1971-03-08

THE LATE A. B. DOUGLAS

Hon. Arthur Laing (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, once again we have the heavy task of noting the loss by the House of Commons of one of our members in the untimely death of the hon. member for Assiniboia. Ab Douglas was a man of very wide knowledge, great human qualities, tremendous industry and transparent integrity. We sorrow because a promising career in this place is now denied him.
I	remind the House that his first public service had to do with education when he was a trustee in a school district in the province of Saskatchewan. He served in that or in like capacities on school boards for a period of 22 years. Probably no finer groundwork for unselfish public service could be laid than by being associated with a school board for a period of 22 years.
Mr. Douglas had the respect and friendship of every member of the House. His passing is a very great loss to us and we sorrow with his family. Our sincere sympathy goes to Mrs. Douglas and their four sons. I would hope some condolence would come to them from the knowledge that the very human qualities he brought to the House and to the task he performed here over the very short period of two and a half years are bound to endure.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in expressing our regret over the very untimely death of the hon. member for Assiniboia I should like to associate myself and my colleagues with the remarks of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Laing). Most of us have known Mr. Douglas only since his election in 1968. Those on this side of the House saw him as a cheerful, goodnatured but very diligent representative of his constituency, constantly pressing for action for the welfare of the people he represented. To the people of Saskatchewan he was, of course, well known and highly respected for his work in various fields, including the education of youth, as the Acting Prime Minister reminded us, and among farmers.
I recall very vividly the occasion last October when the hon. member seconded the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. In addition to his attachment for his constituency and for his province, we noted his fervent interest in all manner of issues, including agriculture, tax reform, economic management and anti-pollution measures. On that occasion he quoted the following words from a speech credited to the late Governor General, Georges Vanier:
People do not age by living a number of years. I am convinced we grow old only by deserting our ideals. We are in fact as old as our doubts and despairs, but we are as young as our faith and our hope, especially faith and hope in our youth, which is, after all, the same as saying our faith and our hope in our country's future.
To Mr. Douglas' family may I say that those words of the former Governor General are a most fitting description of the life of the hon. member for Assiniboia-a life filled with faith, hope and ideals.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party would like to go on record as expressing their great sense of loss at the passing of Mr. A. B. Douglas, Member of Parliament for Assiniboia. He was respected and esteemed in all parts of the House as a conscientious and hardworking member, and I am certain the House will miss him.
For me there is a sense of personal loss. Mr. Douglas came from Weyburn, Saskatchewan, an area which I had the privilege of representing for some 26 years in this Parliament and in the legislature of Saskatchewan. Consequently, I have known Mr. Douglas since he was a very young man and had a very high regard for him. We were very good friends. During the period that I was associated with the government of Saskatchewan I had the privilege of inviting him to serve on a number of commissions and boards representing the school trustees of the province. As one would have expected, he brought to every task painstaking industry and forthright integrity.
On behalf of the members of this group I would ask you, Sir, to convey to his wife, to his four very fine sons and to his mother our deepest sympathy in their time of bereavement. I hope it will be of some comfort for them to know that although he was cut off in his prime he gave of himself unstintingly in the service of his community and his country, and that we in this House feel we have lost a valued friend and colleague.


Mr. Oza  Tefrauli@Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say on behalf of our group that we deeply regret the passing of the hon. member for Assiniboia. We always considered Mr. Albert Douglas to be a very active member in committees and in the House of Commons. May we offer to Mrs. Douglas and her family our deepest sympathy.


Mr. Speaker:: I should mention to the House that I have already conveyed to Mrs. Douglas the condolences of the

March 8, 1971
Supplementary Estimates
members of this House, and it will be my duty to transmit to her and to her family the expressions of sympathy by the representatives of all parties in the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 59. I move seconded by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury):
That, with the exception of the votes relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Supplementary Estimates (C), tabled in the House on March 4, 1971, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates;
And that the said votes relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs, namely, votes 10c, 15c, 35c, 40c, 45c and 50c, be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last when the President of the Privy Council asked leave to make a motion somewhat along these lines I indicated that I had two points of order which I wished to raise. Shortly thereafter I communicated to you, Sir, and to representatives of the other parties the content of my two points of order, and I am glad to say that one of them has been met.
That first point of order was to the effect that there had been a commitment that any supplementary estimates relating to veterans affairs would be referred not to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates but to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I appreciate the fact that the President of the Privy Council in redrafting this motion has kept that commitment, which takes care of that point of order. However, Sir, the other point of order still stands, and I raise it now as one that some of us regard as very serious.
My point has to do with the use of dollar items in the supplementary estimates for the purpose of legislating amendments to existing statutes. May I make it clear that this is not just a rehash of debates we have had over the years on the use of dollar items. The reason I say that is that recently we have changed our rules, and I submit that there is a new situation which makes the practice about which I am complaining an abuse of the rules and an abuse of the rights and privileges of Parliament.
If my counting is correct there are 21 dollar items in the Supplementary Estimates (C) which the present motion covers. Seventeen of these dollar items have the effect of changing the description attached to certain expenditures already approved, or of providing for a continuation into the new fiscal year of items, already approved, and so on. I do not complain about the use to which dollar items are being put in these 17 cases. There
are some that are a bit shady, but in the main these 17 cases are in line with what I regard as proper practice for the use of dollar items.
However, Sir, the other four items are items which are not estimates at all. They are not a case of the government asking Parliament to provide money. The use of a dollar item is just a device. The dollar is not needed; the dollar is not spent. The dollar is just a device, and in the four cases about which I am complaining this device is being used to amend four specific statutes.
The four statutes being amended are the Pension Act, the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, and the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act. I might indicate that the first two, the amendment to the Pension Act and the amendment to the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, will be found in item 35c under Veterans Affairs, the amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act will be found under 10c in Veterans Affairs, and the amendment to the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act will be found under item 7c of Finance. If Your Honour will check these items, as I am sure has been done since notice of this point of order was given on Thursday, you will agree that it is quite clear that in each of these four cases we are providing by the bill to be based on these estimates that the statute in question is being amended. I do not think I need read the items in order to make that point.
In the case of the items that come under Veterans Affairs, the amendments in all cases consist of altering certain schedules so that higher pensions or allowances will be paid. In the case of the item that comes under the Department of Finance there is an extension beyond the period of time specified in the statute at the present moment. In other words, Mr. Speaker, in each of these four cases, actual acts on the statute books of Parliament are being amended by this process.
A moment ago I said that in my view this is a new situation because of the rule changes that we made. May I point out, therefore, that when we did the massive overhaul of our rules two or three years ago we made significant changes in two areas, one relating to the legislative process with respect to bills and the other relating to estimates.
With respect to bills, we cut down the number of stages of debate to a maximum of three; there are now not more than three stages at which a bill bringing in an Act or amending an Act can be debated on the floor of Parliament. However, we retained that possibility of three stages; there are always two and sometimes there are three. In no case did we eliminate all such stages.
With respect to estimates, however, and knowing full well what we were doing, with our eyes wide open we took them off the floor of the House of Commons completely. We abolished the committee of supply; we provided for estimates to be referred, on a motion that is not debatable, to standing committees; we provided for the

March 8, 1971

committees to do the consideration of the estimates and we provided that a report back from a committee to the House is not debatable. We also provided that a bill based on estimates can be put through all stages in one day regardless of Standing Order 72, thus cutting out any chance for a debate at report stage, committee of the whole or any other opportunity. In other words, we completely removed from debate on the floor of the House the consideration of estimates.
At this moment I am not saying whether we did the right thing; I am simply stating a fact. I am saying we did it knowing very well what we were doing. In case anyone wants to say that on allotted days we can discuss estimates if we so provide, I am prepared to admit that such is the case. However, it depends on what opposition members put down whether or not that happens. But if an opposition member should put down as an opposition motion a discussion of the activities of a particular department, even at that point we do not have the estimates in front of us. In other words, we do not have the actual government proposal. At the risk of repetition, Sir, I therefore make the point that the change we made when we overhauled the rules a couple of years ago took estimates completely off the floor of the House.
To go back to my other point, we did not do that to legislation and we did not do it to ordinary bills. We did not say that anything other than estimates can be dealt with without ever being discussed on the floor of the House of Commons. There are no dollar items in the main estimates, of course, but when you put into the supplementary estimates dollar items which provide for amendments to the four statutes to which I have referred, you completely deny to the House of Commons the right that is guaranteed under the provisions, particularly about public bills, and any opportunity to discuss these matters.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that this is an abuse of the rules, that this is an abuse of the rights of Parliament and that any rulings that there may have been about dollar items prior to the changes of the rules do not now apply. We are in a new situation; we are in a regime under which anything that is put in the estimates cannot be discussed on the floor of the House. I submit that for us to be handed a device under which amendments to four statutes of this Parliament are to be put through without there being any chance to discuss them on the floor of the House is an abuse of the rules and contrary to what we had in mind when we amended the rules two or three years ago, actually at the end of 1968.
As I have already said, Sir, I am not making a carte blanche objection to dollar items. I think that when a dollar item changes the description of an expenditure or of the way in which an expenditure already voted can be used, that it is proper, for that is in the field of estimates. But when something is tucked into the book of supplementary estimates and when that something amends existing statutes, then I submit it is wrong and we should not stand for it.
May I point out to you, Sir, that when Bill C-207 was first introduced and a point of order was raised by the
Supplementary Estimates
hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) because of its omnibus nature, Your Honour admitted from the Chair that your first look at that bill caused your eyebrows to be raised, because it was such a wide bill and had so many things in it. Your eyebrows must now be at the top of your head because, having had an opportunity to look at this booklet of supplementary estimates, you will have seen on the front of it the words "Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971." You would be expected to believe that the title is correct and that that is what is in it. However, you would find in it not only supplementary estimates covering the whole gamut of public administration, but these four cases in which existing statutes are to be amended. I submit that if Your Honour had some doubts about the omnibus character of Bill C-207, you must have serious doubts about this proposal, not just because it has a wide range of things in it but because it has something in it that does not qualify under the heading of supplementary estimates.
I should also like to point out to Your Honour that if these estimates go through in their present form, the day will come when you will lead us over to the other place to get Royal Assent to a bill. On the assumption that you will use the formal words you have always used on other, similar occasions, this is what you will say: "May it please Your Honour, the Commons of Canada have voted certain supplies required to enable the government to defray the expenses of the Public Service. In the name of the Commons I present to Your Honour the following bill: An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1971, to which bill I humbly request Your Honour's assent."
Now, Sir, if you make that statement, you will not be uttering an overt falsehood but you will not be telling the whole truth. Your statement will be to the effect that what you are presenting to the Governor General or his deputy for approval is a bill containing estimates, containing sums of money required for the Public Service. The whole truth would be that in this bill along with moneys for the Public Service there are amendments to four existing statutes. I do not think that this House of Commons should put Your Honour in the position of having to make a statement in the other place which, as I say, although not containing an overt falsehood will not be the whole truth.
If I were concerned about the rights of the Senate, which of course I am only in an academic or objective way, I would raise another point. Actually, if I were over there, and thank heaven I am not, I would object strongly to the way in which this bill denies the Senate the right that it has to discuss and amend ordinary legislation. The Senate cannot deal with our supply bills. It can only accept or reject them. It cannot amend them. By tucking these four bills into a bill covering supplementary esti-

March 8, 1971
Supplementary Estimates
mates, the government is denying Their Honours the right to discuss, vote upon or even propose amendments to four bills which they would otherwise have the right to do. Despite my well-known views about the Senate, I think it is appropriate that I point out in an academic way that this is contrary to the rights of Parliament.
I recognize that we in this place are anxious to find ways and means to expedite the handling of our business. Maybe we want to find some way to get some bills dealt with without their taking up any time on the floor of the House of Commons. If we are going to make this decision, let us make it as a House of Commons. If this is what we are going to do, it should be done by an amendment to the rules. Let us not have it shoved into our procedures by the government resorting to this device. These bills in this book of estimates are not a case of voting money but rather a case of getting four bills amended without parliamentary debate.
I welcome the fact that the motion has been changed so that the estimates having to do with veterans affairs will go to that committee. My prediction is that they will be passed very quickly in that committee. I even predict that if the necessary bills were brought to the floor of the House in the proper way, they would be passed very quickly and that no time would be lost in improving the position of our veterans. However, the whole point of my intervention is that the rights of Parliament are challenged by a government that uses this device. Any argument that might have been used for it in the old days when estimates came to the floor of the House does not apply under our new rules.
I therefore ask that Your Honour give this point of order the serious consideration that it deserves. The least Your Honour can do is require that the title of the bill based on these estimates be changed so that you will be an honest man when you go to the Senate to ask for Royal Assent. It would be even more appropriate if Your Honour would rule that the four dollar items in this book which are amendments to the existing legislation, should be removed from the supplementary estimates and made the subject of separate bills.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has raised a point on which I have spoken many times. As a matter of fact, I would refer Your Honour to the Journals of the House of two years ago when the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates brought in a report criticizing the government for this particular practice. At that time the committee saw fit to accept my persuasion and criticize the government. There then followed an allotted day on which this matter was discussed. Not only that, but Their Honours in the other place, in the report of the Senate Committee on National Finance, also criticized the government about these dollar items of a legislative nature. I will refer to them as I go along.

I do not want to traverse the ground that has been covered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with regard to the practices of the House. What concerns me is the apparent lack of concern by both members of the treasury benches and the backbenchers on the government side as to what is happening.
Not only veterans affairs is involved. I suppose that by simply turning those items over to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) thinks he has met the objections on this point. Far from it, I suggest, Mr. Speaker. But there is an item in the Department of Finance supplementary estimates extending the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act which was passed in 1964 or 1965 and received very extensive debate in the House. It is due to expire in 1971 or 1972 with regard to certain arrangements which, incidentally, affect only the province of Quebec. It is the only province that availed itself of the measly carrot held out by the government under that bill. Yet by a dollar item that Act is being extended for two years. What is the purpose? Is the purpose to be hidden from the House? There is absolutely no way that the House can pronounce itself on the reasons for the extension or whether it should perhaps be extended for four years or something of that nature. In the same way the other House cannot express its opinions. It cannot amend such a provision in an Appropriations Act. It must reject the entire bill if it strongly disapproves. Yet on this occasion we are again asked to accept several dollar items.
In 1969 we had 12 legislative items of a dollar nature. The other House sought an explanation in detail which was given to them, but never does the government condescend to give an explanation to this House. I do not want to complain merely because of that fact, but this is supposed to be a government that deals openly. Open government, Mr. Speaker? It hides on all occasions, and this is a classic example of its attempts to dissimulate. No one who is supposed to be a commentator on the scene noticed that the interim arrangements for the province of Quebec under this Act were being extended two years. No one noticed it, and there are others equally hidden.
There are other examples. Your Honour will recall that in the session of 1964-65 the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Die-fenbaker), held up the proceedings of the House, supported by the opposition, with regard to three dollar items which were then withdrawn by the then President of the Treasury Board. They involved the establishment of educational television and other items of legislative import, but they were withdrawn. We object to what is being attempted at this time by the government.
Not only is there the question of the statement made by Your Honour at the time the appropriation bill is presented in the other place or the statements which are made in reporting back to this House; I suggest that even the wording that is used by Your Honour when these estimates are tabled is in effect a misrepresentation of the true facts. We are asked to accept some estimates
March 8, 1971

proposed by His Excellency for the purpose of spending certain moneys, but that is not so. There are also some legislative changes.
If Your Honour will refer to Hansard for March 3, 1969, you will see what was said on that occasion by members of the opposition and by the President of the Treasury Board. His justification was merely that it was more expeditious to do it this way. More expeditious for the government!
Let us look at these interim financing arrangements with the provinces. Is it done this way because the government does not want a debate? It could happen that its majority in the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee would not even ask a blessed question about it, not one; nobody must rock the boat by asking questions about government practices and policy.
So this is the method chosen-a tame committee with a tame committee report. Then it might be up to the House to take out of that report the portions dealing with the question of amendments to veterans legislation and the interim arrangements with the provinces regarding these programs and make them a subject for discussion. There is absolutely no way in which the legislation itself can be considered as such. The President of the Privy Council says "Nonsense". I repeat there is no way in which the legislation can be considered as legislation and, of course, I know he is such a good legal draftsman that he would, out of a vote in the estimates, determine how revised statutes should be written. Statutes are passed and they are the source of what goes into the revision of statutes. It is not estimates.
I trust that you, Mr. Speaker, will also take to heart the representations which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I have made with regard to the nature of these estimates, their presentation and their acceptability. Are they in essence what they appear to be? I put it to Your Honour that they are not what they appear to be-they are not part of spending programs, they are requests for the changing of legislation. Surely an item of one dollar does not really represent a change in a spending program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of Treasury Board):: At
least two points have been made in the current discussion, Mr. Speaker. One is that we have changed our rules and that in consequence we should look at past practices in a new light. The other is that past practices, even under the old rules, were perhaps incorrect.
With respect to this process of securing authority to act in a certain way by means of an Appropriation Act rather than through specific bills, I would point out that it has been the practice for a long while to use estimates and supplementary estimates leading to Appropriation Acts as a means of effecting changes in legislative enactments, and it has been well recognized, I believe, that this is an appropriate and satisfactory way in which to
Supplementary Estimates
proceed. In the past it has not denied to members of the House an opportunity to examine, to cross-examine, to criticize and, where appropriate, to see that changes are effected. This has led to the practice of introducing dollar items in supplementary estimates over a long period.


Mr. Baldwin:: Bank robbery is bad.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: For some time it has been agreed that these dollar items should be limited to using the Appropriation Acts to amend other legislative enactments in the following cases:
1.	To alter financial limitations imposed by legislation or by previous estimates. As an example, I might quote an increase in the maximum amount which may be loaned by CMHC for housing purposes.
2.	To alter time limitations imposed by legislation or by previous estimates. An example of this was the change in the termination date of the trans-Canada highway program.
3.	To extend the application of legislation to persons not covered by the legislation so as to authorize the making of payments to such persons in accordance with the substance and purposes of the legislation-for example, authority to make payments under the Government Employees Compensation Act to former employees of Dosco suffering from silicosis.
4.	To amend legislation originally approved through items in the estimates or the Appropriation Acts. For example, broadening the scope of a revolving fund, itself established by an Appropriation Act.
5.	To effect transfers of available funds to votes where additional funds are required.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated that these description's of appropriate dollar items have in the past been satisfactory and, if I gather this meaning correctly, that this is still the case under the present rules. What we are concerned about is the marginal case which may fall outside the particular headings I have just given. We should perhaps consider the question whether there is adequate opportunity for members of the House to scrutinize the legislative changes which are being proposed, not by way of four separate bills, each having to make its own progress through the House, but by way of a single legislative enactment, namely, an Appropriation Act.
In the case of these amendments, we are not amending anything except schedules or termination dates of other statutes. We are amending the termination dates or rates of emolument contained in schedules. I suggest this clearly falls within the definitions I have given earlier of items which may properly be the subject of changes in legislation by means of an amendment to an Appropriation Act.
In this particular case, the change in program was announced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs in and to the House on December 2 last in a statement on motions. Not only did this draw attention to the government's intention but it provided an opportunity for brief com-

March 8, 1971
Supplementary Estimates
ments to be made by hon. members or, at least, by spokesmen for each of the opposition parties. Advantage was of course taken of the occasion.
In the second place, we are now submitting these supplementary estimates regarding the particular matters under discussion to a standing committee of the House which is concerned with this particular subject. I suggest that by comparison with some of the proceedings in the Committee of the Whole in the past there is a much better opportunity provided to hon. members by way of 'reference to the standing committee of the House, under these arrangements, to examine, to criticize and to express views as to particular changes proposed in statutes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is our decision to make.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I suggest it is a decision for the House to make, and the House has already made it.
It may not suit the convenience of the hon. member.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: When did the House make it?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think the House made it, for example, by adopting a number of Appropriation Acts in the past. I hope it will reaffirm this by the adoption of the Appropriation Act in question. In anticipation of abolishing the committee of supply, explicit provision was made for opposition days during which only opposition members were free to raise in the House any question that in their view warranted or commanded public discussion.
In relation to this particular item we now have before us, before the end of the current fiscal year I understand there are a number of supply days left on which, in addition to the fullest discussion in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, hon. members of the opposition, if they wish, may raise this issue and have it debated on the floor of this Chamber.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mainly with no
decision.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. gentleman complains about the lack of decision. This is a view with which I am unfortunately in agreement. One of our main problems is bringing the House to a decision on urgent matters.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is much better than having the government do so.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There has been too much lack of decision on the part of the House. In relation to this particular problem, and I think we are dealing with what is a marginal matter, I point out with regard to the schedules in the Pension Act that changes have been made by way of the Appropriation Acts in the years 1964, 1966 and 1968. Changes in the schedules to the War Veterans
Allowance Act have been made by way of the Appropriation Acts in 1964 and 1966. This is not something new.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But we have changed the rules since then.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that we have changed the rules since the earlier cases. I suggest that by reason of the provision of supply days, which allow many occasions for discussion of these items at the opposition's choice on the floor of the House, with examination in detail of witnesses in standing committees of the House, we have really provided a more factual and deeper examination with less opportunity to conceal, if that is anybody's desire, than was the case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You said it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: When supply was considered by the committee of supply, in what I think most hon. members would agree was too short a time for too big a subject, there was not the same opportunity for examination. I suggest that this particular reference to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is entirely appropriate, and that the items as shown in the supplementary estimates are in order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, supported by the hon. member for Edmonton West, has brought up a most interesting and important point of order. I will wait until I have had an opportunity to study the arguments put forward by the hon. members and by the hon. minister before indicating to the House, in due course, my own views regarding the matter.



WINNING OF CANADIAN CURLING CHAMPIONSHIP BY MANITOBA RINK

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, at this time I should like to extend my congratulations, and I am sure the congratulations of all hon. members of the House, to the Don Duguid rink of Winnipeg on their accomplishment in winning for the second year in a row the Macdonald Briar tankard, emblematic of Canadian curling supremacy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Simpson: I am sure that the best wishes of all members go with Don Duguid, Rod Hunter, Jim Pet-tapiece and Bryan Wood when they represent Canada next week at the world curling championship in France.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ft
y-M

March 8, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that this is a question of privilege, but it is a very interesting change of pace.
Questions
1969 inclusive as reported by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, is as follows:



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Godin: Are any former members of the Company of Young Canadians on the staff of the Prime Minister's office and, if so (a) what are their names (b) in what parts of the country have they worked as members of CYC?


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: There are no former members of the Company of Young Canadians on the staff of the Prime Minister's Office (a) and (b) are therefore not applicable.


ESTABLISHMENT OF CARRAGEEN EXTRACTION PLANT IN P.E.I.
[Stage Direction]
Amount ('000 lbs. wet weight)	New- found- land	Prince Edward Island	New Bruns- wick	Nova Scotia	TotalI960	12,498	9	15,432	27,9391961	-	19,039	307	20,608	39,9541962	-	17,341	874	25,281	43,4961963	-	10,559	109	26.187	36,8551964	-	7,124	432	20,651	28,2071965	-	17,139	-	22,152	39,2911966	-	24,464	949	25,596	51,0091967	-	47,926	1,142	30,262	79,3301968	-	53,656	1,244	32,149	87,0491969	267	51,789	3,756	40,851	96,653New-	Prince	New	V alue to harvesters	found-	Edward	Bruns-	Nova	($'000)	land	Island	wick	Scotia	Total1960	162	(i)	211	3731961	-	316	5	460	7811962	-	288	14	481	7831963	-	163	1	468	6321964	-	109	6	360	4751965	-	258	-	346	6041966	-	402	14	556	9721967	-	1,216	25	1,062	2,3031968	-	1.168	27	1,081	2,2761969	10	1,209	99	1,438	2,756
(1) Less than $500
5. EXPORT OF IRISH MOSS, SEA GRASSES, PLANTS, N.E.S.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Is the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and/or any other government department investigating the feasibility of establishing a carageen extraction plant in Prince Edward Island as suggested by the hon. Member for Cardigan on October 15. 1970?
2.	What is the estimated cost of such a plant?
3.	Has the Government of Prince Edward Island requested the construction of such a plant?
4.	For each of the past ten years, what was the amount and dollar value of the Irish moss harvested in each of the Atlantic Provinces?
Quantity	Quantity
'000 Lbs.	(a) Value '000 Lbs. (b) Value
Year	(dry)	$000	(dry)	$0001965	
3,063	289	6,245	6811966	
6,903	634	7,252	7931967	
4,560	602	9,066	1,2701968	
6,970	979	11,384	1,6191969	
6,936	1,032	10,857	1,626


NUMBER OF WORK DAYS LOST IN 1968, 1969 AND 1970
Mr. Orlikow: 5.	What proportion was shipped to (a) Denmark (b) United States for extraction of carageen?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows: 1. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion has agreed to pay 75 per cent of the cost of a study by the province.
2.	Unconfirmed estimates have indicated costs up to $4,000,000 depending on capacity of facility.
3.	No.
4.	The amount and value of Irish moss harvested in each of the Atlantic Provinces for the years 1960 to
How many days of work were lost in each of the past three years as a result of (a) strikes (b) unemployment (c) illness and/or accidents?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Labour and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as follows:
Federal Jurisdiction
(a)	1968	498,960
1969	472,960
1970	345,740 (Prel.)
(b)	This information is n
(c)	Officials of the Department of Labour have participated with those of other interested departments in
Provincial
Jurisdiction	Total
4,583,770	5,082,730
7,584,100	8,057,060
7,458,740	7,804,480
available.

