows: 1. Costs for the 1968/69 fiscal year are not readily available as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police system of unit financial code statements was not implemented to the extent required to provide this information prior to the fiscal year 1969/70. Costs for the 1969/70 fiscal year were $216,559.
2. The Federal Government bears financial responsibility, but the Province of Alberta reimburses the Federal Government on a cost-sharing basis for the provision of policing services in Banff National Park, the rate of reimbursement in the fiscal year 1969/70 being 44 per cent.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-MAN-HOURS SAVED AS A RESULT OF USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: How many man-hours have been saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Department of National Health and Welfare during each year since computers have been used?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Departmental records are not maintained in a manner to reply to this question. A complete reply to this question would be too costly and the Department of National Health and Welfare does not have the staff nor the funds to undertake such a project.


CREDIT CARD REGULATIONS
Mr. Anderson: Does the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have any regulations requiring companies making use of credit cards to inform consumers of the increased cost of goods required to cover the charges of credit card agencies and, if not, is the Department planning to enact such regulations?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: No. The Department is however examining the provisions of the Interest Act and Small Loans Act with a view to general revision.


TOTAL FREIGHT TONNAGE IN HARBOURS, 1970
Mr. Blouin: What was the total handling of freight, in tons, during the year 1970 in the harbours of (a) Montreal (b) Vancouver

March 10, 1971

(c) Halifax (d) Saint John (N.B.) (e) Quebec City (f) Ri-mouski (g) Baie Comeau (h) Port Cartier (i) Sept-Iles including Fointe-Noire?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: (a) 25,047,299 tons; (b) 27,158,913 tons; (c) 11,577,000 tons; (d) 6,359,144 tons; (e) 8,859,884 tons.
The Department of Transport advises as follows: (f) 485,605 tons; (g) 7,655,653 tons; (h) 15,999,987 tons; (i) 29,879,978 tons.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPMENT OF MONT SAINTE-ANNE, QUEBEC
Mr. Crossman: Has the government taken part financially in the development of Mont Sainte-Anne, Quebec and, If so (a) was this participation direct or was it granted following a request from the province (b) under what program or agreement was the financial participation of the government made possible (c) what was the total contribution of the government to the total program, and on what dates were the payments made?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed as follows: Yes; the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, (a) following a request from the province; (b) under ARDA and under the Canada-Quebec Special Areas agreement; (c) under ARDA, contributions totalling $322,302.42 paid in February 1965 and January 1966; under the Special Areas agreement, $540,272.60 in contributions and $758,672.60 in loans, paid in November 1970 and January 1971. Commitments to further work are approximately $1.16 million in contributions and $5.7 million in loans.


ESTABLISHMENT OF SNOWMOBILE NOISE STANDARDS
Mr. Hales: 1.	On what date does the government intend to introduce noise standards for snowmobiles, as mentioned on January 19, 1971, at page 2538 of Hansard?
2.	What department(s) are involved in the drafting of these regulations, and what branch (es) within these departments?
3.	Are any outside consultations or research being undertaken before drafting the regulations and, if so, with whom?


Gérard Duquet: 1. The safety standards for snowmobiles were published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, on November 25, 1970, and the effective dates were given in the Canada Gazette of January 13, 1971. These effective dates are April 1, 1971, for snowmobiles to be fitted with mufflers and February 1, 1972, to prescribe a maximum noise level of 82 dbA for snowmobiles.
2.	The Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations were drafted by the Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Branch with the assistance of the Department of Justice.
3.	We had the benefit of research by Hovey & Associates carrying out a detailed examination of the safe design of snowmobiles under research contract.
Questions


NUMBER OF PASSENGER TRAINS AND DAYLINERS SERVING METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND MONTREAL DAILY
Mr. Ryan: 1.	How many passenger trains and dayliners serve the Metropolitan Toronto area commuters each day and over how many lines?
2.	How many passenger trains and dayliners serve the Metropolitan Montreal area commuters each day and over how many lines?


Gérard Duquet: 1. Inbound, 24 trains on 6 lines; outbound, 24 trains on 6 lines.
2. Inbound, 24 trains on 5 lines; Outbound, 22 trains on 5 lines.


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


Jean-Pierre Goyer: By the
Department of the Solicitor General in so far as it relates to the R.C.M. Police is as follows: (a) 34 per cent; (b) nil; (c) 66 per cent; (d) nil; (e) nil; (f) nil.
The question is not applicable to other agencies within the Department of the Solicitor General.


TORONTO AIRPORT-LANDING RIGHTS FOR INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS
Mr. Haidasz: 1.	Does the government refuse landing rights at the Toronto Airport for international flights of KLM, Lufthansa, Alitalia, and other carriers and, if so, for what reason?
2 Are international flights of KLM, Lufthansa, Alitalia and others destined for Toronto required to land in Dorval and, if so, for what reason?


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, as the answer to that question is rather lengthy, I would ask the consent of the House to have it considered as read and recorded in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The abovementioned answer reads as follows:]
1.	KLM, Lufthansa and Alitalia, and other air carriers (except BO AC) operating trans-Atlantic scheduled air services are not authorized to exercise traffic rights at Toronto in the operations of their scheduled air services.

March 10, 1971
Questions
Bilateral air agreements between Canadian and European countries do not provide for landing rights at Toronto for their designated air carriers. BO AC exercises traffic rights at Toronto because the Canada-UK bilateral air agreement provides for such rights.
2.	International flights of KLM, Lufthansa and Alitalia are not destined for Toronto (see reply to 1 above), and must terminate at Dorval. Such air carriers as are authorized to exercise traffic rights at Toronto are not required to land at Dorval.


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


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: (a) and (b) 45.8; (c) nil; (d) nil; (e) 54.2; (f) covered by (a) and (b).


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


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: The supplementary estimates of the Department of Finance for the fiscal year 1970-71 to February 16, 1971 are shown in full detail on pages 22 to 25 of Supplementary Estimates (A) tabled on November 17, 1970 and on pages 4 and 5 of Supplementary Estimates (B) tabled on December 4, 1970.


NEW BRUNSWICK MULTIPLEX CORPORATION
Mr. Burton: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Government of New Brunswick to turn New Brunswick Multiplex Corporation into an operating company?
2.	Is the Corporation incorporated as a private company?
3.	What are the biographical details of the directors that have been named?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. This will depend on whether a feasible program for implementing the complex is put forward and agreed by the two governments.
2.	No.
3.	E. G. Allen, Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs, New Brunswick, since 1956. Previously an official of the New Brunswick Department of Industry and Development and a school principal. T. Kent, Deputy Minister of
Regional Economic Expansion since 1969. Before entering public service, a business executive and previously a newspaper editor. M. W. Mackenzie, director of several companies and chairman of the Canada-New Brunswick Growth Centre Committee. Previously Chairman of Chemcell Limited, Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce, Deputy Chairman of Wartime Prices and Trade Board. W. Y. Smith, Professor of Economics, University of New Brunswick, Chairman of Atlantic Development Council, member of Economic Council of Canada. Former economic adviser to Government of New Brunswick, President of Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, adviser on economic planning to Government of Nova Scotia. J. Teeter, Director, Eastern Region, Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Formerly Deputy Commissioner of Area Development Agency, 1963-69, and an official of the Department of Trade and Commerce and Defence Production, 1948-63. E. Thompson, engineer with New Brunswick Telephone Company since 1957 and Vice-President (Planning) since 1969. Currently on leave of absence to serve on Cabinet Secretariat, New Brunswick, R. E. Tweeddale, Deputy Minister of Economic Growth, New Brunswick, since 1967. General Manager of New Brunswick Electrical Power Commission, 1958-67. Previously an engineer with Power Commission and Department of Public Works.


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


Edgar John Benson: The Department of Finance does not provide any of the computer services described in this question.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT-CREATION OF NEW JOBS
Mr. McGrath: From the commencement of the Regional Development Incentives Act (a) by province, how many "net" new jobs have been created in Canada (b) how many jobs under the Act were created in special areas as compared to designated areas (i) the totals for Canada (ii) the provincial sub-totals (c) what was the total amount of grants paid under this Act (i) for Canada (ii) for each province (d) what was the total amount of grants paid in special areas compared to designated areas (i) the totals for Canada (ii) the provincial totals (e) what is the actual average dollar cost per job created in (i) Canada (ii) each province (f) what is the actual dollar cost per job created in special areas compared to designated areas with the totals (i) for Canada (ii) for each province?


Abram Ernest Epp: For accepted offers to January 31, 1971:	(a) Newfoundland 514;
Prince Edward Island 335; Nova Scotia 1,397; New Brunswick 2,371; Quebec 9,440; Ontario 1,698; Manitoba 1,801; Saskatchewan 870; Alberta 1,438; British Columbia 169; Canada 20,033. (b) For special areas outside designm

March 10, 1971

ated regions, (i) 1,354, of which (ii) 218 in Ontario, 528 in Saskatchewan and 608 in Alberta, (c) Preliminary payments total (i) $4,345,609 of which (ii) Nova Scotia $491,710; New Brunswick $462,601; Quebec $1,927,385; Ontario $438,792; Manitoba $728,762; Alberta $104,791; British Columbia $191,568. (d) No payments yet made in special areas outside designated regions, (e) Estimated full dollar cost per job will be (i) $6,153; (ii) by province, Newfoundland $1,615; Prince Edward Island $3,316; Nova Scotia $14,652; New Brunswick $6,794; Quebec $4,772; Ontario $7,366; Manitoba $3,070; Saskatchewan $4,626; Alberta $11,923; British Columbia $2,816. (f) For special areas outside designated regions (i) $12,752; (ii) by province, Ontario $4,932; Saskatchewan $5,046; Alberta $22,248.


PUBLIC WORKS-LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS TO FEDERAL BUILDING, WHITEHORSE, Y.T.
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	What was the name of the contractor awarded the contract to provide lighting improvements to the federal building in Whitehorse?
2.	What was the amount of the contractor's bid?
3.	Has the contract been completed and what was the total price paid to the contractor for the work?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. S.
Montgomery Contractors Ltd.
2.	$123,412.
3.	No. Payments to date total $113,416.


PUBLIC WORKS-REPAIRS TO WHARF AT BERTHIER-EN-BAS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What was the nature of the repairs made to the wharf at Berthier-en-Bas in 1970?
2.	Were the repairs made under contract and, if so (a) who were the tenderers (b) what is the name of the contractor?
3.	If the repairs were made by the Department of Public Works (a) who was the foreman (b) what was the cost of the materials and where were they bought (c) what was the cost of labour and how many people were employed?


Arthur Laing: 1. Repairs to cribwork on west side of main wharf on a length of 120 feet, width 12 feet, depth 11 feet.
2.	Yes, (a) Albert Cote, J. P. A. Normand Inc., Arthur Simoneau, Fonderie de Lauzon Ltee. (b) The low tenderer, Albert Cote was awarded the contract.
3.	Not applicable.


AGRICULTURE-STORAGE OF POWDERED MILK AND CHEESE
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): As of February 8, 1971, what were the quantities of powdered milk and Cheddar cheese in storage?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: On February 1, 1971 the quantities of skim milk powder in storage
Order for Return
were 73,921,000 pounds; Cheddar cheese 56,952,000 pounds. Note: Figures for the specific date, February 8, 1971, are not available.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION-REPAYMENT OF LONG-TERM MORTGAGE LOANS
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	How many farmers in Ontario and Alberta were unable to repay their long-term mortgage loans to the Farm Credit Corporation for the years 1961 to 1969?
2.	How many of these farms were re-sold by the Farm Credit Corporation during the same period?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Farm Credit Corporation advises as follows: 1. The number of loans where legal proceedings due to default resulted in the acquisition of title to the security in Ontario* and Alberta by fiscal year is:
Ontario Alberta
1961-	62	
3	21962-	63	
1	21963-	64	
-	-1964-	65	
2	-1965-	66	
3	-1966-	67	
4	-1967-	68	
5	-1968-	69	
2	-1969-	70	
3	3
2. The number of such securities sold is:
Ontario Alberta
1961-	62	
4	21962-	63	
1	21963-	64	
-	-1964-	65	
2	-1965-	66	
3	-1966-	67	
3	11967-	68	
6	-1968-	69	
2	-1969-	70	
2	1
*In Ontario the Corporation's mortgages are enforced by exercising the power of sale contained in the mortgage and not by foreclosure action. Under this procedure legal title to the farm is not acquired. In order to provide comparative data for the purpose of these questions, sales under power of sale in Ontario are treated as acquisitions.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Caouetle: 1. Are interest-free loans made by the federal government to foreign countries and, if so, for what purpose?

March 10, 1971
Motions for Papers
2.	What is the policy of the government concerning such loans?
3.	What loans of this nature has the government made in the past (a) 15 years (b) 10 years (c) 5 years?
4.	Of each such loan, what proportion has heen recovered by the government either through the purchase of Canadian products, or through direct repayment?
5.	Were non-recoverable loans made by the government during the same periods and, if so (a) how many (b) to what countries (c) on what dates (d) for what amounts.
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Notices of Motions Nos. 138 and 169 are acceptable to the government.


