1973-01-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, letters patent issued by my Colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in favour of Telesat Canada, were tabled in the House on January 4. These letters patent pursuant to Section 33 of the Telesat Canada Act provide for the amendment of the corporation's objects to enable it to render service by satellite to and between locations outside Canada and to provide managerial and engineering services to interested parties wherever they are located. At present the Telesat Canada Act gives the Corporation the legal capacity to provide service between locations in Canada.
The letters patent become effective on the thirtieth sitting day after they have been laid before parliament unless before that day either House resolves that the letters patent shall be annulled.
The reason that Telesat service to locations outside Canada is possible, is that the beams from the Telesat satellites, which focus on Canada, spill over and cover adjacent areas such as part of Alaska and some of the contiguous States of the South.
Telesat applied for the letters patent because early last year it saw the possibility of doing some very useful out-of-Canada business. It had been receiving repeated enquiries from American companies who were anxious to use the Telesat satellites. Telesat Canada already has entered into tentative agreements with some of its potential United States customers, and these have been reported in the press.
I would like now to turn to some of the considerations which surround the new development. The first of these are Canada's obligations under the inter-governmental agreement which controls the International Telecommunication Satellite Organization (Intelsat). One of the important provisions of the agreement is that all of the member countries are obliged to give Intelsat-and thus their own investments in it-a measure of protection against the establishment of competing satellite systems which might also be used for international purposes. Thus any proposal that Telesat may make for providing international service will require consultation with the Assembly of Intelsat prior to deciding on its implementation. Here I should explain that "international Service" is
one that is rendered between locations in different countries.

Officials of the Department of External Affairs, of my department and of Telesat have held several discussions with their counterparts in the United States government on this question and an understanding has been reached on the precise modalities to be associated with the Intelsat consultation.
In the course of the discussions with the United States, both parties realized that it would be useful also to deal with the question of how the Telesat satellites, or future United States domestic satellites, might be utilized, in mutual assistance fashion, to provide services in or to the other country. Examples of possible service involving the United States and Canada fall into three broad categories. The first is a straightforward support to the other country in the event of a catastrophic failure in its own system. The second is the provision of a domestic service within the other country, on an interim basis, when its own facilities have not yet been established or it is temporarily short of capacity. The third is an extension of what is essentially a domestic service across the border to include points in the other country. Such an extension, which clearly is international by definition, would be no more than of an incidental and peripheral nature but it may be of long-term duration. Communications in support of pipelines could be in this category.
In all cases a particular proposal would be subject to the approval of the appropriate authorities in both countries and through this safeguard each country can be sure that its own interests are being served. These procedures and principles have been embodied in letters exchanged in November with the United States.
So far as Canada is concerned, the appropriate authority will be the Minister of Communications pursuant to his licensing powers under the Radio Act. Also, Telesat Canada will have to meet any applicable requirements of other legislation, including that administered by the Canadian Transport Commission. As Telesat moves forward to implement the expanded powers, I know that its board and its management have every intention of ensuring that Canadian interests, both present and future, will have priority consideration in system planning and use and I know that the tentative agreements already entered into so provide. However, in case there is any doubt I am prepared to state categorically that Canadian interests must have priority and that I have the power to ensure that this policy will in fact be respected.
Important in this matter when international communication is involved is the position of the Crown corporation, the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corpo-

Routine Proceedings
ration. The statute under which it operates gives the corporation the legal capacity to establish and operate external telecommunication services with the telecommunications services of other nations. "External" in this context means between Canada and any place outside Canada.
In the satellite communication field the position of the COTC takes on special significance by virtue of the corporation being the signatory for Canada to the Intelsat operating agreement, thus providing Canada's representative on the board of governors of that organization. The future of international communication is complex; it will require the careful attention of all concerned to ensure that Canada's interests are being served. This in turn demands that the COTC be a strong entity, one that Canada can regard as her primary instrument in this important field.
I am sure hon. members will agree that if, as planned, Telesat expands its role to embrace international services, even though these may seem small by comparison, there should be appropriate recognition given to the position of the COTC. In my capacity as the minister responsible, I intend that this will be done.

In summary, this new Telesat development, coming on the heels of considerable success in promoting its Canadian services, should be a very stimulating one for Canada. Not only will Telesat benefit, but there may well be new opportunities for Canadian engineers and manufacturers. The opportunities for effectively using satellite communication in and around a country such as ours are virtually unlimited.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not responding to the minister's statement. That response will be made in due course by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan). My point of order is that I wish to bring to the attention of the House and to the attention of members of the ministry that Standing Order 15(3) provides that on motions a minister may make an announcement or statement respecting government policy but any such announcement or statement should be limited to facts. I am not going to be critical of the minister; he has simply done what other ministers have done. But I point out that this statement deals with the reasons behind the letters patent that have been filed and, as the minister said, this may be the subject of debate in the House.
There is an opportunity, within 30 sitting days after the letters patent have been filed, for the House by way of resolution to debate and discuss this issue. The minister has given reasons why, in his view, these letters patent should have been presented and why the course the government has undertaken is a fit and proper policy. Under those conditions it would be quite possible to embark on a debate at this time. I do not know what the hon. member for Annapolis Valley will say. I hope he does not involve himself in debate to which there could be responses. And so it could go, down the line. However, I think I am entitled to bring this matter to the attention of the ministers and the members who respond so that there will be proper use made of this Standing Order.

January 25, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling on the hon. member for Annapolis Valley I might say that I appreciate the point made by the hon. member for Peace River. I thought yesterday that there was, to some extent, an abuse of the provisions of the Standing Order, not necessarily on the part of the minister but rather on the part of those who responded to the minister's statement. This might be an opportunity to bring to the attention of both the ministry and hon. members who respond to statements by ministers that under the terms of Standing Order 15 their statements must be brief. My recollection is that after a seven or eight minute statement made by a minister yesterday there were comments in response which were much longer. I was of the opinion that the statements were too long but, because it was such an important matter, I felt I should not intervene and I did not. I appreciate the point raised by the hon. member for Peace River. I think ministers should limit the length of their statements under the terms of Standing Order 15, and I would hope that members who speak in response to those statements will also be brief.
Mr. ]. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley): Mr. Speaker, I certainly intend to be brief. I am glad we can honour your direction to be brief. I usually am brief.
I thank the minister for giving notice of his statement. We on this side of the House are glad to hear some communication from the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier), who has been one of the more reticent ministers in the House. While some statements may be long and verbose in terms of the rules of the House, we on this side would like the minister to give more shorter and terser statements from time to time rather than sit in the vacuum of silence he has maintained for such a long time.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nowlan:: I do not know whether the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) wants to make his statement on the budget now. We are waiting for that, and it win be terse.
The letters patent tabled by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) on January 4 in favour of Telesat Canada represent a substantial modification of the objectives laid out in the Telesat Canada Act. The minister's statement sheds little light on the obvious implications of modifying section 5 of the Telesat Canada Act which limits the company to establishing satellite telecommunication services between locations in Canada. The possibilities of Canadian operated satellites being able to cover contiguous parts of the North American continent have always been evident.
There is some doubt in my mind concerning the propriety of effecting such an important and substantive change in the legislation passed by parliament in this way. As it stands, the letters patent tabled by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will become effective on the 30th sitting day after they have been laid before parliament. At this time, careful consideration must be given to the implications of the changed orientation of Telesat services and it may therefore be necessary for the House to debate fully whether such letters patent should be annulled.

Certainly there is a serious question in my mind concerning the implication that providing services to our continental neighbour will enjoy a higher priority than providing telecommunication facilities to the northern parts of Canada. Until this latter question has been clarified adequately, it will be impossible for members of this party to welcome the changes as outlined by the Minister of Communications in his statement. In sharing our technology and the service that Telesat can give to North America, we want to make sure we do not sell ourselves short. I think that is important.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I and members of my party welcome today's statement on the expanding role of Telesat Canada, a Crown corporation, in the increasingly complex and expanding role of domestic and international communications. We also thank the minister for providing the various parties with advance copies of his statement, as we do the president of Telesat for the trouble he took to inform all parties of the rationale behind the corporation's request for expanded powers. Thus we are in a position to provide something more than an off-the-cuff reply today.
It is important to say that members of my party expressed some concern that the expansion of powers through the amendments to the letters patent tabled earlier this session deleted the previous sections limiting the company to domestic or Canadian users, thereby leaving the possibility that Canadian firms might in future be denied access to channels because of contract commitments made between the corporation and non-resident firms that may offer more lucrative terms. In short, neither the Telesat Canada Act nor the amending letters patent make it explicit that Canadian interests will be served first and that any contracts made to service foreign needs will be temporary and secondary and, further, limited to our unused or back-up capacity. We are grateful, therefore, that the minister in his statement has taken the opportunity to articulate the government's position on this subject by saying, as found on page three of his statement:
As Telesat moves forward to implement the expanded powers I know that its board and its management have every intention of ensuring that Canadian interests, both present and future, will have priority consideration in system planning and use and I know that the tentative agreements already entered into so provide. However, in case there is any doubt I am prepared to state categorically that Canadian interests must have priority and that I have the power to ensure that this policy will in fact be respected.
Therefore we are reassured that the minister has the necessary powers, and I am certain that as long as the minister is in office he will respect Canadian interests. My party, however, would be even more reassured by a statement in the minutes of a meeting of the corporation's board confirming what the minister has told us.
We are pleased by the fact that Telesat at present is roughly 60 per cent publicly owned and we desire it to remain that way. This party opposes the provision whereby the structure is to be one-third public, one-third carriers and one-third private shareholders. We consider that
Food Prices Committee
the present arrangement is more democratic and more suitable to Canadian needs now and in the future.
We congratulate Telesat on being a Canadian company which has a considerable and virtually unique lead in this new field of advanced technology in global telecommunications. We congratulate Telesat on the successful launching of Anik I at Cape Kennedy last fall and express our best wishes for Anik II this spring. We appreciate Tele-sat's sympathetic response to Canadian manufacturers in the development of Canadian expertise in this field in the future. We believe that Telesat demonstrates that a mixed private-public corporation can be successful. Telesat is successful, and we in this party want it to continue to be just that.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement seems to contain the necessary arguments allowing us to support him more especially as Telesat officials were kind enough to provide us with the useful information which will enable us to make a better judgment about that new policy.
That enlargement of Telesat services will be all the more beneficial if the income thus gained speed up telecommunication services in this country. We are especially referring to television services in certain remote and even in not so remote areas such as the northern part of my constituency, for example, where people are still waiting for that essential service.
We hope that this policy will benefit all Canadians. [English]


FOOD PRICES
Mr. T. Lefebvre (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, there have been the usual consultations among the parties in the House regarding the membership of the special committee on food prices. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster):
That the members of the Special Committee on Food Prices be Messrs. Atkey, Boisvert, Cullen, Danforth, Fleming, Fox, Gauthier (Ottawa East), Gauthier (Roberval), Gleave, Grafftey, Horner (Crowfoot), Lawrence, Leblanc (Westmorland-Kent), Mrs. Macln-nis (Vancouver-Kingsway), Messrs. McGrath, Mitges, Mrs. Morin, Messrs. Murta, Penner, Roy (Laval), Saltsman, Scott, Whicher, Whittaker and Yanakis.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: What an army! It is an NDP-Liberal committee.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Food Prices Committee REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
January 25, 1973

Mr. Elmer MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Several of the monthly reports recently submitted pursuant to section 16 of the Regional Development Incentives Act contain differences and discrepancies as between the versions in both official languages. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That this serious matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development for appropriate study and action.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Central Nova. The motion is proposed under Standing Order 43 and requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: If there were any nays I did not hear them. I think I should indicate to hon. members that if any member objects to a motion under Standing Order 43 it should be made clear to the House. I do not think there is any obligation on the part of the Chair to assume that such a motion will not receive unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the nays were clearer that time. There is not unanimous consent. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that it appears there are documents before the House that are inconsistent in that they contain discrepancies. My point of order is that the minister should either make a statement on motions to clarify the matter or he should take the documents from the table and replace them with the correct versions.


Mr. Speaker:: I see the minister wishes to reply, but I do not think I can accept that as a point of order. It is obviously a point of debate and the matter should not be pursued at this time.


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43.
Recognizing the national character of the 1976 Olympic games in Montreal, realizing it would be unfair for Montrealers alone to pay all expenditures entailed, and taking into account the financial requirements that are essential

to the success of those games, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme):
That a special debate be held as soon as possible to define the financial responsibility of this parliament with regard to those Olympic games.


Mr. Speaker:: The House heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Joliette. The unanimous consent of the House is required, pursuant to Standing Order 43. Does the House agree unanimously?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As the House is not unanimous, the motion cannot be put.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in response to a question asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) I replied that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had not made any reference to compulsory retirement. On reading Hansard I discovered that I was in error and that in fact the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had used the term "compulsory retirement". I had understood that in his question he was referring to those who had been retired normally by reason of the regulations governing age rather than it being disciplinary retirement.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am happy that the minister has recognized in the House use of the word "compulsory". I would ask him at his earliest possible convenience to indicate on what authority a Crown corporation, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, can compulsorily retire miners at the age of 60.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have not yet reached the question period. Perhaps the question might be asked of the minister then and he can attempt to reply at that time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The publication of figures in respect of the trade deficit of the United States reminds us of the controversy between our two countries in regard to trade problems. Has the United States government requested any resumption of the discussions on the points of difference between our two countries in respect of matters of trade and, if so, when will these discussions resume?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any formal request on the part of the United States government for resumption of the discussions. I noted the same point the hon. Leader of the Opposition has in respect of their trade deficit. I would point out to him that the United States and Canada do have similar international problems. We, too, have a deficit on current account and we are looking at those areas, to those countries, where there is a surplus on current account.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the minister made any representations to the United States recently with regard to the so-called United States DISC program with relation to the tax advantages this program allegedly affords U.S. competitors of Canadian industries?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, over a period of time we have made our views known to the United States government about the DISC program. Recently my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, indicated that the monitoring measures that were introduced last fall have been successful in helping us to assess the effects of DISC on Canadian prices. So far it would appear that United States corporations have not taken advantage of DISC by lowering their prices on Canadian markets to the disadvantage of Canadian manufacturers.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting but unfortunate to note that the minister is not concerned about this problem which seems to be giving great concern to the premier of Ontario. Will the minister at his early convenience make a statement to the House on motions outlining the special matters of difference between the government of the United States and the government of Canada in respect of trade and our relationships generally so that we will all be as up to date as I hope he is regarding these discussions?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to indicate that I am not concerned about DISC. Of course I am concerned, and the government is. The tax measures introduced in the May budget by the Minister of Finance
Oral Questions
made very clear at that time that among other things they were aimed at offsetting the effects of DISC on Canadian manufacturers.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I would not normally ask another supplementary question but I would like the minister to answer the question I asked. Will he inform the House as to the subject matters of the differences between the two countries in their commercial and trade relationships so that members of the House will be as up to date on the areas of difference as I presume the minister is?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to consider that representation and report back later.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr.- Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question. In view of the fact his predecessor listed a series of what he called "irritants" in relation to trade relations between the United States and Canada, which were being discussed by officials of both countries as a preliminary to a meeting at a higher level, may I ask now whether these irritants have been resolved to the government's satisfaction and, if not, why has the Canadian government not asked for further meetings to resolve these differences?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that two countries doing as much trade as our country and the United States will ever remove all the irritants. From time to time there will be irritants between our two countries just in the very nature of things. As to the second point in the hon. member's question, I think it has been made clear in the past that following the vote of confidence in the House we would be sitting down to discuss some of our outstanding differences with the United States authorities and, indeed, Mr. Speaker, that is our intention.


Gerald William Baldwin: Maybe you better do it pretty quickly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether the Canadian government has asked for such meetings, what has been the response, and when are such meetings likely to take place?


Alastair William Gillespie: There has been no formal request on the part of the Canadian government or the United States government, Mr. Speaker. I would expect, though, that there would be preliminary or exploratory meetings in a few weeks time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Trinity on a last supplementary question and then go to the next subject. Perhaps we can return to this matter later.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, did the minister indicate in his answer to the first part of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition that in our negotiations with the United States we would insist on maintaining a balance which includes not just current account but also the outflow of Canadian dollars to the United States in respect of interest payments and dividends?

January 25, 1973
Oral Questions


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would define current account to include non-merchandise matters as well as merchandise matters.


CONTINUATION OF GRANT TO GRAINS COUNCIL IN LIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM MEMBERSHIP BY WHEAT POOLS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the decision of the three prairie wheat pools to withdraw from membership and support of the Canada Grains Council, leaving that organization largely representative only of the private grain trade, will the minister advise the House whether it is the intention of the government to continue the grant of some $50,000 a year to the council?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the government's intention. The Canada Grains Council has, of course, increased its membership over the years with other producer organizations. In addition, at the time the pools indicated to me their intention to withdraw they also indicated their willingness to continue working with the council on very important committees in order that their points of views and that of the producers would be represented there.


POSSIBILITY OF RESTRUCTURING OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary in connection with the grain trade. Has the minister been approached by farm organizations such as the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association to restructure the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board in order to give more representation to the private grain trade and, if so, can he tell the House what the government's position is in respect of the advisory committee?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association and some other groups have indicated a desire to review the make-up of the Wheat Board advisory committee, but not to give additional representation to the grain trade, private or otherwise. Indeed, their representations have been in the direction that representatives of the grain trade ought not to be on the advisory committee and that we ought to find a way to have more direct producer representation on it.


PROVISION OF CARS BY RAILWAYS TO TRANSPORT WHEAT
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that at this time many country elevators are plugged and there is a lack of roll-

ing stock, can the minister inform the House of any action to alleviate this very urgent problem?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated to the House the other day, at a meeting last Sunday with the Wheat Board I was informed there were still some places where congestion was serious, particularly in the region represented by the hon. member for Assiniboia. The Wheat Board has taken special steps to see that cars to move the grain from that area will be going there in very large numbers, so I think the situation will be alleviated fairly shortly.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Since the Quebec police recently found a cache of firearms in which there was an anti-aircraft gun, could the minister tell us if this weapon comes from a Canadian Forces Base? In the affirmative, could he say how many of these weapons have been reported missing by military authorities?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to have information about the weapon before I could say where it originated.


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-MINISTER HAVING JURISDICTION-REPLY TO STAMP, COIN AND LOTTERY SCHEME PROPOSED BY COMMITTEE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister please tell the House whether in fact the subject of the Olympic Games has been passed from the Ministry of Health and Welfare, under whose jurisdiction the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act is administered, and, if so, why and to whom has it been passed?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Perhaps I can be helpful, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the present situation. I cannot recall that it was under the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Perhaps in the previous parliament it was, but certainly when this cabinet was formed at the time this parliament was elected the jurisdiction was put under the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, and it rests there now.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: "Rests" is right.
January 25, 1973


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see there is some restlessness in the ranks of the Conservative party. Both he and I have been dealing with this matter and we are prepared to continue doing so.


Otto John Jelinek: As a supplementary question I would like to ask the Minister of State for Urban Affairs whether he could explain why there has been no reply to the request made last November by the Montreal Olympic Committee to approve the proposed scheme involving special stamps, coins and lotteries, necessary to finance the games, and in view of the fact the Montreal Olympic Committee must report to Lausanne by February 2, can the minister tell the House what the decision is with regard to their requests?


Hon. Ron Basiord (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, those requests and proposals of the organizing committee are still being analysed by the department.


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN CITY AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF NO FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I would like the Prime Minister to let the people of Canada know what the present position is concerning discussions between the city of Montreal and the government of Canada in respect of assistance to be given by the government of Canada. Can he give the country as a whole the assurance that, in view of the tremendous expenditures being made today, Canada is not going to make a contribution to the Olympic Games?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Without commenting on the representation contained in the question, I certainly would be prepared to repeat what has been the government's stand from the outset, that there would be no special assistance, no special financial aid from the federal government to Montreal or to COJO for the holding of the Olympics. The correspondence and the discussions have always been to this effect. My statements have been to this effect. In fact, Mayor Drapeau's statements have confirmed that he understood that to be our position and he accepted it. I should add that a letter addressed to me by the Commissioner General just in the last few days is to that effect also. They understand that there is no commitment, nor do they request that the federal government make any special contribution to the holding of the Olympics. If I can go on, Mr. Speaker, there was a question of coinage which was alluded to-


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister has made it very clear now, and I thank him. Does special assistance include loans because, if it does not, Canada will be milked again if loans are made by the federal government?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question of loans has not, to my knowledge, been brought up by either the mayor of
Oral Questions
Montreal or by COJO. I think the words should be taken to mean exactly that that if loans were to be at some cost to the Canadian taxpayer generally they would not be contemplated by the government.
I might add that there have been special requests in the area of coinage, stamps and so on. Our reply, as indicated by the minister a moment ago, has been that we did not want to give an answer, that we might be prepared to consider it sympathetically if it had the support of the other parties but we did not want to give an answer to this until we had an assurance that, if any deficit were possible, provision would be made for it to be picked up by somebody other than the federal government.