March 8, 1971
Questions
an endeavour to improve statistical data on industrial accidents, but to this time technical problems have prevented the development of a series that would include reliable data on working time lost.


FREDERICTON AIRPORT
Mr. MacRae: With respect to the answer to Question Number 203, given at page 2251 of Hansard January 11, 1971, what is the nature of the continuing reviews and how do they differ from a survey?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The response to Question 203 of October 20, 1970, referred to technical investigations, feasibility and costing of aerodrome works. In this context, a recent request by Air Canada for consideration of runway extensions at Fredericton for their DC9 aircraft after 1972 are now being evaluated. The continuing reviews referred to in the response are studies undertaken to assess the desirability or necessity of developing facilities to meet changing requirements of civil aviation in Canada.


PUBLIC SERVICE-REQUIRED INDICATION OF SEPARATISTS
Mr. Robinson: Will the government require all federal civil servants to indicate whether they are separatists or not?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No.


INCENTIVE GRANTS
Mr. Osier: 1.	Will the government pay agreed-upon area incentive grants to plants that go into receivership before these grants have been fully earned and on what criteria will such decision be based upon?
2.	Will the government insist upon proof that all outlays for equipment and services, made or on behalf of Churchill Forest Industries and other related companies, were normal and competitive?
3.	Before approving payment of incentive grants, will the government satisfy itself that adequate pollution controls have been embodied in the plants making-up the new complex at The Pas, Manitoba?
4.	Has the Government of Manitoba requested any extension of the payments deadline, presently April 1, 1971, for grants to Churchill Forest Industries and related companies?


Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliameniary Secretary lo Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. No,
because the grants are earned by putting the plants into commercial production. But if that and other legislative requirements are met, the grants will be paid whether or not the plants are in receivership.
2.	Yes, to the extent that the amounts of the grants are affected.
3.	No, because there is no authority to impose this condition under the relevant legislation (which is not the legislation that now applies to new cases).
4.	No.


DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE-EMPLOYMENT OF MR. PATRICK WATSON
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has the Secretary of State or the Minister responsible for Information Canada, or Information Canada itself, engaged the services of Mr. Patrick Watson, known as a former producer-performer of the CBC program "Seven Days" and, if so, for what reason?
2.	What are the terms or the specifications of the arrangement, including length, fees, expense arrangements and services provided to Mr. Watson?


Hon. Robert Slanbury (Minisler wilhoul Porlfolio):: 1.	The Department of the Secretary of State has contracted with Patrick Watson Enterprises Limited to assist in developing programs to facilitate citizen participation.
2.	The contract is for the period of January 6 to March 9, 1971, at a fee of $481 per week plus travel expenses up to a maximum of $670 for this period. Office space and secretarial service is also provided.


WHEAT-TWO-PRICE SYSTEM
Mr. Soulham: 1.	Is the government giving consideration to establish a domestic two-price system for wheat in Canada and, if so, when will a decision be made to that effect?
2.	In the event a two-price system for wheat is established, will the consumer be called on to pay the cost?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. A two price system for wheat has been in effect since August 1, 1969. Since then the selling price established by the Government for wheat used for human consumption in Canada has been $1.95J per bushel basis No. 1 Northern in store Thunder Bay or Vancouver. If changes are made in the established selling price by the Government the House will be advised.
2. The price of products derived from wheat is not controlled by the Government and it is likely that any increase in the cost of wheat and other production and distribution factors is passed on to the consumer.


WHEAT-SYSTEM OF CHECK-OFF FROM GRAIN SALES TO CREATE FUND FOR RESEARCH
Mr. Southam: Is it the intention of the government to institute a system of check-off from grain sales and oil seeds to create a fund for market research and development as suggested by the delegates to the recently-held western agricultural conference?
[Mr. Jerome.)
March 8, 1971


Otto Emil Lang: The Government is giving serious consideration to providing a method to permit such a check-off if it is supported by individual producers.


WHEAT-PLEBISCITE TO DETERMINE MARKETING SYSTEMS
Mr. Souiham: Is it the government's intention to sponsor a plebiscite among farmers in the Wheat Board area to determine whether rye, flax and rapeseed should be brought under the complete jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board?


Otto Emil Lang: Work is continuing on the merits of different marketing systems but no decision on a plebiscite has been taken.


PRAIRIE GRAIN POLICY PROPOSALS
Mr. Souiham: Is it the intention of the government to drop the proposal that would have made losses on sales pools recoverable from future pools as outlined in the Production and Grain Receipts Policy for the Western Grains Industry on October 29, 1970?


Otto Emil Lang: Discussions on this and many other aspects of the Prairie Grains policy proposals are continuing. Conclusions will be reached soon and announced at that time.


DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION &quot;FRANCOPHONE MEMORANDUM&quot;
Mr. Nesbill: 1.	What Members of the Cabinet received a copy of the memorandum issued by the Public Service Commission and known as the "Francophone Memorandum", in which it is proposed that $2 million be advanced for the hiring of 250 persons of French origin?
2.	What Deputy Ministers or Heads of government departments received a copy of this memorandum?
3 Did the office of the Prime Minister receive a copy of this memorandum?


Hon. Gerard Pellelier (Secretary of Slate of Canada):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. None.
2.	None.
3.	No.


EXTRAS, INSTALLATION FOR DATA PROCESSING, GOVERNMENT PRINTING BUREAU
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract No. 9C-00586, April 16, 1969-Installation for Data Processing, Government Printing Bureau, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
Questions
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.
Eight.
2.	Net addition to the contract authorized by the Department was $3,664.76.
3.	All changes resulted from unforeseen job conditions required to instal the specialized equipment.


EXTRAS, INSTALLATION OF AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM, 588 BOOTH STREET
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract No. 8C-16099, March 19, 1969-Instal air conditioning system in basement, South Side, 588 Booth St., how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2 What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.	Four.
2.	Net addition to the contract authorized under Departmental Authority was $2,764.37.
3.	Three Change Orders resulted from unforeseen job conditions and one Change Order resulted from a change in the Client Department's requirements after contract award.


EXTRAS, DBS COMPUTER ROOM
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract No. 8C-15984, February 26, 1969-Alterations to computer room Dominion Bureau of Statistics Building, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.	None.
2	and 3. Not applicable.


EXTRAS, AIR CONDITIONING-KENT AND ALBERT BUILDING
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract No. 8C-16200, February 20, 1969-Install air conditioning unit and raised floor in computer room, Kent-Albert Building, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.	None.
2 and 3. Not applicable.
4030

March 8, 1971
Questions


EXTRAS, GENERAL ALTERATIONS-K. W. NEATBY BUILDING
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract No. 8C-09974, February 18, 1969-General alterations, K. W. Neatby Building, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.	Nine.
2.	Net addition to contract authorized by the Department was $8,974.58.
3.	One Change Order resulted from unforeseen job condition, six Change Orders resulted from revised client requirements and two involved requirements to meet fire regulations.


EXTRAS, ALTERATIONS, PHASE 2-NATIONAL MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract No. 8C-09958, January 7, 1969-Alterations Phase 2, National Museum of Science and Technology, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1. Five.
2.	Net addition to the contract authorized by the Department was $9,035.62.
3.	Three Change Orders resulted from unforeseen job conditions and two Change Orders resulted from a change in client requirements after contract award.


EXTRAS, STANDARD LAB BUILDING, TUNNEY'S PASTURE
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract No. 8C-09940, November 29, 1968-Alterations in basement, Standard Lab Building, Tunney's Pasture, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3 What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1. Five.
2.	Net addition to the contract authorized by the Department was $1,746.
3.	Two Change Orders resulted from unforeseen job conditions, one Change Order resulted from a change in Client requirements, one Change Order was undertaken to meet fire regulations and one Change Order was required as a result of actual rock conditions differing from those shown on the contract documents.


EXTRAS, EXTENSION OF HEATING MAINS FROM C.H. PLANT, CLIFF STREET TO LORNE BUILDING
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract No. 8C-09900, October 28,	1968-Extend
heating and cooling mains from C.H. Plant, Cliff St. to Lome Building and Cartier Square, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.
Twenty.
2.	Net addition to the contract authorized by the Department was $72,991.91.
3.	Two Change Orders resulted from additional work requested by the clients involved, two changes were undertaken to comply with outside agency construction and safety codes, one change resulted from poor soil conditions necessitating a change in the foundation to support the heating and cooling piping and fifteen changes resulted from rerouting of the piping to bypass existing services (gas, hydro, water, etc.) the location of which could not be accurately determined prior to excavation.


EXTRAS-LAND DRAINAGE AND CULVERT INSTALLATION, GREENBELT FARM
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract No. 8C-09236, October 25, 1968-Land drainage and culvert installation, Greenbelt Farm, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.
Three.
2.	Net addition to the contract authorized by the Department was $17,417.18.
3.	Two Change Orders resulted from unforeseen job conditions and one Change Order resulted from the client department's request after contract award that excavated material was to be hauled to specific waste areas.


EXTRAS, DRAFT PROOFING, BROOKE CLAXTON BUILDING
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract No. 8C-09942, October 24,	1968-Draftproofing, Brooke Claxton Building, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.
None.
2 and 3. Not applicable.

March 8, 1971


EXTRAS, ALTERATIONS NO. 3 TEMPORARY BUILDING
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract No. 8C-08565, October 24, 1968-Alterations various areas, No. 3, Temporary Building, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2. What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3. What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.
One.
2.	$589. authorized by the Department.
3.	Client Department requested additional painting.


EXTRAS, EAST DAM RIDEAU FALLS
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract No. 8C-07387, October 18, 1968-Reconstruct East Dam Rideau Falls, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.
Five change orders.
2.	A total of $62,020.11, authorization by National Capital Commission.
3.	Dewatering the structure exposed additional deteriorated portions of concrete in piers and apron which necessitated substitutions, deletions and additions to the work.


EXTRAS, ALTERATIONS, PESTICIDE LAB., C.E. FARM
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract No. 8C-07033, September 19, 1968-Alterations, Pesticide Lab., C.E. Farm, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.
Three.
2.	Net addition to the contract authorized by the Department was $1,393.13.
3.	One Change Order resulted from unforeseen job conditions and two Change Orders resulted from changes in requirements subsequent to contract award.


EXTRAS, UNDERPASS DRAINAGE AVE. &quot;C&quot;, GREENBELT FARM
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract No. 8C-06966, September 10, 1968-Underpass drainage at extension of Ave. "C", Greenbelt Farm, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
Questions
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.
Eight.
2.	Net addition to the contract authorized by the Department was $7,997.77.
3.	During construction eight additional items of work were carried out which were not directly associated with this project but were considered necessary for the over-all development of the Greenbelt area.


EXTRAS, VENTILATION SYSTEM, DVA BUILDING
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract No. 8C-03098, September 6, 1968-Provide cooling to basement and ground floor ventilation system, DVA Building, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.
Three.
2.	Net addition to the contract authorized by the Department was $4,211.
3.	All changes resulted from unforeseen job conditions required to instal the specialized equipment.


EXTRAS, ELECTRICAL SERVICES, TUNNEY'S PASTURE
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract No. 8C-04218, August 7, 1968-Electrical Services, Tunney's Pasture, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.
Two.
2.	Net addition to the contract authorized by the Department was $11,282.43.
3.	Two changes were required, one to comply with revised standards and the other to meet anticipated future requirements which were identified subsequent to contract award.


EXTRAS, BUILDING 9A, GREENBELT FARM
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract No. 8C-01650, June 26, 1968-Construct building 9A, Greenbelt Farm, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.
Nine.
23966-43 i

March 8, 1971
Questions
2.	Net addition to the contract authorized by the Department was $10,628.24.
3.	Two Change Orders resulted from unforeseen job conditions, one Change Order was required to comply with the revised safety code and the remaining six resulted from changes in client department requirements during the construction period.


EXTRAS, POSTAL TERMINAL BUILDING
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract No. 8C-04326, June 10, 1968-Construct Postal Terminal Building, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.
One hundred and one.
2.	Net addition to the contract authorized by Treasury Board and the Department was $442,268.11.
3.	Two Change Orders were necessary affecting the services to the building, eight Change Orders resulted from undetermined soil conditions requiring in most instances additional rock excavation, twenty-five Change Orders resulted from changes in Client requirements, fifteen Change Orders were required to comply with various outside agencies affecting standards, codes, fire and safety regulations and fifty-one were required as a result of unforeseen job conditions.


EXTRAS, AIR CONDITIONING POST OFFICE WORKSHOP
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract No. 8C-00749, May 31, 1968-Ventilation and Air conditioning in Post Office Workshop, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2. What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3. What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.
Thirteen.
2.	Net addition to contract authorized by the Department was $6,660.42.
3.	Two Change Orders resulted from revised Client requirements, one involved requirements to meet fire regulations and ten resulted from unforeseen job conditions required to instal the specialized equipment.


EXTRAS, C.H. PLANT CONFEDERATION HEIGHTS
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract No. 8C-06142, May 29, 1968-Convert C.H. Plant Confederation Heights, to gas, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.
None.
2 and 3. Not applicable.


EXTRAS, ELECTRIC SUB-STATION, GREENBELT FARM
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract 8C-00345, May 8, 1968-Construct electric sub-station and distribution system, Greenbelt Farm, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2.	What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3.	What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1.
Eight.
2.	Net addition to contract authorized by the Department was $8,331.28.
3.	Five Change Orders resulted from unforeseen job conditions, two changes were required to comply with revised safety codes and one change resulted from changed requirements of the client department.


EXTRAS, CANADIAN FORCES DATA CENTRE, GOVERNMENT PRINTING BUREAU
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Under Contract No. 8C-00356, May 8, 1968-Alterations to Canadian Forces Data Centre, Government Printing Bureau, how many "extras" and change orders were authorized by the government?
2. What was the amount and who gave the authorization?
3. What was the reason for the substitution, deletion or addition of the extras?


Arthur Laing: 1. Two.
2.	Net addition to the contract authorized by the Department was $880.46.
3.	One Change Order resulted from a change in client requirement after contract award and one Change Order resulted from unforeseen job conditions.


EXTRAS, SANITARY SEWERS, CORKSTOWN ROAD
Mr. Paproski: 
Arthur Laing: 1. Four.
2.	Net addition to the contract authorized by the Department was $14,519.40.
3.	Three Change Orders were necessary as a result of unstable soil conditions and increased rock excavation and one Change Order was required to meet a request by National Capital Commission to erect a fence along the property line.

March 8, 1971


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY
Mr. Blouin: 1.	During 1970, what, in tons, was the total of goods passed through the St. Lawrence Seaway?
2.	What types of goods were involved, i.e. tons of iron ore, wheat, heavy machinery or general goods?
3.	What was the total revenue from user and lock fees in 1970?
4.	What was the deficit for the same year?


Gérard Duquet: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows:
		Montreal		
		Lake Ontario	Welland	
		Section	Section	
1.	Total 1970 tonnage (millions)		. 51.1	62.1	
2.	Commodities (millions tons)			
Bulk -Wheat	. 8.2	8.6	Other grains	. 10.3	11.2	Iron ore	. 15.1	15.9	Coal	. 0.3	10.3	Other bulk	. 10.7	10.3	General-Iron and steel	. 4.0	3.7	Other general	. 2.5	2.1	51.1	62.1	Total3.	Tolls and lockage charges (000's $).	.$ 18,585 $	3,533	$ 22,1184.	Estimated 1970 deficit (000's $)	Operating (profit, loss)	.$(11,550) $	7,140	$ (4,410)Interest	. 18,800	1,025	19,825Estimated 1970 deficit	.$ 7,250 $	8,165	$ 15,415


CANADIAN COAST GUARD COLLEGE-CADET ALLOWANCES
Mr. Muir: 1.	Is the government giving consideration to increasing the allowances of the cadets attending the Canadian Coast Guard College at Point Edward, Nova Scotia and, if so, what is the amount the cadets presently receive and what is the proposed increase?
2.	What is the present arrangement regarding the expenses of cadets attending the Canadian Coast Guard College and are there to be any changes in the present system and, if so, what are these changes?


Gérard Duquet: 1. The allowances which cadets attending the Canadian Coast Guard College receive are subject to negotiation and are fixed by the collective agreement between Treasury Board and the bargaining agent for Government Ships Officers (Canadian Merchant Service Guild). Present allowances: 1st year cadets, $80 monthly; 2nd year cadets, $90 monthly; 3rd year cadets, $105 monthly; 4th year cadets, $125 monthly. A
Questions
new collective agreement is now being negotiated, consequently, it will not be possible to make any announcement concerning allowances until the new agreement is signed.
2. Once a year all cadets receive free return travel less the first $25 between the college and their homes. All travel expenses, in accordance with the travel regulations, are paid for cadets when joining and leaving ships during the sea training phase of their training. Being negotiable, it is also not possible to make any announcement about expenses at present concerning changes that may be negotiated in the new agreement.


GAME SANCTUARIES
Mr. Robinson: How many game sanctuaries are there in Canada (a) where is each located (b) what is the size of each (c) what type of game is protected in each (d) how much is the cost to the federal government to maintain each sanctuary?


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: There are Seven, (a) Northwest Territories: Thelon Game Sanctuary, Twin Islands Game Sanctuary, Bowman Bay Game Sanctuary and Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary. Yukon Territory: McArthur Game Sanctuary, Kluane Game Sanctuary and Pine Creek Game Sanctuary.
(b)	Thelon, 20,200 square miles; Bowman Bay, 700 square miles; Twin Islands, 100 square miles; Mackenzie Bison, 7,000 square miles; McArthur, 204 square miles; Kluane, 10,030 square miles; and Pine Creek, nine square miles.
(c)	Thelon Game Sanctuary, musk-ox; Twin Islands Game Sanctuary, polar bear; Bowman Bay Game Sanctuary, blue goose; Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary, wood bison; McArthur Game Sanctuary, Kluane Game Sanctuary and Pine Creek Game Sanctuary complete protection of all game in the area.
(d)	All the above noted game sanctuaries are established by Territorial Ordinances and any costs are charged against the two Territorial Governments and not against the federal government. Direct federal costs are nil. Game sanctuaries in Canada are either under provincial jurisdiction or are controlled by private citizens.


SNOWMOBILES-MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the requirement of safety features for snowmobiles and other such motor equipment as is required for motor vehicles?


Gérard Duquet: Ten safety standards for snowmobiles have been published in Part II of the Canada Gazette of November 25, 1970. Some of these standards have come into effect on January 1, 1971, and others will come into effect on April 1, 1971, and February 1, 1972. Improvements, refinements and additional standards are being considered.

March 8, 1971
Questions


POST OFFICE-COST OF EQUIPMENT TO BE USED IN PREPARATION OF MONEY ORDERS
Mr. Peddle: 1.	What was the total cost of the recently completed program of providing special equipment to post offices In Canada to be used in the preparation of money orders?
2.	Who was the supplier of this equipment?
3.	Were tenders called?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: 1. Total equipment purchases amounted to $2,493,870 including $1,400,175 for imprinters provided to Post Offices.
2.	Imprinters were supplied by Addressograph-Multi-graph of Canada Ltd.
3.	Yes.


PENSIONS, ALLOWANCES AND HEALTH SERVICES TO FOREIGN VETERANS NOW RESIDING IN CANADA
Mr. Caouette: How many foreign veterans, who served in their own country's army during (a) World War I (b) World War II (c) the Korean War, and now reside in Canada, benefit from (i) a pension from Canada (ii) a war veteran's allowance (iii) a pension in respect of disability attributable to service, or (iv) medical care and hospital services?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, due to the length of the answer, if the House agrees, I would suggest that it be 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:]


Albert Béchard: I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Veterans Affairs as follows: (a)(i) Records in the Department of National Health and Welfare are not maintained in such a manner that the required information is readily available, (ii) 4,992. (iii) None, (iv) Statistics are not maintained in the Department of Veterans Affairs to disclose the number of foreign veterans provided with this service.
(b)	(i) See (a) (i) above, (ii) 1,044. (iii) None, (iv) See (a) (iv) above.
(c)	(i) See (a) (i) above, (ii) None, (iii) None, (iv) See (a) (iv) above.
Note 1-In addition to (a) (ii) and (b) (ii), there are 30 foreign veterans with Dual Service (World War I and World War II) who benefit from war veterans allowance.
Note 2-The figures shown in (a) (ii), (b) (ii) and in Note 1 include approximately 250 foreign veterans who
reside outside Canada and for whom a breakdown by war of service is not available.


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


Abram Ernest Epp: (a) Nil; (b) 100 per cent; (c) nil; (d) nil; (e) nil; (f) nil.


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


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: 100 per
cent of the Supplementary Estimates of the Department of Labour are designated for new programs.


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES- DESIGNATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
Mr. Robinson: What percentage of the supplementary estimates of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is designated for (a) winter works (b) to reduce unemployment (c) underestimating expenditures (d) combatting inflationary costs (e) new programmes (f) hiring of additional employees?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Supplementary Estimates		Supplementary Estimates
for	Loans, Investments	for Budgetary
	and Advances	Expenditures
(a)	nil	nil(b)	ff	100 per cent(c)	ff	nil(d)	ff	"(e)	ff	ff(f)	ff	65 per cent


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


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minisier of Veterans Affairs):: (a), (c), (d), (e), (f) Nil. (b) 100 per cent.

March 8, 1971


MANPOWER-AMOUNTS PAID TO PERSONS ENROLLED IN TRAINING COURSES
[Stage Direction]
Questions
2. Do the amounts vary from one area to another and, if so, for what reason?
Mr. Rodrigue: 1. What amounts are being paid to persons enrolled in training courses sponsored by the Department of Manpower and Immigration in (a) Quebec (b) Ontario?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Trainees who qualify for training allowances are paid at the following rates:
Province of residence	without dependents	who has only one dependent	who has only two dependents	who has only three dependents	who has four or more dependents	Additional allowance payable to an adult who must live away from home while taking training.a) Region 1 Quebec, Lower St. Lawrence and Gas-	(dollars)	(dollars)	(dollars)	(dollars)	(dollars)	(dollars)pesie	
Region 2	43	49	54	59	65	23Saguenay, Lake St. John	
Region 3	43	51	59	67	73	23Quebec	
Region 4	43	50	57	63	69	23Trois-Rivieres	
Region 5	43	50	57	63	69	23Eastern Townships	
Region <	43	50	57	63	69	23Montreal	
Region 7	43	55	65	75	81	23Ottawa	
Region 8	43	51	59	67	73	23Northwestern	
Region 9	43	50	57	63	69	23N. Shore	
Region 10	43	55	65	75	81	23New Quebec	43	55	65	75	81	23b) Ontario	43	62	72	82	88	23
2. Within a province allowance rates apply uniformly except in the province of Quebec where different rates have been established for each of ten regions following consultation with the province.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-RECRUITING POLICY
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	Does the Department of National Defence now restrict the number of recruits accepted into the Canadian Armed Forces on a provincial or regional basis and, if not, is consideration being given to such a procedure?
2.	If restrictions by provinces and regions are being considered, what is the total allowable number for each province or region and, if not already in practice, when will such policy be implemented?
3.	By month, what has been the number of recruits by province or region up to and including January, 1971 for each of the past 13 months?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: 1 and 2. Annual quotas for the recruitment of men into the Canadian Forces are determined on the basis of projections of the manpower requirements on a trade-by-trade basis within the manpower ceilings. Monthly quotas to be used as guides in meeting recruiting requirements are distributed amongst 15 Canadian Forces Recruiting and Selection Units. Based upon population and past recruitment statistics the monthly recruiting target has resulted in the following approximate percentages being used as a general guide for the five military regions in Canada. Maritimes, 20 per cent; Quebec, 30 per cent; Central, 24 per cent; Prairies, 16 per cent; British Columbia, 10 per cent.
3.	British
Maritimes	Quebec	Central	Prairies	ColumbiaJan. 70	94	134	134	108	48Feb.	78	82	119	63	41March	75	84	122	93	30April	94	150	137	110	37May	75	132	124	76	37June	58	131	119	76	36July	80	212	126	73	43Aug.	78	116	97	97	47Sept	93	131	172	123	46Oct.	99	215	165	86	39Nov.	82	141	151	88	50Dec.	67	162	134	67	44Jan. 71	95	162	159	98	29
March 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry FARM CREDIT CORPORATION-ARREARS OF SCHEDULED REPAYMENTS


Mr. Thomson: What percentage of scheduled repayments to the Farm Credit Corporation were in arrears from farmers in (a) 1967 (b) 1968 (c) 1969 (d) 1970?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: The Farm Credit Corporation advises that as of the end of the fiscal year the amount remaining in arrears as a percentage of the amount due during the year was as follows:
(a)	1966-67, 6.1 per cent; (b) 1967-68, 6.7 per cent; (c) 196869, 8.4 per cent; (d) 1969-70, 12.4 per cent.