STUDY OF URBAN PROBLEMS BY PROFESSOR HARVEY LITHWICK
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 138-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study of urban problems in Canada undertaken by Professor Harvey Lithwick for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing and urban affairs.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 169-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study on Housing Policy or Urban Problems conducted on behalf of the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Housing and/or any studies prepared dealing with individual phases of the problems of Housing or Urban Problems prepared during the aforementioned study?
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion No. 143.


COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE CAR REPAIR BUSINESS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 143-Mr. Maiher:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and provincial governments in 1970 regarding the car repair business.
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, correspondence has been exchanged between officials of my department and provincial government departments on the understanding
that this exchange of views was to be treated on a confidential basis. For this reason it would1 not be appropriate to table the correspondence.


Mr. Maiher:: Mr. Speaker, since I am so glad to hear that the government is finally doing something about the car repair business I will withdraw the motion temporarily.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance who I am happy to see has not disappeared as his white paper has. Now that the minister has announced the scrapping of the white paper on tax reform as a basis for tax legislation, to the hooting and cheering of a large crowd, is he going to make a statement at an early date as to the contents of a new tax reform package?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, over a hundred times at least, I would think, during the last year, including many times in the House, I have indicated that we produced a white paper on tax reform, a discussion document.


Gerald William Baldwin: You mean a monster.


Edgar John Benson: I tried to persuade my hon. friends that this is what we produced, that we would listen to submissions. We have received a great many useful submissions from across the country, from business institutions and from the provinces. We had reports from the Senate and House of Commons committees. The only quarter from which we have not had useful suggestions is from the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: Now my hon. friend has been running around the country shooting at windmills.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister was simply looking for applause. I should like to ask the minister, now that he has stated that the white paper will not be the basis for his tax proposals, whether the tax measures that will be put forward will be as compre-

March 10, 1971

hensive in scope as those in the white paper, or may we expect tax legislation that is much narrower in scope?


Edgar John Benson: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I did not say what my friend indicated at all. I would be glad to send him a transcript of what I did say. I have also been sending him copies of my speeches over past years, which I trust he has read. I indicated following my statement last night that we would have comprehensive tax reform and that it would be introduced-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Finance has made his white paper disappear, does he intend to follow it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



WHITE PAPER ON REFORM-ASSESSMENT OF VIEWS OF PEOPLE

Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the unrepresentative nature of the submissions that were made to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs regarding the white paper, most of them having come from business and organized industry, can the minister say to what extent he has assessed the views of ordinary people in Canada in terms of reaching a decision on the white paper?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, during the past 18 months or so I have spoken to a great many ordinary people in Canada, unlike the Leader of the Opposition. I am also taking into consideration their views, not just the interests of Bay Street as represented by hon. gentlemen opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, may I say it is music to the gambler's ears to hear the suckers roar. I address my supplementary to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement last night by the Minister of Finance that he does not intend to introduce his white paper on tax reform as legislation, may we expect in the future that the government will accept the opposition's views and suggestions in other important fields as well?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, now that we also have the St. James Street view as well as the Bay Street view, I would simply like to say that in this whole exercise-


George Harris Hees: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member on a point of order. The House is in a very cheerful mood today, but perhaps we should be allowed to go on to another subject in a moment after we have heard the hon. member's point of order.
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that my supplementary question was addressed to the Prime Minister, and I am not aware that the Minister of Finance has assumed that portfolio yet.


Mr. Bell:: We want Gordon back.



POSSIBLE MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-STATEMENT RESPECTING PROVISION OF RIGHT OF WAY-DEVELOPMENT BY FOREIGN CAPITAL

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the speech made yesterday by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in Dallas, Texas. In his speech the minister stated that if it was desirable to build a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay through Canada to the United States the right of way through Canada would be made available. In view of the fact that twice within the last few weeks ministers of the Crown have offered this route, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government is now indicating its willingness to provide a right of way through Canada despite the fact that, according to the minister's own statement in the House, studies of the ecological effects of such a route have not yet been completed?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Monsieur le President-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members know the rule about statements made outside the House. The hon. member quite properly asked the question of the Prime Minister, and perhaps in the first instance, at least, a reply might be made by the Prime Minister. If questions are asked directly about the matter, these could be addressed to the minister thereafter.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the benefit of reading the speech which the minister made-


George Harris Hees: Take my advice; don't bother.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and I would hesitate to comment on it on the basis of the no doubt very brief, if not distorted, summary by the leader of the New Democratic Party. Therefore I cannot comment on the speech. That is why I suggest that perhaps the minister might be given the opportunity of saying that what he was quoted as having said was not so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, and this is no more distorted than my previous statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It was an actual quotation from a transcript of the minister's speech which I have in my hand.

March 10, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to ask the Prime Minister about the second invitation which was extended by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to United States oil companies to come into Canada and develop the Canadian north.


An hon. Member:: And take over the country.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Was the minister stating government policy, and is it the intention of the government to invite foreign capital to develop the Canadian north before the white paper on foreign ownership has been completed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it has always been the position of this government that a certain amount of foreign capital was needed to develop this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know of no provincial government, not even the government of Manitoba, which takes a contrary position. As far as our general policies concerning foreign investment are concerned, of course we will make them known in due course. I do not think this is reason to suggest now that all foreign investment in Canada must be delayed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



POSSIBLE MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-ECOLOGICAL STUDIES

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Who is making the ecological study in the north in respect of the proposed oil pipeline which would be a hot line and a possible threat because of the permafrost? Is this study being made by his department or are any United States oil companies or the American government involved? Will this information be submitted to the National Energy Board before any decision is made by that body?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had taken the trouble to read my statement of last week, he would have noted that I said that my department and others were studying this question. In my speech yesterday, in Denver, I told the Americans that they would be welcome to invest in Canada, and that if they built a pipeline, they would have to follow the directives that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had conveyed to the House and that I repeated last August.



MACKENZIE VALLEY-POLICY RESPECTING CONSTRUCTION OE GAS PIPELINE

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development if his department or the government is now making a definite distinction between a gas pipeline and an oil pipeline, as implied in his speech? If
this is the case, is the construction of a gas pipeline definitely government policy now?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said in my speech that the government anticipated less trouble with a gas pipeline than with an oil pipeline. Of course, the building of a gas pipeline could be carried out faster. However, we are considering both prospects simultaneously.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, has the minister or his department received a definite proposal in respect of a gas or oil pipeline for approval or rejection?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker, neither the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources nor myself have so far received any formal proposal from the industry.



USE OF FOREIGN CAPITAL TO DEVELOP NORTHERN RESOURCES-CLAUSE IN BILL C-187

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a supplementary question for the minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of his invitation to participate, extended to foreign investment capital, in the development of oil, gas and other mineral resources in the north, is it now the government's expressed intention to remove the foreign ownership clause from Bill C-187 respecting minerals in the Yukon Territory?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is the privilege of a Liberal to be called a socialist by a Conservative, and a Conservative by a socialist.



POSSIBLE MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-EFFECT ON WILDLIFE

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Apparently his wildlife officials have not yet completed their study of ecological problems. Have they indicated that in principle it is possible to build pipelines without disturbing the wildlife in that area of the north?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said a moment ago that all questions concerning the construction of pipelines in the North are now under study, and that research has been conducted for more than two years in this field. We have much more information at this time than we had two years ago, including information concerning wildlife, but we are not yet in a position to make a final decision on this matter.

March 10, 1971



POSSIBLE MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-DEPARTMENTAL STUDIES

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. The minister suggests that various departments are studying this matter. Will he at this time, or perhaps later on motions, make a statement indicating the evidence on which he bases his recommendations or his opinion of that evidence? Would he give us some indication of the type of personnel who provided the evidence on which he bases his opinion?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have been considering this problem for some time and, last August, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I set up the first category of restrictions on construction and we said repeatedly that final instructions would be issued, we hoped, in the course of the coming months.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Yukon in just a moment. There are four or five members who are seeking the floor to ask supplementary questions on this matter. I suggest to hon. members there will have to be a limit to supplementary questions if we want to get on to another subject. Hon. members representing the group to my extreme left in the House have not had a chance to ask a question. We should move on to another subject as soon as possible. There are other members who I am informed have questions to ask during the question period.



USE OF FOREIGN CAPITAL TO DEVELOP NORTHERN RESOURCES-CLAUSE IN BILL C-187

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the minister must have misunderstood my previous question; it had no reference to his political alignment. My question was in relation to his remarks in Dallas inviting foreign investment capital to participate in the development of our northern resources. Is it now the intention of the government to withdraw the foreign ownership clause from Bill C-187?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in my speech I said we were looking forward to foreign investment in Canada, but in compliance with regulations enacted here.
The bill referred to by my hon. friend contains the same restrictions as in the case of investment in the Northwest Territories and I cannot figure out why they would not apply to the Yukon to the same extent as they do to any other area in the Territories.



POSSIBLE MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-STUDY OF ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to
Inquiries of the Ministry
direct to the Prime Minister as it involves many departments. I refer to what the Acting Prime Minister said two days ago, and I quote from page 4040 of Hansard for March 8:
At present, departments are studying very thoroughly the ecological threat that might occur as a consequence of pipelines running through Canada.
Would the government therefore state its position on the ecological aspect of this whole question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the position is that these aspects are being considered and studied very thoroughly by two, and perhaps three, departments. We cannot give the results until they are known. In addition to the two previously mentioned departments, the future department of the environment will be concerned in this matter and is already involved through the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. This is the government's position. It is very straightforward.



ALLEGED RECRUITING OF MEDICAL DOCTORS OUTSIDE CANADA

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Can he tell us whether the government intends to recruit doctors outside Canada? If so, is this attributable to a shortage of professors or to the small number of medical students?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: It would not be accurate to say that the department has a program of bringing doctors, or any particular class of people, to Canada. Of course, doctors are among those who seek admission to Canada and who are admitted in significant numbers over a period of years. This has been welcomed by many people, including the medical profession in this country, and one presumes that this kind of inflow will continue.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Would the minister say if there have been pressures by officials of the Department of Immigration in foreign countries to get doctors to come and settle in Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I know of no pressures whatever on us in this regard. It is a matter of our immigration policy. Doctors, because of the nature of their training and educational qualifications, do obtain points in our system under the regulations and, accordingly, if they are eligible to practice in this country are certainly apt to be admitted fairly readily. But I know of no other features in this situation.

March 10, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: I want to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Is the minister ready to state that no extraordinary or special measure has been taken abroad, outside current administration, in order to get doctors to come and practise in Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: It depends, I suppose, on what is called an ordinary or extraordinary measure. Over a period of time the department did indicate until some months ago particular occupations or professions where there seemed to be a shortage or demand in Canada, and did this in the form of advertisements. Certainly in the case of doctors advertisements of this sort were run in some countries as part of our regular policy in relation to occupations in short supply. I know of no additional special measures.



POST OFFICE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question dealing with a less serious matter to the Postmaster General. I wish to ask him whether, when he made the ruling that the town and area of Tisdale should not be able to have a cancellation stamp put on postage that reads "Tisdale, the home of rape and honey", he was aware of the fact that both of these products were mentioned in the diversification suggestions of the Minister of Agriculture and the minister who reports for the Wheat Board? Why does he deny that portion of Saskatchewan, indeed the whole province which has an international reputation for the production of these two products, the use of these words on the postage?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister Without Portfolio):: am lost, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the most intelligent answer that this government has given, and I congratulate the minister. I now ask him whether he will find out the facts. Not knowing of the situation at all, which has been dealt with at length across this country, both on national television and in the newspapers, will he look into it now and reverse the asinine decision that was made?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: What I will do, Mr. Speaker, is to read the question in Hansard tomorrow and try to give another intelligent answer.



PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF DIRECTOR OF THEATRE DU RIDEAU VERT

Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, as my question has already been put, may I call the attention of hon. members to the presence, in the Speaker's Gallery, of the founder-director of the Theatre du Rideau Vert of Montreal.



HISTORIC SITES


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the government discontinued the military ceremony which has been the main animated feature at the Lower Fort Garry historic site, and does this mean that the policy of historic animation has been abandoned for all national historic sites?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the details of this question. I shall inquire about it and be happy to give the hon. member an answer tomorrow or Friday.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the fact that students are involved in this program and there is a shortage of summer employment for students, would the minister, while he is looking into the matter, consider stepping up the program of animation?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Thomas S. Barneti (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question arising out of the fact that earlier today we gave first reading to a bill having to do with the Unemployment Insurance Act. I direct my question either to the Minister of Labour or to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, whichever minister wants to reply. Can we have an assurance, in view of the announced intention of the government to phase out fishermen from coverage under the Unemployment Insurance Act, that the details of that proposal, either in the form of a bill or whatever is appropriate, will be placed before the House before we give consideration to the second reading of the bill respecting the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Certainly before changes are made a bill will be submitted to the House for consideration by Parliament.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wish to direct my supplementary question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as House leader. Would the House leader on the government side undertake to schedule the business of the

March 10, 1971

House so that information with respect to what is being proposed to replace unemployment insurance for fishermen will be placed before us for consideration in order that we may intelligently understand what approach we should take with respect to the proposed new Unemployment Insurance Act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: When I have a bill I will be glad to schedule it in the best way possible.