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-POSSIBILITY OF LOANS BY CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Will the organizing committee of the Olympic games be able at least to take advantage of what is available from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation concerning required funds for this purpose?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think that the answer to this question must be affirmative, as regards the normal programs of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. If the City of Montreal, together with the Quebec government, intended to use the funds that we normally make available to this province, if they wanted to affect them to purposes which actually would be those of the Olympic games, we would not see any objection to this, but we do not intend to make any special contributions. These would be normal contributions which incidentally are quite substantial and paid yearly to all provinces.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the recent regulations regarding advance booking charters announced by the Canadian Transport Commission. In view of the fact that the new regulations will have the effect of appreciably increasing fares on all overseas travel by charter flights, and in view of the fact such rates will be established virtually on a non-competitive basis, can the minister advise the House whether he has been in touch with the CTC and/or the airlines to ensure that the Canadian travelling public will not be victimized by price fixing by the domestic air carriers?

January 25, 1973
Oral Questions


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is generally known that new regulations have been enacted regarding advance booking charters and published on January 8. I feel it is somewhat premature to draw conclusions on the implementation of the new policy because when preparing these regulations we consulted the Transport Commission and other authorities involved. As and when we became aware that the risks pointed out by the hon. member can really materialize, we shall certainly review the regulations.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact there is some suggestion that the rates are being established on a noncompetitive basis, could the minister advise the House whether his department has undertaken any steps to ensure that the charter air traveller will be getting a fair deal as a result of the new ABC regulations?


ADVANCE BOOKING CHARTER REGULATIONS- ASSESSMENT OF IMPLICATIONS BY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. Does he have someone in his department assessing the implications of these new air charter regulations so that he will be able to come into the House and say they are in the public interest and not in the interests of the carriers?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what the department is for and we are watching the situation very closely. We hope the new regulations will benefit the public in general and not a limited number of private interests.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In that assessment will the minister please take into consideration existing or intended fare schedules which discriminate against Canadians travelling to England in that an Englishman taking the same Canadian charter flight, travelling on the same route and with the same air crew, can come to Canada for $100 less?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will take that into consideration.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker . . .


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Richmond, but the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is rising on a point of order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was listening when I addressed my question to him, and I wonder if I might be permitted to repeat it?


Mr. Speaker:: I will return to the hon. member shortly. I had noticed that he wanted to ask a supplementary.


ALLEGED REFUSAL OF MINISTER TO SUBMIT TO AIRPORT SAFETY CHECK
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
There is the question of rates as well as that of security.
I would like to ask the Minister of Transport if he can tell the House whether the bill he has now introduced is important because, according to information obtained lately, he refused to submit to a security check as everybody else does in the interest of passengers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will admit that such a question is out of order.


ADVANCE BOOKING CHARTER REGULATIONS- INVESTIGATION BY COMBINES BRANCH TO ASSURE INTERESTS OF PUBLIC PROTECTED
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat the question I directed earlier to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has his department undertaken to look into the new regulations and their impact on the air charter traveller with a view to ensuring that such persons will have a fair deal and that the interests of the public will be upheld?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to have this matter looked into to the extent that it comes under the jurisdiction of my department as distinct from that of the Canadian Transport Commission.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the Canadian taxpayer appears to be at least indirectly subsidizing research and development costs of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, according to unchallenged evidence adduced before the Canadian Transport Commission recently, is the minister considering the halting of all grants to Bell subsidiaries, and is he considering asking for the refunding of all or part of the sum $43 million paid to Bell subsidiaries since 1965-66?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise on which the question was asked so my answer is no.


Terrence Wyly Grier: In that case, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he will consider investigating the allegations with a view to assuring the House that such funds have not been put to improper use?
January 25, 1973


DISCUSSION OF COST OF DRUGS TO SENIOR CITIZENS AT CONFERENCE ON OLD AGE PENSIONS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the meeting scheduled for next Friday between the minister and his provincial counterparts to discuss the long overdue increase in old age security pensions, may I ask whether drug care will be discussed having in mind the difficult problem posed by the cost of medication for ailing senior citizens?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Philip Bernard Rynard: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister would put this on the agenda for discussion?


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport on the very urgent matter of job abolishment by Canadian National Telecommunications. The CN Telecommunications union has been informed that their public telegraph service members are to suffer severe job abolishment in their respective trades. I wrote to the minister on this matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat? The hon. member has the floor for the purpose of asking a question and should ask it as quickly as possible.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I am at the question now, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister assure the House and the union that these lay-offs will not take place? Also, is the CNR trying to get out of the telecommunication business?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker , I think the hon. member would receive a faster answer if he addressed the question to the proper minister, the Minister of Communications.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


ABOLISHING OF CERTAIN TELECOMMUNICATION JOBS- PRIORITY FOR EMPLOYMENT IN POST OFFICE TELEPOST SERVICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and is directed to the Postmaster General. Is it the minister's intention to estab-
Oral Questions
lish a telepost service within the Post Office department and, if so, will the employees who are laid off by CN-CP Telecommunications be given priority in filling these new positions?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the telepost is only used to complement the present mail and telegram services. Hence, I cannot accept the hon. member's statement that employees of the Canadian National would be laid off because of this service since it is only offered to people who are already using Telex.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, this time to the Minister of Communications. In the event of the lay-offs referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, can the minister give the House an assurance that job security, no matter how it is accomplished, whether through the new branch being contemplated by the Post Office, will be assured to the employees affected?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that this question is hypothetical.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare is related to the meeting next week between the federal and provincial ministers of health. Is the government considering lowering the eligibility age for the old age pension and, second, is the government considering providing a pension for the wife of a husband who receives the old age pension even though the wife has not reached the age of 65?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have serious doubts about this kind of question. The hon. member will appreciate that it anticipates a bill to come before the House.


ROBERT BURNS
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister. Is he aware of the fact that today marks the anniversary of the birth of the world's greatest poet, Robert Burns?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I perhaps would like to qualify on the grounds of poetry, but I have on my left a man who can qualify by having the
638

Oral Questions
ethnic and cultural background, so perhaps he should reply.


An hon. Member:: He hasn't got a kilt on.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, we are alive to the day and its significance as the feast day of Robert Burns whose immortal memory will be celebrated throughout the world today. Members of this House, many of whom have Scottish blood in their veins-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -including such unlikely gentlemen as the right hon. Prime Minister and the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, will want to associate themselves with the many tributes that will be paid to the genius of Robert Burns today.
I congratulate the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald) and the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) on their elegant and beautiful garb. I had intended wearing the kilt myself today but I decided against it. I thought that as House leader of a government in a minority situation I was sufficiently exposed!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MAIN ESTIMATES, 1973-74 INQUIRY AS TO TABLING BY FEBRUARY 15
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board on a much more mundane subject. Would the minister advise if it is his intention to table the estimates for the new fiscal year by February 15, and in so doing will he follow the usual custom of tabling the estimates before the budget?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I can say that we should be tabling the main estimates for 1973-74 around February 15, but whether this will be before the budget or after the budget I cannot answer.


SOCIAL SECURITY
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Are the officials of his department at present looking into the possibility of lowering the age of eligibility from 65 to 60?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is very similar to one that was asked a few moments ago and that was ruled out of order by the Chair.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration concerning the elevator strike which certainly has national consequences. Is he aware of the fact that as a result of the elevator strike Otis Elevator in Hamilton is contemplating laying off 500 people? If not, will he look into the circumstances in order that his department may assist in this very grave matter?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will ensure that the department is in communication with the company in question and that all possible action is taken.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the elevator strike has reached national proportions, and even though it may be under provincial jurisdiction, has the minister determined if there is any way in which he can be involved? Has he been approached by his provincial counterparts? If so, what has been the result of any discussions?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker, I must advise the hon. member that I have not been approached. However, being equally as concerned as the hon. member over how serious the situation is, I contacted the provincial Minister of Labour, or his department, within the last couple of days. There is some hope, I understand, that the parties will come together again in the near future, hopefully leading to a settlement. It seems to be quite clear that the federal government has no jurisdiction in the matter.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister has shown some initiative in this regard-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I give him credit. Don't get excited. In view of the national effect of the strike in terms of inconvenience and financial loss, will the minister continue to stick his nose into this area in order that he can report to the House day by day or week by week?


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the indicated interest in the preservation of salmon spawning streams on the part of the government of British Columbia as evidenced by the suspension of logging in at
January 25, 1973

least one salmon stream, is he prepared to request the approval of parliament for a beefed-up appropriation in order to catch up with the longstanding backlog of neglected salmon spawning streams in the province of British Columbia?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, we certainly welcome the newfound interest of the government of British Columbia in salmon streams on the west coast. We have included more money in the budget to clear these streams.


PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDRO DEVELOPMENT-ALLEGED RECALL OF REPORT ON FEDERAL INTERESTS IN PROJECT
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister advise the House why all copies of a government study entitled, "An Analysis of Federal Interests Affected by the Proposed James Bay Hydro Development", have been collected from members of his own department who had such copies and why copies of this report are now being kept secret.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, copies of this report are not being kept secret. They were prepared by a summer student in 1971. There is a disclaimer on the front to the effect that this report does not represent departmental or government policy.


John Allen Fraser: Can the minister advise the House whether such copies are still drifting around the department or have they all been collected and taken out of circulation?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have collected a number. If hon. members want copies, I will be glad to let them have same.


CANADA-UNITED STATES-URGENCY OF RESUMPTION OF DISCUSSIONS
Mr. Howard Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, may I return to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition-


An hon. Member:: Which one?


William Heward Grafftey: If I may return to the question relating to imminent trade meetings with the United States, may I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether, because of Britain's recent entry into the Common Market and the obvious effect on Canadian trade patterns, he does not regard those meetings with the United States as being of extraordinary urgency?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, of course they are important,
Oral Questions
but the point with respect to the EEC raises another issue, that of our multilateral negotiations under GATT which we expect to be entering into during the course of this year.


William Heward Grafftey: Has the minister specific statistics relating to trade with the United States and trade with the United Kingdom, especially as it affects the province of Quebec? This is one of the reasons, apart from national considerations why it is extraordinarily urgent that these meetings be called with the United States, in view especially of the effect on the province of Quebec-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that we are entering the field of debate.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat? He has asked his question and the minister has replied, and the subsequent question he asked is much the same as the one which was asked in the first instance. If the minister can reply briefly, he may do so. I will then recognize the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate who also has a supplementary.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about the effects of the enlargement of the EEC from the standpoint of all provinces of Canada, not just from the standpoint of one province of Canada. I think it might be worth while saying that our trade with the EEC has been expanding at a more rapid rate than it has been with the United Kingdom, so we are hopeful that the enlargement will provide a very much larger market for Canadian goods in years to come.


CANADA-UNITED STATES-INQUIRY AS TO RECENT COMMUNICATION FROM UNITED STATES
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if he has received, in the last 48 hours, any response or inquiry from his American counterpart or from any other United States official relating to trade relations between Canada and the United States? If so, can he tell us the nature of that communication?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any special communication within the last 48 hours.


AIR TRANSPORT
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to repeat the question I asked earlier.
Can the Minister of Transport tell us if the legislation authorizing air companies to search every person boarding a commercial aircraft in Canada will apply to all
25714-41J

January 25, 1973
Oral Questions
Canadians who travel by air or if some exceptions are provided?


Jean Marchand: There are no exceptions, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member refers to the information published yesterday in La Presse it is baseless because Friday I was not in Montreal, at Dorval or at the airport. I was here in Ottawa and La Presse has promised that it would retract and apologize for what it has published.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question, if I may, to the Minister of Agriculture. It is based on his very commendable efforts to reintroduce a sugar industry in southwestern Ontario. Can the minister indicate to the House that the government, by reason of negotiation or conversation, has reason to believe that Canada's present commitments under the international sugar agreement can be terminated and a new restriction on cane sugar imports imposed so as to increase the percentage of sugar produced from domestic sources?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mb-. Speaker, I have every reason to believe that we can increase the domestic production of sugar in Canada.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, the minister missed the purport of my question. I know we can increase our domestic production. Is there reason to believe that we can change the agreement on the importation of cane sugar to the degree that we can supply more of our market for this sugar from domestic production?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am still confident that we can do that, too.


SUGAR BEETS-POSSIBLE INCREASE IN ALLOCATION TO WESTERN PROVINCES
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. As the minister has said that a new sugar policy would increase the percentage of the market reserved for domestic sugar, would the minister indicate how much of that increased percentage would be allocated to the western provinces?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have met the chairmen of the Alberta Sugar Beet Growers Association, of the Manitoba Sugar Beet Growers Association, of the Quebec Sugar Beet Growers Association and the national sugar beet growers association. They are all agreed that this matter can be worked out in a proper manner between the different areas.


SUGAR BEETS-APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF ACRES NEEDED FOR EFFICIENT OPERATION OF REFINERIES
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. On the basis of the minister's assertion regarding the promotion of the sugar beet industry in southwestern Ontario, can the minister say if the 40 per cent committed acreage is the absolute minimum or will a lower figure of, say, 25,000 acres encourage the minister to take action?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, according to my discussions with interested people, specialists in sugar beet refineries and operations, it is estimated, roughly, that an efficient operation would require approximately 30,000 acres. It may be of importance for hon. members to know, Mr. Speaker, that growers pledged over 15,000 acres during the meeting which was held in Chatham last Saturday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are nearing the end of the question period. Perhaps the Chair might be allowed to recognize a few hon. members who have not had an opportunity to ask questions.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the report just released by his department that federal expenditures on day-care services may reach $8 million this year, does the government intend to take more vigorous steps to implement the full cost-sharing program of $400 million proposed by the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this matter is essentially under provincial responsibility. It is being discussed with provincial welfare ministers on a consulting basis.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Is the minister aware that if the federal government's share of this $400 million program were to be $200 million, at the rate the government is now proceeding with increases of $4 million each year-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is argument.


POST OFFICE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Postmaster General. Will the Postmaster General advise the House whether he intends to intervene
January 25, 1973

in the local postal strike in Belleville, Ontario, and meet the reasonable request of the employees so that regular service can be restored?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. If there is to be an increase in domestic production of sugar, is consideration being given to an allocation of this production to the Atlantic area?


Eugene Whelan: As far as I
know, Mr. Speaker, at the present time there is no production of sugar beets in the Atlantic area for commercial use. If there is, we will certainly investigate it. As the Minister of Agriculture for Canadian producers, I will do what I can to help them.


WHEAT-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE RAILWAYS CAN TRANSPORT INCREASED VOLUME
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the minister's recent statement with regard to exports of wheat for the next crop year, can the minister inform the House whether he has received any assurance from the railroads that they will be able to transport such volumes promptly and, if not, is he going to seek such an assurance?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think the past record of performance of the railways in increasing their carriage of grain proves that the railroads can do even better if they so desire. With all the hopper cars now being provided, I am confident we can now do more than we have done in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MANPOWER
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, this question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the high unemployment in Canada and the fact that only one-third of the LIP projects have been approved, will the minister consider assigning more money to this program so that areas like my own can employ people?
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question has been asked and the representation has already been made.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has allowed an extra two or three minutes, taking into account that we have spent some time on poets, to try to recognize some of the members in the back rows who had not been seen previously. I appreciate that during this time some of the frontbenchers and parliamentary secretaries have not been recognized. We will now call orders of the day and try to give the hon. member for Edmonton Centre and the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond an opportunity to ask their questions tomorrow.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Can the government House leader indicate the business for the rest of this week and next week, particularly with respect to Bill C-125, the second unemployment insurance bill, which the minister implied last Wednesday would follow the present debate? Is it the intention of the government to stand or withdraw that bill for further change in light of the fact that yesterday the New Democratic Party indicated it could not support it in its present form?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the present debate today and continue it until it is completed. When it is completed, today or tomorrow, the next item will be the amendment to the Criminal Code, capital punishment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I wish to advise hon. members that I would like to call very early the bill on the order paper relating to pilotage.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: See what influence you have, Stan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: After reading the bill, hon. members will understand that it has a certain relevance to the first of February because certain regulations expire unless action is taken by the House. That is why this bill is being brought forward. With regard to the final part of the hon. member's question, if he will just tell me where he stands on that bill, maybe I will be able to decide when to call it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the order of business, may I ask the government House leader to tell us what priority or lack of priority he gives to Bill C-132, the bill having to do with foreign investment. Is that on the list for early consideration-


Mr. Paproski:: Only if you want it there, Stan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -or will the government consider referring the subject matter of the

January 25, 1973
Oral Questions
bill to committee so that some inprovements might be made before we proceed with it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the government attaches a high priority to this bill. It will be called in the orderly process of events.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member in a moment. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond wishes to rise on a question of privilege.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for raising this question of privilege. I have exhausted every possible means to find an answer. My question of privilege involves the integrity of the House and the welfare of the Cape Breton miners. I may say that the former Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and I were beginning to find a way in the maze of problems. The present minister is doing likewise. A question of legality arises. It is the question of legality that is the basis of this question of privilege, since I want consideration given to the recent federal court case. I wish to ask the President of the Treasury Board if Treasury Board can authorize the compulsory retirement of any person prior to the normal retirement age of 65.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may wish to ask the question of the minister. Perhaps the minister wishes to give a legal opinion or reply in some way to the hon. member. However, that matter certainly cannot be raised by way of a question of privilege. I appreciate how important the matter is, particularly to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, but I do not think that our Standing Orders and practice make it possible to seek information, relevant and important though it may be, under the heading of privilege.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask the guidance of the House or anyone in the House who can give me an answer. With regard to the good legislation that was passed in this House in June, 1967, how does the government make this work?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald MacInnis: I ask the
guidance of any member of this House who can give it to me.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand very well the matter being raised by the hon. member. It has been raised from time to time in the House. It has been considered in committee. There is an awareness of the situation on the part of a number of hon. members. Again, I doubt whether the difficulty can be solved, or the problem settled, either on a point of order or a question of privilege.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a further point of order. I do not wish to continue arguing this point. I want to get rid of it. How do I get a legal opinion when I seek it from the Crown? Who will give me that legal opinion? If the Federal Court of

Canada withdrew this authority from treasury, how can it be applied to the miners in Cape Breton?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. I apologize to the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate. He wishes to raise a point of order. I recognized first the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. He was entitled to priority for his question of privilege.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I hope I am in order in asking the government House leader if he can give us some indication of the position in the government's structure of priorities of the Family Income Security Plan which was alluded to in the Speech from the Throne and about which I am sure many members are getting hundreds of inquiries. Is the government planning to bring in this bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the government is definitely planning to bring in this bill. I am not certain I can assure my hon. friend that it will be brought in shortly. I do not expect it will be brought in in the early part of the session.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, January 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-124, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No 1), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Baldwin (page 620).
Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Caouette) wish to complete the remarks he began yesterday?