YELLOWKNIFE, N.W.T.-CONSTRUCTION OF ARMED FORCES HEADQUARTERS
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	With respect to the tenders called by Defence Construction (1951) Limited for the construction of a new Armed Forces Headquarters building at Yellowknife (a) what persons, firms or corporations submitted tenders (b) what was the amount of each such tender?
2.	Has the contract yet been awarded for the construction and, if so, to what person, firm or corporation was the contract so awarded?
3 What is the intended date of the commencement of construction and completion of the project?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. (a) Mod Industries Ltd., Box 877, Langley, B.C.;
(b)	$276,989.
2.	Yes, to Mod Industries Ltd.
3.	Construction commenced October 2, 1970 and is scheduled to complete June 15, 1971.


ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether there is a minister in charge of developing a program for this summer in connection with students?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, my answer is that the cabinet is involved in constructing this program. I think it is substantially completed and I would expect an announcement in full of our intentions to be made in a very short period of time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the lecture we had earlier this afternoon from the President of the Treasury Board about the importance of decisions, and since the vacation season for students will soon be here, in spite of all the snow we see around us, may we have a decision without further delay in order that any program
the government proposes will have some possibility of being of some assistance to the students affected?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure I can give an assurance to the Leader of the Opposition that our action will be announced in ample time to take care of the students who leave university after May 15,1 believe.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, come on; where do you live?


Arthur Laing: Well, probably we study harder in the province of British Columbia,-


Gerald William Baldwin: And there is more need to do so.


Arthur Laing: -but that is when they leave university, and then there are those students who get out of high school on June 30.


CANCELLATION OF CONFERENCE SPONSORED BY CANADIAN COUNCIL ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the hon. Secretary of State.
In view of the questions which were directed to the Acting Prime Minister last Friday, could the Secretary of State tell us why the government has decided not to participate in the conference sponsored by the Canadian Council on Social Development?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I could not tell the hon. member which reason was determinant. Among others, I know that there was a problem of dates for this conference. I am aware also that other considerations were involved. It shall please me very much to summarize them for the information of the hon. member, as soon as I can, but I understand that in the end there is no more talk of participating in this conference, because it will not take place.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the considerable concern voiced last week about the cancellation of this important conference on transient youth and summer employment for students, which was to involve not only federal but also provincial representation, I wonder if the Secretary of State would indicate whether at the planning stage this conference was not delayed by at least a month at the request of the federal government?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, there were major considerations, particularly conflicting dates. Last Thursday the Acting Prime Minister stated that we could not announce the particulars of the program because consultations were taking place with the provinces and these had to come to an end before any official statement was made. The same difficulty would have come up if the conference had been held; the organizers would have invited representatives of the federal govern-

March 8, 1971

ment precisely to discuss with them the latter's projects, which could not have been revealed at the time the conference was held, as the federal-provincial consultations were still in progress. I am sure the hon. member cannot feel that, in a field such as young people's activities and student employment, we can neglect the position of the provinces which is an aspect of paramount importance in such an area.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Since the Secretary of State has indicated the government had no plans and therefore could not discuss them at this important meeting, did the government give consideration to the possibility of asking for a further delay or of indicating in any way its reasons for not participating in this conference, apart from the reason advanced by the minister that there had not been direct federal-provincial consultation, because it is the understanding, I think, that all provinces had expressed an interest in participating in this conference?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have never said that the government did not have any plans. I said the government's projects were ready; the Acting Prime Minister said so last Thursday; he gave general indications to the effect that the program was bigger and better, I believe. It will be better organized and more efficient than last year's. But what I said, and repeat here, is that considerations of time, that is the need to consult the provinces, have kept us from meeting the first date set for the conference, and in another connection, that the possibilities of consultation offered by that conference did not involve provincial governments but the delegates of private organizations, which would certainly not have been useless. But that is not the type of consultations we seek. The delay in announcing a policy is due to the necessity of holding consultations with the provincial authorities.


SUMMER EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS- CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State or the Acting Prime Minister when the federal government first started to consult the provinces about a specific program relating to students this summer? [Translation]


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I can give an answer and if my memory serves me well, the first discussions go back to the middle of February, or rather to the beginning of February.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are three members waiting to ask supplementaries. I realize that the matter is important, but to some extent it seems to me the discussion is theoretical since we are dealing with a conference which I gather will not take place. Perhaps hon. members might like to go on to another subject. However, I know the matter is important and I believe the hon. member for Egmont has a supplementary.
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. May I say on the point of order before putting my supplementary that the importance of this question right now is that it raises basic questions about the possibility for citizen participation in a problem of tremendous importance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not a point of order, and I did not raise a point of order. I just indicated that we should not have too many supplementaries on this subject. I always try to bring this to the attention of hon. members at the beginning of the question period because there is a temptation to spend too much time on the first question and then we could fall behind in our schedule. That is merely what I wanted to bring to the attention of hon. members but not by way of a point of order.


CANCELLATION OF CONFERENCE SPONSORED BY CANADIAN COUNCIL ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, would the Secretary of State indicate whether in the planning stages of this important conference the federal government did indicate that it would not likely participate in or support the conference in order that some kind of alternative plan could be made, rather than wait until almost the last moment to scuttle the conference?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the responsible authorities in the department are studying with the Canadian Council on Social Development other projects in order to establish if the objectives of this conference could be promoted by different means in the near future.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether or not he can give us some assurance that some type of conference will be held so that young people will be able to express their opinions and points of view?


Gérard Pelletier: This is exactly what I have just said, Mr. Speaker. My department is trying to make this kind of discussion possible, even after the failure of the conference.


SUMMER EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS- PLACE OF APPLICATION
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Can he inform the House at this time where students can apply to participate in the program the government is proposing for summer employment?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I take it the question was serious and I wish to make the same kind of answer. We have asked them to register with Manpower.
4038

March 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION


ADVERTISING PROGRAM IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES-ADVICE ON CANADIAN EMPLOYMENT SITUATION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It arises out of the increasing number of reports that recent immigrants to this country are claiming they came here on the basis of advertisements and advice given to them at Canadian offices overseas indicating there would be ample job opportunities, that they now find themselves out of work and on welfare and that many of them are applying to go back to their own countries disillusioned and angry. Is the department continuing its advertising programs in other countries inviting people to come to this country, and are prospective immigrants being advised of the unemployment situation in Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as indicated in the House some days ago, the advertising of specific job opportunities was discontinued some months ago, although the general program indicating Canada as a place welcoming immigrants does continue. It is our attempt in every case to inform prospective immigrants of the exact situation in which they might find themselves in coming to Canada. Of course, we regret very much when people do arrive and feel they have not been properly informed about the situation. We make every effort to correct that and make sure they do understand. However, there is a significant time lag between the time they discuss these matters with our officers abroad and the time they are in Canada. This can sometimes explain a difference of view about the situation which exists here. Sometimes these conditions change very rapidly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to ask the minister why his department would have an advertisement, for instance, in the Daily Express of January 14 of this year, and also one in the Daily Telegraph, telling interested persons that Canada is a land of great economic growth, with a high standard of living and excellent opportunities, when at that particular time we had over 600,000 unemployed. Is there any liaison between the two branches under the minister's responsibility, manpower and immigration, to inform immigrants of the lack of suitable employment in Canada for a great many categories?


Otto Emil Lang: Of course there is liaison, and of course the remarks which the hon. member quoted about Canada being a land of opportunity, of promise and of growth represent something in which not only I believe but in which this government as well as most people in Canada believe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: As I indicated earlier, our campaign is directed to keeping the image of Canada before people because we have no doubt the economy will soon be such that we will welcome-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I just want to ask the minister one question. Would he undertake that, in conveying the image of Canada to people who might consider coming to this country, he will give them the facts as well as the propaganda?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Justice.
In the light of the statement made recently by Mr. Louis Marceau, the ombudsman for the province of Quebec, that he would recommend payment of indemni-zation for several persons arrested and detained under the War Measures Act, could the hon. minister tell us whether the cabinet has already looked into the question of indemnifying some of the persons held in jail?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice and Attorney General);: Mr. Speaker, I should think that the recommendations of the protector of the people, Mr. Louis Marceau, would be submitted to the Attorney General of Quebec.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Could the Minister of Justice indicate whether he or the Solicitor General has received a copy of the Marceau report, and whether any consideration has been given to participating in possible reparations to innocent persons who have suffered damages as a result either of the War Measures Act or the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act?


John Napier Turner: I will want to read a copy of that report.


DESTRUCTION OF PHOTOGRAPHS AND FINGERPRINTS OF PERSONS RELEASED WITHOUT CHARGE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Royal: Is the
minister now able to answer a question that I have asked on numerous occasions, and to which allusion has been made by other hon. members, about the destruction of photographs and fingerprints? If not, could he not telephone the Minister of Justice of Quebec to get this matter cleared up?
Hon John N. Turner (Minister of Justice): I am afraid I have not yet received a reply from the Attorney General of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: How long, oh Lord, how long?


John Napier Turner: I intend to take up the question again.
March 8, 1971


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: My question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has the government agreed to provide a $12 million special area development incentive grant to Athabasca Forest Industries Limited and if so, when will these funds be made available?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, we are faced with an extremely important application which the department is studying. I cannot, at this point, say whether our response will be positive, or to what extent.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Is the government delaying a final decision because of representations by executives of other Canadian paper companies and, if not, will the minister make a statement to clarify where it now stands on this important loan?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we will be considering all aspects of this application. I cannot at this time say what the response will be.


FINANCE
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Has the Minister of Finance had a meeting with Premier Bourassa, or has the premier of the province of Quebec requested a meeting to discuss, among other things, the effect that the continued unpegging of the Canadian dollar has had on major industries in Quebec? In addition, have there been any such observations or requests by premiers of other provinces?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In the likely event that representations are made with regard to the impact on particular industries, has the government any plan to alleviate the heavy damage that has been suffered by certain industries?


Edgar John Benson: I would say, without accepting the generality, that we are always willing to listen to people.


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: In view of the uncertainty caused by the continuing rise in the value of the Canadian dollar, will the government make a statement
Inquiries of the Ministry
on its policy with regard to any further appreciation in the value of our dollar?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: My question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and arises from the request of the British Columbia government that certain selective correspondence regarding special area designation in British Columbia be made public. Will the minister assure the House that all the correspondence in this matter between his department and the B.C. government will be made public?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is no reason whatever against publication of all the correspondence exchanged between the two governments, but we will follow the usual procedure whereby before releasing any document we solicit the consent of provincial authorities.
* *


FINANCE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In light of complaints by the chairman of the Metropolitan Council of Toronto that federal loans and grants for works projects are so hedged about by conditions that they are useless and unacceptable, will the Minister of Finance consult with Mr. Campbell and other municipal authorities with a view to making these federal loans and grants effective in promoting employment which is so urgently needed?


Edgar John Benson: We have made the funds available and many of the provinces have taken advantage of them. I understand that the Ontario government, after the difficulties they have had in deciding who is going to lead the party, is finally coming forward and requesting funds. The process is a very simple one. We want to make sure that these funds go into useful capital works which will provide employment.


Mr. Bell:: You haven't even got a party in Ontario.


Francis Andrew Brewin: My supplementary question is a repetition of the first question which the minister did not answer. Will he consult with the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto Council on how to make these loans and grants effective?
23966-44^

March 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: If the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto Council wants to come and see me, I will be glad to see him any time.


TAPS PROJECT-MACKENZIE VALLEY ROUTE-STUDY OF ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS
Louis-Roland Comeau: My
question is for the Acting Prime Minister who is also the senior cabinet minister from British Columbia. Will the government institute an interdepartmental study of the ecological and economic effects of the TAPS project and the alternatives to that project?


Arthur Laing: I would think it would be improper for us to consider making a study of the TAPS project because that could not be done without visiting Alaska, and I would think that any committee set up by us might have no right there. At present, departments are studying very thoroughly the ecological threat that might occur as a consequence of pipelines running through Canada. That is very much our concern, and a great deal of work is being undertaken there. I am quite certain that if a decision were taken to put down a major pipeline through Canada in the Mackenzie Valley area, the consequences would be sufficient for the government to bring the matter before the House.


Paul Yewchuk: I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. It deals with the possible pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley. Can the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether he foresees the construction of this pipeline as something that could be undertaken under the auspices of the Canada Development Corporation to ensure Canadian ownership?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think that would be a matter for decision by the CDC when it is set up.


WHEAT-AMOUNT TO BE HELD IN COMMERCIAL STORAGE
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in his other capacity as the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Having in mind the critical cash shortage in western Canada, with its resultant effect on unemployment, does the Canadian Wheat Board intend this year to reduce by 150 million bushels, the amount of grain bought and held in commercial position at the end of last year even though space is available?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the Canadian Wheat Board to carry in commercial storage the amounts which are required to keep the system operating at peak
efficiency, and to allow it to carry grains which may be required suddenly to meet specific demands. This will involve a lowering of the amount of wheat in the storage system, and there may be an increase in the carrying of other grains as these become more important export items.


Stanley James Korchinski: Will this space not be filled up even for a general election?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


STABILIZATION PROGRAM-COMPENSATION TO FARMERS FOR FARM STORAGE
Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In light of the fact that the government's grain marketing and stabilization program will force farmers to store much more of their grain on their farms, is it the intention of the government to provide some form of special compensation to farmers to cover these extra storage costs?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise that the stabilization plan in any way requires the farmer to store more grain on his farm, although the over-all good of the farm community may well be served by grain which used to be in more expensive commercial storage being stored on farms instead. The stabilization program involves a significant government contribution to over-all costs and, therefore, improves the financial position of the Prairie farmer. It is not necessarily worth while, however, to look to a specific storage payment system and in fact it may be better to pay the farmer in full for his effort in the price he receives for his grain, rather than give him a portion for storage and a portion for the other costs involved in its production.


WHEAT-LEVEL OF EXPORTS TO UNITED KINGDOM-DISCUSSION WITH BRITISH REPRESENTATIVE
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister in charge of the Wheat Board whether, in view of the discussions which took place over the weekend between officials of the Canadian government and Mr. Rippon, the representative of the United Kingdom, concerning trade between our two countries, and in view of the fact that wheat sales were one of the matters under discussion, he can inform the House if he took part in those discussions?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did take part in those discussions.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, in view of the decline in Canadian exports of wheat to the United Kingdom during the last several crop years, can the minister give an assurance to the House that Canada will be able to maintain or increase the level of its exports of wheat to the U.K. market in the years immediately ahead?
[Mr. Brewin.)
March 8, 1971


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the discussions was to enable the United Kingdom to understand clearly our concern about access to the U.K. market, not only for wheat but also for coarse grains, and I think we made this very clear to them. The position of our wheat, of course, is rather special, in view of the general need for this kind of wheat by several countries in Europe, including countries which are already members of the EEC. This position is related to the quality of our wheat and it is our hope that we can preserve and indeed enlarge this market, but this will take a continuing effort on our part.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. The minister has mentioned the fact that there is a demand for Canadian hard wheat in Europe and in Great Britain. From his discussions with Mr. Rippon did he gather whether or not, in spite of the fact that Canadian hard wheat is required, we will be required to pay the import levy? Has he any idea how much this levy will be, and what effect this will have on the price received by the western farmers?


Otto Emil Lang: The whole question of the levy system and the details of any such system are under discussion between the government of the United Kingdom and a number of other governments in the whole context of our respective rights under GATT. No firm announcement to my knowledge has been made yet, but the levy system can be one that involves levies only when prices fall below particular levels and therefore need not concern a specific grain except in special circumstances.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Robert Borrie (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister on an extremely urgent matter. As a result of a serious shortage of box and flat-deck rail cars at Prince George, British Columbia, the lumber industry has been required to cut operations back to one shift. Would the Acting Prime Minister advise if action is being taken to provide cars so that the lumber industry will not be faced with a 40 per cent or more lay-off in manpower within the next week?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Minister of Transport is not on the roster today, but I can assure the hon. member that this problem is known to him. It is under the most urgent consideration at this time, and I would hope that it will be remedied in a matter of days.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


DISBANDING OF COMMONWEALTH COMMITTEE ON INDIAN OCEAN SECURITY-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. It refers to the same very important topic about which I inquired on Friday, namely, the status of the Singapore committee to study security in the Indian Ocean. Since the minister at that time said the government believed this was a useful initiative of the conference but that a meeting of the committee now would not be carrying out the purposes of the conference, would the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs consider preparing a statement on this very important matter so that Canada, its people and other members of the Commonwealth may know what Canada regards as its status and prospects?


Mr. Andre Ouellei (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I thought, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs had answered that question last Friday. At any rate, I will reconsider the hon. member's question and follow it up this week, if necessary.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister since the dockyard strike affects his province, but it could also be directed to the Acting President of the Treasury Board. Is there any indication that the two sides will be meeting within the next two days?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly hope so.


FINANCE
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the increase in charges on current accounts announced by the chartered banks. In view of this 33 per cent increase, which is rather outrageous and certainly is inflationary, is it the intention of the minister to look into the increase in charges announced by the chartered banks?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter for decision by the banks. I certainly have observed the increases, but I have no right to dictate to them what their charges should be.

March 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Max Saltsman: Since the banks operate with a minimum of competition and since such increases might spark inflationary tendencies, will the minister consider this a special case and refer it to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will refer it to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and I would imagine that the Prices and Incomes Commission would also be looking at the matter.
* * #


HIGHWAYS
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the increased activity in northern Canada and the Yukon and to stimulate employment, is the government now holding discussions with the American government and with the government of British Columbia about the paving of the Alaska Highway? If not, is it likely that such discussions will be held?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the government of the United States has passed a measure empowering a group of representatives of the United States to discuss the improvement of the Alaska Highway with the Canadian government. This is very good news to Canada because over a number of years we have maintained the highway at heavy cost but at a level which is inadequate if it is ever going to be a valuable highway. We are now awaiting the approach of the government of the United States, and will be most happy to discuss with them an apportionment of the costs to improve the Alaska Highway.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: With regard to the bills now
before the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States concerning the apportionment of cost of paving the highway, is it the view of the Canadian government that those apportionments are acceptable?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend from the Yukon is referring to a private bill that has been before Congress on a number of occasions, and upon which no action has been taken. There is indication in that private bill of a certain breakdown of percentages, and I can tell him that the highway, in respect of cars and trucks at the present time, is used 72 per cent by American vehicles. If that is a indication of an approximate or fair distribution, it might be a starting point for our discussions.


FINANCE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have a question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In view of the present and expected high rate of student unemployment, will the minister consider making amendments to the student loan regulations so that students will not have to commence repayment of loans until six months after obtaining employment rather than six months after completion of studies, as is the case today?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this matter comes up for discussion each year between the provinces and ourselves. Of course, my hon. friend knows that where special circumstances exist the lending institutions can make provision whereby the repayment of a loan is deferred until the student is employed. Indeed, the repayment period can be extended up to ten years; the specified starting date can be varied by the lending institution.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Si. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that reports I have just received indicate that one area off the southwest coast of Newfoundland has been fished out by foreign draggers and that they have moved to other parts of the southwest coast and are continuing to ignore the government direction to stay outside the 12-mile limit, what action will now be taken by the government to enforce the declaration of this limit?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take that question as notice.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the important statement made in the House on Friday by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, and in view of the fact that the minister is supposed to be in the House today according to the roster, and bearing in mind the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, can the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry will be in his place tomorrow to answer questions on this important matter?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I anticipated that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry would be here today. He was in Vancouver yesterday and I was in Vancouver-
(Mr. Benson.]
March 8, 1971


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Everybody is in Vancouver.


Arthur Laing: Everybody goes there eventually.


An hon. Member:: How is the weather in Vancouver?


Arthur Laing: I shall certainly draw the minister's attention to the question immediately upon his return.


SUMMER EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS- DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the question of student employment and ask the Secretary of State whether he has any explanation to give to the House as to why discussions with the provinces were not even initiated until the middle of February? This seems to be the reason no program can be announced. Has the minister any explanation to offer, because on the face of it this looks like one of the greatest derelictions of duty we have seen for some time.
sjs *


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Is his department having consultations with the Quebec government for the purpose of creating additional special zones, especially the La Mauricie valley?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker.
* Sfc *


FISHERIES
Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, but in his absence I shall direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary.
In view of the accidents that happened in the Gulf of St. Lawrence last Saturday, will the Department of Fisheries and Forestry make representations to "animal lovers" in the United States and ask them to inquire before engaging in so hazardous an adventure, which as a matter of fact had been indicated to the House last week?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, the officials of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry advised the members of this organization not to venture onto the ice; this advice was not followed, and the organizers must bear the whole responsibility for any unfortunate incident which may follow.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry could advise the House which of the inhuman and brutal sealers rescued the three Americans who fell overboard?
[DOT]{* sfs


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Acting Prime Minister or perhaps the information might come from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has taken off on his African safari, can the parliamentary secretary inform the House whether during this two-week trip any treaties or agreements will be signed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and could he indicate the nature of them?


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker, during his trip to Africa the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be signing agreements with official representatives of the countries he is going to visit. Since the trip is only beginning today, I would not want to announce ahead of time what those agreements will be. However, I shall be pleased to advise the House as soon as any such agreement is concluded.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the possible important nature of some of these agreements, I hope we will not have to wait to hear about them from the press, which is often the normal course of events in such matters.



POSSIBLE ENTRY OF BRITAIN INTO EUROPEAN COMMON


Max Saltsman: I have a question for the Minister of Finance in connection with the recent discussions with Mr. Geoffrey Rippon regarding the European Common Market. In light of Mr. Rippon's reported statement that everything possible will be done

March 8, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
to cushion the tariff changes, particularly on our major exports, I should like to ask the minister whether he can report to the House any specific items mentioned at that time which would give encouragement to Canadians?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to leave this matter to my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce when he is in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the 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.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I move:
That Bill C-182, an Act to provide for the examination, publication and scrutiny of regulations and other statutory instruments, be amended by deleting clause 10 thereof and that all subsequent clauses be renumbered accordingly.
It would be really wishing for the moon to have this motion accepted, Mr. Speaker. However, the clause of the bill which appears on page 7 of the amended text, as reported back by the committee, reads:
The Queen's Printer shall continue to publish the Canada Gazette as the official gazette of Canada.
If the simple tenets of statutory interpretation are applied to the words of this clause, the plain, grammatical, ordinary meaning of those words appear to be declaratory in nature; nothing more or less than that. The clause appears to presuppose that the public officer known as the Queen's Printer has been, and presently is, publishing and printing the official gazette of Canada known as the Canada Gazette. Given this premise, the clause would authorize the Queen's Printer to continue publishing and printing the Canada Gazette as the official gazette of Canada. Why was this particular clause included in this bill, Mr. Speaker? Is it necessary? Is there not a Queen's Printer?