FINANCE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the rise of the Canadian dollar to near parity with and above the United States dollar, which with the inflationary factor of 3 per cent last year makes the price of our exports to our customers about 10 per cent higher than a year ago, has the government any plans to stabilize the dollar at a price that will allow our exports to remain competitive?


Edgar John Benson: If my hon. friend will look, he will find that inflation in our main exporting market, the United States, was almost double that in Canada. With respect to the Canadian dollar, it is continuing very strong.



BROADCASTING


Mr.   Jean-R. Roy@Timmins: My question is directed to the Secretary of State or to his parliamentary secretary. Following the unfortunate difficulties between Bushnell Broadcasting and the Marconi Company, and because of the approaching deadline for negotiations, would the minister consult with the interested parties and determine if some government intervention might assist in resolving the impasse and thereby favour Canadian ownership as well as the public purse?


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: If I am not mistaken, Bushnell's option has expired, so I am not sure what sort of intervention the hon. member is considering. However, I might meet him afterward and hear what suggestions he may have.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: My question is for either the Acting Secretary of State for Exter-
Inquiries of the Ministry
nal Affairs or the Prime Minister. In light of the reports that various countries are making arrangements to evacuate their nationals from East Pakistan in view of the internal problems there, what steps, if any, has Canada taken in this regard?


Mr. Andre Ouellel (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the High Commissioner for Canada in Pakistan is presently in Dacca and, according to our latest information, there is no question yet that the Canadians who are now in the eastern part of Pakistan leave the area. At any rate, if the situation were ever to deteriorate to the point where they should leave, discussions are already under way with the British authorities so that their removal can be carried out as quickly as possible.


Robert Muir: I thank the parliamentary secretary for his reply. Am I to take it that there are no Canadians in any danger at the moment in East Pakistan?


André Ouellet: No, Mr. Speaker; they would not yet be in danger.


EFFECT ON EASTERN CANADA OF VENEZUELAN PRICE INCREASE-EXTENSION OF PIPELINE TO MONTREAL
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the increased taxes imposed on foreign oil companies operating in Venezuela, the heavy reliance of eastern Canada on that oil and the almost certain increase in oil prices in eastern Canada, is the government re-evaluating the national oil policy with a view to supplying eastern Canada with Canadian oil by a pipeline?
Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, these questions are under continuing review. The price structure on the eastern seaboard is not yet firm, in that the Libyan negotiations are still not completed. Certainly the Venezuelan determination will lead to higher cost, but there is no new policy because the facts are not yet clear and determined. When the price structure is made clear, a further comprehensive review will be made.


David Orlikow: I would like to ask the minister whether his department or the government will make their own study of the economics of a new pipeline, rather than leaving it to the oil companies or to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines?

March 10, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Greene:: Mr. Speaker, both my department and the National Energy Board have a great deal of economic information in regard to the viability of a pipeline, and the question is continually under review. I still feel very sure that under our present system, if a pipeline were economic the private sector would make application to build it. But certainly we undertake independent studies as between ourselves and the National Energy Board.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister says "the private sector", is he referring to Interprovincial Pipe Line Company which now has a pipeline to eastern Canada, or would the government consider an application from any other group? Also, would the government insist that Interprovincial Pipe Line allow such a group to tie into its system in order to take oil to the Montreal area?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have every reason to believe that the government and the National Energy Board would entertain an application from any entrepreneur or company that wished to build such a line. If it involved tying into the Interprovincial Pipe Line system, we would have to consider that proposition when the application was made.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the hon. member for Calgary North a supplementary, but again I seek the co-operation of hon. members.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister whether, when he talks about the private sector, he is talking about the same corporate bodies that are the producers of crude petroleum in western Canada and in the north and also import crude petroleum into Canada.


John James Greene: Under our system the pipelines, of course, have investment from the producing sector and from its integrated companies, but they do operate as independent entities.
* *
*


UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to put my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture but in view of his absence I shall put it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
It pertains to the reply given a question on the order paper concerning our contribution of almost $36 million in goods of all kinds to the under-developed countries through the United Nations. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether part of this help consists of dairy produce? If so, could Canada increase that portion in the years to come?


Mr. Speaker:: The question of the hon. member should normally have been put on the order paper, but the hon. Parliamentary Secretary might want to answer it briefly.


STUDY OF HANDLING AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Mr. Jack Muria (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that the president of the Canadian Transport Commission stated in committee that the grain handling system is largely obsolete and needs tremendous improvement, could the minister inform the House whether or not a study is being done and, if so, when will it be completed?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it has been a well-known fact that studies have been under way in regard to the handling and transportation system for quite some time. Good progress is being made and it should not be very long before these studies are the basis for discussion, first with the co-operatives and other companies concerned and then with the public generally along the lines of the statement made at the time of the announcement of the studies.


ALLEGED LACK OF STOCKS AT VANCOUVER TO LOAD SHIPS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. In view of the backlog of ships in Vancouver and the fact that the grain on hand and in store in Vancouver is taking up less than 40 per cent of the capacity of the terminals there, what action is being taken to speed up grain movement and ensure sufficient stocks to fill the ships presently at Vancouver or en route?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, action has been taken consistently in order to deal with this problem as effectively as possible. I seem to have figures that are different from those used by the hon. member. I am told that the amount of grain in store is 15,113,000 bushels, that the number of ships waiting at noon today was seven, which have passed inspection, and this, of course, is a decrease from the figure earlier.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


DISCUSSIONS ON USE OF BAY OF FUNDY TIDES
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchesier North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister
[Mr. Orlikow 1
March 10, 1971

of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister inform the House whether officials of his department are presently meeting or are about to meet with officials of the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick with regard to the programming board report on the harnessing of the Bay of Fundy tides for power purposes?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain whether they are meeting at the present time, but we are in communication with respect to a possible review of at least portions of the Minas Bay study. If we can make such discussions public with the consent of the provincial authorities, I will be very pleased to do so in the House.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Can he briefly bring us up to date on the status of the talks between the ship repair group and the government negotiators?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: It
is my understanding that they are going on, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN ARSENALS
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the reported sale of Canadian Arsenals in Long Branch, a suburb of Toronto, what arrangements are going to be made with regard to taking care of long-term employees who will be laid off, what is the basis for termination of their employment, and what arrangements have been made for their relocation?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the sale is still being negotiated. I have already indicated to the House, in reply to an earlier question, that the interests of the labour force will be taken care of in the negotiations.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: As soon as the negotiations are completed, will the minister tell the House the exact terms and conditions and in what way the labour force will be protected?


James Armstrong Richardson: I will undertake to do that.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of the
Inquiries of the Ministry
Wheat Board. Did the minister consult the Canadian Federation of Agriculture or the National Farmers Union in regard to the appointment of Mr. Vogel as chief commissioner and the appointment of Mr. Esdale of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to the Canadian Wheat Board?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we did have discussions with a number of organizations, including members of those mentioned by the hon. member, about suitable appointments prior to their being made.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Did the minister ask the Canadian Federation of Agriculture or the National Farmers Union to submit to him names of persons who would be suitable for appointment to the Canadian Wheat Board?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, they did this themselves in advance of any request having been made to them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time and I wonder if hon. members would agree that the Chair be allowed to select the last questioners from the last row, who seem to have been neglected. The hon. member for Joliette.


MANPOWER
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
To enlighten the House, on March 3 I asked the Acting Prime Minister if the government intended to establish a civil service-a resolution to this effect having been agreed to at the Liberal convention recently-for students. The minister then replied: "The government will be bringing its plans before the House". However, after the oral question period, the minister is reported to have said to newspapermen that he had misunderstood my question and that was why he had given this answer. I ask the right hon. Prime Minister if the government will establish this civil service since the resolution was passed at the last Liberal convention.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is possible that I, too, misunderstood the question, which to me seemed rather complex, and I would not want to mislead the hon. member. If this is the matter of summer employment for students, generally, I repeat what has already been said in this House, that is, that in a very short while a series of announcements shall be made concerning this. To get acquainted with the details, the House will obviously have to wait for the government to make them.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.

March 10, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that we have already reached the end of the oral question period. We might perhaps allow him to put his supplementary question tomorrow, at the very beginning of the question period.


POLICIES TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT FOR YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT STUDENTS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Secretary of State is now consulting the provinces regarding summer employment for students, can the Prime Minister assure the House that the government is also formulating employment policies for young people who are not students but who are unemployed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government is in the process of formulating such policies. The reason consultation with the provinces is taking place is that some of our policies would perhaps indirectly concern the educational function, which is under provincial jurisdiction. For that reason we want to be sure that the provinces have been duly consulted before announcing anything.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is it the intention of the government to phase out in the immediate future the Prince Edward Island Newstart program and, if so, when will that phase-out begin and what program is contemplated to replace it?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: As people know, Mr. Speaker, these experiments were to be spread over a certain period. This is true for Prince Edward Island and the other provinces. I can inquire in order to find out when it is proposed to bring to a close the project aimed at boosting the economy of Prince Edward Island. I will soon be in a position to give details on the future of this undertaking.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the government having introduced a bill on unemployment insurance, and in light of the
opposition that has come from individuals and in particular the province of Quebec, which seems to believe that this bill is moving into the welfare field, can the minister state whether all difficulties which have arisen with respect to all provinces and in particular the province of Quebec, have now been resolved?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: That would be my interpretation, Mr. Speaker. I think the consultation with the province of Quebec, which has been going on for several months, has resulted in a better bill. I have no objection to the dialogue which I and members of my department entered into with the provinces if the end result is a better piece of legislation. In the final analysis we are interested in the well-being of people.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If I may have Your Honour's indulgence I should like to ask a supplementary question. I have not seen the bill, but I am wondering whether the minister has made any change in his extension of interruption of earnings due to sickness and pregnancy. Has this area been discussed, and is it one in which changes have been made?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I do not want to get into a debate, Mr. Speaker. To be precise would require considerable time. I would simply say that unemployment insurance benefits will be provided for people who are temporarily unemployed as a result of sickness or maternity. I think the bill as drafted is acceptable to all provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


MANPOWER
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Joliette raises the question of privilege.

I shall return to the hon. member for Wellington in a moment.


Roch La Salle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister have understood my question.
I would like to come back to the resolution passed at the last Liberal convention concerning the establishment of a civil service for students next year. That is in the interest of all young Canadians and I trust that the Prime Minister can inform the House whether the government is in favour of such a resolution or not.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette will admit that this is not a case for a question of privilege.

March 10, 1971

Moreover, the hon. member has put his question for the third time, I believe, and the Prime Minister should perhaps take this opportunity to answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his patience. I have well understood his question this time. It refers to a resolution passed at the convention of the Quebec Liberal party and I am told that some members of the party are considering its various aspects. However, it has not yet been examined by the government.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Speaker, through you may I ask for consent of the House to return to routine proceedings? I apologize for not having heard Your Honour call for reports of standing and special committees.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts-Mr. Hales.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, March 8, consideration of Bill C-182, to provide for the examination, publication and scrutiny of regulations and other statutory instruments, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the events of the last hour have again indicated that the bill under consideration emphasizes the arrogance, the insolence and the contempt for Parliament which is more and more characterizing this government. When the white paper was first referred to, I said on the following day that it was a hoax, a delusion, a deception and that the government would never dare bring it in. That hoax has continued for one year. The government, which is afraid to face facts, decided that it would pretend to be securing the views of the Canadian people. That white paper is a condemnation-


Mr. Turner (Ollawa-Carlelon):: What bill is this?
Statutory Instruments Act


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is only a praeceptor primus; he was not the founder of it.


John Napier Turner: I was wondering what bill you were speaking of.


John George Diefenbaker: I was not bringing the minister into it at all, Mr. Speaker. He is a member of the cabinet; but after the experience we had again today we know that one member of the cabinet does not know what another is doing; the right hand does not know what the left hand intends to do. Today's example again emphasizes that this government does not conform to constitutional procedure. What it does is deceive the people, and when it finds itself in difficulties it runs for cover. It was a sorry sight today to see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), denuded of all responsibility, finally having to admit by inference that he had to back down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: He turned tail and ran.