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, to follow up yesterday's remarks, I must say that I quite appreciated the speech of the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who spoke before me.
I said I was astonished by the government about-face but I gradually learned that this is common policy for Liberal and Progressive Conservative members. The hon. member clearly illustrated the whims of the old parties.
But despite the accusations and the comments made on the bill under debate, I cannot find in this legislation any corrective to the problems posed by the Unemployment Insurance Act. As I said yesterday, this is only a cover for the incompetence of the minister and of his department.
They prefer delaying and perpetuating the farce by introducing new legislation such as Bill C-125.
January 25, 1973

But as a Conservative member said this bill is in fact a blank check for this government and nothing else. Why should we lose our time? On the one hand the government tries to justify its attitude and on the other the official opposition obviously wants to replace this government, though it would probably act in the same way.
What course would the Progressive Conservative party have taken in similar circumstances? Exactly the same as this government, which in fact amounts to saving one's face or saving one's skin.
Saving their face is more important than solving problems. Why not once and for all stop pursuing an ostrich policy and introduce a bill serving the interests of the Canadian people instead of those of the political schemers.
The important point is to give justice to the people but, generally speaking, the Unemployment Insurance Act is nothing more than a palliative for the sores caused by backward administrations.
They still persist in playing at being inquisitors. Indeed, even unemployment insurance officials are fed up with that legislation and they are the first to say that the problems keep growing from day to day since this new act came into force.
Above all, let us not question the workers. I know some who have already proferred threats and who are ready to clean out the local offices. I am prepared to cool or restrain their temper a bit, but never, Mr. Speaker, shall I defend the present system of inquisition under which individual integrity is jeopardized. Why wouldn't the government introduce a bill on a guaranteed minimum salary for all people or on that national dividend advocated by the Social Credit party?
Mr. Speaker, such a formula would not cast doubts on a person's integrity but would ensure a living to the worker, despite disruption of his employment, and that at the very moment he has no work.
The unemployment man would not be forced as he is now to wait for ten, 12 or even 15 weeks to obtain what he is entitled to, what is his due, what today a silly legislation takes away from him or makes available to him only after delays accountable to lack of funds, as now is the case.
Mr. Speaker, I will go even further. The national dividend formula would not put the government in the situation where it is now because it would be possible to do the estimates, which would be better than using variables and imponderables as a basis. The junior experts of the government would evaluate real data such as population, production, and the consumers' purchasing power. On a quarterly basis, these data would indicate the amount available for each individual. Willingly or not, whether it found funny or not our requests for higher old age security pensions in 1962, 1963, 1965, 1968 and again today, the government will have to use this solution. I believe of course that it might prefer to be mentioned in history as an expert in concealment. But I think, for its information, that the time has come to find modern solutions to modern problems. Unlike some of my colleagues, I do not think that the government is responsible because I do not consider it intelligent enough to cause the problems. It is
Unemployment Insurance Act
satisfied with justifying its errors by introducing legislation such as Bill C-124.
Mr. Speaker, it is infortunate to say so, but have we ever seen anything more stupid than a man who refuses to understand? Let us look at the group of members to my left and we will understand. Take them individually, and speak to them. They are intelligent, they accept our points of view, they suggest theirs but when they get together, no dice. It is impossible to get the tiniest spark of intelligence out of them.
Frankly, it is frustrating to see the inability of the government to get off the beaten path. Perhaps we should tell them about Henry Ford's technique when he was confronted with a problem that appeared insoluble. For example, when he wanted to install a one piece windshield on automobiles, he consulted his engineers and his experts who mathematically proved the impossibility of realizing such a dream. Mr. Ford then went to students, non-experts, and he ordered them to solve the problem by organizing contests and he finally got the results we know of. Why such success? Merely because Henry Ford applied the first major principle in administration: when you are faced with a problem, don't limit yourselves to the particulars. Wider the scope. Get off the beaten track. Stop patching the inner tube and invent the tubeless tire. That is the solution.
The government should stop introducing bills to excuse itself and bring forth legislation that really meets the needs and the rights of the individuals: then and only then it will respect its mandate as the people's representative instead of the financiers' who prefer to take advantage of the poeple.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I would like to bring up the subject again and ask hon. members how much interest they pay when they take a $1 bill from their right pocket and change it for four quarters which they put in their left pocket? I am sure that you would all answer: Are you crazy? Why should I charge myself interest? I therefore ask them to read carefully clause 2 of the bill and to transpose my question. Then they will understand the spirit of the bill and the Social Credit argument.
Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, since the funds provided under the warrants which the bill seeks to bury are already spent or will soon be, I think that it is advisable to let bygones be bygones and let it pass as an administrative experience, hoping that the government will learn one day to introduce realistic bills.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I recognize the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), perhaps I could deal with the point of order which arose yesterday. The point of order arose concerning the amendment presented by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). In technical terms, this is a reasoned amendment and most reasoned amendments present extraordinary difficulties to the chair. This one fits that category of difficulty.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member reads as follows:
This House, while accepting the need to provide funds for payment of unemployment insurance benefits to those entitled, declines to approve a measure which, on the one hand removes all
January 25, 1973

Unemployment Insurance Act
restrictions on advances under section 137 of the Unemployment Insurance Act 1971, and, on the other hand, seeks to legalize and ratify the improper and illegal actions of the government in making advances in excess of the statutory limit.
Various members have made arguments to me, either to support its validity or to ask that it be rejected. One point of objection is that the motion is really an expanded negative; that is, an attempt to defeat the motion for second reading by giving reasons why the bill should not be proceeded with. If this were so, the motion of the hon. member for Peace River would have to fail, because it is very clear that, to quote from Beauchesne;
An amendment proposing a direct negative, though it may be covered up by verbiage, is out of order.
Page 170 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition contains that statement, as well as other sentences making the same point, and the point is quite clear. I then had to ask myself whether, in fact, the proposed motion was an expanded negative. The recommendation which is printed in the bill sets forth the principle of that bill. Actually, there are two principles. The first would remove the ceiling on advances under section 137 of the act, and the second would provide that an amount authorized under manpower and immigration vote L30a shall be deemed an advance under section 137.
It seemed to me upon reading the motion that it did indeed deal with these two principles. The question then arose, did it do so in such a way as to be given the protection that the rules relating to reasoned amendments will give? Hon. members will find this protection dealt with shortly in citation 382 of Beauchesne as follows:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of judges.
My initial reaction upon reading this citation, studying cases dealt with thereunder, and studying the more elaborate references in the 18th edition of Erskine May on Parliamentary Practice as set out at page 487 and 488, was that the protection given to a reasoned amendment would apply in this case. The point about the restrictions on advances, to me, clearly was declaratory of a principle differing from one of the principles of the bill.
That being so, and having some doubt about the whole issue, I would have been inclined at that point to leave the motion up to the judgment of the House. But I was disturbed by the opening lines of the motion of the hon. member for Peace River which read:
-while accepting the need to provide funds for payment of unemployment insurance benefits to those entitled-
The use of these words, in my opinion, takes the motion outside the purview of the bill now before the House, though it does seem relevant to Bill C-125. While I dislike making a ruling on narrow, technical ground, I feel that this must be done if reasoned amendments are to be

meaningful, and I accordingly rule the one presented to be out of order.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to address myself to several fairly straightforward questions and not to repeat the arguments in the presentation made by my colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) in connection with the short and straightforward bill that is before the House. Some suggestions have been made, in their usual intemperate manner, by some members opposite to the effect that there has been some illegality or taint in connection with the action of the government in recent days in relation to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I should like to have an opportunity of dealing briefly with those points.
Hon. members are well aware that the Financial Administration Act has for many years been an instrument by which urgent and important matters could be dealt with by a government when parliament was not in session, a time, therefore, when money could not be provided by parliament in one of its usual ways of so doing.
The provisions of the Financial Administration Act, which have been referred to by other hon. members, are fairly broad in their terms. Section 23 refers to situations of this character:
Where a payment is urgently required for the public good when Parliament is not in session-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West on a point of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would draw to the attention of the Chair and the House that we are presently engaged upon an argument or on a course of debate that is in two forums. The present bill is drawing forward certain arguments about the legality of orders in council, a matter which incidentally has been referred by this House to a committee, where it has also been the subject matter of discussion, debate and opinion over the past two or three weeks. It seems to me that this House will stand frustrated in this debate in that it will be unable to refer to what is said in the committee until the committee reports. Similarly, the committee will be frustrated since the members concerned will have made their statements in this House, and the opinions given in this House will not be part of the record of the committee.
Therefore, I put this problem to the Chair. As has already been pointed out, we have before us a short bill, one part of which seeks to make an amendment to remove a financial limitation. That has nothing to do with orders in council. The other part of the bill seeks to deem such appropriations made under warrants advances. I put it to Your Honour that at this moment there is a problem here, and it may be that the Chair will have to consider the question of relevancy, or may have to direct the House that, having taken the action of referring the matter to committee, it cannot refer to the matter in debate here at this time. I am disturbed about this matter because I suggest there is no way that a debate can go on in both places at the same time.
January 25, 1973


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This point was dealt with by the Chair yesterday. I would have to say to the hon. member for Edmonton West that, in his contribution so far, the Minister of Justice has stayed within the rules of relevancy as they relate to debate in this chamber. Perhaps I should note for the record, since I noted for the record yesterday, the dilemma in which the Chair finds itself. This morning I checked over the contributions which were made yesterday and there was a reference by the sponsor of this bill to remarks made by the hon. member for Hastings in the committee. Those references might have been out of order and perhaps should not have been referred to in the House.
The Chair realizes that when matters are dealt with both in committee and in the House we do run into extraordinary problems, but I shall do my best to observe the rule of relevancy when I think that relevancy needs to be mentioned. However, so far I rule that the Minister of Justice has stayed within the relevancy rule in his contribution.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, although I regret the necessity, to draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that in my comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis) I, in fact, indicated the page number and the date of Hansard, the record of debates in this Chamber and not in the standing committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the minister for drawing this omission to the attention of the Chair.


Otto Emil Lang: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have noted the discussion of yesterday, and I will certainly try to be sure that I do not refer to matters being studied elsewhere.
I was quite intrigued by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) rising to make his point of order at this particular point in time. He talks about the frustrations in this place or another place. Of course, it is quite frequently a key tactic on the part of members of his party to frustrate both places by rising on the same matter of nonsense in both places at the same time. I took particular note of the fact that he objects to me making reference to any part of this subject matter, yet we listened to his colleague from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) rail and rant about it at some length in this House yesterday.
I was speaking about the clear words of the Financial Administration Act empowering the use of warrants where a public good is to be served and there is an urgent requirement when parliament is not in session. Hon. members know the history of the use of this section which has been the subject matter of debate during parliamentary history for many years. It has been the subject of comment by authorities, writers and auditors general, yet during that period it has been seen by members to be a fundamental requirement for the purposes of government in those circumstances when parliament is not available to deal with urgent matters.
The early history of the section, as was indicated in the House yesterday, shows that its use was fairly narrowly restricted to the repair of public buildings, the kind of
Unemployment Insurance Act
things that probably were the types of emergencies seen in days long ago. Since that time, with the growth of government and its complexity in serving the public in many different ways, a similar kind of requirement to meet public need was seen to be clear in this House of Commons over the years, and Section 23 as it now stands is the result of that understanding and that realization. Indeed, the House had occasion to look at the section from time to time, with these comments from writers and auditors general in mind, and in the course of these years left these words intact. In 1958, however, it was looked at specifically by the House and a provision was added, which is the reason or the main part of the reason, for Clause 2 of the bill before us. A provision was added which required that warrants which were issued pursuant to Section 23 should become part of a subsequent supplementary estimate so they would, in that fashion, be before the House for discussion and comment by members; and that is significant.


Mr. Nielsen:: Would the minister permit a question? Is he saying that Clause 2 is there because of the 1958 amendment only?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I said it has a part to play in it, and I will enlighten the hon. member further later on this afternoon.
The clear need, therefore, for this kind of power was recognized by the House of Commons and by governments, not only for the maintenance of the section but in the use of it. Its use has been very wide. The words themselves are wide and, therefore, they support that use, yet governments and members, conscious of the desirability for parliamentary control over spending, realized also that there was a need for governments to be in a position, when parliament was not available, to meet these urgent requirements for the public good. Therefore, this is a section which stands broad in its application, and the action taken is subject to examination by parliament in subsequent estimates. It is very broad, indeed, as a basis for action in those circumstances where parliament is not in session and where the basic words of the section are complied with, as was done in this case, about which there has been very little argument in this House.
There have been some suggestions in some quarters, and I must say not by lawyers and I am not even sure there has been this suggestion by the partisan, pettifoggers opposite who plead cases sometimes in this House, that in some fashion the word "payment" referred to in Section 23 of the Financial Administration Act requires payment to be made in relation to specific, direct debts rather than payment to a body which thereby will perform certain functions and carry out certain obligations imposed upon it for the public good. I know of no reason to think that is the case.
In the case before us the payment which was urgently required was a payment of funds to the Unemployment Insurance Commission so it could carry out its obligations under the Unemployment Insurance Act to meet the just and legal claims of persons who are entitled to benefits under that act. That is what the warrants did. The public good which was being served and the urgent requirement surely cannot be questioned by hon. members of this
646

January 25, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act House looking at the situation with any reasonable mind at all.
Hon. members opposite have pointed, however, to Section 137(4) of the act to suggest that this changes the situation. I think it is clear that this is a complete misreading of the situation and the basic purpose and intent of warrants. Certainly, Section 137(4) would not have been less strong if it had constituted an appropriation or statutory allocation of $800 million or some other similar fund to the commission. The fact that an advance technique was used a technique that allowed advances up to a certain limit, meant only the use of a method of allowing money to be transferred to the fund up to that point.
The point is that the Financial Administration Act is used time after time where the amount of money available has been limited. In fact, its only point of use is when money which may be available for a purpose or a variety of purposes is limited, and when there is not enough money to provide for special circumstances which have arisen. So a limit is practically always to be found associated with the use of warrants where money additional to that which has been limited or appropriated by parliament is, in fact made available.
In this particular case Section 137(4) allowed the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to make advances up to that limit. I was clear that when advances had been made up to that limit there was no further power in that section to accomplish a transferring of money to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. At that point when the Unemployment Insurance Commission needed money, it had to obtain it from some other source. That is where the warrant came in, and the use of them within the terms of Section 23, to provide that money.
The money which was provided under warrants was not provided under the authority of Section 137 and that is completely clear. This, then is the simple proposition, and, indeed, I do not think hon. members opposite thought otherwise or even began to say anything to the contrary until about the time Bill C-124 was being presented to the House and the recommendation appeared on the order paper. That recommendation lead them to think-


An hon. Member:: We were saying it in the committee.


Otto Emil Lang: -some things, and though they really understood rather more clearly when Bill C-124 came before the House,-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was said a lot earlier than that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister would allow me one question to set the House straight. I am a little confused now about his interpretation of the law. As I read Section 137(4) the words state "shall not". I was wondering whether he had another interpretation of those two words. I am sorry to interrupt at this time, Mr. Speaker.


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to repeat what I said for the hon. member's benefit. The essential point of those words is that the advances empowered under section 137 are by subsection (4) limited to the $800 million. I

would refer the hon. member to the words in this section. Section 137(4) reads:
The total amount outstanding at any time in advances made under this section shall not exceed eight hundred million dollars.
As I indicated to the hon. member whether there has been an appropriation of $800 million straightforwardly into the fund, or advances to be repaid, the authority of that section was exhausted when $800 million was paid into the fund.
Hon. members opposite would not be objecting to the use of warrants if it had been an outright appropriation, but when they found it was an advance up to a certain limit they suggested that this made it less possible to use warrants. I suggest that the only way that section could be read in that fashion would be if it explicitly said it was overriding section 23 of the Financial Administration Act, and so that even if money were required for the public good that section could not be used. That is the only way in which that section could be read to limit the power under warrants of giving further moneys or payments to the Unemployment Insurance Commission for its purposes. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said yesterday, the money was urgently required to meet legal obligations which the commission had to meet, and the payments to it were made under section 23.
Hon. members opposite have said that we should hire a good lawyer. I suggest to them that it would be very difficult indeed for them to find a reasonable, non-partisan lawyer who would take their view or would stand with them for one moment after he read those sections and after he saw the report.


Erik Nielsen: Would the minister accept a question?


Otto Emil Lang: I would like to conclude my remarks before I deal with questions. In the time I have available to me I would like to deal briefly with clause 2 of the bill. It was clause 2 of the bill which, as I said, intrigued hon. members opposite and may well have innocently led them astray, particularly when they read the recommendation without having read the clause itself. And having taken a position they are not likely to move from it upon reading the clause. That would not be in keeping with their practice in this place.
Clause 2 is technical in its nature, and there may be a certain amount of extra caution provided in connection with the manner of raising and the using of money provided under the warrants which are being included in the supplementary estimates. There are a couple of sections in the Unemployment Insurance Act which make it desirable to make clear that the money which was put into the hands of the commission for the purpose of paying its obligations, in that period when parliament could not appropriate money to it, are charged then to the account as an advance.
With respect to advances under section 137; it was appropriate, it seemed to us, that the moneys put forward in this way should be treated as advances, in the sense of being made accountable out of the fund subsequently, and not treated as a special or extraordinary appropria-

January 25, 1973

tion to the fund. There was a question of whether the fund could in fact repay the moneys made available to it under warrants. If there were to be any doubts about this it was reasonable to clarify it so that it would be open to the fund in future days to repay the money put into the hands of the commission under the warrants which have been described and discussed.
In addition there is the fact that the warrants are included in supplementary estimates, as a result of the amendments which were made in 1958, to bring them before parliament at an early opportunity. When a supplementary estimate is passed or approved in the form of an appropriations act, the Financial Administration Act indicates that at that point in time the amount thus approved in the appropriations act is treated as an appropriation and not a duplication of other amounts. This, read together with section 33(d) of the Unemployment Insurance Act again could have raised some argument about whether a further credit to the fund was in fact required at this stage. That of course was not intended.
Clause 2 says in laymen's language that it would be well to treat the moneys put into the hands of the commission under the warrants in the same way as though they had been, in fact, advances made under section 137, for the purposes of repayment, for accounting and so on. This then will be done in an orderly fashion, and there will be no question about how those moneys are to be treated, and about the obligation or power of the commission to repay the amounts put into its hands under the warrants. That is the sum and substance of the situation before us.
The key and substance of the bill is the removal of section 137(4) in order, at this particular point in time, that more money may be put into the hands of the commission to meet the obligations that will be pressing upon it in the carrying out of its functions under that act. It seems to me that it is important that this money be made available to the commission. There is still a public good which is to be served, a public good about which there is urgent requirement. I urge hon. members to get on with this business, as well as other business in the House, by moving this legislation forward to committee so that we can be sure the unemployed who have legitimate claims under the Unemployment Insurance Act may indeed receive their benefits in a regular fashion.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), as recorded at page 611 of Hansard, said:
I hope to find all members of that committee-
Referring to the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee -and, indeed, all members of this House in agreement that we should not arrive at a situation where benefits to the unemployed of this country would be cut off.
We on this side in this party endorse that statement wholeheartedly. You will not find us, either here or in committee, conducting ourselves in any way so as to impede parliament from dealing with these matters; so that anyone who is legitimately entitled to unemployment insurance benefits will be able to claim and obtain such benefits.
However, I have a few things to say about the legality of what was done. Before embarking on that, I want to deal
Unemployment Insurance Act
with a few comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) yesterday. I have sat here for quite a number of years and listened to that hon. member extolling the virtues of the maintenance of parliamentary privileges. He has been referred to by the media and other sources as being one of the great watchdogs of parliament. Yet yesterday, by his remarks, he prostituted all those great principles which he has been espousing in this House over the years for the political expediency of justifying what his party intends to do in the vote on this bill.
I do not attribute this motivation to him and to those who sit behind him to my left as being wilfully brought about because it may well be, and I believe it was, that the hon. member does not appreciate one or two of the refinements of the argument. Perhaps it is because the responsibility has not been his to carry the matter in the committee or in the House. There are one or two things that the hon. member has overlooked, and I hope to be able to convince him that there has, in fact, been illegality here. I also hope to be able to convince hon. members behind him, and perhaps raise some doubts even in the heads behind the minister.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said yesterday "We believe in the law of the land" indicating himself and his supporters. Mr. Speaker, who does not? Who would be so sanctimonious as to think that he is the only person in the House who believes in the law of the land? We all do. We know that benefits must be paid and we are going to see to it that they are.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: There is a difference between paying them legally and paying them illegally, and I hope to make a case to support the assertion that they are being paid illegally here.
I want to clear up something that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) said a moment ago. He said, "It is important that money be made available to the fund". He was speaking on clause 2 of the bill, I presume.


Otto Emil Lang: Clause 1.


Erik Nielsen: All right, clause 1. We cleared that matter up in discussions in another place because clause 2 of the bill, if it does not pass, will not impede payments in any way, shape or form to unemployed persons having legitimate claims and entitled to benefits. Those moneys are already available. They are in the UIC fund in order that payment may be made up till February 7.
The government had to find a legal way to pay these benefits because, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says, unemployment insurance legislation places an obligation on the government to make those payments. We agree, but it had to be in a legal way. They said there was no other way to do it, because parliament was not in session, than by the use of Governor General's warrants. Rubbish, Mr. Speaker. The officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission knew as early as mid-August that they were going to run out of money and
648

January 25, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act
exceed that ceiling. Now, it is a fact that parliament convened at the end of August and could have dealt with the matter by way of a supplementary estimate at that time or it could have dealt with the matter by way of a grant at that time. Parliament could have been convened in December to deal with the matter. These are three legal alternatives that were available to the government without the use of warrants. Even if they had to have access to warrants, they could have used the warrants properly and not improperly as they did.
The Minister of Justice says that we on this side are engaging in partisan pettifoggery by taking the position that the word "payment" in section 23 of the Financial Administration Act has some meaning. The Auditor General certainly thought that it had meaning. He said the situation with respect to the use of those warrants was unique. No other single instance had occurred in the last 15 years where a warrant had been used to exceed a statutory limit-


Mr. Blais:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Nipissing rises on a point of order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the last comment made on this subject, I thought the ruling of the Chair was that any comments that may have been made in committee or any dealings that may have taken place in committee were not to be dealt with in this particular debate nor in this House. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is trying to get in through the back door what he could not get in by the front door by making mention of evidence that he alleges has been given in committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I was not aware that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) had brought out anything that occurred in committee, so I shall ask him to continue.


Erik Nielsen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I may point out to the hon. member who raised this spurious point of order that he should perhaps keep up with his reading of the press, because it certainly was dealt with extensively in the press the other day. I say that no amount of squirming, no amount of wriggling on the part of the New Democratic Party can disguise that what they are doing here is abdicating their responsibility as Members of Parliament to insist that every appropriation must have the approval of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: They are quite happy to give this government a blank cheque by removing the ceiling entirely, but even more serious in my view, they are quite happy to ratify something that this government has done illegally. Section 23 of the Financial Administration Act is very specific. It is broad in the sense that a fairly broad interpretation can be applied to the term "urgent and public good". However, the use of the word "payment" is specific. Surely, the minister does not suggest that a warrant can be obtained for the purpose of meeting future requirements. If the law had intended that, then the word would not have been used. The word "payment" I suggest

to the minister means a current obligation, a debt. Surely, that section does not permit and surely the minister does not suggest that it should be interpreted so broadly as to enable a warrant to be obtained for six months' supply. That is what he would have us believe.


Otto Emil Lang: It is not that word; it is the other words.