John Napier Turner: The research people are working overtime.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Does he not print and publish the Canada Gazette, and is the Canada Gazette not the official gazette of Canada? I heard the minister interject just now. Not having spoken to anyone before, I asked the minister about this matter in committee, as he may recall, because the thing looked too pat, too innocent. My suspicions were confirmed. We will see where the argument leads.


Gerald William Baldwin: This government could not be innocent;
it does not know how to be.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Let us look at the official gazette of Canada from an historical point of view. What I am concerned about is the statutory authority for the Canada Gazette, that is, the statutory authority for the publication and the statutory authority for the financing of it. Perhaps I can deal with the historical aspect in a moment. Nevertheless, the minister indicated that somebody slipped up in April, 1969, because we suddenly found ourselves without any statutory authority for the Canada Gazette. In all this fine moving around, and notwithstanding the advice of all experts the government employs, somebody dropped, so to speak, the Canada Gazette. Some interesting consequences flow from this and that is something at which the minister will have to look.
In chapter 7 of the statutes of 1869, which is slightly over one hundred years ago, we find an act respecting the Office of the Queen's Printer and the Public Printing. Section 2 of that act provided:
It shall be the duty of the Queen's Printer to print and publish, or cause to be printed and published, for the Government, under his Superintendence, the Official Gazette of the Dominion, to be known as the "Canada Gazette"-
In that quotation from the act of 1869 is to be found the statutory authority for the Canada Gazette.
Over the years, a department of the government of Canada was set up by Parliament called the Department of Public Printing and Stationary. The Queen's Printer was made the head of that department. The last statutory citation for the Public Printing and Stationary Act is chapter 226 of the 1952 Revised Statutes. Section 2 of the original act was carried forward into chapter 226, with only a slight change in wording. Until April 1, 1969, section 27 provided that:
The Queen's Printer shall print and publish, or cause to be printed and published, for the Government, under his Superintendence, the statutes of Canada, the official gazette of Canada, which shall be known as the Canada Gazette-
Then, on April 1, 1969, the Government Organization Act, 1969, came into force. Section 105 provided for the repeal or amendment of various statutes to the extent indicated in Schedule B to that act. Schedule B indicated that the Public Printing and Stationary Act, Revised Statutes, Chapter 226, was repealed. Thereby, the Office of Queen's Printer, the Department of Public Printing and Stationary, and the "Official Gazette of Canada which shall be known as the Canada Gazette" were abolished. As I say, all these were abolished.
Part V of the Government Organization Act, 1969, established the Department of Supply and Services. Section 48 reconstituted the Office of the Queen's Printer and set out his responsibilities. Section 48 reads as follows:
The Minister may, by order, appoint an officer of the Department of Supply and Services to be the Queen's Printer for Can-
[Mr. Saltsman.l
March 8, 1971


John Napier Turner: It is not a gazette.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It appears to be a prerogative power to which the Minister of Justice refers when he stated in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, at pages 17 and 18 of the committee report on the bill:
The Queen's Printer shall continue to publish. The money has been voted in the estimates regularly. There is no official authority for the official gazetting in the United Kingdom, Mr. Beseau tells me. Really, we are not creating the Canada Gazette by statute. We are just saying:
"10. The Queen's Printer shall continue to publish the Canada Gazette as the official gazette of Canada."
It has already been published. It is already found in the Estimates under whichever department it is. We are just making it the official gazette of Canada.
I could go into a very long historical examination of the crown prerogative. I could go back to the middle of the 16th century, but I will spare the House that exercise.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is where the government is all the time anyway.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister referred to the status of the gazette in the United Kingdom, and this is the only precedent he can follow. There is no statutory authority for the Canada Gazette, therefore the minister must fall back on the Crown prerogative. The Crown prerogative has its origin and source in the United Kingdom. I suggest to Your Honour that the two cases are quite different and, therefore, we must come to statutory authority. Whether we have an official gazette of Canada on a statutory basis or whether it is by Crown prerogative is not a decision for the minister to make, but for the courts. It is not for the minister to say that statutory authoriy is not required or that the authority is under the Crown prerogative. Even though there is a very fine question whether, having had statutory authority from 1869 onward the Crown prerogative was abolished at that particular point and the authority was actually taken over by this Parliament to establish an official gazette of Canada.
I must apologize to the House for having gone through a rather lengthy historical review of the antecedents and

March 8, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
origins of the Canada Gazette. The decision on the question whether the Canada Gazette, as printed and published since April 1, 1969, to the present, is the official gazette of Canada, is for the determination by the courts. The Minister of Justice, the Privy Council, this House or Parliament cannot assume that constitutional jurisdiction. What this House must properly inquire into, what the Minister of Justice should fully disclose, is the necessity for and the consequences of including clause 10 in Bill C-182. Why is it there? If the Canada Gazette has not existed as the official gazette of Canada since April 1, 1969, what are the consequences?
The Regulations Act, section 6(1), requires that every regulation shall be published in the Canada Gazette. Section 2(a) defines "regulations" as including a "proclamation". Section 6(3) provides that no regulation is invalid by reason only that it was not published in the Canada Gazette but no person shall be convicted for an offence consisting of a contravention of any regulation at the time of the alleged contravention that was not published in the Canada Gazette. There is an exception in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3). These paragraphs read:
(a)	the regulation was, pursuant to section 9, exempted from the operation of subsection (1), or the regulation expressly provides that it shall operate according to its terms prior to publication in the Canada Gazette, and
(b)	it is proved that at the date of the alleged contravention reasonable steps had been taken for the purpose of bringing the purport of the regulation to the notice of the public, or the persons likely to be affected by it, or of the person charged.
As a matter of fact, those paragraphs contain some of the wording of section 11 of the present act. By way of an aside, it is interesting to note that even the alternative method of notice provided for in paragraph (b), is of no avail where a person is tried on a retroactive offence; that is, it is impossible to give him notice of a regulation (including a proclamation) where the alleged offence was committed before the proclamation was issued or the regulation made.
Section 6 of the Regulations Act hangs upon the meaning to be given to the words "Canada Gazette". The exception to the necessity of publishing penal regulations hangs upon the meaning of "Canada Gazette". Under the Canada Evidence Act, section 18, the courts must take judicial notice of all acts of the Parliament of Canada. The courts are under notice that there is now no statutory authority for the printing and publishing of an official gazette of Canada. I want to draw that to the particular attention of the minister. As it now stands, the courts are under notice that there is now no statutory authority for the printing and publishing of an official gazette of Canada. It is for the courts to determine whether they should convict persons who appear before them on an offence created by regulation, or under authority of a proclamation that proclaims a penal statute to be in force, on and after April 1, 1969, or whether they should convict persons charged with retroactive offences created after April 1, 1969.
I pause to bring to the attention of the minister the effect these words could have on a recent action taken by
[Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) .1
the government. A proclamation, special measures under the War Measures Act and regulations appeared in the Canada Gazette, but the Canada Gazette had no statutory effect. What this House should not do, and what the Minister of Justice should not lead this House into doing, is to pass a provision that may have retroactive penal effect on criminal cases now before the courts.
As well as clause 10, the Minister of Justice should explain to the House the change that this bill proposes to make to the exception in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section 6 of the present Regulations Act.


John Napier Turner: That is a different amendment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: 
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I reply merely in the terms of the submission I attempted to make before the committee. The purpose of this clause is simply to confirm the Canada Gazette as the official gazette of Canada. In the repeal of section 27 of the Public Printing and Stationery Act effective April 1, 1969 and the subsequent government reorganization measure, authority over the Queen's Printer was transferred to the new Department of Supply and Services- nothing more. The Department of Supply and Services now reports to the House concerning the estimates of the Queen's Printer. The Queen's Printer continues to exercise the functions he always exercised and among those functions was, and is, the publication of the Canada Gazette. The statutes which refer to the Canada Gazette refer to it as the Canada Gazette. I submit that the continuity of the Canada Gazette has existed in practice as endorsed in the estimates of the House. This clause does not provide that the Queen's Printer shall continue to publish the Canada Gazette as the official gazette of Canada; it simply provides it shall be continued as the official gazette of Canada.
March 8, 1971

At the present time, the Canada Gazette is recognized as being the official gazette, but this recognition needs a statutory basis, one which the clause in question will give to it. There has been no interruption in the authority for the publication of the gazette. It is published-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Under whose
authority?


John Napier Turner: Under the authority of the minister, who was given that authority by the Government Re-Organization Act. The hon. member reads the words "if designated by the minister", and it has been so designated. The Canada Gazette retains its status as a journal in which documents needing publicity for validation must be published. Nevertheless, the clause itself does not revalidate the Gazette; it merely repairs a lapse whereby the Gazette was not defined as the official gazette of Canada.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the hon. gentleman kindly indicate on what occasion the minister designated the Canada Gazette in the terms he used and whether, in any case, he has the power to do so?


John Napier Turner: He has the power under the section of the Government Re-Organization Act which the hon. member read.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask a further question? Since the Department of Public Printing and Stationery has been abolished, the authority of the minister can only be directed to existing departments-


John Napier Turner: The Queen's Printer remains with us. Authority was transferred from one department to another without any lapse.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I listened with a great deal of interest to the learned arguments put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
Assuming for a minute that his point is correct, that between 1969 and the present time there was doubt as to the existence of the official authority for the publication of the Canada Gazette, then if the effect of clause 10 is to remedy what clearly, at the highest, was an error or a lack of clarity in the amendment of the statutes, and although this provision may have some retroactive effect, I think we should pass it. I say this recognizing that all lawyers and, I hope, all parliamentarians abhor legislation whose effect is retroactive. I have certainly made it my business to oppose such legislation in this House on a great many occasions. It seems, though, that the effect of this clause is merely to confer a degree of legality which was omitted through mischance or misunderstanding when the statute of 1969 was passed.
What is the alternative? The alternative would be to allow the void, the confusion, to continue indefinitely. I cannot see the point of that, and for this reason I find it difficult to support the amendment.
Statutory Instruments Act


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Might I ask the hon. member whether he, as a lawyer, would be prepared to accept a conviction based upon a regulation which had been published in a gazette for which there was no authority?


Francis Andrew Brewin: If this clause is passed it will be a declaration by Parliament that it did have authority, and I would be in favour of making such a declaration.


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Authority for the Canada Gazette lies in the fact that it is the Canada Gazette, not that it is designated as the official gazette. All the statutes to which the hon. member refers speak of the Canada Gazette. The legal power is not changed by designating it the official gazette.


Gerald William Baldwin: This is too fascinating an argument to avoid becoming involved in, Mr. Speaker. On the question of substance raised by my hon. friend from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), I would think that when the government introduces legislation which contains a clause of a somewhat dubious character in terms of it being, possibly, retroactive in effect, responsibility falls upon the minister concerned to inform the House as to the background of the situation in order that hon. members may know precisely what they are being asked to do.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has outlined circumstances which might warrant us in taking the course the government proposes, but the onus rests upon the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), and in my view he has not sustained it up to the present. It might well be that if I were counsel defending some of those charged under the provisions of regulations enacted under the War Measures Act, I would look with interest upon this particular argument. I might be compelled to consider whether this would constitute a valid legal defence. However, it is not for me, or for that matter the minister, to decide this question. It must be left to the courts to decide. This argument must have some effect on our judgment when we consider passing the bill.
e (4:10 p.m.)
I should like to go on from that point very briefly because the question of the Royal prerogative has been raised. We had an opportunity during our committee discussions to talk about this Royal prerogative and how it is exercised. I have raised this question before in the House. We are driven to consider the effects of section 12 of the British North America Act which contains a code in respect of what the Royal prerogative is and how far it can go. I am not going to apologize for reading it all because I think it is pertinent. Section 12 of the BNA reads:
All Powers,, Authorities, and Functions which under any Act of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the Legislature of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, are at the Union vested in or exercisable by the respective Governors or Lieutenant Governors of those Provinces, with the Advice, or with the Advice and Consent, of the respective Executive Councils thereof, or in conjunction

March 8, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
with those Councils, or with any Number of Members thereof, or by those Governors or Lieutenant-Governors individually, shall, as far as the same continue in existence and capable of being exercised after the Union in relation to the Government of Canada, be vested in and exercisable by the Governor General, with the Advice or with the Advice and Consent of or in conjunction with the Queen's Privy Council for Canada,
In other words, as the situation existed in these provinces and the United Kingdom in 1867, the Royal prerogative is continued and has become capable of being exercised by the Privy Council here unless and until the Parliament of Canada alters, varies or amends it. I think there is no question that the Privy Council have the right to do so under any constitutional system of responsible government. At some time, and this is not the time to do it, I hope to introduce a measure to clarify the relationship between the executive branch of government, the Governor in Council and the Parliament of Canada. Far too long, in my view, the government has taken upon itself the exercise of powers, allegedly under prerogative rights. This exercise of powers should be challenged, and there should be some clarification. Hopefully these things are worked out in a constitutional and democratic democracy, as we have in the past by precedent, practice or common law.
When you find governments, in particular this government, exercising the kind of authority the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his Cabinet have been exercising, I think it is time we had some clarification of what their rights are in relation to the rights of the Parliament of Canada. This is a collateral issue which I now raise in order to bring it to the attention of the House and, hopefully, the country, so that something may be done. The fact remains, and this was declared unequivocally by expert witnesses who appeared before the special committee on Statutory Instruments, that whatever the rights of the executive might be under the prerogative, they were always susceptible of being altered or curtailed by the Parliament of Canada. I hope the minister will not disagree with that. The Parliament of Canada is not going to be too rapid in its attempt to do this because usually the government has an obedient majority which will see that its rights are not curtailed. Somehow it happens that it is always the opposition which wants to curtail the rights of the party in power.
In addition to that, these experts witnesses pointed out that these prerogative rights may be curtailed. My hon. learned friend, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), started to develop that argument. The Parliament of Canada, irrespective of the rights of the Governor in Council, under section 12 of the British North America Act, did in fact act by designating the ways and means by which there could be an official Canada Gazette in which regulations and statutes could be published in order to give them the force of law.
In many instances there is a right to enact regulations, Orders in Councils, and decrees, but they remain ineffective unless and until they have been published. They can only be published in some publication which has the assurance of being the officially designated organ for that purpose. Our Parliament did make such a designation.
Having done so, it has assumed the right to deal with what might have been part of the Royal prerogative, and having done so that right does not flow back to the government. To that extent, the hon. member for Edmonton West is quite correct.
In simple words, there has been a hiatus between 1969 and now, that is from the government organizational bill until this attempt to rectify this omission or what can be interpreted as an attempt to rectify an omission. I must part company with the minister when he suggests that clause 48, which was read out by the hon. member for Edmonton West, does give this right. This is the right dealing with the appointment of an officer, persona desig-nata, to exercise certain authority and perform certain duties. This is not the case at all, and one would have to stretch and torture the ordinary meaning of these words to suggest that they confer any right on the minister or the appointed official to establish another publication which would have the force of an official Canada Gazette in which these respective orders and regulations must be published. That is the point I make.
It may well be the better part of wisdom for this House to pass clause 10, as it may be necessary to remedy that omission; that is the problem we are facing. The government attempts to show progress by bringing forward many organizational bills. We now have another one before us. I suggest you do not make progress merely by turning your watch ahead 24 hours. You must make progress in many more effective ways. The minister should review the situation and consult with his advisers, perhaps other than the legal ones. I suggested the other day that I would not in any event accept the advice of the Minister of Justice. That was not because he is not a good lawyer, but because he is the Minister of Justice and I would not be entitled to it. Perhaps his legal advisers are wrong, and they have been wrong in the past. It has been my fortune to successfully appeal judgments of various courts. In some cases, officials of the Department of Justice have advised their agents to continue prosecution and higher courts upheld my appeals. Fortunately, they are right most of the time, but there are times when they have been wrong and this may be one of those times.
I urge the Minister of Justice to review this matter. It is difficult to admit that we are not always right. I have been a married man a long time and I find it difficult to admit that I am wrong. As a practising lawyer, and as a member of the Opposition, it is difficult to admit one is wrong. The minister may also find it difficult to admit he is wrong. If he is wrong and clause 10 is now to have a retroactive effect, we should have a look at it to see what that effect will be. We must consider what its total impact will be, particularly having regard to the very important proceedings which have taken place before the courts in the province of Quebec. If we decide, with full knowledge of the facts, that it is competent and proper for us to review the submission we will do so. I do not feel this rather casual manner of bringing this before us will result in obtaining a debate in the House. There-

March 8, 1971

fore, I have for that reason, after some consideration, decided to support my hon. friend from Edmonton.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I shall not be long, and I am sure if the minister finds any comfort in what I say he will regard it as the kind of comfort Job's friends gave Job. The fact is this situation proves that when these mammoth bills which contain many ramifications, such as the government organization bill, come up in this Parliament frequently we would be justified in calling them disorganization bills. I should simply like to quote from chapter 226 of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1952. I refer to section 27, which was wiped out by the reorganization bill of last year. The heading is "Canada Gazette, Etc.". It reads as follows:
The Queen's Printer shall print and publish, or cause to be printed and published, for the Government, under his superintendence, the Statutes of Canada, the official Gazette of Canada, which shall be known as the Canada Gazette,-
I think that is the designation of it right there.
and all such official and departmental and other reports, forms, documents, commissions, and other papers, as he is required to print and publish, or cause to be printed and published, by or under the authority of the Governor in Council; and whatever is printed under his superintendence, by authority of this Act, shall be held to be printed by him.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the rather large mouthful that was knocked out when we passed the reorganization bill last year.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 1. All those in favour of the said motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion (Mr. Lambert, Edmonton West) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to motion No. 2.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I move:
That Bill C-182, An Act to provide for the examination, publication and scrutiny of regulations and other statutory instruments, be amended by deleting paragraph (b) of subclause (2) of clause 11 in lines 33 to 37 at page 7 and substituting therefor:
"(b) it is proved that at the date of the alleged contravention reasonable steps had been taken for the purpose of bringing the purport of the regulation to the notice of the public, or the persons likely to be affected by it, or of the person charged."
Statutory Instruments Act
I do not wish to talk out my motion, Mr. Speaker, or suggest there should be opposition to it. In effect, I am restoring to the act the wording which existed for many years. What it really boils down to is that it is more difficult under the present wording for the Crown to convict on unpublished regulations and is harder for the accused to defend himself. This is the effect of paragraph (b).


An hon. Member:: What was the reason?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If the hon. member would please read the section, he would see that it was in much more general terms. Because of the changes with regard to unpublished regulations there is a strong possibility that by passing clause 10, as we just have, there shall be a retroactive effect in respect of criminal cases now before the courts. I was actually disappointed at the minister's rather too cursory, if I may say so, explanation of the government's case. It was only a slight expansion of what he said in the committee and what he said there was insufficient. I think the minister should explain why he wants to change this exception in paragraph (b).
We are now dealing with clause 11 in the Statutory Instruments Bill, Bill C-182, which proposes to repeal the present Regulations Act and incorporate its provisions in Bill C-182. Clause 11 (2) (b), at page 7 of the reprinted bill, reads:
(b) it is shown that at the date of the alleged contravention reasonable steps had been taken to bring the purport of the regulation to the notice of those persons likely to be affected by it.
If we compare that wording with the wording that has been in existence over a number of years, I would say there is a great deal of difference. First of all, in the proposed law the wording is "it is shown that" whereas in the previous regulations the wording was "it is proved". There is a world of difference between "it is proved" and "it is shown".


Albert Béchard: But the French version reads "s'il est prouve"-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, but I will say that if the French text were faithful to the English one, it would read "s'il est demon-tre", and not "prouve". The texts must agree. If, in the French version, the word "prouve" is used, a proof is required. In English, only a demonstration is required.

So, there is a difference in the wording. Secondly, we come to the question of what persons. The proposed amendment refers to "those persons likely to be affected by it". Who is to judge who is likely to be affected? What the minister is incorporating in his amendment today reminds me of a book by C. K. Allen. If I recall correctly, he might also have attended to lectures of the late Professor Cheshire of Exeter College. The British had the

March 8, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
most fantastic regulations dealing with food production and the marketing of food.
One of the great stories Doctor Cheshire told was when he, on behalf of Exeter College, was duly summoned before a court to answer why the college had either produced too many or too few eggs on some distant farm the college owned in contravention of some government food regulation that had an index number a yard long. When an inquiry was made as to what this regulation was, it was found that the blessed regulation had never even been printed. No one but some dim-witted and very minor official in the food ministry was aware of this regulation. It seems to me that we are getting dangerously close to this when we say here merely "to the notice of those persons likely to be affected by it". Surely, the law has operated satisfactorily. Has there been objection to the wording which existed previously under the Regulations Act? Surely to goodness if we in Canada are going to insist that our courts not only do justice but appear to do justice, it is not asking too much that there be proof the regulation had been drawn to the attention of the person being charged. Surely to goodness, that is different from merely giving notice to the persons likely to be affected by it.
It seems to me that the original language was more felicitous; that is the burden of my argument. I must confess that I did not notice the difference between the English and the French texts, and I thank the parliamentary secretary for bringing it to my attention, but it seems to me that there is a clear difference between the words "shown" and "proved". I ask the minister to answer my point. I am quite prepared to meet him halfway, but let us get this clause straightened out.