John George Diefenbaker: It is an example of what is being done in certain portions of the bill before the House. We are dealing with clause 26 and with a further clause which Your Honour allowed to be discussed because of their similar nature. What is being done is glossed over simply as an endeavour to bring order out of chaos, to bring clarity out of uncertainty. I remember the election of 1935 when the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, the then member for Prince Albert, ran on a platform of "King or chaos." We got both.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Now the government wants to substitute sections in this law for others that have proven to be efficacious in protecting the rights of Parliament. Let me refer back to 1955. Instead of reading the lengthy debates at that time on the subject of the Defence Production Act, I will point out that nothing contributed more to the defeat of the Liberal party in 1957 than the fact that it came to regard itself as divinely appointed, divinely in office and divinely there for the welfare of the people of Canada. Certain legislation was brought in then, the excuse being, of course, that it was the Right Hon. C. D. Howe who was bringing it in, for he did not like Parliament and wanted to get away from Parliament.
We fought the Defence Production Act and ultimately secured an amendment to that act which gave to Parliament and members of this institution the right to challenge any of the resolutions that were passed, that is, the right to challenge any statutory instruments. Ten of us could join together and challenge them. And now what do we find? This government has decided that those provisions ought to be changed. Mind you, it is all in the interests of the people of Canada! That is the way the government sees it. Read clause 26. It provides that "every statutory instrument issued ... other than an instrument the inspection of which and the obtaining of copies

March 10, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
of which are precluded by any regulations ... shall stand permanently referred to any committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses of Parliament that may be established for the purpose of reviewing and scrutinizing statutory instruments."
Why were the words that were in the old act deleted? We had power then to act. Now, in place of the power to act there is to be substituted submissions to a committee. It will not have any right to act. It may not recommend that an instrument be approved, varied or repealed. It is restricted to reviewing and scrutinizing statutory instruments.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


John George Diefenbaker: Why not! If the minister really believes in Parliament, he is one of the few ministers on the treasury benches who does. I have always given him credit. He has had some "Joe" jobs to do recently, which indicates that he is the one who is to bring before Parliament those things that will abrogate our rights.


John Napier Turner: This bill will not.


John George Diefenbaker: Why not accept our amendment? What is wrong? You will allow the committee to have submitted to it all these instruments. They may review and scrutinize them. They may look, see, talk-but not act.


Erik Nielsen: They may not be heard.


John George Diefenbaker: Can you imagine a committee, strangled before it commences to sit, that is permitted by Parliament to consider but to do nothing else? I ask the minister, what possible reason has he to oppose the amendment which provides that the power of this committee shall be to recommend that the instrument be approved, varied or appealed? Why does he want to take away that power? Why does he want to emasculate the committee before it is set up?


Erik Nielsen: Answer, John.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is governed by either one of two reasons: he is afraid of what the committee will do or might do, or he does not want the committee to do anything. There are no alternatives. The committee may hear and see, but not do. If the government wishes to restore to Canada to full vigour of the parliamentary system, this amendment ought to be accepted without delay. There was a time-it lasted from the time I first came here until 1963-when governments used to listen to suggestions from the opposition. Over and over again, during the King administration, the St. Laurent administration and my administration, if the opposition raised a matter that was worthy of attention, it received attention. Today suggestions are contemptuously cast aside.
The amendment suggested is reasonable. Of course, the government may be trying to prevent action being taken; that will be the result if the amendment is not accepted. Let us take our first step forward in the restoration of this institution by accepting the amendment. At the conclusion of Orders of the Day the government evacuated
the chamber as a body. For years and years we have not seen the equal of what is happening, the evacuation from the chamber of those in positions of responsibility. Indeed, sometimes as I watch these ministers disappearing I think of the evacuation of Dunkirk.


Mr. McCleave:: There goes another.


John George Diefenbaker: Never have I seen Parhament being degraded as it is now through the instrumentality of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: In other days ministers used to stay in the House when a serious matter was before Parliament. The Prime Minister did: he had time then. Now the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is a busy man. When matters affecting the lifeblood of Parliament are brought forward, think of the interest the government shows! The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is here because he must be. There is one other minister sitting in the back row.


George Harris Hees: And he is paying no attention.


John George Diefenbaker: No doubt he is saying how he will get out of any difficulty existing between him and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) connected with the building of pipelines.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: The minister must speak from his own seat.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the minister seek the floor on a point of order, or on a question of privilege?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the right hon. gentleman, I was not discussing the subject matter he was referring to. I was discussing the very fine address that the right hon. gentleman was making to this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: This will be the first time in the history of this government that anybody has admitted that anyone in the opposition has something to say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I have always said that the minister is a fine parliamentarian. I should like the process of osmosis to be instrumental in influencing the Minister of Justice who is sitting next to him. In earlier days ministers stayed in the House. In those days members of the press gallery stayed to cover the proceedings. There was no outside forum enabling ministers to say one thing in the House and revise, enlarge and dilute outside the House what they had said in the House.
I speak with utmost seriousness about what is happening to Parliament. In a complete compendium of wisdom,

March 10, 1971

Your Honour earlier today set out the difficulties of Parliament. Sir, I opposed the changes in the rules. It was said that the changes would make things more simple and bring about greater efficiency. Under the guise of doing that, this government has emasculated this institution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: A private member cannot get anything before Parliament today. Members are becoming a statistic and promoting purpose. Matters of particular consequence to the people of Canada are raised each day for discussion at the adjournment of the House. They cannot get them through. Why? Under the rules, Your Honour asks whether there is unanimity. The answer from the government side is always no: they squelch every possibility. Nothing is discussed in this chamber except that which goes through the sieve of partisan consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The arrogance of this government is again represented in this clause to which an amendment has been moved. I am not expressing my view at the moment but I wish to indicate how general the feeling is becoming. I wish to state the view of John Varley, who was a Liberal student leader and president of the Canadian student Liberals. He ceased to be that after he made this speech. He said:
Recent actions by Prime Minister Trudeau show he has become "very arrogant"-
He then goes on to deal with certain words that were used, mouthed or lipped in this House. With regard to the expression which the Prime Minister used, Mr. Varley said:
"The Canadian people know dam well it wasn't fuddle-duddle"-
If we pass this clause, Mr. Speaker, we will simply put a throttle on a committee established as a result of this provision. It is arrogant to introduce this particular section to this bill. Why was it changed? Why was it not allowed to remain as it was, with the committee having the right to make recommendations or negative proposals? The answer is simple. This government has come to the conclusion it cannot even trust its own majority in committees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: It is afraid because many government members will realize how wrong are the actions of this government. If only some of these walls had voices- some of the criticism of members who give their consistent support to the government might be heard by ministers of the government! The Minister of Justice is different. He has been placed on a pedestal. He is a man who believes in Parliament. I suggest to him that, believing in Parliament, he should accept the amendment. If he accepted the whole amendment no one could say that the
Statutory Instruments Act
Minister of Justice was not the first to accept suggestions of the opposition.
As I pointed out a moment ago, the essence of the amendment is to give the committee the power to recommend that statutory instruments be approved, varied or repealed. It is as simple as that. Parliament is your institution and mine. The Prime Minister said that if they don't like it, they can lump it. When the labour men from Montreal were here the Prime Minister brought up to date the immortal words of Marie Antoinette-but he did not tell them they could eat cake: he modernized the words of Marie Antoinette!
This particular clause of the bill constitutes another attempt to secure absolute power on the part of the government. I can just see the march of the committee that will examine these various instruments. It will be appointed, it will march out, it will talk, it will come back and say, "We must say to you, Mr. Minister, that we have discussed the matter, read the section and considered the instrument; but a lack of independence demands that we say nothing, and we are reinforced by the fact that the Parliament of Canada does not require us to do so." We had another example of this today in respect of the white paper. I come back to that matter because it is an example that stands out like an outbuilding on the western Prairies in a fog.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: There it is. You see it. For more than a year the government has said we are going to have participatory democracy. This does not apply to committees and members of Parliament. They can speak, but they cannot participate in any decision. The government has said they will give the people of Canada that grand opportunity. What have they done in the past year and a half, through the white paper? They have undermined the Canadian economy to a tremendous extent because of the fear engendered by its implementation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: This applies to the strongest of Liberals, honoured by the highest decorations that can be awarded. Mr. Bruce Hutchison dealt with this question the other day in an article entitled "Victory by Default". He wrote:
The Canadian government is said to be an unequalled master of propaganda.
The article then deals with the Minister of Finance. It shows the arrogance of the minister, whom I do not regard as having a monopoly on arrogance. The article says that the Minister of Finance is-
-the kind of man who, if the world is finally destroyed by nuclear bombs, will prove, next day, by unquestionable figures, that the destruction is only 99 and not 100 per cent when seasonally adjusted.
We do not want seasonal adjustments in the examination of statutory instruments. I know that in his heart of hearts the minister wishes he could allow this amendment, but in the shadows stands the Prime Minister

March 10, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
keeping watch over his own. He does not like "yes men." When he says no he wants them to say no also.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, while I can hardly think of a greater delight than listening to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), I can hardly think of a worse fate for a young member like myself than standing up and following him. I am afraid that after his flight of oratory the House will be brought back to earth with rather a dull thud.
I wish to take a moment to set my remarks in context. I think I can best do that by quoting from an article by Professor J. R. Mallory, printed in the Ottawa Law Review, volume 4, No. 1, summer 1970. Professor Mallory dealt with the question of statutory instruments in Canada and said:
Parliament cannot, and should not, attempt to consider in detail all of the great variety of regulations which are necessary in a modern, urban, and highly technological society. It has more important things to do. It must keep a constant and wary eye on the major policy questions which affect the public interest. In spite of the very large flow of legislation which is now necessary, parliamentary time must not be so taken up by the legislative process that opportunity is lacking for the other very necessary parliamentary function under responsible government, which is to keep under constant review the policy and actions of ministers of the Crown.
Professor Mallory went on to say:
Accordingly, the detailed regulations to make the law effective must be made by officials in the name of the government or some statutory public authority. These regulations are no doubt carefully considered. One can be sure that official committees will consider them carefully before they are promulgated. But, unlike acts of Parliament, they will not be publicly debated before they become part of the law. And after they become part of the law there is little chance for them to be reconsidered. In most cases, public debate would not help and is not necessary. What can Parliament say that is essential or constructive on the safe load of a commercial aircraft or the safety precautions necessary in the use of a chemical pesticide, which the experts cannot say with greater authority? Not much. But the problem is as follows. Does the executive agency which makes the regulations stay within the authority provided by the statute? Does it lay down a regulation which unduly restricts the proper liberty of the subject? Does it interfere with the remedies of the subject? Does it interfere with the remedies normally provided by the courts? Who can say? In my view it is the business of Parliament to act as a watchdog for the public interest. I have great confidence in the professional integrity of the public service but I feel that no man should exercise power in the absence of public scrutiny.
Professor Mallory is arguing in favour of parliamentary supervision over statutory instruments. I think there are three steps in achieving the kind of parliamentary surveillance of statutory instruments which Professor Mallory argues to be necessary, which the Committee on Statutory Instruments deems to be necessary and which the bill before us indicates the government itself considers to be necessary. The first is publicity, making sure that the regulation has been promulgated and made known in order that people can examine it and see what its effects are likely to be. This is provided for in the bill
before us by the requirement that regulations be gazetted and otherwise publicized.
The second requirement is that there be some means of scrutinizing the regulations to make sure that they conform with clearly understood principles governing delegated legislation. Such mechanism is provided by clause 26 of the bill which deals with the establishment of a parliamentary committee. The third requirement, if there is to be adequate surveillance of delegated legislation, is that provision be made for some means of remedy when a regulation is considered to be unwise. Provision for this is made in the bill in the case of certain specific acts. I refer to clause 30 which does this, fundamentally, though it does so in a manner which gives Parliament less power than it has at present; it provides that a negative resolution of the House of Commons can result in a regulation being revoked. Nevertheless, there is no general provision for remedy in the bill.
Having outlined these three requirements, I think it becomes readily apparent that the type of committee to be established under clause 26 to scrutinize subordinate legislation, and its terms of reference, will have great influence upon the effectiveness of the measure before us. In my opinion the definiton of the role of the committee, as referred to in the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), is of great importance. The essential effect of that amendment lies in paragraph 3 in which the hon. member says:
Where a statutory instrument stands referred to such committee, the committee has, in respect to such statutory instrument, the power to recommend that the same be approved, varied or repealed.
Moreover, it is necessary to adopt some procedure which will ensure that Parliament can rapidly effect a remedy should the scrutiny committee feel it necessary to recommend that the regulation be varied, repealed or amended. Under the present rules of the House, what options are open to us? First there is the option of raising the matter under the terms of Standing Order 58(5). This order deals with the days allotted to the opposition, days on which the opposition may select a topic for debate. There is some difficulty about this approach because opposition parties must already choose from among a number of conflicting and urgent claims upon this allowance of time in the House.
Another option would be to resort to the use of Standing Order 26 when it came to the attention of the House through the scrutiny committee that a regulation needed to be amended or repealed. However, difficulty would be likely to arise here in connection with the question of urgency. I believe I can envisage circumstances in which a good many hon. members would deem it necessary for a regulation to be repealed but in which Mr. Speaker would be correct in ruling that the matter was not properly one for debate under the terms of Standing Order 26 because it was not sufficiently urgent or of general application.
Another option would be to take action under the terms of Standing Order 39A which allows an hon. member who has asked a question of a minister in the