Erik Nielsen: "When parliament is not sitting". I might say it has been done. I could cite a precedent that occurred in 1958, but I do not like citing that because we were in office. However, it was wrong and everybody, including the member for Winnipeg North Centre, said it was wrong. Apparently what was wrong then is right now, simply because his party wants to support the government.
I should like now, Mr. Speaker, to get into a point of order which I am embodying in my remarks. It is a point of order which I have to leave with Your Honour because of the likelihood of the result being a bad precedent in the Journals of this House if it is not raised and dealt with. I have not raised it sooner in the debate because I did not want to appear to be impeding the progress of the bill or to be opposed to the general principle involved in making moneys available for payment to unemployed persons.
On January 8, the government referred Supplementary Estimates (A) 1972-73 to the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. The committee held its first organizational meeting on January 11. These estimates, at page 28, include the following and I shall read from the description of the estimate itself. The heading is "Non-Budgetary, Vote L30a":
Advances for the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, to be applied by the Unemployment Insurance Commission toward the payment of benefits and costs of administration under that act, such advances to be repaid in such manner and on such terms and conditions as the Minister of Finance may prescribe.
That is the description, Sir, and I draw the attention of the House specifically to the words in the title "NonBudgetary" and to the use of the term "advances" in the vote. My submission is, quite apart from other minor imperfections in what has been done-for instance the description in that non-budgetary item so-called not tallying with the words of the Order in Council on warrant- that there are other very serious defects which give rise to this point of order.
In the bill before us, Bill C-124, Your Honour will note that the first line in clause 2 reads "The amount authorized for the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Act" and so it goes on. I draw Your Honour's attention to the use of the word "authorized". The word is being used in the past tense. I also draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that Vote L30a has not been authorized by the standing committee. I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is listening, because I would be grateful for his support, knowing his vast knowledge of the rules of this House.
We are being asked to pass a bill which refers to a vote that has not been authorized in committee. Mr. Speaker, that vote has not been authorized. In effect, if we were to pass this bill now we should be authorizing something
January 25, 1973

that has not been authorized. On that basis, but not only that, Sir, I submit the bill offends against the rule regarding anticipation. I will be glad to give Your Honour some references and citations in that regard in a minute. At present, the effect of this proposed amendment would be to provide that the supplementary estimate of $454 million is a loan to the Unemployment Insurance Commission and not an outright grant.
I again seek the attention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in view of what he said yesterday. This is the second point I wish to make, a point he may have overlooked in his remarks yesterday. The amendment if passed would provide that the supplementary estimate is a loan to the fund and not an outright grant. I am sure the hon. member is aware that section 23 of the Financial Administration Act stipulates that whatever moneys are obtained by virtue of that section are deemed to be an appropriation. The effect would be that these moneys, being an appropriation, would come out of general revenues. The effect of the amendment, if passed, is that it would alter the situation; it would convert the appropriation to an advance, thereby requiring the blue collar workers, the people who draw unemployment benefits, to repay the fund.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Erik Nielsen: Is that what my hon. friends to my left want?


An hon. Member:: Absolutely not!


Erik Nielsen: But that precisely would be the effect of it.


Robert Knight Andras: Nonsense!


Erik Nielsen: If the party that calls itself the party of the lunch bucket set-


Mr. Brewin:: Discuss the bill.


Erik Nielsen: -supports the government, the party that purports to support the man with the lunch bucket will be imposing on that man a burden in future of $454 million. It is that simple.
There is another point to this. If this amount of approximately half a billion dollars given to the Unemployment Insurance Commission is a grant, and that is what it would be if this amendment does not pass, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) must include that amount in his figures when he casts his accounts and announces the fiscal or budgetary position of Canada for the 1972-73 fiscal year. This would bring consequent changes in the 1973-74 fiscal year. On the other hand, if the amount is a loan to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, then the minister need not account for the sums when giving the fiscal or budgetary position of the country, except to report under "Loans and Investments" that this sum was given to the Unemployment Insurance Commission by way of a loan. What does this mean? What would be the effect, Sir?
It means, Sir, that the government, by using this device, has $454 million with which to woo more parliamentary support from NDP members, because that amount comes off the deficit in the budget and the minister can say to
Unemployment Insurance Act
the House, "Look we are $454 million richer than we would be if we had not passed that loan." Hon. members to my left are being sucked into this device. Not only are those hon. members imposing a burden on the working man who must repay the loan; they are being sucked into a charade, because the minister can come along with all his goodies and say, "This is not costing us any more money; I do not have to raise taxes because we now have this windfall of $454 million by virtue simply of passing clause 2 of this bill."
A further result would be this, Mr. Speaker. I am still speaking on the point of order. If the amount is a grant, then the contributors to the Unemployment Insurance account benefit accordingly and do not need to make up that amount by any increase in contributions. The amount is paid for out of general revenues contributed by all sources of taxation. If it is a loan, then, of course, the contributors must pay the loan back by increased contributions or by decreased benefits, or by a proportionate adjustment of the ratio of contribution to benefits, or by a restriction on eligibility. There are no other possible results than those. That is the burden we are placing on the working people. That is the burden my friends to my left would place on them by supporting the second clause of this bill.


Robert Knight Andras: Nonsense.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has something to say, I wish he would stand up and say it. I do not like remarks I have not heard being smuggled on to Hansard.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?


Erik Nielsen: Certainly.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is not totally ignorant of the fact that the advance will include the government's share of the cost of this program, and that will not be calculated or even known until the main estimates and votes are introduced more than one year after the fact.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He knows that.


Erik Nielsen: Fair enough; but it still does not excuse the action. The government is still placing the burden on the contributor. The whole amount still has to be repaid.


Robert Knight Andras: But the act called for that in the first place.


Erik Nielsen: There must have been some reason for the words "any sums obtained by warrant shall be deemed appropriations" to be included in section 23.
I now wish to quote, in support of the point of order, from May's most recent edition, the eighteenth. I shall read brief excerpts from pages 364 and 365.
A motion must not anticipate a matter already appointed for consideration by the House . .. whether it be a bill or an adjourned debate upon a motion. . ..
Stated generally, the rule against anticipation (which applies to other proceedings as well as motions) is that a matter must not be anticipated if it is contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it is sought to be anticipated . ..

January 25, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act
but it may be anticipated if it is contained in an equally or less effective form. A bill or other order of the day is more effective than a motion; a substantive motion more effective than a motion for the adjournment of the House ... A matter already appointed for consideration by the House cannot be anticipated by a motion...
There is a matter that has been appointed for consideration, namely, the referral by this House of vote L30a with which clause 2 of this bill purports to deal. It has been referred to a standing committee of this House; there is no doubt about that. A motion is before us; there can be no doubt about that. Therefore, Sir, the rule that a matter already appointed for consideration by the House cannot be anticipated by motion applies, in my submission. Anticipating some possible advice to Your Honour, let me read the sentence at the foot of page 365:
The reference of a matter to a select committee does not prevent the consideration of the same matter by the House ...
It might be argued that vote L30a is the same as the matter we are dealing with in this bill. In my submission a distinction must be drawn, because this bill deals not only with L30a but also with section 137(4) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, a matter that we are precluded from dealing with in the committee. On the basis of that citation, I suggest that we cannot possibly proceed with further discussion of this measure until one of two occurrences take place; either there must be a vote in committee that item L30a be referred back to this House for further consideration or, second, that the item is approved. I do not think it is any secret that we have set a date for reporting finally to this House. That date will be February 2.
However, I am afraid until the report comes out, it will be against the rule prohibiting anticipation for us to proceed with the debate. I make the submission, Mr. Speaker. Because of its complexity, Your Honour might wish to take it under advisement. There is some urgency to bringing down a ruling on this rather than having the debate continue. We are in a rather impossible position with the minister being required to be here in the conduct of this debate and in committee in the conduct of a debate on the same item. It makes things a little difficult, to say the least.
Now that I have made those points, I have another matter which Your Honour probably expects. I am going to introduce an amendment at this stage based on the points I have raised in this debate. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after "that" and substituting therefor the following: This House, noting that by clause 2 of Bill C-124 the government proposes to change the law so as to burden the present and future workers of Canada and their employers with the payment of the sum of $454 million to the detriment of the unemployment insurance plan; and further noting that the government thereby would avoid having to account for this sum in its statement of budgetary revenues and expenditures for the present fiscal year; and further noting that the government thereby would avoid having to seek supply for this sum from Parliament as a budgetary expense and to propose ways and means by which this sum might be raised by additional taxation upon individual and corporate taxpayers, as the law presently requires, resolves that Bill C-124 be not now read a

second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
That is the third alternative to the point of order I have raised and with which Your Honour is now seized. Either the estimate has to be authorized so that we can proceed with the bill, the committee has to report to the House or this bill can go to committee and both of them dealt with at that time. To proceed in this way is not only offensive to the rules, but it is an impossible practice for members to be confronted with this kind of situation. In my submission, that is precisely the reason for the rule. I leave that point of order with you, Sir, and hope that we can have an early ruling on it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the motion moved by the hon. member for Yukon, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West. The hon. member has also raised a point of order with which the Chair will have to deal. At this time, perhaps the Chair could ask for any comments upon the motion before making a ruling on that as well. I propose to give a ruling on the other matter at eight o'clock.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of the motion. It is very evident what has happened in this instance. Bill C-124 was drafted in such a way that it anticipated the passing of Vote L30a which is presently being discussed in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. We are dealing with Vote L30a, but unfortunately and to the embarrassment of the government, as I will shortly point out, that has not been passed, nor has it been dealt with completely. If I am correct in that statement, the moneys referred to, $454 million, have not been authorized. The only place the authorization can come from is the committee which is now dealing with this matter. This is the basis of this bill, particularly clause 2.
On the merits, there is a prima facie case that has been built up. In my opinion, the ultimate conclusion is that this bill is an anticipatory bill and we have no rules nor authority to deal with it. In order to substantiate my point, I refer Your Honour to clause 2 of the bill, and I note the first line for your edification. I quote:
The amount authorized for the purposes ...
I place great emphasis on the word "authorized". The only proper interpretation with respect to the word "authorized" is that it has been passed and approved. Without being repetitious, if I am correct in those statements, surely we must be out of order at this time. The only way this defect can be cured is that it is in the competence of this House to amend the bill in such a way that it will be in conformity with what we are dealing in the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee. I do not think we can.
What is the other alternative? The only alternative, I respectfully suggest, is to send this bill, regardless of what we may think of the preamble, to the committee or we cannot deal with it at this time. Surely, we cannot deal with a bill that is asking us to pass something which is authorized, as stated in this bill, but which in fact has not been authorized. If I am right in my submission, the answer must be that we cannot deal with this bill at this time.
January 25, 1973

In no way do we on this side advance our arguments to the detriment of those who are entitled to benefits after having paid into this fund. This situation results from the trickery and the devious methods of both the government and my friends to the left, because we are attempting to uphold the law. I would think that anybody involved in parliament or even those who are acquiring benefits would want us to uphold the law. We are in no sense developing these arguments because we are trying to hoodwink someone or in any way trying to deprive those who are rightly entitled to payments under the Unemployment Insurance Act. But we must follow the law. I say there are two laws involved here. Perhaps I am getting away from the subject now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Hon. members should not laugh. I am developing an argument because I heard hon. members saying that there was one law to ensure that those who are entitled to it receive their benefits. I say there is another law which indicates that the ceiling should not be broken. However, I am getting away from the matter at hand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Hon. members should show some patience. I know they would like to rise and express their views in the way that I can articulate mine. However, since they know they do not have the opportunity to do so at this time, they are straining at the bit.
Let me say in conclusion that the point is certainly well taken. We are dealing with a bill that is unlawful in the first place because it states that what we are dealing with in the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee has been authorized. I state respectfully that it has not been authorized and has not been approved. Therefore, let me say with all due respect that the motion of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) must be accepted in the way it is drafted. I hope sincerely that hon. members will be able to approach this matter in a non-partisan way and that they will accept the motion in order to ensure that we proceed in an orderly fashion. I see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is here. I hope he can appreciate the argument which has been placed before the House by the hon. member for the Yukon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should like to hear contributions from as many hon members as possible on the point that has been raised, but first I should like to ask the hon. member for Yukon if he would confirm to the Chair whether I am faced with one request or two requests. Am I faced simply with making a ruling upon the amendment that has been presented or is there also a suggestion, previously made by the hon. member for the Yukon, that the Chair should withhold further proceedings on this measure because of the point of anticipation that he had made? Is he asking for a ruling by the Chair on both points, or simply on the amendment that has been presented?


Erik Nielsen: I thought I had made that clear, Mr. Speaker, and this is the reason that I raised the point of order in
Unemployment Insurance Act
the sequence that I did before presenting Your Honour with the amendment. As far as I am concerned, my participation in the debate is concluded.
In speaking to the point of order, I suggested to Your Honour that now the Chair is seized of it the House may be disposed to accede to the suggestion of Your Honour that you will wait until eight o'clock before handing down your ruling and that in the meantime the debate will proceed to fill in time. But if Your Honour agrees that the point I raised is a valid one and comes to the conclusion that we are out of order in discussing the measure, then of course that time would be wasted time by the House.
On the point of order, may I say that there was one matter to which I omitted to refer Your Honour and which might be of assistance. I would ask Your Honour to note that estimate L30a in Supplementary Estimates (A) is misleadingly entitled "Non-Budgetary". This classification anticipates that a proposed amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act will be passed, which proposed amendment is in itself an admission that the vote is budgetary. Section 137 of the Unemployment Insurance Act authorizes the government to make non-budgetary advances to the Unemployment Insurance Commission up to $800 million. Any amount in excess of that amount is a budgetary appropriation under section 133 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Here we have the item entitled "Non-Budgetary" in the Supplementary Estimates, which leads me irresistably to the conclusion that we are anticipating that the amendment will be passed.
I suggest, for the consideration of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) as well as that of the well noted expert on the rules from the NDP, that the proper order should have been first, to deal with the supplementary estimate item L30a, second, the passage of an appropriation bill to support that item, and lastly, the passage of Bill C-124 with which we are dealing now, because I cannot conceive how the second clause in Bill C-124 can be passed in its present form without the estimate having been approved and an appropriation bill having passed parliament.


Gerald William Baldwin: The government is like the rabble retreating from Moscow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will make a ruling on the two points of order and will now ask for contributions.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say, particularly in response to the last remarks of the hon. member for Yukon, that the Supplementary Estimates are very frequently anticipatory in the sense that items are described in the way they will be at the conclusion of the passage of those estimates. If the hon. member will look at the item in the Supplementary Estimates to which he refers as being described as non-budgetary, he will see that, in itself, it contains a reference to a requirement to be repaid. In that sense, it is non-budgetary in its nature. As I indicated to the House in my earlier remarks, clause two of the bill may clarify a situation in relation to obligations, permissions and powers of the fund to make the repayment if such a clarification were necessary but hardly changes the characterization of the amount being voted which, in the terms of the appropriation in the estimates, is described as being repayable.

January 25, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act
The same can be said about the other points the hon. member made in his first point of order. I have some difficulty in knowing how to understand his point of order described in the form of an amendment. Clearly one is simply a repetition of the other and they should fall together. He spoke about the question of whether or not the item was a budgetary or a non-budgetary item in relation to the requirements of the government to raise revenue. This surprises me, coming as it does from the hon. member who has been reading the budgets and statements of the ministers of finance both in this government and its predecessor and the clear indications that total cash requirements, rather than the simple, rather old-fashioned, view of budgetary and non-budgetary items, are the key to the requirement of the government in the way of taxation. In the course of putting his amendment to the House, he made reference to this material. I suggest that it would be rather bad practice to allow the hon. member to include such allegations in an amendment which, if kept in a much simpler form, would be in order. In that simpler form, it would disclose the desire of hon. members opposite, perhaps, to stop the bill from proceeding in an orderly fashion.


Erik Nielsen: Would the minister permit a question with regard to the discussion on the first point of order? He heard me deal with the matter of the use of the word "authorized" in clause two of the bill. Surely, he must agree that the use of that word anticipates the authorization of that item in the Supplementary Estimates by the committee, and if that be so, it is clearly anticipatory.


Otto Emil Lang: I thank the hon. member for drawing my attention to it. In view of the existence of the words in the Financial Administration Act which require that matters contained in warrants be contained in subsequent supplementary estimates, there is a need to deal with them in this fashion in certain circumstances in relation to a bill such as the Unemployment Insurance Commission bill. It could not happen in most cases, but I think that is a fair explanation of that word in this case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief but serious contribution to the discussion of both of these points of order. However, before I get serious I wonder whether I could make the remark that if my hon. friend's point of order about the House having no right to continue with this debate is sustained, then we cannot even consider his amendment. So perhaps Your Honour would be saved the problem of ruling on this amendment if you were to rule that we cannot continue with the debate at this time.
I may say also that I support the contention of the hon. member for Yukon that it might be a good idea for the debate to continue until five o'clock, leaving Your Honour the opportunity, between five o'clock and eight o'clock, to do some homework. I am sure that the gentlemen at the table who serve us so well are used to going without then-dinners; I can see that they will have some homework to do this evening.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point as to whether or not we should proceed with this bill, I confess I have been

wracking my brain trying to recall something that has happened in this area, but I am sure that the gentlemen at the table will be able to find it. I believe there have been rulings that would support the contention of my hon. friend to this extent, that it would not be procedurally correct for the House of Commons to give the bill third and final reading-in other words, not possible to pass the bill finally-if it contained in it a reference to something that was not at that point a fact. I do not think we could give third and final reading to the bill until the House had authorized the supplementary estimate referred to therein.
However, it seems to me that that does not interfere with the right of this House and of the committee, if the bill is referred thereto, to proceed with the earlier stages of this legislation. I make that assertion because I am quite confident that a similar ruling has been made a number of times in the past. All you have to do, Mr. Speaker, is to ask your able assistants to find those precedents and then you can give a learned ruling from the Chair tonight at eight o'clock, just as if you had poured over the matter yourself for three hours.
If I may turn now to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Yukon, it does pose some difficulty for the Chair. However, on balance, relying on that old cliche about giving an hon. member the benefit of the doubt, I think you will have great difficulty in ruling it out of order.
If this amendment merely read that this House-missing out all that verbiage-resolves that Bill C-124 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, then there would be no question that it would be in order. To use a phrase that I used the other day, if the pith and substance of this amendment were simply that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the committee, then of course that is in order. But I wonder whether it is in order to import between the first two words and the pith and substance at the end all of the argument and debate contained in the many words in this amendment?
I would differ very strongly with the assertions that are contained in the verbiage of the amendment. That does not bother me, because I do not think that the bill should be delayed in this way and I shall vote against the amendment, if it is in order, because I think that instead of referring the subject matter to the committee we should pass the bill itself. However, I do not think it is good form to import into what is otherwise a proper amendment a couple of paragraphs of argument and debate.
I often give this advice to some of my colleagues when they are drafting motions to present under Standing Order 43, although no matter how one drafts them there seem to be difficulties. The problem is where you draw the line between what is debate or preamble and what is the actual motion. In this case I think the hon. member has put too much debate and argument, which I refute, into his motion, although I concede that that may not invalidate it. If it does, then all the hon. member has to do is to ask to strike out all the verbiage, and simply move that this House deny second reading of the bill and refer the subject matter thereof to the committee. As I say,
January 25, 1973

there is certainly no problem in all of this for us because we would vote against such an amendment whichever way it is put.
So these are my two suggestions: first, that with regard to continuing the debate Your Honour should find it is appropriate for us to do so, but that we cannot give third and final reading to the bill until the estimate has been passed; and second, I think it might be a good idea if the Chair were to give some avuncular advice to his former colleague and suggest that amendments should be amendments and not full dress speeches.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. friend to my left that we might usefully employ the time between now and five o'clock to continue this debate, but I should like to make a very brief point. I recall the difficulty that this House was in about two years ago, I think it was, when the government introduced the grain stabilization bill which contained a provision repealing a certain section of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act providing for payment of certain funds. At that time my hon. friends to my left saw the value of the point we were making, the hon. member for Crowfoot and myself, and supported us. They agreed that, despite the fact that the grain stabilization bill purported to repeal a section of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act which provided for certain payments, it was nevertheless incumbent upon the government to maintain its position in law and make these payments. Indeed, the party of my hon. friends to my left-not the federal party but the Saskatchewan offshoot-took action in the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan asking for a mandamus, and I say quite rightly since it was a valid point that they made at that time.
The point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is that we should proceed with our debate of this bill up to third reading stage, and then wait until this particular estimate passes the miscellaneous estimates committee. I suggest that should not be the case, sir, because we would then be anticipating its passage. We would be anticipating that the committee report will come into this House, will be attached to an appropriation bill and that that bill itself will be passed. I say there is no reason to assume those things.
It may well be that because of the rather close relationship that exists at the present time, my hon. friends may be convinced in their minds that the bill is going to be passed because they will add their numbers to those of the government party to ensure its passage. But the Chair cannot take judicial notice of that fact. Rather, I think the Chair can take judicial notice of the fact that this House would be in a very precarious position in that, up until yesterday, the government was planning to introduce Bill C-125 following this measure. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) may shake his head, but that is certainly the impression we have had all along. Just because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre frowns and says they are not going to support Bill C-125, we immediately see the government in rout, confusion and retreat.