John Napier Turner: May I say
first of all, without accepting the hon. member's amendment, that I would be willing to change the word "shown" as it is found in the bill at page 7 in clause 11 (2Kb), the first three words of which read "as it is shown", to "it is proved" to bring it into accord with the French version which reads "s'il est prouve". Both versions would be interpreted together under the Interpretation Act, in any event, so if there is any way of doing that with the unanimous consent of the House, I think that could be registered.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the amendment suggested by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) be adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: Regarding the substance of the hon. member's argument, what he does in his amendment is to attempt to resurrect section 6 (3) of the Regulations Act. Under the law as it now stands, a conviction cannot be obtained unless the regulation is published or, if exempted from publication, it has been brought either to the notice of the public or the persons
likely to be affected, or the person charged has been given notice.
What we have retained in our version are the words "to bring the purport of the regulation to the notice of those persons likely to be affected by it". I want to point out that under the present law these are alternatives, three choices. The law can be satisfied if public notice is given, whether or not the person or class of persons likely to be affected have or have not been notified. We think that is too wide. On the other hand, we think it is too narrow to ensure that a particular person who has been charged has been given notice if he is among a class of people whom the regulation is affecting and should have, in the ordinary course, received notice of it. On the one hand, we think there is not enough protection to the individual, and on the other we think it would be going too far to notify each individual who is a member of a class of persons who have had that notice if general notice has been given to that class of person whether he be a mariner, an airline pilot or someone involved in the d'stribution of eggs or poultry.
If general notice is given to the trade or to a section of the public, and if a person in the ordinary course would have had notice of it as a member of that trade or class of public, then we feel that that is a fair compromise. So, under the present law and under the amendment suggested by the hon. member, the options are too wide and too narrow. An official notice could be published in the Canada without it being brought to the attention of the people likely to be affected, and the conviction would be valid. On the other hand, if it were to be a requirement in every case that everybody affected by the regulation had to be given personal notice before any conviction would be valid, that would be going beyond the realm of common sense. That is why, of the three options now available under the law, we have settled upon the one that brings about a measure of fairness and common sense.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief on this particular amendment. As I understood it, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said that his amendment would put a heavier burden on the Crown and that, on the other hand, it would add to the difficulties of the accused in one of these cases. If that were the correct interpretation, I would be very sympathetic to his amendment. However, as the Minister of Justice pointed out, my impression is that the original clause as it is before us has exactly the opposite effect. The amendment gives three alternative ways in which notice can be imputed to an accused. It can be imputed to him because notice would be given to the public; that is one alternative. It can be imputed to him because persons likely to be affected have received notice, or it can be imputed to him if he himself has received notice. Clause 11 (b), as it stands presently, is restricted to one way in which notice can be imputed, that is when notice has been given to those likely to be affected. It seems to me that that is narrower rather than broader than the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West. For that reason, the expla-

March 8, 1971

nation of the minister is satisfactory to me and I would be disposed to support the original clause rather than the amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have some comments to make, but perhaps I may be allowed first to ask the minister a question which he might see fit to answer now. Having in mind the fact that this provision relates to criminal practice, would it be the opinion of the minister that part of the substance of any charge which would have to be proven by the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt would be the fact that such publicity had been given in such places, in such a way and at such a time, that any person who might be charged with an infraction of the regulation was made aware of it. Would that be the view of the minister? The minister nods his head. The reason I asked the question was that, in my opinion, the difference here was the notice to the public. As has been pointed out the phraseology contained in the legislation we are now considering is, "taken to bring the purport of the regulation to the notice of those persons likely to be affected by it". This is the whole problem so far as ignorance of the law being no excuse is concerned.
In this place we may deal with a very serious amendment to the Criminal Code, as we did last year and as we may be doing later this year. It is not part of the basis of any successful prosecution to be able to establish that a person charged with a breach of a new offence, no matter how substantial an offence, knew of that change. Are there any classical scholars here who know about the Roman emperor who, being compelled to publish his laws, published them on tablets of stone but hung the tablets up so high that nobody could read them? I would have been happier if the word "public" appeared in that clause because you could have imported from the word "public" that it was essential the regulations had been given such notice and notoriety that any member of the public would be aware of them. The reason for that provision is that regulations are usually passed and proclaimed in the secrecy of cabinet offices. I am not saying that is wrong, but I point out the contrast. When we debate legislative changes in this House, with the aid of our friends in the press gallery, a certain amount of attention is given to the changes.
There is one other matter which I should draw to the minister's attention. One of the reasons we are in this difficulty, which has prompted the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) to move his amendment, is that the minister and his officials did not pay enough attention to what the committee suggested. I will not go into that now. I will be able to show later on, when dealing with one of the amendments, the limited extent to which the government has moved in complying with the committee's recommendations. However, I know that any response appears to constitute a magnificent effort because before this legislation we had nothing, and now even going forward a modest few feet looks to be quite a feat for the government.
If we look at the third report of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments we find one important recom-
Statutory Instruments Act
mendation on page 91. This recommendation resulted from a substantial debate in the committee as well as the views expressed by the people who appeared before the committee. My hon. friend from Greenwood was quite concerned about this; in fact he and I were both concerned about it. Recommendation No. 9 on page 91 reads:
Before making regulations, regulation-making authorities should engage in the widest feasible consultation, not only with the most directly affected persons-
They would be those covered by the wording in the legislation.
-but also with the public at large where this would be relevant. Where a large body of new regulations is contemplated, the government should consider submitting a White Paper, stating its views as to the substance of the regulations, to the appropriate Standing Committee. When enabling provisions and statutes are being drawn, consideration should be given to providing some type of formalized hearings on consultation procedures where appropriate.
Later on when we came to making suggestions as to the form of the scrutiny committee that should be established, this was one of the proposals which would invest that committee with some form of authority. I recognize that a recommendation of that kind cannot be fully implemented and incorporated into a statute but I do think that those who drafted this bill might have seen fit to incorporate somewhere, as a matter of principle, that regulations, as defined in the bill, should be submitted to this process of consultation with those members of the public most directly concerned.
The preface to the report contains this paragraph, Mr. Speaker:
This report is based on the assumption that public knowledge of governmental activities is the basis of all control of delegated legislation. For parliamentary democracy is a system of government which requires that the executive be responsible to the legislature and that both be accountable to the people, and there can be neither responsibility nor accountability where there is no knowledge of what has been done. In political matters knowledge is the beginning of power, and its lack, impotence.
I quote those words to show that I am quite disappointed there was not in the legislation, not so much in the actual operative sections, but at least in the form of the preamble, a statement of principle to indicate that it was the intention of this parliament to direct the government, to engage in the widest possible measure of consultation before regulations are drafted. If that had been done, we would not have needed to worry about the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton West. I must express my regret that it was not done. I hope that when this bill, which does break some new ground, is considered for review something of that kind will be done so that the government of Canada, whatever party forms that government, will have no doubt of what we intended when we were giving directions to the government at this time.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the committee referred to by the hon. member who just sat down. I think it might be interesting to note that on many occasions we did give earnest consideration to how regulations, orders and

March 8, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
other statutory instruments could affect the lives of people. Perhaps I could note two specific examples that came to mind. We could set up a regulation involving beekeepers, and the likeliest way of getting that to the attention of beekeepers would be to see it got into the hands of people who publish magazines specifically directed to the beekeeping trade. But then there was the other problem that every few months a division of the Department of Transport issues suggestions for the operation of airplanes by the airplane pilots of Canada. Mr. Speaker, as you would know from your legal background a suggestion as to proper conduct or standards of conduct, set forth in something like that would, if breached, at least give a prima facie appearance of negligence.
Yet we knew it would be futile to suggest that something perhaps as thick as Eaton's catalogue, being altered every few months by tearing out some pages and replacing them with others, should be published for the public at large. So, in a variety of ways, we did suggest means by which public notice could be given if public notice were required, or special notice could be given if special notice were required. I think, therefore, that what the minister has put in his proposed clause 11, subject to the requests we have made, probably better meets what the committee felt was the best approach for it. The words used are "reasonable steps," but the obligation is still on the Crown to prove that reasonable steps were taken. If an airline pilot is sent a handbook and doesn't read it, I think it is a fact that the reasonable step has been taken to bring it to his attention. If somebody subscribes to a fisherman's magazine in which there is something particularly pertinent to him but he tosses it in the wastepaper basket, I think one could say that reasonable steps have been taken in that regard as well.
I understand that the wording of the motion of my learned friend from Edmonton West was not that far from the minister's and now that the minister has amended the wording the hon. member would ask leave of Your Honour to withdraw his motion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, having-heard the explanation from the minister and the change in the wording, with the leave of my seconder, I would ask permission of the House to withdraw the motion. I hope we do not regret this particular step. I think there are still some difficulties, but I am not going to be that difficult myself. I would, therefore, ask permission of the House to withdraw my amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to give permission but the eloquent plea of the hon. member for Edmonton West has persuaded me, and the mute appeal of the Minister of Justice has reinforced that determination.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we withdraw the proposed amendment, I should like to know if it is withdrawn what happens to the commitment of the minister to change the word "shown" to "proved"? Will that have
to be moved as a separate amendment, or amend this motion, striking out all the words except the words after "proved"?


John Napier Turner: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Chair could correct me but I think the committee accepted this change of the word "shown" to the word "proved" in the text of the bill. It is pretty loose procedure-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: On the point of order, may we just review that so that the Chair and hon. members are agreed? Is it the understanding that by agreement there was an order that the bill be amended by inserting clause ll(2)(b) in the English version the word "proved" for the word "shown"?


John Napier Turner: Line 33.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That was agreed. Is it agreed that the hon. member's amendment be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Lambert, Edmonton West) withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River on a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The next motion is an exceedingly important one. Having in mind the importance of private members' hour, I nevertheless wonder if there is a disposition on the part of the House for Your Honour to take a hasty look at the clock and say that it is five o'clock now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I look at the clock and ask hon. members for consent, perhaps I might refer to amendments Nos. 3 and 4. These have reference to the same clause of the bill, and in substance I think are essentially the same amendment. I wonder if the hon. members who moved the amendments might agree that they could be debated together in the one debate, and then if we so wish we could deal with them in separate votes.


Gerald William Baldwin: I would think so, Mr. Speaker. Although my hon. friend from Edmonton West and I, through a process of intellectual osmosis, have arrived at the same decision, nevertheless he has gone a little further on collateral issues and has made proposals which I have not dealt with in my amendment. While I think we are ad idem in most aspects, there is this difference. However, for the purpose of debate I think it would be much better if we could debate both issues and the Chair would not call us to order if we happened to deal with an aspect of the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton West which was not included in my amendment.


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will agree with that, particularly since it will be interest-

March 8, 1971

ing to see how the two hon. members will reconcile the amendments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed that motions Nos. 3 and 4 will be dealt with in the same debate and hon. members will vote on them separately.
Is it agreed that the Chair shall now call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville) moved:: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that the Governor in Council will amend the regulations under the Income Tax Act whereby the deduction in computing income allowed self-employed professionals, tradesmen and workmen in respect of capital costs of tools necessary to their trade and similar property be extended to all professionals, tradesmen and workmen, whether self-employed or otherwise who must purchase themselves such property in the course of their employment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I very much welcome the opportunity to again pursue the subject matter contained in this resolution. Basically, the resolution sets out to allow all tradesmen, workmen and professionals, whether selfemployed or otherwise, the opportunity of deducting for income tax purposes any capital costs for tools and other equipment necessary in the discharge of their occupation.
When this resolution was before the House during the last session, it provided an opportunity for hon. members to express their reactions to the intent of my proposal. Upon listening to the remarks of those members who engaged in the debate, and upon subsequently reviewing their contributions in Hansard, I must say that I was gratified by their support and their acknowledgement of the fact that this inequity should be removed..
I was gratified by the remarks of the hon. member for North York (Mr. Danson) who stated, as reported at page 6316 of Hansard:
What we are looking at is the process of examining our tax structure and the hon. member's notice of motion, I think, should be given very serious consideration.
I want to thank the hon. member for those remarks because I think throughout the debate the spirit and the intent of my submission has drawn support from both sides of the House.
However regretfully, that is about as far as the government members went. They agreed that the act was dis-
Income Tax Act
criminatory, that it was inequitable. They agree that something should be done. They agreed that the resolution was, in fact, meritorious. However, they then proceeded to cite numerous reasons, all of which were superfluous, which in their opinion, would make it difficult to incorporate the substance of the resolution into the act. The solution they offered in their submission was the rapid implementation of the Benson white paper on tax reform which, I submit, does not even render the slightest acknowledgement to problems which this resolution sets out to overcome.
At this point in time we have not seen the legislation which has continued to emanate from the proposals for tax reform. Judging from the committee reports of the House of Commons and the other place, together with the remarks of the three hon. members opposite who spoke last year during the debate on this resolution, I am fairly well convinced that the new legislation will give absolutely no consideration to the object of my submission.
I may also say that in my opinion, contrary to the opinions of hon. members opposite who spoke on this resolution, the white paper offers no solution to the discriminatory aspects of the Income Tax Act that is contained in the resolution which has been introduced. As a matter of fact, it completely disregards the subject matter which I hope this resolution will overcome. I am not going to reiterate or cite the numerous reasons for the introduction of my resolution and, of course, the logical need for incorporating such a measure. All hon. members who spoke supported the principle and the intent of the suggestion, but had reservations about the manner in which I proposed it might be incorporated.
I believe that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) pointed out a valid observation in his presentation when he suggested that the Governor in Council did not have the power under the Income Tax Act to amend the regulations to incorporate the purpose of my notice of motion. He further stated that, in his opinion, in order to accomplish the purpose of this motion an amendment to the act would be required rather than to the regulations. He referred specifically to section 5 of the Income Tax Act.
I thank the hon. member for his submission and also for the fact that he was not quite as cynical as the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) when he placed his support and his evidence before the House. I must say that the hon. member for Calgary South spoke in such an authoritative and critical manner that any sympathy he may have felt for the notice of motion was completely obscured. What I want to do today is outline specifically the relative ease with which this motion could be adopted and incorporated into the regulations by the Governor in Council under the authority of the Financial Administration Act.
Under section 22, subsections (1) and (2), of the Financial Administration Act, the Governor in Council can effectively amend both the Income Tax Act and the regulations. Those specific subsections of section 22 read as follows:

March 8, 1971
Income Tax Act
22. (1) The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Treasury Board, whenever he considers it in the public interest, may remit any tax, fee or penalty.
(2) A remission pursuant to this section may be total or partial, conditional or unconditional, and may be granted-
The subsection goes on to cite three specific ways in which this may be granted. I wish to refer specifically to subparagraph (c), which reads:
in the case of a tax or fee, in any particular ease or class of case and before the liability therefor arises.
If we apply this provision we shall see the result is that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Income Tax Act or any regulations thereunder, the Governor in Council can by Order in Council legally amend, revoke or render invalid the provisions of the Income Tax Act or the regulations thereunder in respect of any case or class of case before the liability under the Income Tax Act arises. Therefore, the Governor in Council could immediately for the taxation year, 1970-71, and for that matter any subsequent years or past years, extend the deduction presently allowed to self employed professionals, tradesmen and workmen who, by reason of their duties, are required to incur capital costs because of their particular type of work. This, I submit, can be done without any change in the statute, and it would be in harmony with the public interest, simply by remitting by Order in Council the tax which would otherwise be payable.
There are numerous precedents to substantiate this procedure. One merely has to look at the Public Accounts. I am referring specifically to Volume 2 of the 1969 edition. If one examines this Volume one will see examples to prove that this method has been used on numerous occasions and continues to be applied with relative ease. May I add here, also, that this is done with very little public attention, and little regard to the utilization, appropriation or misappropriation of public funds.
If we look at page 27-4 of the 1969 Volume 2 edition of Public Accounts, we shall find a review of all the motor vehicle companies which failed to live up to the terms of the Canada-U.S. Auto Pact and which were subsequently granted remission of customs duty and sales tax on certain motor vehicles, parts and accessories. We find that American Motors (Canada) Ltd. was granted $3 million approximately; Mack Truck Manufacturing Company of Canada Ltd. was granted $1,373,000 approximately, and that International Harvester Company of Canada Limited, was granted $3,747,000 approximately. Then, we come to a huge remission. Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited was granted $100,528,394. It seems strange and conspicuous that one of the most ardent promoters of the auto pact, Ford Motor Company, was the first company to fail to live up to the terms of the Canada-U.S. Auto Pact. I submit that it is certainly the company that can be charged with the highest degree of guilt in confiscating Canadian funds. It is quite obvious that the government has acquiesced in what has happened and accommodated the company, and that the government has allowed its powers to be "superimposed" by those of the Ford Company. I submit that if that does not mean special status, then the auto pact is not a reality.
Let us look at other examples of the government's utilization of the power under the Financial Administration Act. Under the category of "other remissions" on page 27-23, we find income tax remissions granted under "class of case" rather than to individuals. For instance, P.C. 1968-832, of April 30, 1968, authorized the remission of the amount of tax or penalty payable by any person under Part III of the Income Tax Act on interest on first mortgage bonds issued by Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited. On that same page we can see a classic example of the retroactive powers of the Financial Administration Act. These are spelled out in instrument No. P.C. 1969-16/151 of January 28, 1969, which authorized the remission of income tax, interest and penalties to certain members of the Hutterian Brethren Church for taxation years 1961 to 1967. The rest of the notation under that item reads:
A study concluded that where the land and other assets, also profits arising from farming or other activities, are registered or held in the name of an incorporated company as nominees for the common use of each and all of the members, such colony or corporation is not taxable under the Income Tax Act but each member of a colony must include on his income his share of the profit attributable to the farming or business activities carried on by the colony of which he is a member. In the past, the. majority of the members of the Hutterian Brethren Colonies did not apply for and did not receive payments under the Family Allowance Act and the Old Age Pension Act to which they would have been entitled if they had applied. The portion of income tax and interest that would otherwise be payable by the members based on the foregone amounts of family allowances and old age pension is therefore remitted, also penalties for late filing income tax returns for the years 1961 to 1966.
I submit that these two examples clearly illustrate that an accommodation, as suggested in the notice of motion, could easily be made under this act. That would avoid the discrepancies and inequities that are inherent in the present situation.
May I cite other examples of remissions, to be found at page 27-23. Some notable individuals are listed there. For example, we find the name of Mr. Lucien Saulnier. The notation reads:
P.C. 1968-15/2101, November 19, 1968, authorized the remission of income tax and interest paid in respect of the 1963 taxation year. It has now been ascertained that income tax and interest in the above amount were levied in error by a re-assessment issued in 1964-
That remission was $8,424. There is another one involving a gentleman by the name of Mr. Ivan Head, who is now a special advisor to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), as follows:
P.C. 1968/1189, June 28, 1968, authorized the remission of income tax applicable to 1967 and 1968 taxation years payable by Professor Ivan Head on $120 per month living allowance paid to him under the terms of an agreement with the Minister of Justice in connection with a special study of the Canadian Constitution.
With these examples, Mr. Speaker, I say to those members on the government side who were sympathetic to my resolution but who tried to confuse the issue that whether we set out to amend the regulations, or in fact the act,

March 8, 1971

the government does have the power to carry out the intent of my resolution under the Financial Administration Act. It is nonsense to suggest that the government cannot undertake to incorporate into the regulations the provisions of the resolution I have submitted for the consideration of the House. The government can undertake to incorporate my resolution, if it so desires. All it needs to do is seriously consider my proposal. I suggest to them that if they have any doubts perhaps they might be wise to consult with the Prime Minister or his special advisor, Mr. Ivan Head, as to the validity of my proposal.
It is in a spirit of genuine concern for those workmen who, as I have suggested, are being discriminated against under the provisions of the Income Tax Act that I again introduce this motion with the hope that all hon. members will endorse it and that the government will immediately and effectively act upon it. Then, the principle of fair and equitable taxation may, in fact, become a reality at least for this category of employees. I might add that after having tested the feasibility of such a remission in this present tax year, and perhaps subsequent years, the government might very well make the remission permanent by an amendment to the Income Tax Act.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


[Stage Direction]
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Richard): Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Bat-tleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson)-Consumer Affairs- Request for investigation of spread in pork prices; the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom)- Youth-Cancellation of conference sponsored by Canadian Council on Social Development.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that the Governor in Council will amend the regulations under the Income Tax Act whereby the deduction in computing income allowed self-employed professionals, tradesmen and workmen in respect of capital costs of tools necessary to their trade and similar property be extended to all professionals, tradesmen and workmen, whether self-employed or otherwise who must purchase themselves such property in the course of their employment.
Income Tax Act
Mr. Aurelien Noel (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place, I am sorry to say that I do not agree with the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) who thinks that the new act will not take into account the existing injustices in the old act, and that nobody seems to care. I think that his assertion is spiteful and should not appear in Hansard.
I do not agree either with the statement he has just made about Section 22, i.e. that the Governor in Council can amend the Income Tax Act in any of the circumstances he mentioned.
He has done a good, not to say exhaustive job to find particular cases. I commend him for looking into all those documents and finding innumerable particular cases, but one has to refer to the act, after all, and the act is clear about this.
Section 5(1) of the Income Tax Act, which lists some items that must be included in computing income from an office or employment and some items which may be deducted, provides that there can be no other deduction of any nature.
One must distinguish between an office and employment, and income from property or a profession, from a trade or business.
The distinction is absolutely vital when the taxpayer is computing his income tax. In this respect, the Income Tax Act is exceedingly restrictive, if I may say so.
Section 12(1) of the act provide that:
In computing income, no deduction shall be made in respect of (a) an outlay or expense except to the extent that it was made or incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of gaining or producing income from property or a business of the taxpayer,
The act marks the difference between "wages" and "income", between "wages" and "fees", between "wages" and "income from property or a business", and this is very important.
There are doubtful cases and only in such instances is the Governor in Council allowed to give the benefit of the doubt to a taxpayer who has apparently been wronged.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What was doubtful about the Ford Motor Company?


Aurélien Noël: That is exactly the case. It comes within the scope of a policy to assist a concern which needed to create employment in a region of the country. This again is a special case.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to proceed as I have several points to make. In view of the clearly established regulations concerning deductions, officials of the Department of National Revenue do not have authority to allow a worker to deduct the cost of his tools or a lawyer in receipt of a salary to deduct certain expenses.

March 8, 1971
Income Tax Act
A physician employed by a firm or an insurance company is not authorized to deduct the books or instruments he needs. These expenses are supposed to be paid by the insurance company or the firm employing him.
There are rather subtle distinctions to be made, in the Income Tax Act, and it is the Regulations, that have been established over the years that enable the taxpayer to interpret the act accurately in such cases.
Also, not only are the Income Tax Division employees not authorized to allow certain deductions of this type, but even the Governor in Council is not authorized to enact a regulation authorizing such deductions because the act clearly says that no deduction other than those specified will be allowed.
I believe the Income Tax Act should be amended by Parliament because it alone has the right to do so.
I have been hearing for some time in the House that the act is what the government makes it, which is not true. The government is obliged to administer act as edicted by Parliament.
Consequently, to implement the proposed motion, Parliament should pass legislation. That is exactly what the government is proposing to the Canadian people. In fact, since 1962, it has tried to correct the many deficiencies which are to be found in the Income Tax Act. And this is what can be read in paragraph 1.2 of the white paper:
For most of this decade the strengths and weaknesses of the income tax system have been studied closely and debated vigorously. Widespread recognition of defects in the system led in 1962 to the appointment of the Royal Commission on Taxation, with the late Mr. Kenneth Carter as chairman. In its monumental report published early in 1967

-five years later! For five years, the possibility of improving the Income Tax Act was under study-
[DOT]-the commission made serious criticisms of the existing law and proposed some fundamental changes. A vigorous public debate arose over the commission's report and the government received many letters and briefs concerning it.
If one wishes to read some interesting matter, one can read the briefs prepared by individuals, big companies, small companies, finance companies. Some were trying to throw discredit on the Carter report, others approved of it in part and I know of only one who was in favour of the whole report.
That being the case, the new government got busy looking for some other means of amending the Income Tax Act and of making it more humane, more just.
Therefore, after thorough studies and in the light of the sound principles outlined in the Carter Report, the white paper was drafted based on the following philosophy, and I quote:
Let us look at the main points to be met:
Canadians In the lower Income tax brackets face a heavy total tax burden.
This answers the argument of my hon. colleague. An effort is being made to relieve the fiscal burden of the small taxpayer. I continue the quotation:
In recent years sales taxes and property taxes have been increased substantially. Where changes in the income tax can provide relief, it must be given to those with lower incomes. The government proposes increases in the exemptions to ease the burden on these individuals and families.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vegreville will be pleased by this: We aim at easing the tax burden of small taxpayers, because they cannot deduct certain unavoidable expenses. To remedy the situation a new bill will soon be put, I hope, before Parliament, and not before the Governor General in Council, and the hon. member will then have the right to make himself heard.
There is another most important thing: we want to stop the abuses committed concerning the Income Tax Act. I keep on quoting from the white paper:
Important forms of income and benefits escape taxation. The government proposes to bring them into taxable income.
In particular, a tax on capital gains is proposed. Some people spend their life consulting with experts so as to achieve, instead of an income, a capital gain which, according to the present Income Tax Act, is not taxable. Capital gains are not taxable, and it is proposed to remedy this situation. I keep on quoting:
Wage earners are unable to deduct many legitimate expenses from taxable income. New deductions would be introduced to benefit employees and working mothers.
The answer to the motion under consideration has appeared in the white paper since November 1969. We are therefore partly acquainted with the government attitude, as stated in its white paper.
Now, to be more specific let us see what the white paper says in connection with employment expenses. Paragraphs 2.10, 2.11, 2.12 and 2.13 make clear what are the objects of the white paper, even if they are not flawless. The authors address the taxpayers in the following terms: Gentlemen, we wish to correct some deficiencies of the present Income Tax Act, but at the same time we do not intend to create new abuses. This is precisely the difficulty.
We have asked ourselves if we should accept as allowable expense any cast incurred by a laborer, such as the purchase of tools as well as the depreciation on them. What would then happen? Tradesmen would continually ask accountants to compute the depreciation on their immobilized assets for their income tax return. Such a procedure would needlessly complicate things.
So the simple rule contained in the white paper was decided upon. It is not the present law which could be criticized leisurely. The white paper says that it was concluded it would be better to allow these tradesmen a deduction of 3 per cent of their annual income. That was the best proposal for the time being and the people could be given the opportunity of expressing their views.
Here is what some people said. I shall quote only a few because the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs spent the summer reading briefs. We know for a fact that some are opposed to the 3 per cent deduction up to $150.