March 10, 1971

House, and received what he considers to be an unsatisfactory reply, to raise the matter at the time of adjournment. In this case, though, only two people are allowed to engage in debate on the subject under discussion and I do not think this is sufficient guarantee that the House has available adequate means of remedy should it consider there is need to vary or repeat a regulation.
It is on this basis that I support the kind of provision suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) in amendment No. 4. I refer to paragraph 3 of the amendment which reads as follows:
In the event that the said committee should in any report recommend the amendment, replacement or annulment of any statutory instrument, such report shall be brought on for consideration in the House of Commons within 15 sitting days after the tabling thereof in the same session, should such be possible, or within the first 20 sitting days in the next session following, and any debate thereon should continue subject to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons until the report shall have been finally disposed of.
I realize the minister has given the House an assurance that the terms of reference of the committee to be established under this legislation will meet the points raised by hon. members in their amendments and by those of us who speak in support of those amendments. However, since the committee to be established under clause 26 really represents the only means of scrutiny of delegated legislation, the only possible vehicle for redress, I am sure the minister will understand our reluctance to let the bill get out of our hands until we have received definite assurance from him that the problems we have drawn to his attention will be met in the terms of reference of the new committee. I am sure he will understand, too, that we would like to see these guarantees placed within the framework of the bill itself.
Speaking about the nature of the committee to be established by this legislation, there are two other factors I wish to bring to the minister's attention. The first is that the committee to be established must be adequately staffed. I suggest to the minister that he give serious consideration to basing that staff upon the legal counsel of Mr. Speaker and their staffs. It is not enough for such a committee to be assisted by members of the legal staff of the Department of Justice, because it is important that the committee, as a servant of this House and not of the government, should have the services of persons whose loyalties are completely undivided. In this regard I think it is an analagous situation to the relationship between the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee.
The other suggestion I wish to make in regard to the form of this committee is that it be empowered to deal not only with the form of statutory instruments or regulations but also with their substance. That is, it must deal with more than questions such as: Is the regulation clearly drafted? Is it based on statutory authority? Is it certain that it does not employ such wide and sweeping powers that constitutional principles are offended?
Such a committee should also be able to decide whether a regulation is a normal or an unusual and unexpected use of statutory authority. In this regard I would draw to
Statutory Instruments Act
the attention of the minister the suggestion of my colleague from Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) that one of the powers of the committee should be to refer the substance of a regulation to another and appropriate standing committee of the House.
In his remarks on Monday, I believe it was, the hon. member for Peace River drew the attention of the House to certain recommendations made by the Committee on Statutory Instruments dealing with the nature and function of the scrutiny committee to be established. He drew the attention of the House to the recommendation that the committee be allowed a preview of regulations so that before they come into force there might be an opportunity for Members of Parliament to express their opinions upon the validity of a regulation, its utility, its conformity to the statutory authority, and so forth.
In this regard I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this particular power for the committee has not been included in the bill. Further, there will be certain regulations that are entirely excluded from the attention of the scrutiny committee. I find some difficulty in my approach to this question. What I really want to do is draw the problem to the minister's attention in the hope that he can clarify the issue for us in his remarks on these two amendments. I can deal with the matter very briefly.
Clause 27(c), on page 13 of the bill, empowers the Governor in Council to make regulations exempting any regulation or class of regulation from publication or scrutiny "in the interest of international relations, national defence or security, or federal-provincial relations". This is a pretty wide and sweeping power of exemption, and it bothers me. But what really concerns me is the seeming lack of provision in this bill similar to that in the Regulations Act requiring the exempting order itself to be published. This bill does provide for wider dissemination of information on statutory instruments, and therefore perhaps the wider powers of exemption are in order. But in their present form they are very wide indeed, with no assurance at all that anyone would get to know about the exemptions. I consider that to be a very dangerous feature of this bill, though perhaps I have misunderstood the situation. I would very much appreciate the minister devoting some attention to this problem when he eventually comments on these amendments, even though I am perhaps ranging a little far from the subject in drawing this matter to his attention.
Publication of an exempting order would at least alert a parliamentary committee or an opposition party to make discreet inquiries about why it was felt necessary to publish the exempting order. If that is not enough, then the committee or opposition party could raise the matter publicly. However, it seems to me that as this bill is presently constituted, parliamentary committees and Members of Parliament would not even know that a regulation had been exempted from the necessity for publication and, as I have said before, I consider this highly dangerous. I think the publication of an exempting order is a necessary safeguard. I should like to hear the minister's comments on the reason for the exclusion of
March 10, 1971

Statutory Instruments Act
such a provision from this bill when he chooses to make his remarks on these two amendments.


John Napier Turner: I have already spoken on them.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made when this matter was before the House earlier this week, the Chair will first put motion No. 3, and subsequently motion No. 4. The question is on motion No. 3. All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion shall stand deferred.
The question is on motion No. 4. All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion shall stand deferred.


Mr. Robert  Mc@: That Bill C-182, an act to provide for the examination, publication and scrutiny of regulations and other statutory instruments, be amended by deleting therefrom clause 30 at page 18.
He said: Mr. Speaker, after some of the fireworks we have enjoyed during the last day and a half of debate in respect of what may seem a very mild resolution, I venture to suggest there is probably more dynamite in what I suggest in this motion than there is in the motions of my colleagues. I shall explain briefly what I regard as an extraordinarily important motion.
The effect of what is proposed here would be the knocking out of clause 30 on page 18 of the bill. This would mean that section 41 of the Defence Production Act of 1955 would be restored. Most parliamentarians are

perhaps not aware of the significance of section 41 of the Defence Production Act of 1955. I am certain that members of the press gallery are not aware of its significance, because there is only one pressman there at the moment. The fact is that the debate of 1955 was one of the two or three significant debates which has occurred in this chamber since the end of the Second World War. That alone should make one pause and consider what the minister and the government are attempting to do here.
Perhaps the situation is even more compounded and the confusion more confused by virtue of the fact that the bill most members have on their desk is Bill C-182 as it was originally returned from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. This is not the original bill presented to us on November 3, 1970. This is important, because unless hon. members have referred to the original bill, as well as members of the press gallery, they will not know what is taking place. In the bill presented to us for first reading there was an element of explanation. That explanation is not given in the reprinted bill. Let me turn to the page opposite page 18 of the original bill presented on November 3 and read from section 41 of the Defence Production Act, which would be repealed if we accept the bill now before us. I think this is important. It reads:
Every regulation, as defined in the Regulations Act, made under the authority of this act that is required to be laid before Parliament under section 7 of the Regulations Act and every regulation made under section 9 of the Regulations Act in relation to a regulation made under this act, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.
(2) Where a regulation has been laid before Parliament pursuant to subsection (1), a notice of motion in either House signed by ten members thereof, and made in accordance with the rules of that House within seven days of the day the regulation was laid before that House, praying that the regulation be revoked or amended, shall be debated in that House at the first convenient opportunity within the four sitting days next after the day the motion in that House was made.
I hope hon. members now start to prick up their ears and realize that something special was laid down in subsection 2. Perhaps we should ask ourselves why this provision was laid down in an act passed by a Liberal government in 1955. We should also ask ourselves what will happen in this regard as a result of the measure we are now considering. To complete the story I should read subsection 3 of this act passed by Parliament. It provides as follows:
A regulation that has been laid before Parliament pursuant to this section need not be laid before Parliament under section 7 or 9 of the Regulations Act, but nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting or limiting the obligation under section 6 of the Regulations Act to publish the regulation in the Canada Gazette.
Subsection 3 is not germane to the argument I am advancing, but this is the law of the land as it now stands. Section 41 (2) of the Defence Production Act provides that ten members of this place can sign a notice of motion to the effect that they do not like a regulation and ask that it be revoked or amended. That notice of motion has to be debated. The subsection does not say it may be debated, or that it may be put on some list, to be
March 10, 1971

drawn out of a hat and taken up in due course. It says it shall be debated. Section 41 (2) provides that the regulations shall be debated in the House at the first convenient opportunity within the four sitting days next after the day of the motion in the House. That is the law as it stands. In a moment I will explain some of the circumstances that led to the adoption of that provision. Let us compare that with what we find on page 18, clause 30 of the bill. It provides:
Section 41 of the Defence Production Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"41. Every regulation, as defined in the Statutory Instruments Act, made under the authority of this act is subject to negative resolution of Parliament.
Again I ask members to prick up their ears. I ask our faithful reporter in the press gallery to prick up his ears. Each of us must ask ourselves the question: What on earth is a negative resolution as suggested in this section of the act? The answer is that nobody in this chamber can remember such an animal as a negative resolution. Never has there been one proposed or considered in this chamber. There have been some proposed and debated in other parliaments. Perhaps we have a hint as to what a negative resolution is: it would seem to be something that destroys a resolution.
As a matter of procedure, one can search our rule book from cover to cover without finding any procedure, suggestion or practice in respect of a negative resolution in this House of Commons. We are in effect being asked to replace something which was fought out in this House of Commons in 1955 and adopted, even though the procedure has never been used. We are being asked to throw that away and replace it with something that is called "subject to negative resolution of Parliament", a procedure which we simply do not have in existence. This is a positive thing being cast away for something that may or may not provide for some parliamentary action one day. I think I have set the stage in respect of what we are being asked to do and perhaps for what I am suggesting we do not do. I give the minister the alternative. If we are to have a negative resolution procedure, it should be spelled out clearly in respect of application or commitment by the government. In that way we will know where we are going.
I turn now to the background of the reasons section 41 of the Defence Production Act was adopted. I shall do so by referring to a book which was placed in the hands of hon. members a short time ago. It was written by Alderman William Kilbourn and is entitled "Pipeline". At page 101 he characterizes the debate that took place in this chamber in 1955. I have already suggested that this was probably one of the two or three most important debates held in this House since the end of the Second World War. He sums it up in this way; and this will save going through several volumes of Hansard for the year 1955. I can compress what happened in that debate by reading one paragraph at the top of page 101. At the bottom of page 100 he is dealing with the start of the pipeline debate-but as we all know, that was the forerunner. It reads as follows:
Statutory Instruments Act
The opposition for the first time sensed the possibility of a major victory in the House of Commons. They had already succeeded in the summer of 1955 in forcing Howe's first public defeat by splitting the cabinet on the issue of the indefinite extension of his powers in the Defence Production Act. Since Howe's powers as Minister of Defence Production could make him "the virtual dictator of the whole economy," as Donald Fleming put it, they dug in and fought for a compromise. Some members of the cabinet who half agreed with such criticism were a good deal more anxious than Howe to avoid a summer-long filibuster. While Howe was prepared for some concessions, he rejected the idea of any time limit on his emergency powers. During his absence over a long weekend he left the matter with his colleagues to act as they saw fit. Prime Minister St. Laurent and opposition leader Drew arrived at a compromise which in effect was a capitulation to Drew's terms. As one observer put it, it was "the issue on which George Drew enjoyed his greatest hour of triumph in the House". The Liberals had barely concealed division in their own ranks and then retreated despite their vastly superior numbers. Howe was furious when he heard the news, and summoned House leader Walter Harris to his House of Commons office. St. Laurent got wind of this and within moments of Harris's arrival, slipped into Howe's office unannounced, and nodded to Harris to leave. St. Laurent told Howe that the decision to compromise was entirely his own, and there the matter ended.
When Alderman Kilbourn says that the matter ended, what really happened was that in the House of Commons the Defence Production Act was amended with that compromise, so that the right that was won by the opposition in those days in a bitter debate was secured by the passage of section 41 of the act, the section that we are now being asked to repeal. So it is perhaps not surprising that when this issue came before the justice committee I had the following to say, as recorded in issue No. 7 of the proceedings of Tuesday, February 16, of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs:
This caused quite considerable debate back in 1955 when it was brought in and just offhand perhaps Mr. Beseau-
That is Mr. P. D. Beseau, member of the legislation section of the Department of Justice.
-could answer my question because it seems to me we may have watered down the right here. Under the procedure established in that year you could get notice signed by ten members. I wonder whether we could have a comment on that.


Mr. Beseau:: With respect to clause 30 it was expected that quite possibly the rules made to deal with negative resolutions of Parliament would be similar to what is already provided in section 41 of the Defence Production Act. For that reason we thought instead of repeating three subsections, and having that become obsolete likely at an early date once this act is proclaimed in force, Parliament might well want to use the negative resolution of parliament that will be provided.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The only difficulty I really had, I notice the ten members it said here, but I do not notice that in the provisions dealing with the negative resolution. You are suggesting this is something we cure by rules of the House just as we take that other section which has been stood?
That was a reference to my suggestion that clause 26 be stood. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) replied:
Yes, we have never adopted the practice of spelling out how the House should exercise its powers under a statute. This issue has come up before this committee with the Federal Court Act, for instance. The Department of Justice has always felt that we would draft what the statute should do and provide a general

March 10, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
umbrella for parliamentary action but that the action Parliament should take and how it should take it should be left to the rules.
I interrupt my reading from the record to say that I think I can agree with this. Unfortunately, I do not notice the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mac-Eachen) around, since we are getting into a question about rules dealing with a negative resolution, and I will have to ask the minister at least for a commitment -perhaps a pretty specific commitment-and other people may want to do the same. However, before asking for that commitment I should like to complete my reading from the record of the justice committee. I then said:
Then I suppose I should ask for the assurance that we will come quickly to grips with matter of setting up the committee and with establishing the procedure here.
Me. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) : I have that undertaking from the House leader.