An hon. Member:: Are you going to vote for Bill C-125?
Unemployment Insurance Act


Gerald William Baldwin: In spite of the loud noise in the House from my left, Mr. Speaker, there is no assurance that can be given to Your Honour that the appropriation bill upon which is based the estimate before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee is going to be passed. I urge the Chair to take that into account when a decision is being made.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question before he sits down?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, I would love one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member tell us where his party stands in respect of Bill C-125?


Gerald William Baldwin: Whenever the government has enough guts to introduce it, it will then find out what we are going to do.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief remarks about the point of order that has been raised that this discussion should be terminated. It seems to me that it is a well established practice of the House that if a point of order is to be raised it must be raised promptly, and it must be raised at the moment the irregularity takes place.


An hon. Member:: That is a privilege.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When did Robert Burns ever say that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, Citation 74 we find it stated that a point of order against procedure must be raised promptly.


Gerald William Baldwin: I raised it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Here we have a situation in which the official opposition is of the view that this bill should not be proceeded with, but nevertheless, confident of its own irregularity if not confident of the regularity of the bill, it proceeded yesterday to debate the issue, to move an amendment and to ask the House to deal with a point of order and the Chair to rule on it. After that happened and after the debate has gone on for a day, they come in and say to Mr. Speaker that we are out of order.
I submit that, in the first case, if a point of order was to be taken it should have been taken yesterday when the bill was moved for second reading, and should not be taken today. I further suggest that it is quite invalid to argue that because the bill before the House refers to supplementary estimates we should not proceed with it. If the officers of the House take the advice of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I am sure they will find ample precedent to justify that course of action on the part of the House.
I agree in respect of the amendment which has been made to Bill C-124, that if it had been confined solely to the last part, that the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, probably it would be a proper amendment which could not be contested. The amendment does not appear in that form

January 25, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act but is loaded with argument and fabrication which is irrelevant to the motion before the House. Because the hon. member has imported all these irrelevancies into the amendment, it must fall and cannot be accepted.
On April 28, 1953, during the debate on the National Housing Act, the Chair laid down very clearly that an amendment could not be partly in order and partly out of order. If it is partly out of order it is totally out of order. If another precedent is required I would refer you to a ruling the Chair made in 1971. A motion was made to refer the subject matter of a bill to a committee. That was ruled procedurally improper because, in addition to the actual moving of the subject matter to the committee, the motion contained additional material that was quite irrelevant to the main motion. The Chair ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that the amendment was irrelevant because it imported into it a considerable number of other matters. I suggest, without making any long argument about it, unfortunately this amendment is also out of order. However, we anticipate that the official opposition can do better.


Gerald William Baldwin: Like Governor General's warrants, they cannot be a little bit in order and a little bit out of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I gather that contributions, for which the Chair is grateful, are concluded. A ruling or rulings will be made at eight o'clock. Perhaps we can now agree that it is five o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, should you not also express gratitude on behalf of those at the table?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Some will be at the table over the supper period, but I am afraid those at the table will not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order No. 40, to advise the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall)-External Affairs-Viet Nam-Proposed peacekeeping force-Source of funds to cover cost of Canadian participation; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Old age security-Inquiry as to increase in basic amount and lowering of age of eligibility; the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo (Mr. Beatty)-Communications-Bell Canada rate increase application-Inquiry as to opposition by government.
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 private bills, notices of motions and public bills. There are no private bills or

notices of motions listed on the order paper, so the House will proceed to public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Barry Mather: that Bill C-9, to better assure the public's rights to freedom of access to public documents and information about government administration (administrative disclosure) be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time I have put forward this particular bill in this place. On previous occasions hon. members have talked the measure out, and I have but little hope that anything other than the same fate awaits it this evening. I do urge hon. members to give serious thought to at least sending the subject matter proposed in the bill to the appropriate committee which was indicated by Mr. Speaker.
In the interval since 1965, following successive re-introduction of the bill, the government took two or three tentative steps in the direction proposed by the bill, the aim of which is that the public should have the right to know, without hinderance, how the government and parliament conduct the public's business. I will refer to those two or three tentative steps later, but first I would like to read the two clauses of the bill. Its title is:
An Act to better assure the public's rights to freedom of access to public documents and information about government administration (administrative disclosure)
Clause 1 reads:
Every administrative or ministerial commission, power and authority shall make its records and information concerning its doings available to any person at his request in reasonable manner and time.
Clause 2 states the exceptions to that general rule. It reads:
Section 1 does not apply to records or information
(a)	affecting national security;
(b)	concerning matters that are exempted by statute from disclosure;
(c)	concerning trade secrets, and commercial or financial matters of a privileged or confidential nature, obtained from private persons;
(d)	concerning any matter of private interest to the degree that the right to personal privacy excludes the public interest.
If this proposal were endorsed and legislation along this line enacted, it seems to me the appropriate administrative authority would be the Federal Court of Canada. My bill puts into words a basic parliamentary principle that public affairs should be conducted publicly. I think that

the exceptions listed in clause 2 provide adequate safeguards to the state.
In support of the bill the Globe and Mail editorialized as follows at its first introduction:
One bad side effect of the prodigious growth of government in this century is that it has become exceedingly difficult to keep track of. Not only are governments themselves much more deeply and widely involved in the life of the people, but their tasks have become so numerous that they have had to delegate much of their authority to boards and commissions. Accompanying this governmental growth has been a disinclination on the part of governments and their creatures to keep the public informed about what they are doing.
A private bill has been presented to the House of Commons which could do much to open these many closed doors and keep the public informed about what is, after all, its own business .... The bill would require that "every administrative or ministerial commission, power and authority shall make its records and information available to any person at his request in reasonable manner and time."
The editorial then listed the exceptions contained in clause 2, and concluded:
The government should put its blessing on the bill and ensure its passage.
I said earlier that the government had taken one or two tentative steps in the general direction proposed by this bill. One of those steps was taken in 1969 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced a policy which, he said, was to make available for research and other public use as large a portion of Canadian government records prior to July 1, 1939, as would be consistent with national interest.
He said that the cabinet secretariat and the departments and agencies of government were being asked to transfer to the Public Archives official records which were more than 30 years old, and to make them available to the public. In other words, classified documents were to be declassified after 30 years and their contents made available to journalists, students and other interested persons. In April, 1972, the Prime Minister announced that the minutes of the war cabinet from the start of 1942 until the end of the Second World War had been turned over to the Dominion Archivist for public examination.
I understand that in regard to the departments and agencies of government being encouraged to make their documents and records available to the Archives, a special committee drafted regulations to govern that procedure, but the documents in large measure are still not on the shelves in the Public Archives. I urge that the government take steps to speed up the passage of these documents to public view. That is one aspect of the situation which this bill seeks to rectify.
Another aspect, of more practical and political interest, relates to the difficulty experienced by Members of Parliament, the representatives of the public, in securing access to information on government data on the basis of which government departments and agencies have made their decisions, which decisions in turn affect the lives of the people of the country. On the order paper there are 34 notices of motions for the production of papers. As hon. members know, they may remain on the order paper for a long period of time, and in fact may die on it. Very few of them will be effectively answered, and very few of the records will be turned over for examination. It is quite
Access of Administrative Documents
common for the hon. member answering on behalf of the government to say that for this reason or that reason-in fact it seems to many of us for no particular reason-it is impossible to provide the information sought by a representative of the public. I believe that this is wrong, Mr. Speaker.
The situation in Canada is quite opposite to that which has prevailed in Sweden where everything which is not specified as being secret is available to the public for its information and examination. Here the reverse is the case. Here everything is secret unless it is specified as being otherwise.
I believe that real good could be achieved if the papers and data upon which the government makes its decisions were made available to the members of this chamber who are the representatives of the people affected by the government's decisions. I find it a particularly strange situation at present when the public is paying scores of millions of dollars annually for Information Canada and departmental information agencies to produce and distribute the sort of information which the government wants the public to get. This is at a time when information that the public wants to receive from its elected representatives is not available. There are obstacles in the way. I think a much healthier situation would be for the government to take steps to make this information available to the public, within reason.
I know that hon. members are likely to find faults in the details of the clauses in which my proposals are couched. I can understand that, Mr. Speaker, and I make no claim that the bill is perfect. However, I would urge hon. members, when considering the clauses, to view this as a matter of considerable importance to all Canadians. It deserves study and referral to an appropriate committee. I think the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs would be the most appropriate one.
The last time this bill was before the House, April, 1970, the hon. member who is now the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), said that it did not go far enough. It may well be, Mr. Speaker, that the bill still does not go far enough but I would urge the House to at least let it go somewhere, and I think that should be to a committee.


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, concerning the legislation proposed by my hon. colleague, I do not feel that one may object to the public having access to any information that should be released to them.
However, making available to the public all documents of the various departments might perhaps not be in line with security rules. I think we must also ensure that this bill is not misleading or does not prevent any initiative on the part of officials.
I should like to give a few examples. If, for some reason, we ask a public servant to make an analysis of a given project, which would lead him to give details concerning his work or express his view, I think that the immediate release of this information, without the thoughtful consent of the government, might be detrimental to the public and give them the wrong impression that this government

January 25, 1973
Access of Administrative Documents
or Parliament, or yet a small group of officials or a study commission, are in favour of such or such idea. I think it is extremely dangerous-and this is the point I want to make-to seek to publish everything that is done in departments.
You remember when newspapermen published a few details on the famous Gray report which however was not a government policy. What happened is that everybody imagined that it was government policy.
Indeed, whether the government or the opposition are concerned, such things are prejudicial to the administration and are apt to prevent civil servants from dealing with the public weal or to voice such or such view liable to influence a decision.
I think that when we ask the officials to express their views, the security of the state is perhaps not implicated. It would be advisable to allow public employees to state their opinions, without running the risk of annoying the government or the opposition members. I believe this is exceedingly dangerous.
We already have a tremendous apparatus in the public service and if we intend to publish every study made in a department, we might reduce the efficiency of the public servants and this, in my opinion, will not serve the public interest.
I should like to quote an excerpt from a manifesto entitled "Freedom of Information" which gave rise to lots of criticism. It was signed by reporter Claude-Jean de Virieux who was commenting on accessibility to information-information per se being an intellectual approach- as follows:
To get information, one must first of all long for it, and therefore the information must draw attention and rouse interest. Information must be attractive.
If public servants prepare a study, they need not add comments to make information attractive. Now, the public will get acquainted with lots of information on which they will pass judgment and which they will not necessarily find attractive, and that information will not either necessarily help understand the position taken by a government or a political party.
I resume the quotation:
In Spoken news, information will be made attractive by broadcasting, by music used, by audio or visual presentations .. .
One must also realize that if information is to be made public, a whole procedure is at stake. Is it to be made public in the current style or recorded on a sound track in order, if necessary, to make it available to people, especially if questions deemed important are involved?
However, if it is a case of communications between departments, for instance about the construction of a sewer in a parish or a constituency, or else about deals between a municipality and a department, then, no doubt the documents can be said to be public, according to the provisions of the bill now before the House. I see no useful purpose in treating such documents as confidential.
I believe there should be a selection of the type of information intended for publication. First of all, it is extremely difficult to decide what is actually information. The type of information the public expects should be

determined. Does the public expect to receive the tons of documents published day after day by public servants? Are the documents intended for publication of interest to one particular province or to Canada as a whole?
If information is geared to Canada as a whole, people in Quebec, for instance, will say: Look here, you publish piles of documents, but we in Quebec are not necessarily concerned with what is happening in Nova Scotia. And Newfoundlanders will probably say the same.
The potential danger of the bill lies in its adverse effect on initiative. I come back to this time and again and I am referring to the initiative of public servants in their quest for ideas, in their effort to help the government to operate. In future, such people, for fear of being quoted on radio or television, will no longer readily express working hypotheses which might well some day become the law of the land. I rather feel that giving too much information at that stage, as called for in the bill, would be extremely dangerous.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a careful assessment of the public's information requirements be made. What do the people want to be informed of? This could be done through various channels. Information Canada has a definite function and it would be interesting to have the statistical data related to requests for information received by the agency from the Canadian public.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that before passing such legislation we should seek the answers to several questions. In my opinion, the final goal of this bill would not be achieved. On the contrary, it could be harmful because objective information would no longer exist. Whenever departmental officers would be asked to write something, they would say: Sir, I must think twice about it because this will be published. Then, we shall no longer have real objectivity from our public servants. And what are they going to do? They will use only the telephone and at worst, there will be no more correspondence.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of thing is extremely dangerous. It is essential-and I agree with the sponsor of this bill-that some documents be made public because the Canadian people have elected us. If the people wish to examine certain documents, hon. members must rise in the House and ask: Could you table such document? I do not know whether it would be a service rendered to the public if everything were to be published.
I call the attention of this House to the fact that one should be cautious as regards the secrecy of information, and above all to be careful not to put an end to personal initiatives in this area.
That is all I had to say, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier). I do not agree with him but think he said the best that could be said against the bill proposed by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather). He disagrees, and he spoke eloquently. I disagree with him. I do not know

whether his speech was his maiden contribution; it was a very good speech and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I intend to support the proposal.
On a collateral aspect, I would remind the House that it is my hope that private members' public bills, which for many years have not been as effective as they might be under present practices because the private members' hour is limited to one hour and because it has been the practice of all governments to talk them out, will be more effectively dealt with. I think we should look at the present practice. I will put before this House some suggestions which hon. members might consider and which the committee on procedure might also consider.
I would like to think that during the course of this parliament, or the next parliament, a minimum of 20 bills will be placed on the order paper through a system of draws or otherwise, and that these bills shall be heard between 9.30 and eleven o'clock during the early part of the session. The Standing Orders could be amended to provide that all questions would need to be put with regard to those 20 bills so that they would come to a vote in the House. That does not mean the government would need to accept them. If the government does not like them, the government has a safety salve, inasmuch as no private member can bring forward a bill for the spending of money. That can only be done by a minister of the Crown with the recommendation of His Excellency. I am not dealing with the case of money bills. Of course, if a private member's public bill contains a principle repugnant to the policies of the government, the government has every right to call its members to vote against it. I think the idea of new members bringing fresh ideas and new bills forward is excellent and valuable because those very bills ultimately become government policy. The period of gestation is fairly long, several years perhaps, but I think it would be accelerated if my proposal were adopted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. As I understand it, the hon. member is talking about the way the procedure for private members' hour ought to be improved. To stay in order the hon. member once in a while should mention Bill C-9; then, I suppose, hon. members and the Chair will tolerate the hon. member's remarks. He must stay within the subject matter of the bill as much as possible.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the correctness of what Your Honour is saying, and I will mention Bill C-9 right away. I have mentioned it already. I will mention it at least once in every three or four sentences. I recognize that hon. members can call me to order. I bring this proposal forward now since this may be a short lived parliament, and this may be the only chance I shall have for mentioning this subject. Let us take Bill C-9 as an example.
If my views were to prevail, Bill C-9 might have had the luck of the draw and been before the House between 9.30 and eleven o'clock on some day fixed by the Standing Orders. Then, all questions would have to be put on the bill and possible amendments thereto so that a decision could be taken on second reading. The bill would then go to committee and come back for the report stage. The
Access to Administrative Documents
changes in the Standing Orders that I envisage would provide that on ten instances at the report stage, and at third reading, all questions would need to be put with respect to the bill. That would bring a bill like C-9 to a vote on the report stage and on third reading. I submit that on at least ten occasions during a session ten bills would stand the chance of passing this House and being considered in the other place. I am speaking of ten bills of a public nature sponsored by private members. Before dealing with the bill before us, may I say that I trust my suggestions will come to the attention of the appropriate members on the procedure committee. Such a procedure I think would be of great value.
One might say that Bill C-9 is a typical bill. I am sponsoring a bill as well, Bill C-52, which in some ways is very much like Bill C-9. There, Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned the bill again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon.
member will be all right now for ten minutes.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am saying this for the benefit of my hon. friends to my left, hoping they see the error of their ways. Nevertheless, I support the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have to be right once in a while.


Gerald William Baldwin: As I say, I support the principle of the bill. I cannot allude to Bill C-52. The bill provides for sanctions and for machinery by way of the court acting as interven-or to see if the type of information and document requested should be disclosed to the public. As the hon. member sponsoring this bill supported mine in the previous session, so do I support his now.
I support it for another reason. It is known that my leader during the course of the election campaign made a categorical commitment that if and then he should form the government he would provide for better and fuller disclosure. The government would disclose more fully documents and information. That was a firm commitment. It is one I support and which many members of the House will support notwithstanding their political leanings.
I support the bill for a third reason, and I think the debate we have witnessed recently will illustrate my reasons for that support. If a bill of this nature or in the nature of the one which I have not yet brought to the attention of the House, Bill C-52, were to be in effect, anybody wanting information about the condition of the unemployment insurance account, say, would only need to apply and obtain it. We would have known on September 1, 1972, the condition of that fund. I do not want to rub salt into wounds and exascerbate the feelings of hon. members.
My final reason for supporting it is this. Two days from today we expect that a formal truce will be signed ending one of the most savage and vicious wars of recent decades. It is interesting to note that at the same time as the war is ending there is taking place in the United States the trial of a man known as Daniel Ellsberg. I think there are other defendants with him. These men are charged with stealing and disclosing documents from the Penta-

Access of Administrative Documents
gon. The documents disclose a good deal of the factual and background information dealing with the acceleration of that war some six or seven years ago. I am talking about the Pentagon papers case. I expect hon. members probably know about it. I do not have to take sides on the merits of it, although I can say this: At the time in question the forces of the United States in viet Nam were quite limited in number. An incident took place known as the Gulf of Tonkin incident. It was made to appear that vessels of the United States of America had been attacked by units of North Viet Nam forces, that damage had been inflicted and casualties caused. Because of that, the Congress of the United States armed the president with power and authority to continue and wage that war, to the extent to which it accelerated over the next few years. That war now appear to be over.
It is quite possible, and it will only be known after the trial has ended, that many of the incidents, many of the factors involved in the incident to do with the Gulf of Tonkin, were fabricated. It now appears possible that many of the incidents and factors involved in the Daniel Ellsberg case were fabricated in order to provide an opportunity for the executive branch of the United States government to vigorously prosecute that war and ultimately send to Viet Nam several hundred thousand members of the armed forces.
I do not want to go into the merits of that case. However, if the documents of the Pentagon which were apparently taken by Daniel Ellsberg and his co-defendants and published in United States newspapers had been within the knowledge of the American people in 1964 and 1965, it is very likely that that conflict would never have reached the stage to which it ultimately grew. Those are the facts. I am not going to pass judgment in advance of the trial because nobody knows what will be its result. However, I have a great deal more respect for the public than most governments have. Governments work themselves into positions of anonymity and secrecy; they have no confidence in the people.
The public may make errors. Sometimes people make mistakes in the members they send to this House. However, in the final analysis the ultimate decision of all the people in the country is a sound, rational and good decision. Such a decision cannot be properly taken unless the public is armed with the facts. Speaking as a Member of Parliament, we do not get many more facts than the public; we do not know all the facts. For that reason I support the proposal of the hon. member and I think all hon. members should support it.
We cannot have good, sound, democratic government unless the public is informed of the facts in issue. Failure to do this causes tragedies such as the Viet Nam war. Possibly a settlement could have been brought about six or seven years ago which would have been not very different from the settlement made recently. Thousands of casualties, countless sorrows and tragedies of war could possibly have been avoided.
I hope that before this parliament with a minority government is concluded serious attention will be given to this very difficult problem. The public has the right to
(Mr. Baldwin.]
know all the connotations and facts in order to make an adequate decision. The public has a right to the facts so that its representatives in this House and in the legislative assemblies are able to proceed under pressure with instructions from constituents who are fully informed. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am most happy to support this motion.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to congratulate the hon. member who introduced this bill and submitted valid arguments to convince the House of its usefulness.
I am pleased to see that this bill is truly objective, that it wants the public to be well-informed on the different activities of the departments, commissions and boards working under the authority of the Canadian government. However, the bill already makes exceptions which are truly valid since in certain cases it is quite reasonable to have information kept confidential for a better guarantee of the security of our territory, our population and our country.
However, I noted on several occasions that it is really difficult to obtain information that would be very useful to us to enable us to fulfill our responsibilities more effectively vis-a-vis the population that we represent.
Unfortunately, what happens is that information is not always very accurate and I am referring to things that are published, facts that are reported. We had a good sample of this today in this House when an hon. member put a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and the Minister of Transport in his reply categorically denied being where he was alleged to have been in the news reported in a leading Montreal daily newspaper. So this is what I call bad information. Facts are falsified to incriminate those in power and if the public does not see the other side of the information coming directly from an authorized source, it thinks it is being wronged, treated differently from those who are in a position of authority.
I think that the bill should be passed by this House in order to authorize the government and commissions to publish information when Canadians request it and are interested in getting it. This would certainly be to the advantage of our society.
Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the speech given by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). He quoted very eloquent facts that urge us to support this bill in order to better inform the population.
I can knowledgeably say that the better informed the population is, the easier it becomes for those responsible for the administration and those who are in a position of authority to run the county effectively.
When I was secretary-treasurer in my own community, I often noticed that when the people were informed of the proceedings of the municipal council and when the decisions made by the council were published, the people would co-operate because they knew about the decisions. Conversely when the municipal authorities tried to work in a rather underhanded fashion, many questions were asked and the rate payers were not willing to co-operate with the municipal council because they were not sufficiently informed. I think that if these problems exist at the
January 25, 1973

local level of municipal or school administration, they also exist at the federal level.
That is why I support the bill, in order that we the people's representatives be not always in a difficult position where we are asked information by our electors and we cannot always answer their request because we ourselves have not been provided with information which should be available to us.
We must submit motions for papers which are sometimes satisfied reluctantly by ministers; these papers are often absolutely essential to ensure good administration in the areas of particular concern to us.
Mr. Speaker, I examined the bill with peasure. It is very short but significant.
I support it wholeheartedly because I think it is a step towards true democracy.
.