March 8, 1971

There were numerous briefs about employment expenses. I shall read excerpts of a few that criticize, some quite severely, the new fiscal proposal.
For instance, let us take professional engineers who incur expenses in the practice of their profession. Here is what they say:
Although we welcome the proposal, we feel it is inadequate.
I understand that; I would dearly like to pay little income tax.
The costs to the members of the liberal professions often exceed the maximum deduction allowed of $150.
I quite agree.
It is recommended that the 3 per cent maximum of the net income be retained, but that the limit of $150 apply only when it is not supported by proper receipts.
If a carpenter bought $500 worth of tools, every year he has to figure out the depreciation on each tool and jot it down on a piece of paper. Then, at the end of the year, he tells himself: I have to produce receipts. Does he have time to think of keeping his receipts? He has time to work, to earn a living, but not for accounting. Let every man stick to his trade, and the cows will be well looked after.
I shall now deal with the brief of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. I feel they are well qualified to express an opinion on the question.
The brief of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants reads as follows:
It would be useless to authorize or force taxpayers to seek deduction for different expenses connected with their employment, because the administrative difficulties involved would far outweigh the slight increase in fairness which would result.
In another paragraph it is recommended to find some empiric scheme to allow small workers, small tradesmen who work for somebody else to deduct a certain sum of money which can be cumulative.
If one can deduct $150 a year for tools, in five years one will have quite a chest of tools.
The provisions of paragraphs 2.10, 2.11 and 2.12 are fair. I see nothing but fairness there.
One can read the following:
The commission recommended that expenses be deductible from wages or salaries if "reasonably related"-
This is the key word:
-"reasonably related"-
In the implementation of the Income Tax Act, one may find all kinds of abuses. Some are really deliberate but others are due to absent-mindedness or ignorance. That is what the law wishes to avoid by using a fixed term. That fixed term could be changed according to the comments on the part of the various public and private corporations, individuals, the Bankers' Association and other bodies. Only a few made recommendations, like the Canadian Conference of the Arts, the Canadian Bankers'
Income Tax Act
Association and the Canadian Welfare Council. According to the latter, the method is good and could perhaps be improved somewhat.
The Canadian Bar Association, the Government of Ontario and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce also voiced their opinion.
To summarize my thought I shall say that the legislation is not made but it is being made. Everybody will have a chance to express his opinion in this regard. Its object is to protect the small wage earner. That is what my dear colleague was referring to when he spoke of the possibility of amending the law through regulations enacted by the Governor in Council.
The motion is not complete because it does not indicate clearly whether the proposed deduction would be granted as to the cost of all tools bought by individuals in the course of their employment or if it would be granted only in cases where the individual is not repaid for such costs by his employer. It should be more precise, should it not? Legislation must be clear, because people will give it different interpretations.
The Governor in Council, as I just said, cannot amend legislation through regulations if the question was not examined by Parliament.
Finally, why should such a motion be presented when we are in the process of amending the law with a view to improving the plight of the weak and to making the law more human?


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the notice of motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is one that deserves very serious consideration by the House, perhaps at this time particularly when we understand that before long the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will be bringing in amendments to the Income Tax Act and advocating them as reforms of our tax laws. The subject matter of this motion has been discussed at length in the House for a number of years. If the Minister of Finance fails to act on this kind of suggestion, then as far as I am concerned he will not be moved very far in the direction that I think should be apparent in necessary reform of the Income Tax Act.
The motion of the hon. member suggests that tradesmen and workmen who require, as necessary to their employment, certain tools should be in the same position under our tax laws whether they are self-employed or work for wages or salaries. This is a subject I have been raising in one way or another in this House since I first became a member in 1953. I have made various attempts to amend income tax proposals by the government. Most of my amendments have been ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker on the ground that they would affect the balance of ways and means and, therefore, could only properly be introduced by a minister of the Crown.
I would remind the hon. member for Vegreville that among past Ministers of Finance I have had the experience of pleading with Hon. Donald Fleming, who became Minister of Finance after the 1957 election and, more


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson).


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to thank you for referring to my constituency as York North. My hon. friend from Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) referred to it as North York. North York is a municipality and York North is one of the finest constituencies in this land. It is like referring to the hon. member for Vegreville as the hon. member for Ville Vegre. I suppose members on the other side of the House do get things backward at times.
I am delighted that the hon. member has again brought forward this motion. We discussed it briefly during the hearings in respect of the white paper on tax reform. Some of us who were involved in those hearings were delighted to have the opportunity to discuss this matter in order to amplify our thoughts. This is one area the committee did not find particularly controversial. I should not deal with the legalities of the motion because these were dealt with ably by my colleague from Ou-tremont (Mr. Noel).
There are probably all sorts of interesting stories one could relate in respect of the Financial Administration Act, and I would be glad to discuss some of them over a Coke later with the hon. member. We are talking about a matter that was discussed in considerable detail. We tried to arrive at the fairest solution, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) stated and has been stating since 1963. He is probably a man well ahead of his time. As I said, this matter was discussed at the hearings of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. It is a fact that some people must have books and typewriters, and Members of Parliament have numerous expenses none of which are deductible.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the report of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs relating to the white paper proposals on tax reform. I

March 8, 1971

refer to sections 2 to 15, but more specifically to sections
2	to 13. A general deduction for employment expenses at
3	per cent of gross employment income up to $150 is proposed. We heard a great deal of comment on this. I should not say a great deal of comment; we heard from many people but it was not highly controversial because we tried to arrive at something fair and reasonable. The comments which appear on page 16 of the committee's report are as follows:
It has long been recognized by taxpayers, and by the courts- both here and in Britain-that discrimination exists in the tax system against employees in the matter of deductible expenses. The self-same expenses are often deductible where a person is self-employed and not deductible where he is an employee; the height of absurdity is reached when one person acts in both capacities and receives different tax treatment for the same expenses.
Recognition by the government of this discrimination, through the white paper proposal to allow employees a certain measure of relief, has been generally welcomed.
I believe that has been inspired by members of the House on all sides, such as the hon. member for Vegre-ville, or the hon. member for Ville Vegre.
Its form, however is open to criticism. Some briefs have pointed out that the maximum of $150 a year is too much for some employees and too little for others. Those who do not in fact incur many, or any, expenses would benefit unduly; those who incur more than $150 would be unjustly penalized.
The ideal solution would be for all employees to submit detailed and authenticated claims, but the problems of administration and compliance that this would involve, and for very little result, seem to rule this out and to make some flat allowance, based on a percentage of gross earnings and with a ceiling-as proposed in the white paper-the only practicable way to deal with the majority of employees.
There seems to be no valid reason, however, why those who have higher expenses should not be permitted to itemize and claim them, if properly substantiated. Since it seems likely that relatively few employees would avail themselves of this, the administrative burden would probably not be unduly heavy- probably not nearly as heavy as that involved in handling the claims of the self-employed-and justice would be done. Most briefs have advocated that this choice be given.
o (5:50 p.m.)
It may be noted that in the United States employees may itemize and claim deductions of all "ordinary and necessary" expenses in the same way as the self-employed. Employees are still not quite as generously treated as the self-employed, however. The self-employed may deduct all "ordinary and necessary" expenses from gross income in arriving at "adjusted gross income", and take the standard deduction as well, while employees may deduct from gross income only expenses in four specified categories-reimbursed expenses, travel expenses away from home, transportation expenses and expenses of outside salesmen-and must then take either the standard deduction or their itemized expenses.
However, the United States law does recognize the basic principle that an employee has a right to deduct ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in carrying on his work.
We note that the revenue cost of the white paper proposals to allow the employees' general deduction, moving expenses and others amounts to 235 million. We therefore hesitate to suggest that employees' deduction should be broadened. We recommend, however, because the principle is one of equity, that this be considered as soon as revenue needs permit, and employees given the option to itemize, substantiate and claim deduction of all expenses "laid out or incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income", in the same way as the self-employed now do under section 12 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Act.
Income Tax Act
That is the recommendation. The recommendations of the committee of the other place, as they appear at page 53 of their report, items 5 and 6, simply concur without comment with the recommendation and proposals which are on page 16. Those are the findings of the committee, after much study.
A great Talmudic scholar once said that to understand the Bible you have to understand the golden rule, and the rest is just commentary. My submission is that we understand the intent of the white paper proposals and that of the report of the committee. We can comment indefinitely because we really had to strike a balance between trying to achieve equity and maintaining the necessary revenue. The revenue consequences are serious indeed. In effect, we are suggesting that what appeared to be a highly acceptable proposal to those who appeared before the committee be implemented when the tax reform proposals are implemented in the House, and if and when revenue consequences permit that this principle be extended further.
We recognize the immense administrative burdens that this could cause. On the other hand there was a case for equity. I recall quite vividly, and probably so do my colleagues in the committee many of whom are here in the House today, trying to define what is a fair figure if we had to hit an average figure for purposes of balance in our report so that the majority of the people would be properly protected under this provision and it is different from general expense deduction, that is, 3 per cent of income up to $150. I was satisfied that it was equitable and perhaps even overgenerous, using the term generous in the more technical sense, than in most cases where tools are purchased; and I have had experience with this.
It is not perfect by far, but in the majority of cases it is adequate and fair. I think that is the most we can hope to achieve. Perhaps we strive for perfection; but like all ideals, you strive for it and perhaps never achieve it. I think we had to strike a reasonable balance and that in this proposal we achieved it, not only because of the many submissions put before us but because of the submissions made by hon. members such as the hon. member for Vegreville and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I could go on further but there are in the House today colleagues of mine who served on that committee and I think it would be wise if they were given an opportunity to express their views on this worth-while motion.


Mr. Jacques L. Trudel (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I have carefully listened to the motion of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) who is arguing that we should amend the Income Tax Law, with a view to meeting a genuine need, through the governor in council.
Some procedure, which has certainly been discussed by my colleagues, is under completion.
A moment ago, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) said that he has been presenting similar motions to the House since 1953. The member for Vegre-

March 8, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
ville referred to a motion which he has again moved. I suggest that the procedure they have chosen to follow was not the right one and that we should rather support the government's proposal. Surely this request is legitimate and deserves special attention.
I would like to emphasize, as my colleague for Ou-tremont (Mr. Noel) said previously, that the hon. member, to support his motion, has been resorting to the rule of exceptions rather than speaking about the substance of the motion. In a lengthy speech, he has been referring to exceptional cases and I think that, by so doing, he has very much jeopardized his position.
The hon. member for Outremont has quite masterfully explained the Income Tax Law. He has quoted sections 4 and 5 of the law. Moreover, he has alluded to section 12. I do not want to repeat what he said, but I should stress that he has demonstrated quite scientifically indeed how the Income Tax Act applies and how it must be amended.
Now he referred to the submissions heard by the committee. I must point out that these submissions were not unanimous in their contentions. Some people were entirely agreeable to the provisions of the white paper. Others however, members of totally different professions, spoke of both independent workers and employees who eventually become employers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair.

I have been sitting here for many weeks during private members' hour and have enjoyed very much listening to hon. members who have spoken. Perhaps they are the best debaters in the House. May I repeat what I have said previously, that it is unfortunate that certain debates have to be sandwiched into one hour.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe that just prior to 5 p.m. it was agreed that motions Nos. 3 and 4 would be debated as one question and that votes would be taken separately if requested or required. The motions will now be put. Mr. Baldwin, seconded by Mr. Bell, moves motion No. 3 as follows:
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 26 at pages 12 and 13 and substituting therefor:
''26. (1) Every statutory instrument issued, made or established, other than an instrument the inspection of which and the obtaining of copies of which are precluded by any regulations made pursuant to paragraph (d) of section 27, shall stand permanently referred to a committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses of Parliament that shall be established before the coming into force of this act for the purpose of reviewing and scrutinizing statutory instruments.
(2)	The Standing Orders of the House of Commons that are applicable to a standing committee of that House shall apply to the committee established under subsection (1).
(3)	Where a statutory instrument stands referred to such committee, the committee has, in respect of such statutory instrument, the power to recommend that the same be approved, varied or repealed."
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West), seconded by Mr. Fair-weather, moves motion No. 4 as follows:
That Bill C-182, an act to provide for the examination, publication and scrutiny of regulations and other statutory instruments, be amended by renumbering clause 26 thereof as 26 (1) and adding the following:
" (2) The said committee further shall have the power to recommend by way of report to the House of Commons the amendment, replacement of annulment of any statutory instrument referred to it.
(3) 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 fifteen sitting days after the tabling thereof in the same session, if such be possible, or within the first twenty sitting days in the next session following and any debate thereon shall continue subject to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, until the report shall have been finally disposed of."
As I have indicated, the discussion will take place on both motions, Nos. 3 and 4, at the same time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bechard) is here and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is coming in. I am glad to see him here also.


John Napier Turner: I would not miss it.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am particularly glad to see the minister here because earlier in the discussion on the motion put by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), when I was emboldened to point out that in my opinion the bill is a very skimpy edition of the proposals and recommendations contained in the report of the committee, the minister looked at me silently and reproachfully as if he were not ready to give much credibility to that statement. I could understand that coming from any other minister, but I think the Minister of Justice has read the committee report and I am convinced he will accept the fact that the bill is but a weak and puny version of the very reasonable and substantial recommendations made by the committee. I would have expected that kind of reaction from some of his colleagues who embrace the worst characteristics of the politician and civil servant combined-

March 8, 1971


Stanley Howard Knowles: How many are there in that category?


Gerald William Baldwin: I am not on the roster to answer questions today, otherwise I would. But I am sure the smelling-salts would have been brought down from their resting place in the cabinet room when the report of the committee was first circulated and read, because it contains recommendations and proposals which, while not going as far as I or some of my colleagues would have liked-those in my party and in the NDP-nevertheless it did make a very substantial beginning in dealing with this problem which we in Canada have neglected for a great many years.
I think on that point we can all reach agreement, Mr. Speaker. Other jurisdictions have dealt with it-the United Kingdom, the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, and so on-but in Canada we have not done anything about it. So when the committee laboured and finally produced what I thought was a pretty good report, I wondered how far it would get in cabinet and in the senior ranks of the civil service. Obviously there are recommendations in it which must be repugnant to senior civil servants for many years-I do not say this uncharitably and unkindly-have been used to having their own way, when it comes to the enactment of regulations and Orders in Council, without too much challenge in this House or in Parliament. I fully expected that some of the minister's colleagues who take the same position as civil servants would have felt the same way-but I did not think the minister would. I think he was just kidding me a little when he tried to intimate that so far as this bill is concerned it is a fair and accurate reflection of the committee's proposal.
It is true that the clause in respect of which my amendment has been moved does to a very limited extent follow the proposals of the committee. But I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it was one of those compromises which all committees have to work to achieve. I wanted the committee of scrutiny, which was to be set up by clause 26, to go a lot further in dealing with questions which were thought suitable for discussion and action by a parliamentary committee. But because we in the committee obtained agreement to other things, 1 was prepared to go along with this clause. As a foundation for my argument I would read the pertinent parts of clause 26 as follows:
Every statutory Instrument issued, made or established alter the coming into force of this act, other than an instrument the inspection of which and the obtaining of copies of which are precluded by any regulations made pursuant to paragraph (d) of section 27, 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.
The first point that engages our attention is that there is an exemption; that is the exemption set out in the next clause, clause 27, which deals with regulations that affect international relations, national defence, security or federal-provincial relations. There is obviously a very strong case to be made tor a government to be entitled to say
Statutory Instruments Act
that in its opinion as a government the regulations it is proposing to promulgate do have an impact on and concern national security; that in those circumstances there is every reason for the government to exempt the regulations from the need for publication and, I suppose, ultimately from being considered by a committee of Parliament.
Certainly that is not the case with federal-provincial relations. As a matter of fact, if we consider the last two or three communiques issued by the constitutional conference I can think of very little in those communiques that would entitle the government to withhold them from the public view. The conference has done so little that there would not be much value in their communiques and I do not think any parliamentary committee would be very anxious to discuss them. However, this is beside the point. The main purpose behind my motion does not relate to that particular aspect but to what will be the powers of this parliamentary committee. What will the committee have the right to do? What recommendations will it be able to make?
The report of he special committee which was the foundation for this legislation is very interesting. At page 86 of the report there is a very useful observation made about the report of the delegated legislation committee of New Zealand, and also an inquiry into civil rights which I think was brought about by the province of Ontario. I shall read the first paragraph:
If Parliament is accepted as the sole legislative authority, and if by force of circumstances it must delegate some of its authority to others, then it stands to reason that the public will expect the Parliament to exercise something more than a merely nominal supervision over the work of those to whom law-making powers have been delegated.
I do not think anybody would quarrel with that observation. The second quotation I should like to make from the report of the inquiry into civil rights in the province of Ontario is as follows:
It is a primary function of the legislature to make the laws, and it is responsible for all laws it makes or authorizes to be made. A failure by the legislature to find some specific place in the legislative calendar for supervision of subordinate legislation is, in our view, a dereliction of duty on its part and a failure to protect the fundamental civil rights of the individual.
Seven years ago this House, through one of its committees, took virtually the same position. The special committee that was charged with the responsibility of looking into the organization and procedure of the House, in a 1964 report made a categorical and unanimous recommendation urging the House-and, I assume, through the House, ultimately the government-to establish what it then called a committee on delegated legislation, which is simply another term for the same sort of committee of scrutiny envisaged in the legislation we are now considering, and giving to that committee very substantial powers.
Although that was the unanimous recommendation of a committee of this House, there was no opportunity to debate it: it was not the subject of any motion in the House. However, the government of the day took no exception to it. Members of Parliament had an oppor-

March 8, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
tunity in debate on collateral issues to commend this sort of approach to the serious problem of delegated legislation. So we have that recommendation made by a committee of the House. I have already read to the House two citations from bodies which examined this matter. In the result I think there should be no question of there being the need of a committee, one with the fullest right to examine delegated legislation and then to make recommendations.
The present clause 26 does not take this approach. Indeed, I look with some suspicion at the proposal contained in the clause 26, which provides that all that will happen is that every statutory instrument issued will stand permanently referred to any committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses that may be established for the purpose of reviewing and scrutinizing statutory instruments. That clause by itself is virtually meaningless and powerless. The reference to the committee may have a very useful and effective aftermath, but standing by itself it is useless. It is like the provisions of the current Regulations Act which provide that regulations shall be tabled. At first blush any innocent person reading that clause would have every reason to believe that regulations were tabled under the provisions of the Regulations Act, that committees and individual members of the House could examine the regulations and make proposals with regard to them, and if they came to the conclusion that the liberties, rights, prerogatives and property of the people of Canada were threatened they could do something about it. But that is not the case.
What will be the situation here? All that will happen is that the President of the Privy Council will from time to time at the commencement of each session table a list of regulations. In fact, he does not even have to table a list; he simply tables a copy of the Canada Gazette-the legality of which is now in doubt- which copy makes reference to a number of regulations. Nobody pays any attention to them. If an individual Canadian suffers damage and goes to his Member of Parliament or to a lawyer, he will find he has no chance to do anything to correct the situation. This is why it is not enough for the House to accept the present wording of this clause.
This sort of thing is not done in other jurisdictions. I admit that in Australia there is a committee of the Senate which I think makes a reasonable effort to examine proposals. I notice that in considering this point and what to do about it, the special committee was inclined to place too much faith in some comments made by the political scientist Bernard Crick, who in effect said, "Well, I don't think we want to go to the public. We don't want to challenge the government and we certainly don't want to put the government in danger". Consequently, he made what I think is a rather anaemic proposal in regard to what to do about this question.
In the United Kingdom I was able to observe the committee of scrutiny in action while I was over there several years ago. I asked for and secured an opportunity of discussing with Sir Robert Speed, as he then was, legal adviser to Mr. Speaker and who acts as special adviser to their committee of scrutiny, and also discussed with the
chairman of the committee, Mr. Graham Page, M.P. and with the chief spokesman in the committee for the government, the way that that committee operates. I was invited to and attended two meetings where I observed the committee in operation.
That committee has a very effective way, administratively, of dealing with these proposals. I want to take a couple of minutes to enlarge upon this question since it is covered by my proposals. Sir Robert Speed, the legal adviser to Mr. Speaker, receives from the departments of government various Orders in Council and regulations which are covered by their terms of reference. Obviously, they issue a great many more than we do.
In Canada in the last 13 years we have enacted approximately 6,900 Orders in Council and regulations involving some 20,000 pages of fine print. We have dealt with, on an average, 530 of these a year. The British do a lot more than this. But there these matters are referred to the legal adviser to the committee, who vets them. Often he is able, from his experience and knowledge, to work out with government departments concerned variations, changes, adaptations, amendments and, in some cases, even the withdrawal of the objectionable parts of an Order in Council or the entire Order in Council. Others which in his opinion offend the terms of reference laid down, are referred to the committee.
The committee meets twice a month. I have before me an agenda of meetings of the committee. In one meeting, for example, 42 Orders in Council had passed through this sieve and were being considered by the committee. In another case there were 26. In each of those cases the members of the committee had a copy of the Order in Council complained of, and the comments of Sir Robert Speed. The committee met, and in three or four hours went through the regulations. In 75 or 80 per cent of the cases they were able to resolve the problem and given instructions to the chairman and to the legal adviser. In other cases they made recommendations.
To those who suggest that this kind of task lies beyond the scope of a parliamentary committee of this House which is provided with the proper degree of assistance to examine such Orders in Council I say that they are completely wrong and their notions are misconceived. A committee of this kind, armed and equipped with proper technical aids and with proper people to assist it, could very quickly develop an administrative capacity and a means of handling such Orders in Council. While the task of the committee might be difficult and lengthy, I am sure it would not be impossible. So speaking of the mechanical aspect, it is within our capacity to appoint a parliamentary committee to scrutinize such Orders in Council.
Having scrutinized them, what else should we do? Perhaps before the debate finishes this evening the minister will tell us what the government will be recommending with respect to a parliamentary committee with powers of scrutiny as well as other powers. I would much prefer that this be done now, before the bill passes, so that we know where we stand. I am not suggesting that the rules

March 8, 1971

should be changed; nevertheless, I think there should be a definite understanding about how far the government is prepared to go in giving these powers and this authority to a committee of scrutiny. Clause 26 of the legislation is not authoritative in giving the committee the powers it should have.
Let us see what the committee had in mind when it brought before the House its third report which formed the basis of this legislation. I can bring this point forward simply and with reasonable expendition by referring the House to page 92 of the report where the recommendations are synopsized and the statements are in fairly clear, precise and limited terms. Paragraph 19 reads:
A new Committee on Regulations should be established, with the following particulars-
Then it lists the various pages of the document where the arguments have been examined and dealt with.
(1)	It should be a standing committee of the House of Commons.
I pause here. There was some discussion in committee whether it should be a committee of the Commons or a committee of the Commons and the Senate. I think there is a pretty good case to be made for its being a committee of the House of Commons because its members are elected by the people of Canada. I think the authority should probably lie with them. Yet I would not be unwilling, if it came to a choice, to having members of the other place on the committee because in the other place there is an element of continuity which is sometimes lacking with respect to members of this chamber. There is something to be said for having the committee take up, at the beginning of each new Parliament, where it left off in the previous Parliament and having members on it with experience. However, I am not arguing that point.
(2)	All regulations should stand permanently referred to it.
That is to be done under the legislation.
(3)	It should strive to operate in an objective and non-partisan way.
Heaven help us, Mr. Speaker! We all try to reach these objectives. Sometimes we do reach them and sometimes we do not. I think a committee of this kind ought to be compared with the Public Accounts Committee which until recent times, when the government so unkindly attempted to change the powers of the committee, the chairman and the powers of the Auditor General, was reasonably objective and non-partisan, usually making unanimous recommendations and approaching issues referred to it in an objective, fair and non-partisan way.
(4)	It should have a small membership to enable it to operate effectively.
That is agreed.
(5)	To make the objectivity of the committee apparent, there should be some rotation among parties in the chairmanship.
I should like to take a moment to discuss that point. In my view the chairman should be a member of the opposition. In the Australian parliamentary system there is a
Statutory Instruments Act
Senate committee. We must bear in mind that there members of the Senate are selected through an elective process. Although the chairman is a member of the government party, the majority of the committee is made up of opposition members. I would think that the power of the chairman there is balanced by the majority of opposition members on the committee. I think a fair balance can be struck if the chairman is a good member. Nevertheless, I do not think I will live to see the day when this government will establish a committee which will have a majority of opposition members. There may be members on the government side whose views are opposed to that of the government but who are too timid to express that opposition.


Mr. Davis:: Never!