Robert Jardine McCleave: You give it to us, thank you. I think that Is satisfactory.


John Napier Turner: I hope so. I hope we can introduce the resolution and then it is up to parliament to decide how to do it. I would think that it would be subject to some negotiation.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) in a subsequent exchange said:
Mr. Chairman, I have never heard the expression "negative resolution" before. Am I to understand that there is no other authority excepting that within the Defence Production Act, that you can have a negative resolution with respect to regulations? Is that what I understand?


Herb Breau: It is my understanding that in some other statutes, terminology similar if not identical to that is used. At the moment, the procedure is spelled out. It will be on a motion by ten members of parliament or something to that effect. Under this bill with the amendments to the Interpretation Act, the words "subject to negative resolution of Parliament" will be defined. It is anticipated that rules of the House will be established to say how this motion will be introduced and what will happen.
We found Mr. Beseau to be a very fine witness, but when public servants appear before committees or outside the House they can hardly say what, if anything, we are going to do in this chamber. I do not say that unkindly. It was perhaps a field in which he should not have trodden. The hon. member for Hamilton West then said:
That is not quite my question. Perhaps you have answered it and through my ignorance of the entire matter I do not understand. Is there any procedure within the proposed act whereby this type of manoeuvre is spelled out, whereby you can have a negative resolution or regulation as the case may be? Am I making myself clear? I notice how you have spelled out so definitely in here: "41. Every regulation, as defined in the Statutory Instruments Act, made under the authority of this act is subject to negative resolution of Parliament."
I am just wondering why it is spelled out with respect to the Defence Production Act and perhaps it is spelled out somewhere else in this proposed act that you can still have a negative resolution of Parliament regarding the regulations?


Herb Breau: If you would refer to page 17 of the bill, part of the proposed section 28A to the Interpretation Act, paragraph (c) goes on to say: "(c) the expression 'subject to negative resolution of Parliament'..." It defines what that expression means for every act of Parliament and regulation.


An hon. Member:: It is presently meaningless.


John Napier Turner: That is right until Parliament enacts the rules to supplement it "...in accordance with the rules of those Houses..."
Does the minister wish to ask a question or is he having a private exchange?


John Napier Turner: I apologize. It was a subterranean exchange between the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and myself.


Robert Jardine McCleave: As long as I have such august gentlemen talking about this problem I will be very happy, because to me at least it is a pretty substantial one and I hope that I can enlist from the back benches whatever weight hon. members can bring to bear on this problem. As I said, we are left with the option of replacing a very definite procedure, albeit one that has not been used to my knowledge, with a procedure that has not been accepted by the House and would be set forth in the statute. It may be years before the House gets around to dealing with its procedure in this direction.
I do not know about the effect of the suggestion on the rules of the other place, but by that statute there is a clear direction to go through the statutory process of enactment, namely, first reading, second reading, committee of the whole and third reading. We now have a slightly different procedure, but legislation still goes through first reading, second reading and consideration in committee. Then it comes back to the House, through report stage if there is any question about it, and then third reading. Compare that with the process of setting up rules and regulations by the House where you have referral to a committee. The committee may struggle for a long time or a short time with it. Then it comes back to the House and the committee's report is presumably adopted or varied in some way.
There are several complications in establishing a procedure by way of statute, more so than by establishing it through the rules of the House. Because it is more complicated, I suggest it gives a greater right. It is difficult to disentangle something like section 41 of the Defence Production Act and that is why I am fighting for it and making the best argument I can. It may be said that the repeal of this section is of little moment because it deals with procedure, but some of us can recall great words of wisdom from a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Justice Rand. These words have always appealed to me because he was a Maritimer. He was asked about the development of jurisprudence in so far as it affected human rights and fundamental freedoms in Canada, and he said, "The procedure is the source and protection of all our rights." In short, a right is meaningless and non-existent unless we can invoke it. If we feel that our rights are infringed upon, we can scream in one direction, write a notice in another direction or summon up some procedure whereby our complaint will be looked at.

March 10, 1971

I would also point out that a pretty substantial right was won by a minority in Parliament. For example, it was a right that our friends to my far left, with the support of only one or two other members, could have used if they felt that the regulations under the Defence Production Act were in any way wrong. It was a right that members solely within the ranks of the NDP could use, or any group within the official opposition or, for that matter, within the rump that sits alongside Your Honour, or on the other side flanked around the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his group. As I say, it was a pretty substantial right and probably was as good a check as one could have found on the powers of a minister who had grown so used to power that probably he was a little indifferent to the processes by which power is granted to a minister. That is my argument and I will not belabour it. I think I have put all my points on the record.
I understand that negotiations have been going on all around me even while I am still on my feet, Mr. Speaker. I am just trying to catch the flavour of them and also to present my concluding peroration. Since my contribution seems to have had some effect, I will conclude by saying I hope I get from the Minister of Justice an amplification of the assurance that he provided in committee, namely, that we would learn a little more about this mystic right known as the negative resolution. Then if we have to march off in new directions in the law, we will carry with us the spirit of something that was fought for and won in 1955 in this Chamber.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think I could do somewhat better than that by the hon. member and not only give him an assurance but, in effect, accept the purport and substance of his amendment, if the House would allow me to have an amendment presented which I think serves his purpose better than the one he introduced. I will explain why. The words "negative resolution" are found in clause 30 of the bill and can be related to the amendment to the Interpretation Act which is found on page 17 of the bill, subparagraph (d), and reads:
-the expression "subject to negative resolution of the House of Commons", when used in relation to any regulation, means that such regulation shall be laid before the House of Commons within 15 days after it	is	made	or,	if the House is notthen sitting, on any of the first	15 days	next thereafter that
Parliament is sitting and may be annulled by a resolution of the House of Commons introduced and passed in accordance with the rules of that House.
I am quite willing to allow section 41 of the Defence Production Act to stand as it is, but in order to have it stand we have to amend	it,	not	in	the way the hon.member seeks to amend	it	but	in	another fashionbecause it is my submission that section 41 would become meaningless on the coming into force of the statutory instruments bill. Under the Statutory Instruments Act there is no requirement that regulations be laid before Parliament. This procedure will become obsolete by clause 13(1) of the bill which requires that a copy of the Canada Gazette in which a regulation is published be delivered to each member of parliament.
Statutory Instruments Act
The proposed section 41 of the Defence Production Act will require that every regulation made under that act be published in the Canada Gazette. There will therefore be no power under the Statutory Instruments Act to exempt those regulations from publication. The procedure relating to revocation or amendment of those regulations will be tied to publication, rather than laying before Parliament, but in other respects will be analogous to that provided in existing section 41 of the Defence Production Act.
But to make it perfectly clear, and to accept the argument of the hon. member, I need the unanimous consent of the House because I will not have met the requirement of the rules requiring 24 hours notice for this type of amendment, although I could argue that this is consequential upon the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). I need the unanimous consent of the House to have another amendment moved which I have informally circulated and copies of which could now be distributed to all hon. members. I could read the amendment into the record with the consent of the House, and without prejudice to my own argument I point out that the amendment I am suggesting is consequential upon the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.


Gerald William Baldwin: He might have to withdraw his.


John Napier Turner: Yes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the minister read his amendment into the record for the purpose of informing hon. members. Then debate could continue and the necessary steps could be taken, depending upon the disposition and will of the House.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I accept the point of order of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and with your permission will say it will be moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bechard), seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), as follows:
That Bill C-182 (reprinted as amended and reported by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs) be amended by striking out lines 34 to 38 on page 18 and substituting the following:
'41. (1) Every regulation, as deffned in the Statutory Instruments Act, made under the authority of this act shall be published in the Canada Gazette within 30 days after it is made.
(2) Where a regulation has been published in the Canada Gazette pursuant to subsection (1), a notice of motion in either House signed by ten members thereof and made in accordance with the rules of that House within seven days of the day the regulation was published or, if parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first seven days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, praying that the regulation be revoked or amended, shall be debated in that House at the first convenient opportunity within the four sitting days next after the day the motion in that House was made.'
I think that would correct the situation and I leave it to the House to decide how to dispose of the matter. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I may have inadvertently misled

March 10, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
the House on Monday. I should like to refer to page 4067 of Hansard where I stated that I agreed with the recommendation of the special committee that the scrutiny committee should normally sit in public session. This was an exchange between the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and myself. I went on to qualify that statement by saying: ".. .unless it involves regulations which are exempt because of national security."
Under the terms of the bill, a regulation that is exempted under clause 27(d) (ii) on grounds of national defence or security would not be referred to the scrutiny committee under the terms of clause 26. Thus, there would be no need for the scrutiny committee to hold incamera sessions because it would never be dealing with regulations that were exempted under clause 27(d). The point remains that there may be occasions when the committee would want to sit in camera and I want to clarify that point. I am quite prepared to accept the substance of the hon. member's amendment.
The hon. member for Edmonton West suggested to me that if the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants were agreeable to withdrawing his motion, this would allow mine to be put, waiving the rules if necessary although without prejudice to my argument that there may well be a consequential amendment, and then the matter could be disposed of.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) would see fit to withdraw his motion, then possibly there would be unanimous consent that all Standing Orders be suspended to the extent necessary to allow the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to move this amendment, which would then become part of the bill. I know this is rather extraordinary but I think it would be the simplest way. We are not really at the right point to do it, but if the House agrees that all rules be suspended in order to achieve this result it would be much simpler.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate approval of the proposed procedure. It seems to me that in effect what we are doing is accepting the proposition of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) that the proposal in clause 30 of Bill C-182 be eliminated. If that was all we did we would be putting it back the way it was in the Defence Production Act. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) pointed out, a consequential change needs to be made in view of the fact that these regulations are not now tabled but are published instead.
I do not think we are doing violence to any rule. I think the Minister of Justice is right, that he could probably have moved his proposal as an amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants. Rather than go through all that rigmarole, I think if we have unanimous consent that the motion of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants can be withdrawn, the Minister of Justice can make his amendment at the report stage, or his parliamentary secretary can, and we shall all be happy.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I shall resist the temptation sparked by the speech of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants to which I might have yielded had we been carrying on this debate. This recollection of the history of 1955 is interesting to those of us who were here. I think that was not the only concession that Mr. St. Laurent made to Mr. Drew. He also changed the five year limit to three years, and I think this annoyed Mr. Howe even more than the one we are now debating. The hon. member suggested that was Mr. Howe's first defeat-or William Kilbourn suggested this. Since we are making this brief reference to history, it is a matter of record that because Mr. Howe was crossed up that way in 1955 he made sure in 1956 that his pipeline legislation was all signed, sealed, delivered and ready for Parliament before telling the cabinet! So this is interesting history that some of us are reliving. But I rose simply to say that the procedure to do this by unanimous consent would meet the situation.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the proposals made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). We are satisfied with the position that he has taken, and we thank him for letting us know of his intentions beforehand. I feel that this is an example of cooperation between parties.
As for us, we support this measure, and we are pleased to give our concurrence.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my comments are merely intended to clear up any misconception that may have arisen that there is some value to the expressions "subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament" or "subject to negative resolution of Parliament," and that somehow or other the idea has crept in that these were safeguards. In the amendment that we are now considering and the act to which it applies, such a phrase as "subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament" or the contrary, "subject to negative resolution of Parliament," would not appear. The amendment must be carefully read. Clause 28A(l)(a) reads:
In every act, (a) the expression "subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament", when used in relation to any regulation means that-
The only point is that none of the statutes that lie behind us have the phrase "subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament" or "subject to negative resolution of Parliament". There would be no application whatsoever, so all regulations made under the legislation now in force would not be subject to the so-called safeguard that was being put forward. Of course, it was readily admitted by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) that he cannot guarantee that any act in the future will contain such phraseology. It will be necessary for the opposition, I suppose, in appropriate places to insert this provision. But as I indicated to the minister on Monday, I am not entirely happy with having this type of suspensory power; in other words, that regulations being made
March 10, 1971