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in discussing the private member's bill before us I would like to refer to the comments of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) on the entire role of private members' bills. Of course, not having been here as long as the hon. member I cannot approach this matter with the same depth of knowledge and authority as him. However, I would like the opportunity of sponsoring something that would in time become legislation. Surely this is the practice we carry on every day through caucus and other activities; either supporting or opposing government legislation. To have bills sponsored by members of the opposition passed, and the type of information referred to made known to the public, would take away a basic responsibility of the government, upon which it will be judged in the next election.
With regard to the bill put forward by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather), in principle I support it. I think any member of the House would find it difficult to oppose the principle of access to public documents and information about government administration so that people can better understand just what the government is doing and how well or how badly it is handling its affairs.
In these times when bureaucracy has grown so large it is especially important for people to be secure in the knowledge that they have access to information from and about the government, as well as information referred to in the bill of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock. He said that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had made a move in this direction back in 1969 when some research was made available for the years prior to 1939. While it is frustrating when one hopes for much more, there should be some satisfaction in knowing that a move has been made in this direction.
Historically, there can be some tracing of what stood behind government moves, and a better understanding of what powers and pressures brought about legislation or the direction of events which the government controlled at the time. However, I do have very serious reservations about this bill because it is not a simple matter when you start to deal with the various types of information available to the government.
Access to Administrative Documents
The hon. member asked us not to be too specific and not to argue too long or hard on particular points in the legislation. I appreciate what he means by that. I am worried that when you say some information may be released by the government in order to give people confidence and an understanding of what is happening, you are still left with a judgment decision as to what shall or shall not be made public. There is an element of censorship that remains. I am worried about the constitutionality of such action without agreement from other levels of government, because so many of our records are duplicated by them and are shared records, not ours alone.
In the private sector the provinces have more control than we do. I know the province of Ontario has taken some initiative, or at least has expressed a desire to do so, by suggesting legislation in order to provide public protection in areas where private information about individuals can be very misleading and wrong but the individual concerned is not aware of it.
We talk about government making this kind of information available. I think, for instance, that where the Department of External Affairs is concerned there should be limitations on disclosure. The hon. member who sponsored this bill agreed that there should be limitations. However, in discussions also there are new angles, leanings and particular postures taken in order to bargain for a position internationally. Much of our style and the approach of the Department of External Affairs, which I believe has quite a high reputation in the world, might be damaged if it were possible to trace a particular stance and approach by having access to all the records, even though it might not be a matter of endangering national security. So there is this danger.
This comment would apply also to national defence. I am sure the other parties would love the opportunity to have information on such fiascos as the Bonaventure\ that certainly is an embarrassment to me as a member on this side. But that type of thing does happen, and if we have warning we can take action and avoid it happening in the future. What the hon. member proposes would give us further power in checking out the possibility of such fiascos and ensuring that they do not take place. But wanting a particular piece of information at a particular time and demanding that it be made public, when you put all the pieces together some information might be divulged that would be damaging to our security.
I think we must be very precise in the information that we divulge about businesses because of the competition which exists between one business and another. In making certain statistics public, we must be careful that damage to another company does not result.
People are very frustrated when they have to deal with the massive bureacracy which exists today. Of course, the great majority of civil servants are well meaning, talented people. Nevertheless, they form a massive wall which many people find hard to penetrate. It is important for people to know that they can obtain knowledge and information, find out about government action and what is going on so as to have a better understanding of what the government is doing. This would make the House a better place; it would give us better understanding and would give the opposition greater ability to criticize and to

January 25, 1973
Access to Administrative Documents
attack. Surely that would make for better government no matter which party sat on this side of the House.
However, this is not such a simple matter that we can set it out in a bill such as the one before us. While this matter is being aired now, nevertheless I would be loth to see the bill passed in this form without a great deal of in-depth consideration being given to the whole question. I know I am not supposed to refer to future legislation, but the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said he had something more exacting in mind that he might bring out at a later time. I think a great deal more should be done in the private sector. I think the problem is not so much misinformation as fear of misinformation; therefore action in this direction may be beneficial.
I do not think I need debate issues that we cannot act upon here, such as credit bureaux, and so on. We live in an age when our privacy is seriously hampered by all sorts of mechanical devices such as personnel agencies, detective agencies and credit bureaux which can find out about us and make reports. Sometimes we fear them much more than is warranted. If action such as that proposed in this bill were taken by the federal government, followed through provincially and legislation passed at the appropriate levels to affect business as well, we could make public information to which people have a right especially when it involves themselves. This would be beneficial to us all. However, I do make the reservation that it would have to be well thought out and after it had received thorough debate.
In conclusion, although I am aware of the exercise we go through in private members' hour, I nevertheless most sincerely appreciate the principle put forward in the hon. member's bill, even though I have expressed serious reservations about it. When he finds support for it from all sides of the House, moving to a point in time where it has been thought out and fully discussed, then I think we may well see such legislation before the House.


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has inherited democratic parliamentary traditions which she cherishes and, at the same time, administrative secrecy which constitutes one of the major barriers between the citizen and the federal government and to a great extent conditions the spirit in which the latter discharges its information duties. Canadians scholars are aware of this basic conflict which exists between administrative secrecy and the need for information services in participatory democracy.
At the top of our political system decisions are made, within the cabinet, by ministers who have taken the oath of office to keep as absolute secrets all matters considered, discussed in and disposed of in the Privy Council.
The press, the public, the opposition parties, even the ordinary members of Parliament, often find they are unable to get some information which affects the administration of the country.
No legislation in Canada, except the Official Secrets Act, prohibits or authorizes access to official files. An order-in-council is being prepared to establish procedures

permitting access to those files. On May 1,1969, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) announced that our country was also getting ready to initiate a policy to make available for research and other uses as many records of the federal government prior to July 1, 1939 as national interest will allow. The Prime Minister further indicated that this new policy shows the government's desire to stimulate interest and participation by Canadians generally in the affairs of the State. It was stated in the House of Commons that this was a pretty poor measure and it was suggested outside that it did not go far enough. The Royal Commission on National Security has proposed to remind departments and officials on a continuing basis of the advisability of lowering the security classification of documents. However, it has also added that the minister concerned must be allowed to exercise discretion as far as possible.
For instance, access to public documents, either directly or through government publications, has always been easier in Canada and in the United States than in most other western democracies.
Sometime in June 1967, in a memorandum on the application of the act on public disclosure, the Attorney-General of the United States said, and I quote:
... public disclosure of information must be the rule and not the exception, all citizens have equal rights of access to information and the burden of justifying the secret nature of a document rest with the government and not the claimant.
For the first time the new act will provide judicial procedures to enable the citizen who feels wronged to lodge a complaint against the agency that refuses, without cause, to give him access to its documents. Federal courts have the right to punish, for disobedience, the heads of official agencies.
With regard to public access to state documents, the French system seems even more restrictive than the others we studied, including that in Canada. Archives cease to be confidential or secret the very day a minister authorizes the publication of documents on a given period. In this regard, there is no automatic rule in France comparable to the 30-year deadline set in the United States and in Great Britain, and which has also applied here for a few years.
In Sweden, for almost 200 years now, state documents are recognized as public unless they have been declared restricted judicially. The Swedish system and its administration are worthy of our admiration but they are not necessarily easy to adopt in Canada. The Swedish type of responsible government does not resemble ours much. Because of that, it might be difficult to transplant here in Canada the modes of access to public documents in use in Sweden.
In Great Britain, where our parliamentary system was born, the tradition of the administrative secret was contested by academics and was the object of a committee inquiry into the civil service.
Canada is lagging behind other countries, namely Great Britain, the United States and especially Sweden, with regard to allowing access to administrative documents to mere citizens, members of parliament and journalists. But the American experience has shown that there is something else besides legislating. Law can be evaded and its
January 25, 1973

intent distorted. Vigilance must be constant in order to ensure that freedom of access to information, once provided in the statutes, exists in practice. Sometimes the fear of the effects of the principle of freedom of access to information is exaggerated. Nobody has ever talked seriously about unrestricted access to documents. Even in Sweden there are severe restrictions. The Swedish system has the advantage of allowing citizens to see the practical application of their democracy. However, I think it is logical to think that a person, a citizen and a taxpayer should have the right to consult certain documents of interest to him particularly, but telling him without any reservation certain details on others when such information might do wrong to the people involved is altogether different and I think there is a principle of prudence to respect. In discussing this legislation . . .


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-124, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 1), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Deputy Speaker Order. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has raised an interesting point upon which I shall now make a ruling. The hon. member has pointed out that clause 2 of Bill C-124 now before us contains reference to an estimate which is currently under study in one of the committees of this House. This situation prompted him to ask whether the Chair should not rule that further discussion of Bill C-124 is out of order at this time.
The hon. gentleman in his presentation referred to the eighteenth edition of Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice," page 364 where it is stated:
A motion must not anticipate a matter already appointed for consideration by the House, whether it be a bill or an adjourned debate upon a motion.
The member also quoted from the following page in May's where reference is made to what could be considered a descending order of values for matters in the parliamentary process. The quotation is:
Unemployment Insurance Act
-that a matter must not be anticipated if it is contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it is sought to be anticipated but it may be anticipated if it is contained in an equally or less effective form.
The estimate has not really come before the House and the House has made no decision upon it except to send it to a committee for study. The bill has, however, been given first reading and the House is now considering the question whether it should have second reading. It seems to me that the bill before the House is the more effective form of proceeding in relation to the estimate which is now being considered. Bill C-124 would give a statutory basis and the estimate would be a consequential proceeding.
I am reinforced in my decision by reference to page 731 of Erskine May's eighteenth edition. One finds there this passage:
Expenditure in anticipation of statutory authority. A case analogous to those mentioned above is where an estimate is presented and money spent on a service in anticipation of the passing of a bill of the same session authorizing that service.
In their second report of session 1931-32 (para. 5) the Public Accounts Committee commented adversely on two classes of cases in which this practice had occurred. The Treasury justified the inclusion of such items of expenditure in the estimates as necessary for the information of the House, but agreed:
(1)	that a note should be added to the estimates indicating that
they were subject to further statutory authority; and
(2)	that the authorizing bill must become law before the authorization of the relevant estimate by the Appropriation Act
This ruling is made without prejudice to the point raised by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) that the hon. member for Yukon should have raised this matter at an earlier stage of the debate. I would, however, note that some notice was given in this House yesterday. As I say, this point remains an open one. Nor am I overlooking the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) with respect to third reading; but it, too, remains an open one.
One should perhaps also note that the Chair, by long custom and discretion, does not involve itself in legal or constitutional questions. It is sufficient for the Chair to deal with questions of procedure.
I think the Chair would want to thank the hon. member for Yukon for raising this matter. It is perhaps one that would have gathered considerable decisions over the years, but strangely enough it has lurked in the shadows of parliamentary practice. The hon. member has brought it fairly and skilfully out into the open and has directed us into considering the most precise method of procedure.
The Chair must also decide the validity of the motion presented by the hon. member for Yukon. Since considerable time was spent over the dinner period on the first major issue, I crave the indulgence of the hon. member and the House before making another ruling.
Mr.   Fernand-E. Leblanc@Laurier: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks, I should like it to be clearly understood that I am not speaking as chairman of the miscellaneous estimates committee too which I have the honour of belonging. Nonetheless, I should like to take

January 25, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act
this opportunity of thanking members of that committee for the confidence they showed in me by electing me as their chairman and also for their cooperation with the Chair during committee hearings.
Yesterday, the hon. member for St. John East (Mr. McGrath) made the following remarks which I quote as recorded on page 618 of Hansard:
You are supposed to be the impartial chairman of the committee.
I do not know whether he meant thereby that I am not impartial because if he did, I of course protest emphatically. And besides, if he means that because I am the chairman of a committee I am not entitled to speak on the subject before us, there I must tell him that I disagree because as a member of this House I have the right to express my opinion on any subject when I believe it is my duty to do so.
I should also like to take this opportunity to mention that during the debate on January 12 the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) expressed himself as follows:
The chairman of the standing committee admitted yesterday- he let it slip out-that there is a firm date, February 8, when the minister intends to bring the budget down.
It is absolutely not true that I said this, not only because I do not know myself for sure the date on which the budget will be brought down, but because I think even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) does not know it. I cannot see why I have been made to say that the budget would be brought down on February 8.
The bill now before us is very important, and it is essential that all parties recognize its urgency, since the effect of the special warrants that were issued to authorize the payment of unemployment benefits to certain recipients will terminate February 7, which means that on that date the money provided for will run out and consequently it is imperative that Bill C-124 be passed by both Houses and given Royal Assent as soon as possible.
Being sure that all hon. members agree as to the importance of this bill, I hope we will waste no time in considering it.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) clearly showed the need to pass this bill and I do not intend of course to go over that again.
Let me add that it has not been proven that the aforesaid warrants were illegal, although the hon. member for Peace River attempted to prove it through an amendment and I quote:
-and, on the other hand, seeks to legalize and ratify the improper and illegal actions of the government in making advances in excess of the statutory limit.
I rather believe that our friends are trying to make of this bill a political question, to create a scandal where there is none and to prove that there is illegality. But to date nobody has proven that there has been any illegality, for instance in the way the special warrants were issued and in the way the Treasury Board behaved on that occasion.
This to me is a storm in a teacup and here again we have proof that opposition members were frustrated by

the voice of the people on October 30 and that they are trying, through every possible means, to secure the power that escaped them.
I believe they should accept, as we did and as the other parties did, that verdict from the people and accept their fate willingly.
This merely has to do, I believe, with technicalities when advances are mentioned instead of appropriations. Of course there are more than technicalities for there is a pretty clear-cut difference between advances and appropriations but there again, like good lawyers, there are many who attempt to interpret what happened to their best advantage but unfortunately, the people do not accept their arguments and those expecting to get unemployment insurance benefits are anxious for this bill to be passed, to be sure that they will get what they are entitled to from February 8 onwards.
Of course when one speaks of the gap between an $800 million ceiling and a total amount of $1,879 million, it means an enormous difference and the minister recognized there surely had been a mistake somewhere when the ceiling was set in the act. But I am positive that the minister is not responsible for such a situation and that the reasons then justifying the appropriation of $800 million probably no longer exist. The $800 million were exceeded mainly because of the benefits and the increase in administrative costs. The cost of benefits depends on the changes which have occurred from the time the white paper was tabled and the day the legislation was passed, on the extension of the benefit period, on rising wages and on the number of workers in Canada.
I do not think it is necessary, Mr. Speaker, to insist any longer on that point but if there had not been that ceiling clause the bill would have been passed just the same and today, evidently, we would not be talking about amending this section of the act.
Besides, it is not the sole section which is called in question again because Bill C-125 still aims at correcting certain effects of the original bill.
According to the speeches delivered here, the public think that funds are given to the government as a blank cheque, which is completely false because government funds are first examined by our watch-dog, the Auditor General, then by committees, more especially by the Committee of Public Accounts where all parties are represented; they are also submitted to a control by various departments which make sure that funds granted to the government will be spent according to proposed appropriations and the law.
Mr. Speaker, I think that some other members wish to speak, among whom the former minister, and I am sure that they will find stronger arguments than mine. This is why I will cut my comments short to recommend once again to the House the early passage of the bill, hoping that it will soon be deferred to the proper committee for a more thorough consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I note that the parliamentary secretary from St. Boniface has interjected even before I have uttered my first word. It is nice to see that he is here awake, not sleeping or creating devilment.
I am particularly pleased to participate in this debate following the sound foundation that has been laid by my colleagues, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Theirs has been a significant contribution dealing with the impropriety of the government's actions with respect to unemployment insurance. The arguments presented by those two hon. members will have to be considered seriously by all of us because, in effect, the government is seeking a blank cheque. As a result of the arguments of my colleagues it will be difficult to support Bill C-124 unless it is amended.
I recall the debates in May and June of 1971 when this monstrosity of a bill was first introduced by the government. It was to be a new principle; the government launched a new birth. There was in the legislation an all-embracing principle with regard to unemployment insurance, welfare payments and a guaranteed annual income; as a result, the government became involved in an inextricable mess. I recall distinctly the former minister of labour, always prepared to give of his Irish wit, periodically coming before our committee and offering words of wisdom in trying to sell Bill C-229 which in his words was supposed to contain the best unemployment insurance plan the world had ever known. The only thing he did not say was that it would become a more expensive plan than anybody could possibly dream of.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He did not tell us that. I say with all fairness, I think the minister tried to speak honestly. I think he came to us with a message, but with all due respect I think he was duped. That is the only way I can put it. I know the minister would not deliberately deceive the friendly member for Hamilton West, the friendly member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) or the friendly member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie). We all worked together over the months in an attempt to develop a scheme that would be best for Canadians.
I think the advice the minister received was wrong. I do not know whether he got it from Statistics Canada, the Department of National Revenue or the economic advisers of the government. They were all totally wrong and they all grossly miscalculated the end results of this scheme. Of course, after the minister discovered that, he was committed to the bill and had to stand behind it. He had no choice; he was trapped. The penalty for remaining true to one's conscience in the long run is that he will sit immediately to the right of the Speaker. All the glory has gone; yet the minister made his mark. In all fairness, he said that the scheme was actuarially sound.
I see the former minister looking at me. If he said that once, he said it five times. I see he is already looking through the record to find out when he said this scheme was actuarially sound. I presume that is what he meant when he raised his hand just now. He staked his seat on this assertion. I did not know what actuarially sound
Unemployment Insurance Act
meant; I thought he was speaking in terms of insurance principles. The hon. member for Peace River said that actuarially sound meant that as long as the public purse was open, you could dip your hand into it. I do not want to say the hon. member was right in that regard but I think that is the only definition we can arrive at at this time; it is the only definition the Canadian people can arrive at.


Steve Eugene Paproski: There was a lot of hanky-panky.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: But that is not all. We tried to determine what was the limit and that is how we reached the figure of $800 million. Oh yes, those were the good days, Mr. Speaker! We were sure from the evidence we had that the figures the minister was presenting were totally wrong. But oh no; the minister used charm. All the others involved in the scheme, men like Mr. Steel and Mr. Allen- I remember them all-said, "You need not worry." The minister said, "With all the expertise at our disposal, all the statistics, all our wherewithal and ability to make predictions, you need not worry." We were told that even under the worst conditions, if we took into account all variables no matter what they could be the most the fund would have to pay out in government contributions would be $700 million. I am looking at the President of the Privy Council. He is watching me.


An hon. Member:: He is fascinated.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We were told, just to take into account some unfortunate act of God, in case something had been forgotten, that the government would throw in another $100 million. That is how we arrived at $800 million. After probing continually, after asking questions continually we were left with the assurance that that was all the government's contribution would amount to. As Your Honour knows, the contributions involve three sectors, the employer, the employee and the government. As far as we are concerned and as far as the Canadian people are concerned, we were talking about $800 million. I was not naive in those days although I was a new member. After all, when the minister spoke, considering all the expertise that was available to him who was the member for Hamilton West to say he was wrong? Sooner or later one had to accept the minister's word.


An hon. Member:: But there was hanky-panky.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Oh, I knew there was hanky-panky. However, on the basis of what we were told and accepted, and I think we had a right to accept it, we took those figures. We could not do anything else; we did not have anywhere else to go. When we presented our views we were always out of order, always wrong.


Mr. Benjamin:: That is true.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We lacked research facilities; we lacked everything necessary to make our position credible.


Robert Knight Andras: That is your whole problem.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We in the committee bought it all, we in the House of Commons bought it; and the people of Canada bought it, Mr. Speaker, and that is the unfortunate part. The people of Canada were prepared to believe

January 25, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act
this government when it said that under the worst circumstances you could think of, taking into account all variables, the most this government would need to pay under the scheme was $800 million. And what are we talking about now? We are contemplating nearly $2 billion-an astronomical figure compared with the one presented to us in 1971. Yet the former minister said, "It is only a drop in the bucket." Can you beat that-only a drop in the bucket? He was talking about the taxpayers' money. That was what the election was all about. My friends across the aisle know that, too. The bucket is only so deep. Unfortunately, all the taxpayers own that bucket and the bucket is only so deep. Therefore, what do we have here? Because of gross miscalculation and astonishing ignorance, the government has introduced this infamous Bill C-124.