Gerald William Baldwin: However, I make this suggestion. When we deal with this matter either in the House or in committee, at the very minimum we should make certain that there will be a rotation of the chairmanship as recommended. I still think it will be better if the chairman is an opposition member. That is the custom in the United Kingdom. Mr. Graham Page, now a member of Mr. Heath's government, was the chairman of that committee for many years when other governments were in power. 1 should like to believe that the chairman of such a committee, which has responsibilities that ought to be above partisan considerations, will for most of the time be a member of the opposition. I continue quoting:
(6)	It should normally sit in public session.
(7)	It should be empowered to sit while Parliament is not sitting.
An argument was raised in respect of that point, Mr. Speaker. It was said that precedents going back as far as Sir John A. Macdonald's time indicate that there is no legal basis for a committee's sitting after prorogation. We challenged that to some extent, although we did not see fit to make the point a controversial one and bring it before the House. Nevertheless, since members of the House are busy, I think that a committee such as this might sit during some weeks when the House is not sitting, otherwise when it came back after a recess of three or four months it would be faced with a backlog of Orders in Council and regulations. I think that ways and means could be found of doing this. I am making this comment bearing in mind conditions as they are. I know it cannot be done now; I know it is not up to the minister to resolve this legal problem, but it is a matter we should consider.
(8)	It should have adequate staff.
I have already dealt with that. I think this is a condition precedent to any measure of success, not only a staff large enough in number but one competent in terms of being able to deal with this question. When the committee has been in existence and has had authority for two or three years with the help of people like this, it will build up a jurisprudence. People charged with the responsibility of assisting the committee will be wise and
23966-45J

March 8, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
reasonably able to cope with civil servants. The right kind of people will be able to prevent many of these issues coming to the committee.
It should examine regulations on the basis of six criteria.
Here I come to the foundation. I simply rest the case for my amendment on the recommendations of the committee.
(9)	It should examine regulations on the basis of six criteria:
(a)	Whether they are authorized by the terms of the enabling statute.
I do not think anyone will challenge that.
(b)	Whether they appear to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which it is made.
I think that is a provision common to all jurisdictions which deal with Orders in Council through a committee of scrutiny.
(c)	Whether they trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties.
Although not from my point of view, there may be some who would argue this. Some jurisdictions accept this principle. Having in mind the extent to which Parliaments are more and more trespassing on the rights, privileges and prerogatives of the individual, this is an absolutely indispensable part of the terms of reference of a committee. The statute might delegate authority to the Governor in Council, a minister or a corporation to take unusual and quite extraordinary action. It may be that they will do so without the government adequately explaining to the House the reasons for it.
There are some instances where these reasons are valid and where the government should have wide and extraordinary powers. However, we must never take away from this House or a committee of the House the right, under special circumstances, to say that when the government acts on the powers it has obtained, the effect of the actions are such as to trespass unduly. I stress the word "unduly".
(d)	Whether they have complied with the provisions of the Regulations Act with respect to transmittal, certification, recording, numbering, publication or laying before Parliament.
I will not deal with this point except inferentially. With respect to the Bill of Rights, as I pointed out earlier, there is a case to be made for a committee having the right to examine the issues involved before regulations are promulgated.
(e)	whether they
(i) represent an abuse of the power to provide that they shall come into force before they are transmitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council or
That is along the same line.
(f)	Whether for any special reason their form or purport calls for elucidation.
In other words, if they are too complicated, if too much gobbledygook has gone into their construction, it may well be that a committee of ordinary members of Parliament will be established to try and simplify them.
(10)	It should have the usual investigative powers of a standing committee.
(11)	It should have the same power as other standing committees to report to the House.
20.	The Scrutiny Committee should have the power, in its discretion, to refer regulations to other standing committees and that they should then stand referred to such committees for consideration.
That proposal was made because the committee felt that this special committee which is to be established should not examine questions of policy, the drafting and promulgation of an Order in Council. However, if the policy in question were of such a nature that it cried aloud for consideration by this House, we felt it should be referred to the appropriate standing committee charged with responsibility in connection with the particular subject matter. In other words, if the Canadian Transport Commission promulgated regulations dealing with freight rates, as far as their form was concerned they might be perfectly all right. But if the issues of policy went far beyond what the committee felt was reasonable, that question should be referred to the Standing Committee on transport for examination. It would not have the power to set it aside but it could at least make recommendations.
21.	Normally Parliament should exercise its power to review by a resolution that a questionable regulation be referred to the government for reconsideration but Parliament should continue to provide, where appropriate in individual statutes, for a procedure by way of affirmative or negative resolution.
There is some provision for that in the bill. Some members felt that the committee should adopt the views of Bernard Crick. They said that the committee need not have the right to refer, vary, affirm or amend. I disagree with that. There should be that right. We have it now. No one in this House can say that by a substantive motion or a motion on an opposition day it is not within the competence of this House to urge and recommend to the government that such and such an Order in Council is repugnant in our view to what is fair, just and proper, and to say that the Order in Council should be set aside, varied or amended. I recognize that this is only a recommendation and is not binding on the government; the government does not have to accept it. At least in such circumstances it would be necessary for the government to defend its stand, and it would be a foolhardy government which would ignore the recommendation.
If the members of a non-partisan, all-party parliamentary committee were to state that in their belief an Order in Council which they had examined fell within the meaning of the words and did "trespass unduly on personal rights of liberties", and recommended that clauses of the regulation should be varied and amended to conform with what they thought was right, I am sure the government would give it very serious attention. I do not think that anyone on the committee who feels as I do would suggest that any recommendations the committee might make would be binding upon the government. However, it would be a very foolish government which would refuse to pay attention to them. My own guess is that there would be very few occasions when it would
[Mr. Baldwin.)
March 8, 1971

happen. It would be extremely rare that a committee of scrutiny would find it necessary to make a recommendation to bring the matter before the House for debate. However, there would be cases when it would be necessary. I strongly urge that the committee's power be reinforced in the statute by declaration of this House along the lines of my amendment. It will have to be further embedded as a result of changes we will have to make in our Standing Orders.
I hope the minister will deal with many of the points I have raised. They are debating points. I frankly state that I have used this motion to make substantial and substantive recommendations. It was an opportunity to put forward my views with respect to this issue. I hope I have persuaded the minister of their valadity and that he will reply to them. He does not look like a hanging judge. He may even be persuaded to say that I am right.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to a very good Parliamentary speech on a bill which involves the rights of Parliament to supervise and control the executive in a way that we in Canada have neglected over the years. We have allowed, by way of wide enabling powers and statutes, legislation to be delegated to the cabinet, to ministers, to boards, to commissions by way of regulations and other statutory instruments beyond the control of Parliament, beyond the power of Parliament to review and revise and thereby beyond the power of the people to challenge.
I am accepting the invitation of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) to stray perhaps a little wider than the substance of the amendment because it goes to the very philosophy of the review of Parliament over delegated legislation. With the indulgence of Your Honour, perhaps I can meet his arguments on the terms on which he advanced them.
I believe this bill will provide better controls in the hands of Parliament over delegated legislation, regulations and statutory instruments made by government, ministers and boards. I believe, also, that it will provide a more open government because from now on, subject to narrowly defined exemptions, all regulations will be published in the Canada Gazette and this bill be enforced by means of a mandatory registration system whereby a regulation will not come into force until it is so registered and published.
Second, rules, orders or regulations governing the practice or procedure of federal judicial or quasi-judicial boards and commissions will be subject to the requirements of the new legislation. Third, members of the public will now be given a statutory right to inspect and obtain copies of statutory instruments and regulations, a right which they do not now possess. At the present time the public has no right to see or obtain a copy of any regulation or other statutory instrument having the force of legislation which has been delegated by this Parliament to ministers, to boards or other administrative bodies.
Statutory Instruments Act
Fourth, a scrutiny committee of Parliament-this is the point upon which the amendment is based-will be given the right to examine all statutory instruments which are made or regulations which are passed. Fifth, the powers given to the Governor in Council to exempt regulations and other statutory instruments from the application of this provision of the bill are very narrowly defined. At the present time there is no restriction placed upon the cabinet or Governor in Council in the exercise of its power to exempt regulations from the obligations imposed by the Regulations Act. Now, the exemptions are narrowly drawn and they have to fit within one of the categories of clause 27 of the bill.
Finally, hon. members will henceforth receive a copy of every regulation which is published in the Canada Gazette. This may be a mixed blessing. It may provoke a further demand for office accommodation, but in any event the regulations will now be available and will be delivered to every Member of Parliament.


An hon. Member:: The minister of manpower is smiling.


John Napier Turner: The hon. member for Peace River suggested I might have had trouble with some government departments in getting this bill before the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: And your colleagues.


John Napier Turner: And my colleagues. He is only too right. As a matter of fact, I am sure the only reason the bill is in its present form is the fact some of my colleagues and some of the departments have not fully appreciated what is in the bill. Certainly I have received better treatment in Parliament than I received in back corridor efforts to get this bill on the floor of the House. In any event, I want to answer the hon. member for Peace River and to assure him and this House that the recommendations contained in this committee report, one of the influential committee reports of this Parliament or of any Parliament-the report of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan); a committee which operated in a non-partisan fashion, as I think the hon. member will agree-have achieved almost complete legislative effect. Without going into those recommendations in detail, I want to enumerate them just for the record because, Your Honour, the hon. member has opened this up.
Members are free, of course, to look at the recommendations and the report of the special committee. The recommendations are to be found in summary form on pages 90 to 93 of the report. I do not have to read the recommendations; I can refer to them by number. Recommendation No. 1 was agreed to and is incorporated in the legislation. Recommendation No. 2 was partially agreed to. We had to provide for exemptions from examination, registration, publication and inspection somewhat wider than the committee thought advisable. Recommendation No. 3 was agreed to and is implemented in its entirety. Recommendation No. 4 was partially

March 8, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
agreed to. The definition of "regulation" is amended, but not in the manner suggested by the committee.
Recommendation No. 5 is agreed to. Recommendation No. 6 is agreed to but will not be found in the legislation, of course, because it involves internal directives of the government and will be the responsibility of the Minister of Justice and the Deputy Minister of Justice. Recommendation No. 7 is agreed to. It will not be found in the legislation, but there will be a cabinet directive issued to all ministers directing in future that all enabling legislation should be drafted in accordance with the principles proposed by the committee as acceptable to the government and found in the evidence of that committee in the letter tabled by the former President of the Privy Council, now Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald).
Recommendation No. 8 is such that it cannot be incorporated in legislation. Recommendation No. 9 was partially agreed and it has been accepted in this bill, subject to reservations as to the feasibility of the white paper proposal. Recommendation No. 10 is agreed to and has been implemented already. Recommendation No. 11 has been accepted and agreed to by the government. Recommendation No. 12 has been agreed to and it has been implemented to the extent that regulations will, as a general rule, not come into force until the date upon which they are registered. Recommendation No . 13 cannot be implemented since for practical reasons some regulations cannot be registered and cannot be examined. Recommendation No. 14 in our view is not practicable in the sense that we cannot follow this in terms of a general recommendation.
Recommendation No. 15 is accepted in principle but, for the reasons given by the committee itself, cannot be dealt with in general legislation. Recommendation No. 16 has been implemented in its entirety in this bill. Recommendation No. 17 is implemented in part only for the reasons which were explained before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Recommendation No. 18 will be implemented to the extent that it is proposed that a copy of part 2 of the Canada Gazette be delivered without charge to every member of the Senate and of the House of Commons.
Recommendations Nos. 19 and 22 relate to the establishment of a committee on regulations and a scrutiny committee. The government agrees in general terms to those recommendations and I will go into them in some detail because they are the ones to which the hon. gentleman has referred tonight. We differ from him in the sense that we believe that those recommendations cannot be incorporated in the statute but that they should be left to appropriate amendment of the Standing Orders or under a special resolution creating the scrutiny committee under the Standing Orders of this House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I went through that brief recital to illustrate to the House that if members are willing and able to review recommendations of the committee and compare them with the legislation, they will find that the committee report has been adopted in very large measure by the government in the presentation of this bill. What the hon. member for Peace River attempts to do by way of his amendment is to say that not only should we set
up a scrutiny committee of this House or, as he admits, a joint committee of this House and of the other place, if that should be the wish of members of the House of Commons, but that in addition there should be two further statutory provisions. This is found in subsections 2 and 3 of his proposed clause 26. First of all, in subclause 2 of clause 26 he suggests as follows:
The Standing Orders of the House of Commons that are applicable to a standing committee of that House shall apply to the committee established under subsection (1).
I suppose that relates to recommendation No. 19, clauses 10 and 11 of the MacGuigan report. Then in subclause 3 the hon. member proposes:
Where a statutory instrument stands referred to such committee, the committee has, in respect of such statutory instrument, the power to recommend that the same be approved, varied or repealed.
We believe, first of all, that it is more appropriate for legislation to deal with general principles of law and for Parliament to decide if that legislation affects the operation of either House of Parliament and for each House to decide how the rules in that particular House should relate to the legislation. We do not believe it is an appropriate procedure to dictate to either House of Parliament how the standing rules of that House should be interpreted under the legislation.
What the government suggests here is setting up by statutory reference a scrutiny committee. We leave it to the House of Commons on the one hand and the other place on the other, or jointly if they should wish to do so, to decide how the Standing Orders should be amended or how the standing or special committees of the House should be fitted within the Standing Orders, along with what the powers of the committee should be. If hon. members are interested in my personal view as to what the power of that committee should be, I too can refer to recommendations Nos. 19 to 23, and I will not be binding my colleague, the government House Leader, who will be presenting the resolution on behalf of the government after consultation with other House Leaders.
I agree with the hon. member for Peace River that this ought to be a non-partisan exercise. We call it a scrutiny committee in the bill. Under recommendation No. 19 of the MacGuigan report it is suggested that this should be a standing committee of the House of Commons. I do not agree with that suggestion. The report then states:
All regulations should stand permanently referred to it.
The bill suggests that. The recommendation states:
It should strive to operate in an objective and non-partisan way.
I could not agree more.
It should have a small membership to enable it to operate effectively.
I agree. Then it says:
To make the objectivity of the committee apparent, there should be some rotation among parties in the chairmanship.


March 8, 1971
I think that is something the party leaders will want to work out.
The report continues:
It should normally sit In public session.
I agree with this, unless it involves regulations which are exempt because of national security.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is why we included the word "normally".


John Napier Turner: The next recommendation is:
It should be empowered to sit while Parliament is not sitting.
I have no argument on that score but I tend to agree with the hon. member for Peace River that this should be subject to the agreement of the House. It then states:
It should have adequate staff.
I agree with this. This should be done by permanent staff with only the contentious things being referred to members of the committee.
It should examine regulations on the basis of six criteria.
The report then enumerates the criteria as:
(a)	Whether they are authorized by the terms of the enabling statute.
I agree with that. Then:
(b)	Whether they appear to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which it is made.
I agree with the observations of the hon. member for Peace River in that regard. The next one is:
(c)	Whether they trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties.
I agree with that. Then:
(d)	Whether they have complied with the provisions of the Regulations Act with respect to transmittal, certification, recording, numbering, publication or laying before Parliament.
That refers to the statutory instruments bill if Parliament consents to it. The next one is:
(e)	Whether they
(i) represent an abuse of the power to provide that they shall come into force before they are transmitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council or
Then it states:
(ii) unjustifiably fail to provide that they shall not come into force until published or until some later date.
At the time, I think the government was concerned that it should have a policy showing why publication is desired after the coming into force of the regulations. The recommendation then suggests:
(f)	Whether for any special reason their form or purport calls for elucidation.
I agree with that. Then in paragraph (10) it states:
It should have the usual investigative powers of a standing committee.
Statutory Instruments Act
I agree; but that should be left to the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, and not included in the bill. That is why I reject subclause 2 as proposed by the hon. member for Peace River. Paragraph (11) of recommendation No. 19 states:
It should have the same power as other standing committees to report to the House.
I tend to agree, but again this is a matter for the Standing Orders and not for the bill. Recommendation No. 20 is:
The Scrutiny Committee should have the power, in its discretion, to refer regulations to other standing committees and that they should then stand referred to such committees for consideration.
I do not want to take a position on that because it tends to involve an old principle of renvoi. This is a question that can be discussed among the chairmen of committees when the scrutiny committee develops influence and prestige in this House. Recommendation No. 21 states:
Normally Parliament should exercise its power to review by a resolution that a questionable regulation be referred to the government for reconsideration but Parliament should continue to provide, where appropriate in individual statutes, for a procedure by way of affirmative or negative resolution.
The bill provides for an amendment to the Interpretation Act as to what is meant by an affirmative or negative resolution. This is a matter that can be worked out by the Government House Leader with the House leaders of the other parties. Recommendation 22 states:
The Scrutiny Committee should have the power to report at any time on general matters affecting the law or practice with respect to regulations.
I agree. I think that is one of the functions it should be seized with. But I reject the idea that the powers of this committee should be set forth in any way in the bill itself. I submit to Your Honour that the powers of this committee should remain a matter for debate when the House leader introduces the resolution for the establishment of a scrutiny committee, if Parliament consents to this bill.
The third subclause proposed by the hon. member for Peace River is to the effect that the scrutiny committee should have the power in respect of regulations and statutory instruments to approve, vary or repeal. I differ with him because the delegation of regulations and statutory instruments must remain in the first instance with the ministerial department concerned, the Governor in Council, the board or the commission. The executive remains responsible to Parliament, and Parliamentary responsibility, as I envisage it in respect of regulations and other statutory instruments, is to review them. The scrutiny committee will report to Parliament and, I imagine, in appropriate circumstances invite the minister, the department or the body concerned to see whether or not an amendment can be achieved.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister is deliberately misinterpreting me, but I never had that in mind. My amendment would deal with the power to recommend, and the recommendation could only be made

March 8, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
to the government. I think there is a plain distinction. I put it on the basis that this is a power which presently rests with Parliament. This House can always recommend by making use of existing weapons and devices. I do not go beyond that. I would not attempt to suggest that this House should repeal or vary a regulation; only that it should have the right to act through the committee in making recommendations to the government.


John Napier Turner: I agree with the hon. gentleman that this can be achieved under the existing rules of the House or through whatever rules and powers are given to the committee. As the hon. member pointed out in his speech, this is a function or a power envisaged in a substantive motion by the opposition. In this way the matter can be drawn to the attention of the House, just as the Public Accounts Committee can draw great attention to many things in its report to the House.
The hon. member quoted some passages which appear at page 86 of the MacGuigan third report. I wanted him to go a little further into the committee's report because he admitted there was not unanimity in respect of the view he advanced. Below the citations to which he referred, the committee said at page 87:
We are of the view that the benefits of the English system, which has been resorted to infrequently in Canada, as indicated above, can be enjoyed without any substantial resort to provisions giving Parliament absolute control over the operation of a regulation. We would refer to the following observations which have been made on this issue by thoughtful students of the parliamentary process and other responsible observers:
I want to quote one or two of those observers. The first is O. Hood Phillips, "Constitutional and Administrative Law", fourth edition, at pages 579-80:
In practice instruments are never annulled, because the minister can count on the government's majority. Even if the government were "caught napping'' the minister could introduce another instrument in identical terms. The procedure by negative resolution was seldom used before 1943. Its value has been questioned, but it has in recent years led to interesting and important debates. No amendment of the instrument is possible, although as a result of criticism the minister may withdraw it and submit another in a modified form. A better procedure might be to allow motions that a statutory instrument be referred to the government for consideration.
I agree with that and I believe the House has within its power the opportunity to refer the minister, through the report of the scrutiny committee, to the fact that the statutory instrument should be reconsidered. I believe the power of the House is sufficient for that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is no guarantee that the report of the committee will ever be discussed in the House or that there will be a motion for concurrence. That seems to be the real weakness in the situation.


John Napier Turner: I could argue that point, but that, I would submit to the hon. member, is open to him and to the hon. member for Peace River to do when a resolution of the scrutiny committee comes before us. The burden of my argument is that this is a matter to be dealt with in the rules and not one which should clog the
bill. I should like to cite Wade and Phillips, "Constitutional Law," seventh edition, 1965, at page 618:
One common feature to all these procedures-
This is the scrutiny type procedure.
-is that neither House has power to amend the statutory instrument. Although some feel that this should he possible, it might involve the House too closely in detailed consideration of matters which Parliament has already decided should be delegated to a minister it might give rise to complications and delay if each House introduced different amendments. It seems better that if a House is not satisfied with an instrument as it stands, the minister should withdraw it and start again.
I refer to one further citation from John E. Kersell, "Parliamentary Supervision of Delegated Legislation," 1960, at page 110:
Motions for consideration seem a priori to be a realistic technique for gaining some parliamentary influence over subordinate legislation. British prayers for annulment and Australian motions for disallowance seem on the surface to give Parliament more effective powers of control, but as we have seen, such motions have little chance of success in doing more than can be done by the New Zealand counterpart-the motion for consideration... In New Zealand Members of Parliament can, if they are disposed, put their views and objections regarding sub-legislation just as forcefully and just as effectively to the minister, and through him to the departmental officials who, of course, in practice, administer and amend subordinate laws.
Dr. Kersell in expressing his views to the committee said this:
I am not in favour of the annulling procedure at all. I think it would be more meaningful and more realistic to have a procedure whereby instruments would be referred to the government for consideration, as is the term in New Zealand. You are not telling the government that it cannot have this regulation. It is going to put the whips on it and acquire it in any case. That is referring to experience.
The burden of my argument is that the power of the committee really is to draw to the attention of the government, Parliament and the public the fact that regulations may contravene the criteria which have been advanced by the committee on statutory instruments and may go beyond the powers that are given in the statute, and that the enabling power in the statute itself may be drawn too widely, although that should be a consideration for Parliament in the consideration of the bill itself.
In summary, I feel it is up to the House to determine by its rules how this scrutiny committee should be set up. I think the government would prefer to see the flexibility of the rules of the House amendable by the House in respect of the operation and power of the committee. While I feel the executive is responsible to the legislature as it expresses its will on the breadth and scope of statutory instruments in the scrutiny committee, I believe the administrative power must remain with the government. The legislature has the power to throw light upon and draw attention to and the power to force government, by parliamentary scrutiny, to reconsider. I have confidence that the rules of the House can satisfy that need and are flexible enough that the committee would have ample recourse under the rules to bring any question to the attention of the House. I prefer to see what the hon. member is attempting to achieve left to the rules of the House rather than embedded in a statute.

March 8, 1971


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I do not ask the minister to bind the government, but I hope that when the proposals are being considered in a resolution as to what should be the powers of the committee he would not object to the standard rules continuing. I refer to the standard rules which I am sure give to any committee the right to make recommendations. The Standing Orders provide that any committee may consider and report back. There is contained in the words "report back" an inference that the report can be wide enough to make recommendations. So I would hope that the minister would not object to a committee having the right to make a recommendation. I agree with him 100 per cent in that I do not think this House should have the right to vary or repeal regulations. However, I believe it should have the right to make recommendations for the consideration of the government.