under the act should stand still until they have been either approved or negatived by Parliament.
I would be just as happy to see this whole thing wiped out. I think it is meaningless and I think Parliament can accomplish a great deal more by following the amendment I made to clause 26 because then, without going into repetitive debate, if the scrutiny committee runs into anything, it has to bring it forward. I think it strange that the minister would reject the argument that it should be brought forward, when in actual fact the amendment the minister now brings forward to restore certain provisions under the Defence Production Act provides the period of time during which the debate must take place. It is not provided for in the rules but it is provided for in the legislation. The minister's amendment, in which he repeats what was necessary in 1955- this is all I am saying in my amendment to clause 26-reads:
-or if Parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first seven days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, praying that the regulation be revoked or amended, shall be debated in that House at the first convenient opportunity within the four sitting days next after the day the motion in that House was made.
In other words, it is not the rules of the House that will provide when such a motion shall be debated; it is the statute. That is all I say. In the amendment to clause 26 the report of the committee which wants to draw attention to any statutory instrument shall be brought forward within the specified time and shall be debated and disposed of. That is all that is contained in the Defence Production Act amendment-and this is a parallel argument. If the minister was prepared to accept the argument in that case, why not in the others?
I suggest to the minister that we have no undertaking from the Government House Leader with regard to the rules or anything of that nature. There is no indication whatever as to what will happen to the reports of the scrutiny committee. I am glad the minister was able to accept this suggestion and I congratulate him for bringing forward his amendment. I also congratulate him for seeing the wisdom of my argument with regard to my amendment to clause 26. He has inferentially accepted it, and accepted it entirely in regard to this amendment. Since the Minister of Justice must be logical, I will expect his entire support for my amendment which will be voted on later this day.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I request leave of the House to withdraw the motion which stands in my name.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) asks leave of the House to withdraw the motion in his name which is now before the House for consideration. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. McCleave) withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there is consent, the Chair has an indication from the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Division
Minister of Justice (Mr. Bechard) that he wishes to move a motion. He can only do that if there is unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice) moved:: That Bill C-182 (reprinted as amended and reported by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs) be amended by striking out lines 34 to 38 on page 18 and substituting the following:
'41.	(1) Every regulation, as defined in the Statutory
Instruments Act, made under the authority of this act shall be published in the Canada Gazette within 30 days after it is made.
(2) Where a regulation has been published in the Canada Gazette pursuant to subsection (1), a notice of motion in either House signed by ten members thereof and made in accordance with the rules of that House within seven days of the day the regulation was published or, if Parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first seven days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, praying that the regulation be revoked or amended, shall be debated in that House at the first convenient opportunity within the four sitting days next after the day the motion in that House was made.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now revert to the deferred divisions on motions Nos. 3 and 4.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The question is now on motion No. 4.
The House divided on motion No. 4 (Mr. Lambert,	
Edmonton West) which division:	was negatived on the following
 YEAS Messrs:
Asselin	Lundrigan
Baldwin	Maclnnis (Cape
Beaudoin	Breton-East Richmond)
Bell	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Benjamin	MacLean
Bigg	Macquarrie
Brewin	McCleave
Burton	McCutcheon
Cadieu	McGrath
Carter	McIntosh
Coates	McKinley
Code	McQuaid
Comeau	Marshall
Crouse	Mather
Danforth	Mazanko wski
Diefenbaker	Monteith
Dinsdale	Moore
Dionne	Muir
Douglas	Murta
Downey	Nesbitt
Flemming	Nielsen
Forrestall	Ny strom
Fortin	Paproski
Gauthier	Peddle
Gilbert	Peters
Gleave	Ritchie
Godin	Rodrigue
Grills	Rondeau
Gundlock	Rowland
Hales	Rynard
Harding	Saltsman
Harkness	Schumacher
Hees	Scott
Horner	Skoberg
Howe	Southam
Knowles (Winnipeg	Stanfield
North Centre)	Stewart (Marquette)
Korchinski	Tetrault
Lambert	Thomson
(Bellechasse)	(Battleford-Kindersley)
Lambert	Valade
(Edmonton West)	Winch
Laprise	Woolliams
LaSalle Latulippe	Yewchuk-84.
 NAYS Messrs:
Allmand	Chretien
Anderson	Clermont
Andras	Cobbe
Badanai	Comtois
Barrett	Corbin
Basford	Corriveau
Bcchard	Cote (Richelieu)
Beer	Cote (Longueuil)
Benson	Crossman
Blair	Cullen
Borrie	Cyr
Boulanger	Danson
Breau	Deachman
Brown	Deakon
Chappell	De Bane
March 10, 1971

Drury
Duquet
Emard
Forest
Forget
Foster
Francis
Gendron
Gervais
Gibson
Goode
Greene
Guay (St. Boniface) Guay (Levis)
Guilbault
Haidasz
Hellyer
Howard
(Okanagan Boundary) Hymmen Jamieson Jerome Lachance Laing
(Vancouver South) Lang (Saskatoon -
Humboldt)
Langlois
Leblanc (Laurier) LeBlanc (Rimouski) Lefebvre Lessard (LaSalle) Lessard
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Lind
Loiselle
MacEachen
McBride
Mcllraith
McNulty
Marchand
(Langelier)
Marchand
(Kamloops-Cariboo)
Messrs:
Morison
Munro
Murphy
Noel
Olson
Osier
Fenner
Pepin
Perrault
Pringle
Prud'homme
Reid
Richard
Richardson
Roberts
Rock
Roy (Timmins)
Roy (Laval)
Smith
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Smith (Saint-Jean)
Stafford
Stewart
(Okanagan-Kootenay) St. Pierre Sulatycky Sullivan Thomas
(Maisonneuve-
Rosemont)
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner (London East)
Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Walker
Weatherhead
Whelan
Whicher
Whiting
Yanakis-105.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-182, to provide for the examination, publication and scrutiny of regulations and other statutory instruments, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now? Is the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) rising for the purpose of registering an objection to third reading being proposed now?


Douglas Charles Rowland: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: that the bill be
read the third time and do pass.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I hope that this bill will pass by six o'clock. My leader, who would normally be here, has gone out to reflect upon the sins and omissions of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) after reading the speech he made in Kingston.
Statutory Instruments Act
However, there is no better way of spending 40 minutes than reflecting upon the sins and omissions of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: If there were more open minds and fewer open mouths we might get somewhere. Let me refer to the bill itself. This debate has been fascinating because it has indicated that in reality it is the civil servants who run the affairs of this country. Our affairs are conducted by bureaucratically-oriented civil servants with the assistance of aspirants to the cabinet on the other side of the House. I must make certain exceptions in respect of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), who raised his eyes when I made that remark, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene). I am sure he is able to establish his credentials but he has not presented them up to now. It is the civil servants, with the aid of volcanic exchanges between the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and others, with belches of smoke and lava, who run the country. These are the people who deal with the affairs of this country by means of statutory instruments and regulations.
To illustrate the position let me point out that out of 600 statutes on our books, 430 have been created by Order in Council, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), by tribunals or by other innocuous bodies. If we were to consider the last ten years on a percentage basis, I am convinced that a much higher percentage of our statutes has been created or amended than the 70 per cent I have referred to in respect of the figure of 430 out of 600.
The other day during a debate in the House of Commons the Minister of Justice participated in some interesting exchanges. In particular, I had occasion to refer the minister to recommendations of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments, whose report was the basis upon which the minister brought in this measure. Some of us in the House worked a long time on this matter. I give credit to members who sit on the government side as well as those of other parties. We created what we feel is a good example of legislation in respect of statutory instruments and regulations. We obtained a consensus of hon. members in respect of changes that should be made. These are changes which the government has avoided.
I suggest that the government's bill falls far short of the proposals put forward by the special committee. The Minister of Justice took issue with me in this regard by referring to the recommendations contained in the Mac-Guigan report. In this regard I intend to meet him in the same way because I think this is an important matter. Among the proposals of the committee was one in respect of a change in dealing with statutory enactments. Many suggestions were made by the committee which could and should form policy of the government in this particularly vexatious and difficult situation. In addition, there were proposals in respect of the establishment of a committee of scrutiny. In this regard the committee made a categorical recommendation.

March 10, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
The Minister of Justice said he could not meet us in this regard and that the House itseli should be the instrument through which the committee was established. He suggested this House should set up the terms of reference. I agree with him basically in most respects. Having in mind the stage to which we have advanced, I think it would be wrong for us to pass this bill without first obtaining from the Minister of Justice, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and the Prime Minister-I am convinced they are now discussing this matter with an eye to agreeing with me-an assurance that a large percentage of the proposals made by the special committee will be adopted.
The Minister of Justice has indicated that it is his intention to bring about the establishment of a special committee with powers parallel or equivalent to those the committee proposed. He has given us the assurance, as a member of the government, that this will be done. This is still a matter for cabinet decision before a resolution is presented. We may wait until the end of this session or perhaps the next session before witnessing any attempt by the government to create such a committee. Without the establishment of such a committee and the passage of this bill, Parliament will be useless.
I suggest there should be a categorical statement on behalf of the government that there will be introduced to this House within a specified period of time legislation setting up the appropriate committee. This could be achieved as the result of discussion among the Government House Leader and leaders of the other parties. By agreement they could decide the terms of reference. Anything short of that falls far short of achievement of any value.
Let us examine the recommendations found at pages 90, 91, 92 and 93 of this report. The report contains a very cogent series of proposals which the Minister of Justice has not seen fit to introduce; he has made an attempt to slough them of. Proposal No. 2 is:
Except in the interests of national security, there should be no exemptions from the requirements of the Regulations Act other than as to publication.
The bill goes much further than that in its restrictive effect. As I understand it, an amendment will be introduced later and I do not intend to go too far into this matter. I do not intend to say anything about what has been accomplished, because this bill goes far beyond the restrictive effects proposed in the recommendation. The recommendations continue:
The Minister of Justice should be charged with the responsibility of deciding for all regulation-making authorities which documents should be classified as regulations.
That is not the case. A committee of civil servants has been established and there have been terms agreed upon which direct that there shall be liaison among the Minister of Justice, the deputy minister, the department and the committee. What we now have in so far as this bill is concerned is one committee of civil servants sitting in judgment, deciding on the character of restrictions which should exist in respect of regulations and Orders in Council. What we have in mind is a committee answerable through the Minister of Justice, who is an elected representative of the people, through the medium of questions in the House of Commons, to Members of Parliament. We must be in a position to make sure he is discharging his responsibility as minister, particularly in the establishment of this committee.
The minister has suggested that the recommendation in this regard has been met. We believe such a provision is very important. I am sure that hon. members on this side, as well as those who sit opposite, will agree with me and the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) that it was made crystal clear that the committee felt the Minister of Justice was ultimately responsible. The minister could delegate that responsibility but we would be entitled to look to him for answers to our questions. However, the bill does make this provision.
We went on to recommend that all enabling acts in respect of regulation-making authorities should meet certain principles. I agree that when we come to examine those it is very difficult to include in statute form the kind of restrictions and proposals which were made by the committee. But I think we should have such a declaration by this government, which I admit is not binding on future governments; and there will be another government within a comparatively short time-as to that there is no doubt. While not binding on other governments, there should be a declaration by this government as a matter of principle, either a written declaration or a statement in the House on motions, that with respect to the enactment, promulgation and the type of regulations which will be passed, basically the proposals contained in recommendation 7 will be followed.
In saying this I concede that the minister would have a problem in putting all the recommendations into statutory form. I will not read them all; they are available to all Members of Parliament. But it is my submission that the failure to do this constitutes a grave breach of what the committee had in mind when it laid down this series of recommendations in its report.
Under recommendation 8 the Minister of Justice should refer the enabling clauses to the proposed standing committee on regulations at the same time as the bill is referred. That cannot be put in statutory form either, but I think it is a useful suggestion and I throw it out so it may be followed. What happens when we are discussing in this House on second reading bills which contain a regulatory-granting power? We will always find in those bills one clause which enables the Governor in Council to deal with regulations. I would think that if there is serious doubt in the minds of the government or of the minister involved, the matter should be referred to a committee with special reference to examine the issue before the statute is passed, or contemporaneously while it is being considered. All too often we find that the simple, sometimes insidious words contained in these regulatory-granting powers and in the regulations go far beyond what was contemplated and have effects which were not in the minds of the members who were dealing with the issue.