An hon. Member:: Tut, tut!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear somebody saying, "Tut, tut!" I appreciate the moderation of his language.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And there is no French translation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As a result of gross miscalculation and gross ignorance, the government has introduced this bill to the detriment of the employer and employee.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And the taxpayer.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: They will all be penalized, yes. That is what Bill C-124 is all about. This government is now looking for a blank cheque.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is looking for absolution.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is looking for a blank cheque.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Absolution is what they are looking for.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My leader says they are looking for absolution. I think they are also looking for a blank cheque. Why, Mr. Speaker? I ask that question because it is so difficult to support this bill in view of all the government told the committee and the House of Commons.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Well, are you going to support it or not?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: All the people of Canada know the government is asking them for a blank cheque. Let me read something the minister said by way of a press release dated January 17, 1973. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) was putting forward his reasons for wanting a blank cheque. The press release reads: Such a ceiling is unrealistic in the light of constantly-changing and unpredictable factors as the national and regional unemployment rates, constantly changing average earnings, and the growth of the labour force which make such a ceiling impractical.
So what else is new? They knew this back in 1971. The same conditions existed then as exist now. We had the same ever-changing and unpredictable factors; we had the same national and regional unemployment rates and the same sort of average earnings; there was the same sort of growth rate in the work force. They knew all that before. Notwithstanding that, they said we still had to have a ceiling.

Now, what has changed? No different criteria now exist; the criteria that existed then exist now. At one time the government said we would have a ceiling notwithstanding all these variables. Now there has been a complete flip-flop and they say that because of the variables we cannot have a ceiling.
The government must be credible. I do not know what they do in caucus, but when they come out of caucus into the House of Commons and become involved with the people they have to be credible. This is why I question what they are doing. The minister says that committee members, members of the House and others do not have to worry about that because there are sufficient controls. I again quote from his press release of January 17:
There are sufficient controls, through annual reports, Auditor General reports and public accounts to ensure an adequate review of the financial operation of the program.
Cutting away all the verbiage, what the minister is saying there is, "After everything has happened you can look at it and tell us whether you like it." That is what he is asking us to do. Is this right? Is this why we are here? The government has set a precedent with regard to controls which require parliamentary approval. I do not know the reason. Perhaps if you knew this thing was such a mish-mash you would say, "Fool them all and throw in a figure, because with the figure we really have this bill will never pass." They threw in that figure hoping to dupe the people into accepting it. Then when you find you cannot dupe them any longer you say, "Wipe it out, repeal the section and give us a blank cheque."
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) gave us a marvellous lesson today on sections 23 and 28 of the Financial Administration Act. He showed how we can move into areas when we have a ceiling that we can hide or bypass and forget all about the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You will get your chance to speak, friend, if you have the nerve to stand up and speak, but don't continually bug me. I am trying to make a worth while contribution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He is still my friend. He is an interesting type of person.


An hon. Member:: Part of the coalition government.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, he is part of that group that wooed another, went through the courtship and entered into marriage. In the past week and a half we have seen how the marriage has been finally consummated-cementlike: they could not budge. I have watched them playing hanky-panky with one another.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This is interesting because I watched that same gang on my left, with all due respect, in the last parliament when they were concerned about the problems of the nation in terms of high unemployment and the cost
January 25, 1973

of living. My friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, was concerned about pensions and rising prices. This was their being. I was impressed with that gentlemanly crowd-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -until they wanted to get married. Then things happened. I don't know how it could have happened. I do not know how anyone could sell their principles for political expediency. This party brought a motion that pinpointed the problems of our nation because the government was not dealing with unemployment, rising costs and inflation. Guess who voted against it? I do not want to mention any names, but just look to my left.
I listened to the Minister of Justice give us a great lesson on the interpretation of section 23 of the Financial Administration Act. He went through a whole lot of things. He was very concerned. He said that payment was required to meet the just and legal claims of those who were entitled to benefit. Let me say this: we on this side are equally concerned about that. We are equally concerned-


Mr. Orlikow:: Tell us.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There's another one. I understand that member is going to be speaking next. He will tell us all about it. We are just as concerned. Let the record show that in no way will this party hold up payments to those who are legally entitled to them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: You just don't sign the cheques, that is all.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister is getting involved. I say to the minister that when we give our word he can rest assured that it is final.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is not like the night we had a gentleman's agreement here. We were not supposed to have a recorded vote. Guess who turned out to be the bad fellows? After a little conversation on the opposite side, they forced a vote. What I am saying is, I do not know whether we can trust them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not see anyone standing up on a question of privilege. If they do, we will talk all night about that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the point you are trying to make?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Now we hear from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He is always talking. This is my first opportunity to put my thoughts on the record and I am being interrupted unduly and in an ungentlemanly fashion. I cannot understand it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have made my point. We say they will get their money in due time, but in the meantime this government must be chastised, criticized and put in its place. That is the role of the opposition, constructive criticism. In no way will we abdicate that responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In trying to interpret this section, the Minister of Justice referred to section 137(4) which relates to the limit. I will read it for the edification of hon. members:
The total amount outstanding at any time of advances made under this section shall not exceed $800 million.
We have had a legal opinion on this, Mr. Speaker. That is not final. What this House debated in 1971 does not mean a thing. The minister said we can forget about it. He then said the law is the law in terms of section 23 of the Financial Administration Act. He interpreted it his way, we interpreted it our way. I say this is why we have judges and courts. There is no way I will ever accept any legal opinion coming from a minister, with all due respect to him as a law professor and Member of Parliament, because I saw the grain stabilization program in force at one time. They had a legal opinion then, but they backed away from that.
The minister interpreted the law and so did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Parliament is paramount when it decides on a statutory limit. That is the law. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre leaves the law to Mr. Speaker. I must say this, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is certainly well versed in the intricacies of the rules, regulations and laws of the House of Commons. I think that he deserves a hand in that regard.
The hon. member says there is one law that says we must pay the benefits. I say that he is quite correct. However, I also say that there is another law which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has conveniently forgotten, and that is the law which says that the figure shall not exceed $800 million. This is the limit that was set by parliament. When it comes to deciding which is the more urgent of the two, I respecfully submit that parliament stands ahead. The money will be acquired but not in a devious, clandestine way, not in an illegal way such as was perpetrated by this government. I think that both have to be read together.


An hon. Member:: Which law are you in favour of?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Again there is the same noise in the background. I think the prerogative and the integrity of parliament must be maintained. I say that parliament is paramount. I say that parliament has not only the right but the obligation to control spending. In every instance parliament must have some means whereby its approval is sought with respect to spending. In other words, we must have some interest in the purse-strings.
That is what happened in 1971. The government believed in all those principles which I enunciated with respect to the prerogative and integrity of parliament;

January 25, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act that is why they brought in section 137(4) and section 133(b). The only other way they could get money is under section 133(b) which reads:
-any other amounts provided out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for any purpose related to unemployment insurance that is authorized by an appropriation-
I say that authorization by appropriation means that it must be done with the consent of parliament. This is the institution which stands supreme when it comes to this bill. The paragraph continues:
-by parliament and the administration of which falls to the commission.
That is what it is all about. That was the control which was accepted by the committee and by all members of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, my time is extremely limited. I would like to accommodate the hon. member, but he has had his opportunity. He has had 40 minutes, and now I would like to pursue the theme of my remarks. If there is any time left, I will be happy to allow him a question.
What happened? By the middle of August, I respectfully submit, and at the time when we came back to deal with the B.C. port strike, the government knew the exact state of the unemployment insurance fund and it knew it was running into difficulty. Knowing that-and I say that it did-by September 1, they could have informed parliament of the predicament in which they found themselves. They would have had to tell the truth then, and who knows what they were thinking about in terms of the election. We all know that they could not afford to let any cats out of the bag at that time.
I heard them on the other side saying that is not true; they did not know anything until the middle of September. I do not buy that nonsense. Knowing that they could not divulge anything, in their own devious and sneaky way they looked to section 23 of the Financial Administration Act. I submit that what they tried to do was to legislate not by parliament but by Governor General's warrant. They increased the limit that was set by parliament-the limit that was accepted by everyone-in the first instance by $234 million and that is when they ran into trouble.
We do not question the use of these warrants. What we question is the government's timing. I have heard it said, and I have read that this has been one of the most unique situations that some people have ever seen. It borders on impropriety, on illegality and on disrespect not only for the House of Commons but for the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The whole approach was calculated to deceive. They knew they were in trouble by the middle of August, 1972, but they remained silent. I think this government should be criticized for this in most profound terms. Knowing that they were in trouble, knowing that the people of Canada should be told, knowing that parliament should be informed, they remained silent until it was convenient for them to let the cat out of the bag.

When can warrants be sought? I will not be repetitious in this regard, but let me just point out that, as has been stated by those on this side of the House and by some hon. members on the other side, they can be sought when parliament is not in session, when payment is urgently required for the public good, when there is no appropriation for the payment, or the need for payment was not foreseeable when parliament was last in session.
I should like to state that parliament was dissolved on September 1, 1972, yet on October 5 a warrant was issued. I say, read between the lines.
There was a continuing situation from mid-August, yet they want us to believe that they had no idea of the unhealthy state of the fund, a situation which should have required them to make an immediate disclosure, to inform the House and the people of Canada. They say that it was not that bad. I cannot buy it. I understand that if the government had acted as it should have acted in the interest of the country, it would have asked for the issuance of Governor General's warrants for immediate payments, not anticipatory payments. Yet this is what the government did; they asked for $234 million, which was beyond what was required for immediate payments.
If parliament is not sitting, Governor General's warrants can be acquired when necessary. But the government cannot legislate by way of Governor General's warrants. The government could have asked for warrants as time and circumstances demanded, but instead they went too far. A special warrant cannot be granted when the legislative authority does not exist. It provides funds only for expenditures for which parliamentary authority exists. In the case of the two special warrants for the UIC account the case against granting warrants is even stronger, because under section 137(4) parliament expressly and succinctly provided that the total amount paid under the section shall not exceed $800 million.
What have they tried to do? They have brought in Bill C-124. We have already had some discussion about dealing with it in the other place in terms of one vote. What have they done? As I read the explanatory note of Bill C-124 as it applies to clause 2.1 find these words:
This clause would provide that the appropriation described therein will not be treated as an appropriation referred to in paragraph 133(b) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, but instead will be dealt with as an advance, which is repayable with interest in accordance with section 137 of that act.
This means that section 23, as I understand it, relates to appropriations. Appropriations are grants. If this is a grant, then obviously the Minister of Finance would have to make some record with respect to his budgetary statements in the future. If it is a grant, then it comes from the general tax coffers. I respectfully submit that that is really what happened.
Notwithstanding the fact that section 23 refers to it as an appropriation, the government says, using tricky legal language, that it shall be deemed to be an advance. In other words, when we are through dealing with all the intricacies of the bill the ceiling will be wiped out, the sum of $454 million will be in the unemployment insurance account as an advance, which in turn means that employers and employees will have to carry the burden of the
January 25, 1973

mismanagement, miscalculation and ineptitude of the government.


An hon. Member:: That is not so.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My hon. friend says no. That is exactly what it means. This amount will go into the fund and on such terms and conditions as the Minister of Finance sees fit to make, the loan will be paid back. The only people interested in the fund are employers and employees; that is why the methods used by the government are so disastrous.
In conclusion, one would hope that the arguments that we on this side of the House have presented will not be misinterpreted. I think they have been; the responsible minister is nodding his head, saying either yes or no. But what we are trying to do is to bring to light what we believe is wrong, what we believe the government should be chastised for and for which ultimately they will have to account. It is as simple as that.
I close by saying that we do not intend to put up any more speakers on this side of the House. Our points have been made, so let us bring this matter to a vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) seeking to ask the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My question is a legal one and is right up my hon. friend's alley. In view of the charge that there has been an illegal expenditure of money, can the hon. member for Hamilton West say whether, looking at section 137(4) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, the total amount of advances outstanding under this section exceeds $800 million?


Gerald William Baldwin: The Auditor General has already said there was $980 million on December 22.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, it appears as a result of information received that the answer to that question is yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member seeking to ask another question?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: No, that is all he is going to get. I thought he had a good question, but now he has been stamped on he wants a second go.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All I can say is:
chicken!


Gerald William Baldwin: May I ask the hon. member for Hamilton West a question!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gérard Pelletier: He said he did not want any more.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair will permit a question, but I would ask hon. members to abate their excitment sufficiently to allow some of these exchanges to work their way to the front.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the hon. member for Hamilton West advise the House whether in a public statement the Auditor General said that on December 22, 1972, there were $982 million of advances received by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, some $180 million higher than the $800 million ceiling that was set?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: To the best of my knowledge, yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have a great suspicion that those remarks were made, but for some time the Chair has been trying to divide the debate that has been going on in committee from the debate that has been going in the House. Earlier in this sitting the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) proposed the following motion:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after "That" and substituting therefor the following:
"this House, noting that by clause 2 of Bill C-124 the government proposes to change the law so as to burden the present and future workers of Canada and their employers with the payment of the sum of 454,000,000 dollars to the detriment of the unemployment insurance plan; and further noting that the government thereby would avoid having to account for this sum in its statement of budgetary revenues and expenditures for the present fiscal year; and further noting that the government thereby would avoid having to seek supply for this sum from parliament as a budgetary expense and to propose ways and means by which this sum might be raised by additional taxation upon individual and corporate taxpayers, as the law presently requires, resolves that Bill C-124 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates."
By the indulgence of the House, the question of the validity of the motion was put aside in order to deal with another point. There is a standard form of amendment to the effect that the subject matter of a bill may be referred to a standing committee. This motion, the Chair suggests, should be in a pure form and should not contain assertions which could only be considered points for debate. However, other matters are set forth in the motion and they make the motion unacceptable.
As Mr. Speaker ruled on January 26, 1971:
It is not a reasoned amendment. It is largely a deviation or a change from the old established form of amendment which provides that the subject matter of a bill or a motion before the House be referred to a special committee or a standing committee. What I believe is objectionable from a procedural standpoint in connection with this proposed amendment is that it goes into the details of the bill.
I also have some reservations about the suggestion that the bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, but I have made my ruling on the point I first referred to. I now call on the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me to speak to your ruling for a moment, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated, as did the government House leader, when we were discussing the point of order that had the verbiage, as it was referred to, been stripped from the amendment it would have likely been in order. Hon. members of this House know that I am very non-partisan in these matters. However, the amendment would be really meaningless if the truth were stripped from it, so I shall not ask for the indulgence of the House to remove those words.

Unemployment Insurance Act


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the proposal before us calls for the removal of the ceiling on advances under section 137 of the Unemployment Insurance Act; it removes the limit of $800 million. We in this party intend to support that proposal because we believe it is necessary, just as the warrants for the period from January 4 to February 7 were necessary. If unemployed people have qualified for unemployment insurance benefits, they are entitled under law to those benefits.
We have heard a number of speeches from the hatchet-men in the official opposition including the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). In the 11 years I have been here, in all the times he has brandished his hatchet only once did it accomplish what he intended. I remember rumours and stories about bankruptcies in Quebec, but when the chips were down the hatchet disappeared because the hon. member could not produce the evidence. Similarly with his speech today; it provided little evidence.
Members of the official opposition have argued that the warrants were illegal and that this bill is needed because the government has acted illegally. I am not going to deal with the legal aspects because my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), dealt with them in his speech last night in a way in which I could not possibly duplicate. He demonstrated to anybody who wanted to listen that not only were they legal but that the action the Conservative government took when it was in power was much worse than anything this government has done. I noticed that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who argued some of the supposed constitutional and legal points, disappeared while the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was speaking. Perhaps when he realized the hon. member's argument was so powerful he decided not to stick around.
We intend to support this bill because we want the unemployed to receive their benefits. We have heard a great deal from the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) about being married to the government because we are supporting this bill. Let me say to the hon. member, who has quite a few unemployed in his constituency who want their benefits, that when the government brings forward Bill C-125, which is going to make the qualification for unemployment insurance benefits much more difficult-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They are not going to
bring it forward.


David Orlikow: -we are not going to support that bill. The Conservative party has talked consistently about the need to tighten up the regulations. If they support that bill we will then see who is in bed with whom at that time. The hon. member for Hamilton West and other members of the official opposition who have spoken have expressed surprise and concern that the fund is so much in the red. They say the government should have known this. Of course the government should have known, but a government which has been so wrong on every economic matter-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Stupid.


David Orlikow: A government that has been so stupid, as the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) says-


An hon. Member:: You have supported them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Why doesn't that sheep from Burlington shut up.


David Orlikow: I do not mind his interjections because the more he interjects, the more stupid he appears on the record. A government that has been so wrong in the last four years about the economic situation in this country had to be wrong about this situation.
In December, 1969, when unemployment was a good deal lower than it is now, both in percentage figures and in total numbers, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said the major concern in the country was the rapidly rising cost of living and he was going to stop that by slowing down the economy. He succeeded brilliantly: in 1970 we had a cost of living increase of about 2 per cent. Of course, the rate of unemployment, as we had predicted, went up very substantially and has been going up ever since.
What member who has been here from 1968 does not remember the speeches we heard from the former minister of finance? He was rewarded for the brilliant job he did by being appointed president of the Canadian Transport Commission. Month after month as Statistics Canada brought out the unemployment figures the minister stood in his place and told us that prosperity was just around the corner. He said the government was instituting a program which would see unemployment begin to fall.
On one occasion-I do not have the quotation here-the then minister of finance challenged the Leader of the Official Opposition to resign if unemployment was not below 5 per cent by the end of the year. Of course, that did not happen. I remember the minister's first speech after he was appointed in which he said he did not want to deal with the mundane and routine numbers game. He said as far as he was concerned any unemployment was too much and what he wanted was full employment. He did not succeed. In fact, things are worse than they were under the former finance minister.
We on this side of the House began in 1969 to say that the government's policies were wrong. We said then, as we have said since, that what the government should do is follow an expansionary policy in order to put people back to work. Our advice was ignored. After the former minister of manpower and immigration left office he said it would have been a lot better had the government asked for the resignation of some of its top economic advisers. If there ever has been a government that received bad advice, it is the government we have had since 1968. That government has been wrong about unemployment ever since the Prime Minister took office.
This government promised that unemployment would be reduced, when in fact it has steadily gone up. That is the real reason the unemployment insurance fund is in financial difficulty. I will refer in a moment to the position taken by members of the official opposition in that
January 25, 1973

regard. It is amazing how people can be wise after the event. Members of the official opposition said they knew all along that the unemployment insurance bill was a terrible bill.
It seems to me that the director of the Canada Council on Social Development is preaching for a call as the deputy minister of national health and welfare under a Conservative government. He says now that the Unemployment Insurance Act is a disaster, but when that bill was first being discussed he praised it to the hilt. We are now hearing from the Auditor General, another friend of the official opposition, about what should have been done.
The real reason the fund is in trouble is that we have had in almost every month of the last three years more than 6 per cent unemployment on a seasonally adjusted basis. When the Unemployment Insurance Act was being amended, the government said the premiums it proposed employees and employers would pay would keep the fund solid provided unemployment remained at 4 per cent or less, and if it went over 4 per cent the government would pick up the deficit in the fund. When that bill was going through parliament and the committee, the unemployment rate was 6 per cent and it has remained at 6 per cent or more every month since then. Is it any wonder that the fund is now in a deficit position? Of course it is in a deficit position if the premium was set too low to meet the cost of carrying the fund when you have 6 per cent unemployment. That is the real reason the fund is in trouble.
But the official opposition want to get rid of the government. They want to take over. I cannot blame them. That is part of the political game. We all want to get more support, more power for the parties we represent. What I resent is that members of the official opposition are trying to play both sides of the game. They are trying to cater to a backlash which they detect and which, unfortunately, is present, a backlash against welfare and unemployment insurance, and at the same time they do not have the guts to do what they ought to do if they mean what they are saying-that is, to vote against the bill. They know that if this bill is not passed the unemployed will not get their benefits, and they are certainly not prepared to face up to that responsibility.
What were the criticisms of the hon. member for Hamilton West and others who say that the act was a disaster? I say that what they criticized played a very minor role in the deficit with which the fund was faced. They suggested that instead of qualifying after eight weeks of employment, people should work a minimum of 12 weeks before qualifying for benefit. I suggest that the number of people who are drawing benefits after eight weeks is relatively small and that the amount of money which they get has very little effect on the fund.
They also object to the sickness provisions. I note that that great humanitarian, Mr. Baetz, the executive director of the Canadian Council on Social Development, also suggests that the sickness provisions should not be in the bill. But what does Mr. Baetz suggest as a solution for the people who are sick? He says let them be included in the provincial medicare plans. Mr. Speaker, all Members of Parliament know how short of money all provinces are
Unemployment Insurance Act
and there is not the slightest chance that the provinces would agree to pay sickness benefits to people who are unemployed. Mr. Baetz is simply suggesting that we cut those people off unemployment insurance benefit and let them look after themselves. That is a great approach from somebody who is supposed to give leadership in the welfare field. What about maternity benefits?
Mr. Baetz also pointed out that certain groups of workers do not work long enough ever to pay unemployment insurance premiums to cover the amount which they will draw. He is right, Mr. Speaker. But who are those people? The main group I can think of comprises the fishermen on the east coast. I would like to know whether members who represent the fishermen in the maritime provinces, most of them Conservatives, agree with their friend Mr. Baetz. Do they want the fishermen cut off? Mr. Baetz says the fishermen should get the help they need from provincial or local welfare organizations. I am not a resident of the maritime provinces but I know something about the less than generous rates paid to people on welfare in the most prosperous provinces and I am sure the maritime provinces, with their financial difficulties, are not in a position to be very generous.
It is not often I agree with the hon. member for Hamilton West, but he did say one thing with which I must agree. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government should have known in August that the fund would be in trouble. I join him in his criticism of that. Yes, the government should have had parliament deal with it then, and it did not; parliament was dissolved. Now we have questions here and in the committee about whether the Governor General's warrants were genuine to meet unemployment insurance benefits from January 4 to January 11. There are questions about whether those warrants were proper and legal. We had the Auditor General suggest that there was no need for the last warrant because parliament was meeting on January 4, and the first day it met a bill should have been introduced by the government in order to provide the money.
I can just imagine the howl of rage that would have come from the official opposition when parliament met on January 4 if the government, before it introduced the Speech from the Throne and had a vote which demonstrated that it had the confidence of the House, had introduced a bill to provide money for the unemployment insurance fund. We would have had a fantastic number of speeches from members of the official opposition telling the people of Canada that the government was not following the tried and true rules of the parliamentary system.
I agree that the government should have known better about the financial needs of the fund, just as for four years or more we said that the government should have known better about the number of people who would be unemployed.