John Napier Turner: The hon. member is asking for a personal view. He is quite right in recognizing that I cannot at this stage bind my colleague the House leader who is listening attentively to this debate. I do feel, however, that the committee should have the usual investigative powers of a standing committee in reporting to the House. As a matter of fact, the responsibilities of the Deputy Minister of Justice and my responsibilities for as long as I have the mandate given me by Parliament are made much easier if there is a strong and effective scrutiny committee, because any Minister of Justice can point to the committee report in respect of the criteria in a bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the two motions have been telescoped for debate purposes. I think we will see some differences in approach but I think fundamentally one will see, also, that the same end is achieved. I find myself immediately at a point of departure with the minister, particularly as a result of his latest intervention. It seems to me the House and the government have lost sight of what happens when a bill is passed. The government comes to Parliament to have a bill passed. That bill does not have one penny's worth of authority until the House has passed it. The cabinet can say what it wants, but unless the bill is passed by Parliament there is no authority whatsoever in the Governor in Council to make any statutory instrument. Parliament grants that power to the Governor in Council, to the minister or to the board, subject to approval, whatever the formula may be-but it is Parliament which grants the power.
I do not intend to discuss the contents of the committee's report concerning what statutory instruments might impinge upon certain guidelines. But surely to goodness, if Parliament grants the power, Parliament can take away or amend the power. If not, is it to be believed that once Parliament in a statute has given the power to make regulations, that power is forever gone? This is the first question the minister must answer. In our theory of government, can the minister say that this House forever abdicates its right with regard to amending or withdrawing the power to pass regulations? It certainly has that
Statutory Instruments Act
power if the appropriate legislation comes before it. The House can widen or annul the regulations if they come before it. The legislation may have to be brought before it by the government, not by the board and not by the minister but by the government, for the approval of Parliament, but the authority is that of Parliament and no one else.
To that extent I say the theory I shall advance is logical. I confess I find myself differing to some extent with my colleague from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) although not in respect of the procedure. The scrutiny committee may examine legislation, it may comment upon it and it may suggest that it should be amended. It may also suggest that it be annulled. I must confess, also, that I believe the minister is attempting to be too nice to us. I will not call him naive in this regard, but if a committee report should recommend a change in a regulation, make an adverse comment or report in respect of a statutory instrument or regulation, how does this get back to the House for consideration? Is it to be done by way of a private member's motion which goes to the bottom of the list unless the government makes room for it? A member of the committee may move that the report be adopted-for one day's debate on motions! Then the motion goes to the bottom of the list, if the government so desires, and it is forever gone. Under the House rules there is no way it can again be brought forward.
I am very sorry the hon. member for Windsor-Walker-ville (Mr. MacGuigan) is not here tonight. I trust he will be here before this debate terminates and before we reach third reading stage, because on second reading he indicated he wanted to participate in the report stage. As my colleague from Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) said, clause 26 is really the guts of this bill. He said a number of very pertinent things in the committee which I hope he will put on the record of the House. I hope, also, he will put on the record of this House the minister's answers in the exchanges he had with the minister. I intend to put on the record some of the things the minister said in his exchanges with me, because I believe they will point out the fundamental disagreement we have concerning the position of statutory instruments and how these may be controlled if we are to adopt the purpose of the scrutiny committee and take this bold step forward.
I was saying "Amen" to a lot of things the minister said tonight concerning the reasons why we should have a scrutiny committee. We are on all fours there. However, when it comes to the point, I find it rather strange for the minister to say it would be beyond the power of Parliament to either amend or direct the annulment of a statutory instrument. After all, is the power of the executive or of the minister, under some statutory provision, so supreme that they or he may make regulations for the effective administration of an act, a board or a commission and this is beyond the power of Parliament? If that is the thesis of the government and the minister, then there is indeed not only a cleavage but a gulf of difference in the approach to the theory of government as we have it in Canada today.
4070

March 8, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
As I have said, I hope my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, will refer to the views he expressed in his exchange with the minister. I now refer to committee report No. 7, page 10, where speaking to the minister in the more informal atmosphere of the committee I said:
I am going to pose a legal problem to you, Mr. Minister, in that the power of the Governor in Council was granted to it by Parliament in the original instance. In any statute, the Governor in Council is authorized by Parliament to pass the regulation and therefore Parliament should have the right to order the revocation of any regulation. To that extent, as I said in the House the other night, you have only gone part way. You have examined the patient, you have diagnosed his illness but you have not provided for the cure. I would say that Parliament since it delegated its power can withdraw and therefore there should be a means to do so in the legislation-not in the rules.
I insert a parenthesis here. The resolution setting up the committee and the rules that govern that committee shall be within the control of the government in the practical application of the practices of this House. It is not Parliament that will make the suggestion for a change in the rules, or has the initiative of setting up the resolution and calling for debate on that resolution to set up the scrutiny committee: this is entirely within the control of the government. I continue reading what I said:
You say "revision and scrutinizing of statutory instruments." I would say it must go further than that. Parliament itself can because otherwise once having granted the power to the Governor in Council, it is a power forever granted. I do not know who else has authority to initiate a resolution in the House. This comes to the problem of the rules. How do you get it before the House unless as suggested by my colleague here-
I was referring to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.
-that the report of the committee criticizing or recommending the revision or the striking out of a regulation shall be brought before the House within 15 days of the report being made? Otherwise, it is the Governor in Council that has the initiative of bringing in any resolution. No member of the committee could possibly do it because then it goes to private members' resolutions-to the bottom of the list. I put to you the problem.
The minister replied as follows:
I think Parliament is fertile enough in its procedures to make its weight felt through the committee on this matter and to bring it to the attention of the public and of the government's attention. If there would be enough automatic revocation power, two things would happen. The House would be flooded with resolutions to revoke particular regulations and also there would be uncertainty as to whether any particular regulation was going to be valid until revoked at some future time by a resolution of the House.
You get into the problem we face in law, of the difference between void and voidable. What would happen to people who had acted in good faith on a regulation only to find it later revoked by a resolution of the committee. We have to go on the assumption the government will be properly responsive to scrutiny by a committee of Parliament. If the government is not so responsive, it can leave itself open to a motion of want of confidence in the normal manner.

I leave it to you in the House but I do not know how we could transfer from the executive to Parliament, the initiating measure either to pass or revoke regulations because of the blurring of responsibility that produces and because of the uncertainty in the meantime that it may produce.
I would like to comment on that passage, Mr. Speaker, because it raises some very interesting questions and, if I may say so, some rather dubious assumptions. First of all, under the motions before the House at the present time there could be no flood of resolutions to revoke particular regulations. Only the committee would bring in a report, and that is all we are concerned with. No one has suggested that individual members on their own initiative could bring forward resolutions to revoke or amend any regulation.
The minister mentioned uncertainty. Well, uncertainty has been created with regard to regulations in the past where they have been declared ultra vires by the courts. There is no question about that. How much more uncertainty would there be if, following the procedure outlined by the minister, a committee brought in an adverse report with regard to one or more statutory instrument? The minister says that a responsible government or a responsible minister would see that there was adverse criticism and would be moved to make the appropriate changes. But until that happened there would be uncertainty in the minds of the public. There would also be the question of prejudicial action having been taken under a regulation which is called into question. So the degree of uncertainty would not be one whit greater under the procedure I suggest than it would be under what I would call the benign assumptions of the minister. I will not call him naive; I apologize for having said that before: they are merely benign.
Then there is the question of whether they are void or voidable, but under the legislation-and as outlined by the minister's thinking-any statutory instrument is voidable. If there is the possibility that the minister or the Governor in Council, in the face of adverse criticism, would change or revoke it, then to that extent it is voidable.
It must be understood, again, what my particular amendment seeks. My amendment simply says that the committee shall have the power to scrutinize and examine statutory instruments-it "shall have the power to recommend by way of report to the House of Commons the amendment, replacement or annulment of any statutory instrument referred to it." Let us stop there. Surely to goodness, the minister and I are ad idem up to this point, because he mentions committee reports. Then I go on to the next point because this is where we differ. But I repeat that we are ad idem up to the end of my proposed subclause 2. I express it a little differently. The statute says that a committee shall have the power to examine and scrutinize and the minister says that within the rules it will be able to recommend amendments. All right, Mr. Speaker, but I put it down in legislative form that it shall have that power, and not in the rules, because I maintain that the rules cannot be made with the same legislative authority.
March 8, 1971

As I say, the minister and I agree with respect to recommendation but in my motion I provide for an automatic consideration by the House of the report, through a motion to adopt or to reject it. The House will not say that such and such an instrument is hereby invalid. I go beyond the rules and want this principle expressed in legislative form, because the rules still depend upon government initiative.
It will be very interesting to see what will be proposed in the resolution to set up the scrutiny committee. The House might be beguiled into passing the legislation as it now stands and be completely silent on how the committee's reports may be considered. So I maintain that it should be provided in the statute, the same as it is in the Regulations Act and in the same way as there are requirements in any number of statutes that something shall be done within so many days if Parliament is sitting, whether this be the tabling of a document, of a report or of regulations. Therefore, I simply say in my motion that the committee's report shall be taken up and disposed of, if there is to be any amendment, withdrawal, annulment or otherwise-whatever is the nature of the committee's report-and that this shall be done automatically.
I do not need a rule change because I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government's resolution to set up this committee need not contain one iota of provision for consideration. The minister says that with respect to a committee report they will follow the rules. But I am sure the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and others will ask, "But how many committee reports are not considered; indeed, will never be considered?" It is true that committee reports can be brought on for one day's debate, but that is not sufficient.
Frankly, I agree with the minister that the provisions for scrutiny, registration and so forth provided for under those clauses prior to clause 26 will go a long way toward guaranteeing that there shall not be any necessity for adverse committee reports. That is all to the good. But when he calls into question the purport of the amendment of my colleague from Peace River, and of my own, he somehow casts doubt upon the efficacy of the machinery that he has proposed for the preliminary screening of amendments.
I hope that the committee will have no adverse reports but will provide the ultimate seal of approval that the minister is seeking. I am not suggesting for a moment, whatever the composition of the committee, that it should have this power. But Parliament, yes. Parliament still has the supreme power, and it is here where the fundamental difference lies. I do not agree that a statutory provision that grants power to make Orders in Council or rules and regulations is a power forever given away.
The minister went on to say that there is a built-in procedure within the Interpretation Act, and since the minister raised this point perhaps I might deal with it. The minister referred to the proposed new section 28A,
Statutory Instruments Act
but I put it to the minister that the provision for a negative or affirmative resolution must be written into the bill. There is no provision in the Interpretation Act that such provision as to a negative or affirmative resolution shall automatically be read into any act. The proposed section 28A reads:
(1) In every act,
(a) the expression "subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament"-
Then the section goes on to describe the procedure. Reference is also made to the expression "subject to negative resolution of Parliament". I suggest that such provisions must first appear in an act, otherwise they have no application. All of this beautiful language could be a dead letter if the government-any government-as a standing rule of practice in the drafting of legislation omitted any reference to an affirmative or negative resolution. This is why I do not give it much credence. I do not think, in all honesty, that any member on this side of the House has sought in all seriousness to impose the restriction upon the power to make statutory instruments that they be not applicable until approved by Parliament. I think no record of that could be found and I agree with the minister that such provisions would not be practical.
Therefore, it is only in the most exceptional case that we would ever be presented with a provision within an act that provided that subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament there shall be the power to do such and such. Certainly we know why power is given to make regulations; it is for administrative convenience, flexibility and so forth, in order to make things move along faster than would otherwise be the case. Surely we are not going to say that having delegated such power we are then going to accept the fact that Parliament has forever withdrawn from the scene and will have nothing more to do with it.
Therefore, I urge upon the House the acceptance of the amendment standing in my name, which goes to procedure and authorizes a procedure that would be required to be approved in order for the House to consider a report on the status of a statutory instrument.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I can state my view on these two amendments very briefly. I am in favour of both of them.


John Napier Turner: That is impossible.


Francis Andrew Brewin: March 8, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
The essential instrument of that control appears in clause 26 which we are now discussing. Although there may be many other important provisions in regard to publication, the most essential provision of all is the establishment of a scrutiny committee of Parliament to assert its control over delegated legislation.
It is true, as the minister indicated, that a resolution will be put before the House by the House leader dealing with the setting up of a scrutiny committee. But what I like about the first of the amendments is that it provides that a scrutiny committee shall be established before the coming into force of this legislation for the purpose of reviewing and scrutinizing statutory instruments. I think it is as well that the statute make this provision because in my view the legislation without the committee is like Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. The legislation would be inadequate. I think it should spell out that the two procedures, namely, the setting up by the House or by the Senate of the scrutiny committee and the enactment and bringing into force of this legislation are concurrent procedures-and they have my approval.
When he dealt with the powers of the committee, the minister said: Let the House determine by its rules what the powers of the committee shall be. I agree with the minister that many of the powers of the committee and many details of the committee's operations are rightly left to the rules of the House. But what the amendment is dealing with is not the details of the committee's operations but the fundamental function of the committee. It gives the committee not only the power to look at the statutory instruments that are referred to it; it explicitly gives the committee power to recommend that the same be approved, varied or repealed.
I think the minister pointed out that this power may be implied, that it may already exist under the rules of the House. I would ask him this question: Why should it not be enacted by a statute that in effect creates this statutory instruments regulation, and which incidentally I think should provide for the scrutiny committee to inspect and to regulate? I think the power to recommend that statutory instruments be approved, varied or repealed should be included in the legislation in order to establish the supremacy of Parliament. I think we are not dealing here with a minor matter but with a question of basic principle, namely, the supremacy of Parliament.
It is because I think the amendments make this clear- if they do not establish it-that I am in favour of the amendments. If amendment No. 3 is not passed, then my remarks will be the same on the fourth amendment and I will give it my support if it comes before the House.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will be as indulgent with me as you were with previous speakers and will allow me to make some general observations on the two motions now before us. If Your Honour does that, I promise, when my turn comes to present my motion, not to be repetitive and to put my argument succinctly.
First may I make some observations and say what I hope the committee on regulations, or the scrutiny committee as it is called, will do. Recommendation 19(1) says that the committee should be a standing committee of the House of Commons. I hope that it will be a committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons, partly for the reason advanced by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), namely, that it would have continuity. Certain members of that committee would not need to worry about the quadrennial bugle call and rumpus of an election campaign and could keep their minds at all times on the regulations and other statutory instruments that the committee must scrutinize. As I say, they would serve on it continuously. Others of us might not be able to. The Senate members could be working when the rest of us were out on the hustings. They could be scrutinizing the regulations. For that reason I hope the committee is set up as a joint committee.
The second recommendation with which I thoroughly agree is the one saying that all regulations should stand permanently referred to the committee. My third and final point about the committee is that I hope its procedure will be flexible enough so that any member who is faced with a problem concerning any regulation can immediately take his doubts or his problem to the committee for immediate advice. Perhaps there would be longer range scrutiny of the matter.
If I could mention an experience of mine, perhaps it would bring the message home to the minister. Last year or the year before the Department of Fisheries passed some pretty stringent regulations which affected the rights of people to hold lobster fishing licences, to pass the title of a boat to other people or to hold that title in partnership with other people, and the like. This created a fair amount of correspondence with fishermen in the Halifax area. Sometimes one can be overwhelmed by a flood of letters and become unable to give proper advice. That is something I was faced with. If there had been a committee to which was attached a specialist, much like the Auditor General who helps the members of the Public Accounts Committee, it would have been a great help. I do not know what one should call such an official. Should one call him, perhaps, the scrutineer general, or the statutory instruments general?


Gerald William Baldwin: Why not the grand inquisitor?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Peace River suggests that he might be called the grand inquisitor. Grand or not, I hope that the person or persons permanently attached to the committee are knowledgeable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not call
him the legislative, or the statutory ombudsman?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member suggests that he be called the statutory ombudsman. This place is throbbing with suggestions. I merely said that there should be a permanent functionary who should help this scrutiny committee. The points that appeal most to me are that the committee be a committee of both Houses, that all

March 8, 1971

regulations stand permanently referred to it, for reasons I shall elaborate on in a few minutes, and that any member should feel that it is his right to take to that committee any problem that comes in his morning's mail, and that the committee with the help of the grand inquisitor or the statutory ombudsman will get to work immediately.
May I now refer to the points raised by the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). From the minister's remarks I had considerable difficulty in deciding if the bill went far enough or if it should have more teeth in it. Perhaps I could best illustrate my difficulty by quoting the evidence found in volume No. 7 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, of Tuesday, February 16, 1971. At that time we were considering the bill. Before the committee were the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and Mr. P. D. Beseau of the legislation section of the Department of Justice. I raised the matter originally in the way that is found at the bottom of page 9. I asked:
The other question deals with the remedy, should a regulation or statutory instrument be found offensive in some regard. I take it that that committee reviews and scrutinizes it, but I am wondering whether we should not spell out a specific remedy in case the committee finds it wanting.
The Minister of Justice replied:
Mr. Chairman, this enters, of course, into the relationship of the executive and the legislature. The executive is responsible for the preparation and issuance of regulations. We are providing through this bill a system whereby all regulations subject to certain narrowly drawn exceptions are published and sent to the scrutiny committee. The scrutiny committee will be a committee of Parliament. Parliament will have the recourse of drawing it to the attention of the executive by any means ordinarily available to Parliament, much in the way of the Public Accounts Committee or any other committee of the House.
That exchange ought to make us suspicious, because the Public Accounts Committee comes to this House almost every year with 20 or 30 recommendations. In any event, it comes in with a lot of flack. We sometimes hear complaints from the members of the committee that not all their suggestions are acted upon. I do not suppose all the recommendations of any committee can be acted upon; nevertheless, it seems to me that this procedure does not leave the members of the Public Accounts Committee as happy as they otherwise might be.
The following exchange also took place in the committee:
Mb. McCleave: We do get a report in which a committee has Identified what it thinks is wrong about it but it seems to me that we should be taking it one step further to provide for it to be immediately or within 15 days brought for a discussion and a vote by either house of Parlement.
Mb. Tubneb (Ottawa-Cableton) : Could that not be left to the rules of the House and the resolution of the scrutiny committee as to how Parliament is to deal with it? We did not want to circumscribe how Parliament should act in this statute.
Mb. McCleave: I would be inclined to accept that but my colleague says no so perhaps I should throw it to him.
Statutory Instruments Act
My colleague the hon. member for Edmonton West continued the discussion. Later, as found on page 26, that clause was stood at my request until I had had a chance to study it. After walking up and down the hall and talking to a few people about this, because I was concerned in case we were not developing an effective procedure, the following exchange took place:
Mb. McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I have had some discussion with my colleagues on this side about it and it seems to me that the right to make regulations is permanently referred to the committee to be established. So the committee can report to either Chamber that the regulation is excessive, unjust, or the like. This not only puts government on notice at that time, but there is no reason that the committee cannot next week come back and say the same thing, and say it over and over again, because the act is always there before the committee. A report on it does not render the committee functus with regard to that particular act or the regulation passed under it. I think in that respect we have a greater safeguard than the Alf Hales-
Instead of "act" I should have said that the regulations are there before the committee. The exchange continued as follows:
Mb. Tubneb (Ottawa-Cableton) : Public Accounts.
Mb. McCleave: Yes. In that respect we have, because they can become functus on something but the committee never could as I read it.
The minister then said:
The general umbrella is created by statute but it is un to either House to supplement it and put it through.
I said:
But subject to perhaps stumbling on some better procedure I would be happy to accept it. I withdraw my objection.
Perhaps I am to be commended for that bit of caution at the end. Where I said there might be a better procedure on which we might stumble.
May I repeat the issue as I see it. The minister agreed that the regulation would always be before the committee and the committee could report on that regulation. It could report one week and, if the government took no action, presumably it could report the next week, and so on, if it felt very strongly what it regarded as an injustice in the regulation. The danger is that it depends on whether the committee is established as an independent committee; in other words, it will not be pushed around by anyone. If it were exercised enough, it could report to either House time and again. My remedy is fine in one respect, but not if the committee does not feel encouraged to always report on its difficulties.
The proposals of the hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. member for Peace River do not state that the committee has the final say as to whether the regulation is defective. That is very important. It would be most improper to give any committee of this House the right to substitute its opinion for that of a government department with its expertise, the Governor in Council, the cabinet and their advisers. That would be wrong; also, it would be constitutionally unsound. However, I think the committee does have a right to express an

March 8, 1971
Statutory Instruments Act
opinion and to make a recommendation based on that opinion.
With the resources, expertise and common sense of the collective members, I think the committee has a right to report to this or the other chamber on any matter that has been referred to it. For example, they have the right to say that they have examined the regulations under the beekeepers act and feel that in some respects they are unjust and offend some of the rules laid down in the accepted Parliamentary practices of the world and, more particularly, the rules set forth in paragraph 7 (a-j) of the report of the statutory instruments committee. That opinion could then be tested. That is the real crunch in the whole issue.
I do not apologize for going into this matter at some length because I think we may reach a consensus. The minister is a fair man; he will listen to us. When the President of the Privy Council (Mr. McEachen) brings in legislation to set up the committee, many of the issues may already have been cleared out of the way. I do not apologize for scouting it at some length. Either remedy in the amendment before us seems to be very useful. The remedy suggested by the hon. member for Peace River, as contained in subclause 3, reads;
Where a statutory instrument stands referred to such committee, the committee has, in respect of such statutory instrument, the power to recommend that the same be approved, varied or repealed.
That does not say "the power to approve, vary or repeal." It is simply a power to make the committee's opinion or recommendation known to the House. I think that is important. Again, we are not substituting a decision for that of someone else. We are simply stating whether we regard what has been done by the regulation-making authority is proper. It is up to Parliament to decide. No doubt the government, with all its abilities, will not have great difficulty if we are not on the right track. If we are on the right track, the regulation will probably be very quickly amended and the remedy secured without having to go to the House for a vote.
The other remedy, suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton West, is a little more complicated. It is set out in subclause 3 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 fifteen sitting days after the tabling thereof in the same session, if such be possible, or within the first twenty sitting days in the next session following and any debate thereon shall continue subject to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, until the report shall have been finally disposed of.
Again there is no attempt by the committee to substitute its decision for that reached by the minister, the Governor in Council or whoever has the power to make regulations. It is simply a right to comment on whether it regards the exercise of those powers to have been carried out properly, and to report to the House to have the procedure clearly spelled out so that all members can state whether they think the regulatory power has been
properly exercised. Those are the main points. That is why I recommend either one of these two courses.
It is about half a minute to 10 o'clock. I understand that one member of the New Democratic Party, who is not present this evening, would like to speak on this matter. I also understand that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) would like to say a few words on the subject. Perhaps the House would permit these hon. members to speak later on this important subject.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Napier Turner: If hon. members will allow, I will state the business of the House. Tomorrow is opposition day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tomorrow is ladies' day.


John Napier Turner: Tomorrow is ladies' day, sponsored by the New Democratic Party. According to the information I have received from the House leader, this bill will be called again on Wednesday. I think this has been a very useful debate so far.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, on January 22, which seems quite a while ago, I addressed the following question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford):
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the spread in pork prices between the 20 cents a pound for dressed pork which a farmer receives in Saskatchewan and the retail price of pork products such as ham, which sells for $1.20 per pound, will the minister look into this price difference and consider appropriate action?
Mr. Speaker, since farming began, farmers have been concerned about the fact that their bargaining position has not always been as good as it should have been. They hope that their bargaining position and their share of the consumers' dollar can be improved. I should like to address a series of questions to the minister or to the parliamentary secretary. First, I would ask him to look at this question and tell the House what action he is contemplating in connection with this wide disparity between the amount farmers receive and the amount consumers are paying. Does the Minister of Consumer Affairs concern himself about the difference in prices

March 8, 1971

received by primary producers and those paid by consumers? Does he consider he has any place in this equation?
What check does he or his department make to find out whether someone is applying pressure in the marketplace? Is there a continuous check to see whether someone is applying undue pressure on the price of a product or a service, in this case the price of pork? Does he keep any consistent watch, if you will, to find out whether pressure is being applied? Does the minister concern himself about price wars which the supermarket chains may be waging among themselves in the course of which they force consumer prices down and then insist on reducing payments to producers of red meat?
I suggest this is the case. In the committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs during an examination of Bill C-181 I asked one of the witnesses whether this was the case. He replied that those engaged in the meat industry naturally tried to get a fair price for their products but when there was a supermarket war in progress the supermarkets put pressure on the meat packers to reduce their prices and pass the reduction on to the producers. In what way is the department concerned with these things?
Does the Department of Consumer Affairs concern itself at all with the relative difference in the bargaining position as between one group and another in the marketplace, or does it just make out as best it can? Does it attempt to judge the price margin on different products, in this case pork, or is the position of the ministry merely one of pricing can sizes, comparing weight units, acting as watchdog over advertising, and so on? I am suggesting to the parliamentary secretary that the department should really get down to the meat of the matter-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Dinsdale:: The red meat.


Mr. Thompson:: -and see that farmers get a fair price for pork.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the production of hogs in 1970 has only been exceeded in one earlier year, as the hon. member may know, and that was in 1944. A combination of ample feed grains in the west and high prices in 1969 led to a large increase in output, and during the latter half of 1970 the price of hogs declined dramatically. The national average price was $34.63 in 1969 and this had fallen to $22.94 in the first week of January, 1971. These prices refer to 100 pounds dressed weight. These statistics are quite important and relevant.
There have been significant declines in the price of retail pork cuts. Ham, smoked boneless, dropped from an average of $1.35 per pound in 1969 to $1.14 in December, 1970. Shoulder roasts, Boston butt, fresh, fell from 73.5 cents in 1969 to 56.6 cents in December, 1970. These are national averages compiled by DBS. The relation between hog prices and the price of retail pork products was examined in detail by the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Consumer Credit and Prices, I think in the fall of 1966. The conclusion of the committee was that there was no simple relationship between the price of hogs and individual retail cuts. One thing did emerge clearly. A high level of consumer demand for a particular cut such as hams will mean that its price will not rise or fall in the same way as the price of the whole carcass. I hope this will clarify the situation, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.08 p.m.

Tuesday, March 9, 1971