March 10, 1971

I read recommendation 9 when I was speaking on my motion. I do not think it would do any harm to summarize it. Before making regulations, regulation-making authorities should engage in the widest possible consultation with the public at large as well as with those most directly affected. I think that is probably one of the most important functions to be considered. When regulations are enacted they do not have the publicity which statutes receive when they are being discussed in the House. I am not suggesting it should apply to every regulation but when we are dealing with questions of transportation, for example, it should apply. Another typical example is immigration regulations. There is no doubt that there are in existence a number of regulations which are not within the knowledge of a great many people in this country. I would say that 99 per cent of the members of this House do not know what these regulations are. They do not know whom they affect and what could be their result.
I think it would be wise in situations where important matters are being considered that advance notice be given and that there be an opportunity for representations to be made by members of the public as to what the regulations should be. We hear all this mockery about participatory democracy, but I think without some opportunity being given for the public to be advised, to be warned, to make its comments as to what regulations are going to be enacted, regulations which more than statutes affect us seriously, we are not dealing adequately with the subject.
There are many other recommendations which I will not take the time of the House to read. I want to conclude on this note. I repeat what I said before. I urge, first, that a statement be made on behalf of the government indicating that there will be brought into the House within a reasonable time before this session is ended, proposed amendments to the Standing Orders which will provide for the establishment of a committee of scrutiny and the terms of reference of that committee. Second, there should be made, on behalf of the government, by a responsible minister a statement that in dealing with regulations the recommendations made by the special committee will follow as closely as possible. These are the kind of recommendations which cannot come into a statute but which form the pith and substance, the essence of our proposals to this House. Without those statements being made I say that this House is being short-changed by this bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I would like to add to the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that I am very sorry that I do not have the enthusiasm for this bill that I had hoped to have. I feel, as I indicated to the minister, that this bill was designed by the Department of Justice for the benefit of the officials of that department. It creates a fine administrative sieve. In my view, statutory instruments may have to go through such an administrative sieve; but the purpose of the whole exercise, right from the time proposals were made in the House for setting up this committee, and the
Statutory Instruments Act
burden of all the argument has been that there shall be a review by Parliament, because statutory instruments are delegated legislation and surely to goodness Parliament has the right to review.
A partial step only has been taken. The legislation says that there will be a scrutiny committee, and that is all. The exceptions to the regulations that will be referred to this scrutiny committee are fairly wide; As a matter of fact, they are too wide for my liking because unless they are published they do not go to the scrutiny committee. Particularly those that apply to a few people-and there are some exceptions to that in clause 11-go too far for real safety because there can be as great an injustice in a statutory instrument that applies to a limited class of people, or even to an individual, as there can be to one of general application; yet the limited ones are exempt from examination.
The third point I would like to make is that I regret that the minister has not seen fit to include in the legislation amendments to section 26. I will come back to the arguments I made. This is a grand gesture. There is authority now in the statute for Parliament to set up a scrutiny committee; but you have not given it any tools to work with-merely that certain classes of instruments shall stand referred to the committee and from there on there is nothing. This House has not one guarantee, one indication of any kind, saving and excepting, shall we say, the benevolent good wishes of the Minister of Justice that he will use his good offices with his colleagues, and so forth and so on, so that parliament might get a good resolution. But that is not enough.
We do not know, as my colleague from Peace River said, when this resolution is to come forward. Can the Minister of Justice in all honesty tell the House when we might expect such a resolution to come forward? Will it be this session or next session? The next question is: What will it contain?


Mr. Gibson:: Progress.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would like to get the
hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) up on his feet. He should have been up on his feet at the report stage.


Colin David Gibson: Would the hon. member accept a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Certainly.


Colin David Gibson: The hon. member has been very critical of the bill, but I suggest that part of the advantage of the bill is that it is not tied down in watertight compartments. We are hitting new ground. Is it not true that in Westminster, in New Zealand and Australia where they have scrutiny committees-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. Has the hon. member a question?


Colin David Gibson: Yes. Is it not true that in the mother of parliaments most of the work done by a scrutiny commit-

March 10, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
tee is done by convention, practice and experiment, and isn't that why it is a success?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is no indication whatsoever that there will be any convention or otherwise in this case. The legislation provides that the rules of the House shall determine, and that means nothing so far as Parliament is concerned.


Colin David Gibson: But most of it is done by committee.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is no indication that the government will at any time bring in the changes. The resolution is entirely at the initiative of the government. There is not one opportunity for a backbencher or a private member from either side of the House to bring forward a resolution which would have the effect of getting this scrutiny committee established, or of setting down the procedures to be followed. And certainly to me this is a disappointment.
If the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth would only look at the logic of the amendment introduced this afternoon by the Minister of Justice with regard to section 41 of the Defence Production Act, he would see that what was included in it was precisely the same logic and the same general procedure that applied to the amendment to clause 26 that I put forward. However, under the Defence Production Act one does not move under the rules of Parliament. It states that on a motion signed by ten members the regulation should be brought on for debate within four sitting days after the motion is tabled.
My amendment provided for the report of a committee in which there was a recommendation for the variation, the annulment or the amendment of any statutory instrument, and that that report would be brought forward, debated and disposed of in government time. What is the difference between the two? They apply the same logic. It is not a question of rules determining how this is going to happen, but the statute lays it down. What is the difference? We should still have the resolution in the House to set up the scrutiny committee, but on this there was no undertaking.
I have been critical in certain respects but I know the minister will admit there there were a lot of areas in which there was agreement. I think the bill is a step forward, but I had hoped it could be that great bold step forward which the minister had hoped would come about. I regret that the minister was not quite as bold as he should have been. That is the burden of my criticism. We will keep after the minister to see that we get this scrutiny committee, not next year or the year after that: we want the appropriate resolution on the Order Paper in good time, with the knowledge that the House leaders are meeting to discuss its general terminology. I will leave the matter on that basis.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke earlier this afternoon I indicated that I was somewhat uneasy about one of the provisions in the bill empowering the Governor in Council to make regulations exempting regulations or classes of regulations from publication or scrutiny, in the interests of international relations, national defence, security or federal-provincial relations. That is a pretty sweeping set of powers given to the Governor in Council, powers which could cover a multitude of sins. As I indicated earlier this afternoon, perhaps wider powers of exemption than is the case under the Regulations Act are required because there are stronger provisions for publication in the bill now before us. But even so I am concerned that there is no explicit provision in this bill for the publication of the exemption order which would be made under the authority of clause 27 in any one of these four rather broad and all-encompassing areas.
I repeat that there is no specific provision in the bill that the regulation which exempts other regulations from publication or scrutiny must be published so that Members of Parliament and the public can be aware that such an exemption has taken place and, if they are interested in determining why such an exemption has been allowed, they can then make inquiries in order to determine the reasons for it. If they find the reasons unsatisfactory, they could bring the matter to the attention of the public and raise it publicly in this House. There is no specific provision for that in the bill. I consider this to be a rather glaring omission in the legislation. I think it is a lack of a proper safeguard which must be in the bill if it is to be the sort of legislation we want to see passed by this House.
I am very reluctant to do what I am about to do, because the minister has shown a considerable degree of co-operation with the House this afternoon in making accommodations to suggestions put forward by the opposition. In fact, I feel somewhat culpable in not having put forward this amendment at report stage where it properly fitted, but it is not something that came to my attention in time for me to do that. I think it is an indication of how serious an omission I think it is that I feel compelled to move the amendment which I am going to move at this time, even though it will somewhat delay the activities of the House. Nevertheless, I consider the omission of the right of the public to know a regulation has been exempted from the provisions for publication or scrutiny under the terms of the bill is something which we cannot allow to pass unchallenged. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That Bill C-182 be not now read a third time but that it he referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for the purpose of reconsidering clause 27 thereof.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I can make my remarks in about two minutes. I regret that I did not bring in an amendment on second reading to deal with clause 27. I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) will recall that I did bring an amendment before the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. I, too, feel that clause 27 provides for exemptions from the very salutary provisions of the bill, for publication and inspection of statutory instruments. I feel that it provides a dangerously wide breach which threatens to deprive the act of the effect which I think it should have and which I think Parliament would intend it to have.

March 10, 1971	COMMONS
I want to refer particularly to the provisions in clause 27 that allow exemption from the necessity of publication in the Canada Gazette of any statutory instrument which in the opinion of the Governor in Council would not be in the interests of federal-provincial relations. It seems to me that this is a very broad provision. In all democratic countries governments have used powers like this to exempt from publication and to seek to get behind some sort of curtain of secrecy, certain things that are done. If they are invited to do so by legislation, merely by a declaration that federal-provincial relations might be affected, we know how often that would prevent an instrument that ought to be published from coming to public attention. I regret doing it at this stage and I confess it is my oversight. I did not bring in an amendment at the report stage, but the matter is so important that I thought it should be brought forward now.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I know that under the rules of the House I do not close debate at third reading stage, but it might be appropriate for me to say a few words because I feel the debate will close out and perhaps the vote could be agreed upon tomorrow. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) was all for having me give a number of undertakings. What I am saying now represents my attitude to the bill, and I think it is shared by the House leader. These matters have not been considered by executive council but I can say to him, first of all, that a resolution amending the Standing Orders with the effect of establishing a scrutiny committee will be presented at this session of Parliament to implement not only the recommendations of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments but also to fulfil the provision of clause 26 of the bill before the House.
The hon. member for Peace River wanted me to give some sort of undertaking on the recommendations of the special committee's report. I can say to him that within the reservations I stated the other night when I analyzed the recommendations one by one, I favour, as does the government generally, the recommendations contained in the report. I intend to draw up some criteria implementing regulation No. 7, that is to say, those proposals that should govern enabling acts for regulation-making authority.
Hopefully, those criteria will be accepted by the government and will govern the drafting procedure of future statutes. I am hopeful that this will be done, but the ultimate control will be Parliament when statutes are brought forward. I would expect this House and the standing committee considering bills to compare the enabling statutes with the criteria in recommendation No. 7 of the report of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments. Although the hon. member for Peace River did not mention it specifically, regulation 19 (9) of the report establishes criteria for the examination of regulations by the scrutiny committee. That being the case, I intend to have those criteria set forth in an internal cabinet directive before regulations are made and drafted in order to anticipate the criteria which the scrutiny committee would want to apply to those regulations.
DEBATES___________________________________________4157
Statutory Instruments Act
In the enabling powers of bills themselves and as affecting the regulations that will be drafted and inspected by the Privy Council and the Deputy Minister of Justice, those criteria I hope will be binding internally and I will advance them within the framework of the recommendations. Hon. members can weigh what I am saying by referring to the statement that the then President of the Privy Council, now the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), made when he appeared on behalf of the government before the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments. That statement can be found in the evidence of the committee.
I hope that will deal satisfactorily with the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who was re-establishing the argument that he made in presenting his amendment at the report stage. I have nothing further to add except to say that he, and to a certain extent the hon. member for Peace River, feel that the scrutiny committee ought to be under an umbrella set forth in the statute itself. I believe the scrutiny committee ought to be governed by the Standing Orders of the House. But that is a matter for this House or the other place if it is a joint committee. That is basically the difference in our views.
Dealing now with the amendment of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland), supported by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), it is true that the hon. member for Greenwood did present an amendment to the standing committee. I dealt with the argument as to why those exemptions were what they were, and what the government's philosophy was in widening the exemptions beyond those established in the report. It is true that the special committee said the exemptions should merely be limited to national security, but we widened them and the reasons are found in the evidence given to the standing committee.
The hon. member for Selkirk made a valid point, that the problem of exemptions as such is that the scrutiny committee might not know what regulations have been exempted because there will be no record. All regulations for statutory instruments will go to the scrutiny committee, except those regulations that have been exempted from inspection by the public. They are limited to the criteria for international relations, federal-provincial relations, security and where they affect individual rights or involve specific classes of people or individuals found within clause 27 of the bill.
The regulations providing for the class of regulations that are to be exempt will be sent to the scrutiny committee. That committee will have before it the criteria as to the type of regulations which in future will be exempt. I think it is a matter for the scrutiny committee, the government and individual departments to work out from time to time. The hon. member has a valid point. There is no way of curing that when you get to matters which relate to security, and so on. We went through that intellectual exercise internally and did not come up with a satisfactory solution. But the committee will have the regulations under which exemptions are made.

March 10, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
In conclusion, I thank the House and hon. members for this constructive debate in which the highlights of the bill have been tested. Although privately hon. members, I think, concede that this is a step forward, I think that the bill will provide, in terms more optimistic than some hon. members are willing to concede, for a more open society for Canadians through their representatives in the House of Commons.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to talk for a minute, because we have almost concluded our business? I made the statement that I did at the beginning of the debate because I felt that the bill did not include some necessary provisions. I obtained what I wanted from the minister, and thus I except him from the role that I ascribed to his colleagues. That, of course, does not apply to all of them. I see a smile on the face of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene). You can never tell what he is thinking.
The minister's statement did not go as far as I should have liked. He did not say, "Being instructed by the executive, by the cabinet, I am going to do so and so." He said, instead, "I intend to try and secure this." I know how much trouble he must have had, how much in the way of blood, sweat, tears and blows, and how much pressure he had to exert in order to get as far as he did with some of his stubborn and difficult colleagues. I accept his statements at face value and say that this statute when passed will constitute a real monument in our dealings and those of the people of Canada with regard to problems caused by the tremendous number of regulations with which ordinary people have to deal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply on a point of order. My purpose is to confirm what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) said a few moments ago. We should like to have a recorded vote on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) but we are prepared to allow the debate to end at this point and to make the formal request for a vote tomorrow. We should like a House order saying that the vote will be taken as the first item of business tomorrow.


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would that include the vote on the amendment of the hon. member for Selkirk and, if necessary, the vote on third reading?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As far as we
are concerned, yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is it agreed that the debate be now terminated and that the question on the amendment and the question on third reading of the bill be put tomorrow when Orders of the Day are reached?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Thursday, March 11, 1971