An hon. Member:: Why are you supporting it?


David Orlikow: Because I want the people who are unemployed in my city, in Toronto, in Hamilton, in Halifax and in every other city and village, the people who have paid their unemployment insurance premiums and have qualified to receive benefits under the act which is now the law of the land, to get their benefits. Like every Member of

January 25, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act Parliament, I get telephone calls and visits from constituents every day of the week. I said in committee, and I say it again tonight, that Winnipeg is not a city which has the highest rate of unemployment. I guess I am pretty lucky; I get only two or three phone calls a day. My colleague from Nickel Belt tells me he is dealing with 50 cases a week, and Conservative members from the Maritimes tell me they have a hundred or more cases every week. I want those people to get the money to which they are entitled. I do not want them to do what one of my constituents told me today he had to do when he did not receive the benefits he was entitled to for eight weeks; he had to sell a savings bond. That man should receive the benefits to which he is entitled and which he needs.
Yes, the government was wrong. Yes, the government was stupid. I might even agree with the hon. member for Hamilton West that the government has been somewhat devious about the matter. But now the crunch is here. Are the unemployed who are entitled to benefits going to get their benefits or not? This bill will ensure that they will get their benefits. I have no hesitation in, nor am I the slightest bit ashamed of voting in favour of it. Members of the official opposition can call me any names they want. I am going to do whatever is necessary to see that people who are unemployed and who are in real difficulty get what they are entitled to by law, and I will leave it to members of the official opposition to play politics with this very serious situation.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, I assure you that I do not intend to be involved in arguments as to whether warrants were issued legally or illegally, whether this or that section applies or does not apply, because that should not even be part of the present debate. The present debate is on whether or not a particular section of the Unemployment Insurance Act should be deleted in order that the act may function better in future. The question of whether the warrants are legal or illegal is for another body to decide. What we have succeeded in doing in this debate is to prejudge the report that will inevitably be made by the miscellaneous estimates committee. That should not be done and is something the Speaker quite properly prevented yesterday.
I hoped when I spoke in the throne speech debate that that would be my last speech. I tried to be reasonable and tried not to be partisan. I do not think I was. But it was very obvious to me, listening as I did yesterday and this evening, that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) who played such an important part in the formation of this bill still does not understand the purpose of the $800 million.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: He spoke of a deficit. When he talked of the deficit, that shows that he still does not understand. I am going to try to explain it to him in very simple language so that once and for all he will understand what is the meaning of the $800 million.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you listen.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I have been listening. I have always tried to listen; that has been one of my traits. I am not afraid to debate on another occasion why we were so grossly out in the estimates.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is not what you said on television.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: What is the purpose of the $800 million? If one could sit and visualize how the unemployment insurance plan is funded or financed-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was not funded, that is the trouble.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -it would be very simple. The cost of benefits and of administration in unemployment rates of between zero and 4 per cent is borne by the employers and the employees of Canada and that is reflected in the weekly contributions they make. These vary from year to year and I believe the present minister properly raised them, according to the act, to approximately $1 per hundred. That, I think, is the employee's contribution at the moment and that of the employer is slightly higher.
The hon. member for Hamilton West should remember that when we were before the committee we allowed for privisions for the adjustment of that rate based on a three-year moving average. Since the cost of that particular part of the scheme relating to unemployment between zero and 4 per cent will vary very little unless certain factors are changed, for instance unless rates of unemployment change up or down or the cost of administration changes slightly, we can almost perfectly predict for a five-year period what those particular contributions shall be. As the work force grows and as this cost remains fairly stable, it is very obvious that sooner or later the annual contributions of the employer and those of the employee will drop.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is another prediction.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: In addition, there is no fund. Hon. members keep using that word. The purpose of the act is not to tie up, as we did in the old days, $500 million or $800 million or $900 million. When the Tory government in 1958 took power there was $980 million in the fund; when they left there was less than $200 million.


Erik Nielsen: And now there is nothing.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There is no fund and it was never intended that there should be. That is exactly the point, and hon. members still have not understood it. They do not understand it, either because they are stupid or because they do not want to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The point is that the opposition critic should know exactly why I am saying that the law provides no obligation with respect to a fund. This the hon. member for Hamilton West failed to point out. On the other hand, if there is a surplus as a result of more employer-employee contributions, that must be reflected by law in the rate that is assigned to employers and
January 25, 1973

employees in the following year. So, the purpose is not to accumulate funds, not to keep huge surpluses or acquire huge deficits year by year; the purpose is to adjust the contributions of the employer and employee so as to finance the benefits that are available between zero and 4 per cent rates of unemployment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is welfare and not insurance at all.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. gentleman has just stated his philosophy. He is against welfare and against the poor.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in being diverted by attacks on the poor.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I want to explain something-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Go ahead by all means.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I want to explain something, and if you want to learn something you might just listen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The cost of benefits that come into play at unemployment rates over 4 per cent-I am talking of the extended period-and the sickness and maternity benefits, the help to fishermen, and so on, is borne by the government. That particular provision is nothing more than a commitment by the federal government to absorb that cost since, in the final analysis, it is responsible for keeping unemployment to tolerable levels in this country. At least we have had the courage as a party, despite high unemployment, to recognize our obligations to the unemployed and to assume them by introducing what I still maintain to be the most progessive unemployment insurance plan in the world.
Some bon. Members: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: To illustrate, let us just visualize for a moment a business. There are many businessmen here, many honest economists and also, I hope, open-minded people and they are listening. If you can visualize a business that as it sells its products is not paid in cash but accumulates accounts receivable, you can understand what the purpose of the $800 million is. The contributions of employers and employees are paid at the same time as the moneys are sent in for income tax and the Canada Pension Plan. Those moneys are transferred to the department dealing with unemployment insurance from the Department of National Revenue which has the responsibility of collecting it.
Large companies make bulk payments and the Unemployment Insurance Commission accumulates accounts receivable. The purpose of the $800 million is nothing more than to lend the Unemployment Insurance Commission the cash to finance its accounts receivable, including those from that large debtor which happens to be the government of this country. So hon. members have completely misunderstood the purpose of the $800 million. It is
Unemployment Insurance Act
to finance accounts receivable. It is to finance the revenues of the commission and to finance what is paid out week by week as unemployment fluctuates from region to region.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We understand that.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: However, Mr. Speaker, experience indicates that $800 million is not sufficient to finance the accounts receivable that are accumulated by the Unemployment Insurance Commission-


Erik Nielsen: Why was the ceiling put on?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -so that section is better struck out of the act.


Erik Nielsen: Why was the ceiling put on?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Why was the ceiling put on? In all probability, to avoid the necessity of trying to predict rates of unemployment in this country. I will be honest. That should please you people on the other side because, confidentially, for the last six weeks, and during the election campaign you tried to become the party in power by riding to power on the backs of the poor, and you are rot going to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We are going to ride in on your backs, that's what we will do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, my role has not been the easiest one in this country.


An hon. Member:: Don't speak like a demagogue.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I at least will walk out of here with the integrity with which I came here ten years ago, which is more than some of those who are trying to speak out of both sides of their mouths can say.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: You are the people who created the unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The $800 million question has been constantly raised and constantly misunderstood. It is almost impossible to imagine how, collectively, one hundred or more people can be so stupid that no one understands the purpose for which the $800 million was put in the act.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, unemployment insurance runs on a calendar year. We now know to the copper, according to the minister's statement, what it will cost in paid-outs. The minister's statement is worth reading. Hon. members should read it because it is factual. This plan has cost the Canadian people approximately $200 million. In fact, the

January 25, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act
minister was specific to the copper. We do not yet know all the revenue. We will have to wait until the T4 slips are analysed some time this summer. The payments from companies and employees are in the revenue fund; they have to be separated by the Department of National Revenue and appropriated to the departments, including unemployment insurance.
All we have heard about all day is costs. There are ways of cutting costs. I have gone through them before. It is not too late now, at twenty-five minutes to ten in the evening, to make other amendments to cut costs so we will not need $800 million. I can review them as I did the other night. One hon. member said we should cut out selfemployed fishermen on the east coast. Others have suggested that we reduce the benefits and increase the waiting period from eight weeks to twelve weeks or, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) suggested in supporting Reuben Baetz, 20 weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Go to it, increase it to 20. Members opposite can explain this to the 300,000 or 400,000 people who will be eliminated from unemployment insurance. If you do that you will at least be consistent, but you cannot have it both ways; you cannot pretend you are concerned about the unemployed by voting for this if at the same time you say you are helpless with regard to bringing in amendments to the act. You can bring in amendments right now. Cut out the fishermen, the woodworker, the women's maternity benefits-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I am sure hon. members want to be fair to the hon. member who has the floor and, at the same time, to the Chair.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the deficit for which the act provides adjustments in the employer-employee contributions, according to the figures the minister read the other day, is precisely $159 million. Hon. members must realize that almost two million people came on the rolls, under the guise of universality, at preferred rates of 40 per cent. This year this will be up to 80 per cent and next year it will be 100 per cent. Hon. members should realize the flexibility we have to adjust the rate a nickel or a dime. That is about all that will probably happen in the next five years. It will still be less than the $1.40 of five years ago.
It is obvious that the $160 million will be repaid to the government. The fund, as I suggested, will remain in relative balance. If at the end of the year there is an increase, this will be reflected in lower rates. If there is a deficit, there will be higher rates. It is in the bill. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) spent all his time on the bill, but he does not understand it. Don't blame the government. It was my responsibility to inform the government if I thought we were going to run out of money. I was informed by the appropriate officials in September that we could be in trouble by December if we were not careful. I am quite sure that in September I decided the cabinet should be notified.
There is something I did not like in the minutes of the miscellaneous estimates committee. Everyone so far in the
debate has used the evidence from the committee. This will be my only reference. There was an attempt to drag into the political arena the chief commissioner of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, who is one of the hardest working people in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There were members who had questions. Before he was given a chance to answer, the chief commissioner was asked whether his answer would be truth or fiction. That is an insult. The chief commissioner should have told that Member of Parliament that it is an insult to a senior civil servant to presume he would lie before a committee of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I said I would not get involved in the committee hearings. However, I say to you that anything I have said in this House during the past ten years has been accurate. I would never deliberately mislead the House. I did not inform my colleagues, nor was I informed that it might be necessary or should have been necessary to obtain warrants during the emergency period when we came back to deal with the strike. I might have been irresponsible and I might have made a bad error in judgment, but the important point is that that is my responsibility, not the government's.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: What is more important is the way the opposition has used this issue to try, as someone just said, to use the reactionary forces in this country while at the same time telling the unemployed, "We are your friends because we are voting for the $800 million." Don't vote for it. We don't need your support. We want you to be honest, consistent and men of integrity. If you do not believe in the cost of unemployment insurance, vote against it; that is all you have to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If members opposite think it is too costly, they should bring in the amendments I suggested. If they want to bring in amendments, we are quite prepared to lay them on the table. Why won't you bring them in?


Erik Nielsen: There is no bill.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We will bring in a bill.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Bring it in.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The Leader of the Opposition said that if he had the opportunity he would reduce and remove some of the benefits in the present Unemployment Insurance Act.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am asking an honest question. The opposition are saying we should bring in a bill to change the present act so that we can put people back on welfare. We can bring back the $35 benefit which we had in 1960


when unemployment was even higher. The Leader of the Opposition knows the terrible rate of unemployment, the degradation and the loss of dignity of the people of Nova Scotia when he was premier of that province. It should be plainly on the record that the Leader of the Opposition did not get up to repudiate that statement. You cannot have it both ways; that is a lesson everybody in this House should understand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis).


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, all those Quebec members seem to know so much about Nova Scotia. Would the minister take the time, now that he has brought Nova Scotia into the picture, to tell us why and how he, as a former minister, could make the judgment that 10 per cent of UIC benefits belong to the people and not to the company? In other words, we will give the UIC 10 per cent and the government 9 per cent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member should not take advantage of a point of order to ask a question. If he wants to ask a question he should seek permission from the hon. member who has the floor. Also, the question cannot be asked in the manner in which it was asked by the hon. member because it is an argument.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which arises from your decision. I did not rise on a point of order; I asked the former minister for permission to put a question.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald MacInnis: You did
not hear me. Wait until Hansard comes out tomorrow. You will then see, also, that one of your ministers got caught because he was not listening.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I wish to remind the hon. member that the Chair did not find the question to be proper as to form.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, if I were a bitter man, which I am not, maybe I would have risen on a point of order to point out that the hon. member called me a minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: May I say this in conclusion: the $800 million is nothing more than a sum of money upon which the Unemployment Insurance commission can borrow from time to time for the daily operations which are necessary under the act and are accountable to government and to the people through the annual statement. Whatever they borrow is repayable to the government. The government in turn will pay its debt to the Unemployment Insurance Commission when it has tallied up some time in April or May, and that of course is the debt that
Unemployment Insurance Act
results from the fact that unemployment at the present moment is over 4 per cent. I might must say that when the rate of unemployment gets down below 4 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: When?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -and it will, the maximum benefit period will be 25 weeks instead of 52 weeks. The people on minor attachment will be limited to 18 weeks, which should please the opposition. In other words, we would be saving money, which is our concern, and the people will be back to work, about which everybody will be happy. But we cannot have it both ways, and I say this very sincerely. The act is costing more than anticipated for logical reasons which the minister mentioned.
In Canada there are 8,500,000 or more who are working and who are earning more money than ever before. This country is affluent and can well afford to pay the 90 cents or $1 a week to those who are less fortunate. If we cannot that is unfortunate, or if we do not want to that is even more unfortunate. But if we are going to reduce unemployment, and we will-and I say "we" collectively in this House because I do not think anybody particularly appreciates it-then in the interval we cannot do as the opposition has tried to do, ridicule the unemployment insurance plan; but it did not quite succeed because people came to their senses in time.
If they want to further emasculate the plan, they are not helpless. If they want to put a stigma on it, they are going about it the right way. But sooner or later sanity will prevail in the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: People will then understand the Liberal party in the last election. Those who seek to exploit the poor will find out that the poor do not forget that easily.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) seeks the floor for the purpose of asking a question.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. He referred to the accounts receivable situation. Is it not a fact that the employers' and the employees' contributions are paid in by the fifteenth of the following month, throughout the year? Why is it, then, that the Department of National Revenue does not have a running record of the payments month by month, so we do not have to wait until the T4 forms are in?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is, as usual, fairly accurate. There is a statute that says that the Department of National Revenue must accumulate these contributions monthly, and eventually they do get the unemployment insurance. But in the meantime we borrow from the $800 million. I do not want to suggest that this is just to finance the employer-employee side; it is also to obtain sums of money which the government owes. But we must not forget that unemployment insurance is taxable and substantial sums of money will be coming in as

January 25, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act the result of unemployment insurance being added to the regular income earned by the unemployed in the last eight or nine months in the year, which will form the basis of the T4 assessment and taxation. That extra revenue will come to the government and has to be calculated as part and parcel of the final and precise cost to the government of unemployment insurance.
The precise cost to the employer-employee fund is fairly well known. I have quoted it as $159 million. It is obvious that the $800 million is too low to finance day to day operations at a time when unemployment is running high, but more particularly when we are paying $68 a week rather than $51. If that was a miscalculation, it was a happy one because it reflects that the people who are working are earning a better salary than they ever earned, or that we predicted three years ago, under a progressive government.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, tonight we have listened to an impassioned defence of the indefensible by the former minister who was responsible to this House for the unemployment insurance fund. In many ways, much of what was said was, regrettably, irrelevant to the bill before us. There was a great deal of passion. I have listened to the hon. member in the past and I have found him to be great at this; he would confuse the issue with irrelevancies. If he wants to talk about the reaction of the poor, I invite him to come out to western Canada-he would not dare to-where the working people are the people who voted against this scheme.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Let us not have any more of this demagogic nonsense. We have tried to make fair criticism. Those who should hang their heads in shame are those who put the former minister out to dry on a clothes-line after they had wrung him out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He was made the scapegoat for a collective decision of cabinet. If it were possible to refer to information that has come to us in another way, it would be easy to demonstrate that month by month, through statements made by the Minister of Finance, we had an indication as to the progression of advances to the fund. We did not have to wait until September to know that they were out; this was apparent in June. The statements were not tabled in July, or in August, or in September. Parliament was not sitting-how convenient! So it could be demonstrated, certainly before August, that the fund was in dire trouble and would soon go through the $800 million.
The attitude of government supporters, including those to my left, is that if we owe a debt to the fund-and of course we owe a debt to the unemployed; we have an obligation to pay them their benefits-then we have to pay that debt. But it matters not how you get the money. It is the same as if one of us owed $500 on an automobile or on a mortgage payment and got the money at the point of a gun and tried to justify it. Certainly that would be an illegal act. Or suppose we took it from somebody else's

drawer; that too would be an illegal act. Such an act on the part of the government is contrary to a statute of parliament. They did not have the courage to come before parliament and the people of this country and admit they had mismanaged or misjudged affairs. Misjudged they certainly had.
The point we are arguing is this. The ceiling must remain because parliament is responsible under the act, not the cabinet. If there was ever a classic example of why there must be a ceiling, it is this particular occasion when the administration has been called to task to explain what it has done. The former minister, I think sincerely, advanced reasons for the action that was taken, but he has had to do it on behalf of the government.
We are told that if no ceiling is imposed then there will be an accounting to parliament. I ask, when? After the event, months later when the Auditor General's report comes out; and all that would greet the pecadilloes of the government at that time would be a big, big yawn. Since the government and its agencies are involved here, they must be accountable to parliament. This is why there must be a ceiling. There is no magic about the figure of $800 million, but there must be an accounting to parliament.
As for the other point, I will be frank. I regret to say it, but as a result of the decision that the Chair may feel compelled to render, firstly with regard to the amendment of my colleague from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and secondly with regard to the point of order raised by my colleague from Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), this House has been placed in an impossible and an illogical position. The adoption of the government's motion will mean that this bill will go to the committee that deals with labour matters. The committee will consider clause 2 which deals with item L30a in the supplementary estimates. That committee, unless of course it follows direction, will arrive at its opinion and will report to the House. This same item, by decision of the House, has been referred to the miscellaneous estimates committee and that committee is coming to its decision.


An hon. Member:: When?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A bright one at the back of me asks when. Obviously he is not on the committee. There is an undertaking that the report will be here by February 2. The decision in that report may be different from the decision of the other committee. So there is the position, Mr. Speaker; the same item is being considered under two separate motions of this House, and there is no way that can be done. What might have been done was to split the bill and send item L30a to the miscellaneous estimates committee. But this House has been placed in an impossible position as a result of the action of the government. I suppose we shall have to face the consequences. I must confess that I think there were some fatal flaws in the reasoning that denied the point of order raised by my colleague from Yukon. Nevertheless, since I feel there must be a ceiling, I do not like this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
January 25, 1973


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I know hon. members, myself included, would have liked to see the debate on this stage of the bill ended tonight.


Erik Nielsen: Then let us vote now.


David Lewis: I am sorry I want to take a minute or two, if I may, to say three things as simply as I can. The first is that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) entered into another fallacy when he said that we have to have a ceiling in the act in order for parliament to supervise the expenditures. I say to him that the opposite is the case. The ceiling in the statute enables the government to make advances without reference to parliament, whereas if there is no ceiling such money will have to be put in the estimates and parliament will have to consider and study such expenditure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member for York South. I have no alternative but to call it ten o'clock, unless there is unanimous agreement to continue.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we would suggest that the debate continue and be concluded tonight.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are quite agreeable to allowing the debate to continue until the hon. member concludes his remarks, and then if it is the wish of the House we will stay to dispose of the second reading motion.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, much as I might think of words that I want to utter, I do not think they are important enough for me to inconvenience Members of Parliament, and my remarks are ended.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Reid:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there might be agreement in the House to postpone the "late show" this evening.


Mr. Forrestall:: I don't know why.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 10.38 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, January 26, 1973