1973-03-07

QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

[Stage Direction]
1.	What was the total employment of the Unemployment Insurance Commission prior to the implementation of the new Unemployment Insurance Act and what was the cost in salaries and wages for the operations of the Unemployment Insurance Commission as of that date?
2.	What was the total employment of the Unemployment Insurance Commission as of December 31, 1972, what was the total cost of operation of the Commission for 1972, and of that amount, what was the cost in salaries and wages of the employees?
3.	How many persons were employed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission during 1972 either as part-time employees or full-time non-permanent employees of the Commission and what will be the estimated cost for such employees during the fiscal year 1972-73?
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 
IRDIA-CASH GRANTS
[Stage Direction]
1.	What were the names of the corporations which received cash grants under the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Program (IRDIA), in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 to date and, in each case, what were the amounts of money committed and paid?
2.	What are the objectives of the program?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Section 13 of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act prevents the disclosure of this information.
2.	(a) To encourage an increased growth rate in industrial research and development by: (i) Inducing Canadian corporations to undertake new and expand existing scientific research and development programs the result of which, if successful, will be exploited by the corporations; (ii) Inducing Canadian corporations to provide well equipped facilities for such work, (b) To encourage the establishment of independent research laboratories, research associations and technical consulting service whose purpose is to provide specialized support services for industrial research and development, (c) To encourage greater co-operation between industry and universities on research related to industrial problems.
3.	The program is under continuous evaluation and review.


AUTOMOTIVE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM-FEDERAL GRANTS
[Stage Direction]
1.	What were the names of the corporations which received federal loans under the Automotive Adjustment Assistance Program (AAA) in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72,1972-73 to date, and what were the amounts in each case?
2.	What are the objectives of the above program?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?
Alastair William Gillespie: 1. The General Adjustment Assistance
Board, which administers the Regulations, adheres to the policy of private term lenders of preserving the confidential nature of loan transactions and does not, without the borrower's consent, publish or otherwise reveal details of individual loans. From the inception of the program in August, 1965 however, 114 loans have been authorized for $100,315,010.
2.	The main purpose of this program is to financially assist Canadian manufacturers of original equipment automotive parts, tooling, specified commercial vehicles and suppliers of material to adjust to the new market

March 7, 1973
Order Paper Questions
environment created by the Canada-United States Agreement on Automotive Products.
3.	This program is under constant evaluation and review.
1972 INCOME TAX FORMS


[Stage Direction]
1.	What was the cost of (a) printing (b) distributing 1972 income tax forms that were printed and then unused due to changes in the forms?
2.	What was the cost of the media campaign to have people fill in their tax forms correctly for the 1972 returns?
3.	Was there an increase in the staff of the Department of National Revenue during the period the 1972 forms were changed and, if so, by how much?
Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: In so far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, is concerned: 1. No 1972 income tax forms were printed and then unused due to changes in the forms, therefore the cost of printing and distribution was nil.
2.	Estimated Cost: $1,200,000.
3.	Since the 1972 income tax forms were not changed, there was no increase in the staff of the Department of National Revenue, for that purpose.


COST OF LOCAL EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
What will be the cost of the newly announced Local Employment Assistance Program?
Robert Knight Andras: Approximately $9.5 million for 1973-74.


OPENING OF PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA CONSULATES IN CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Has a request been received by the government from the Chinese Benevolent Association objecting to the opening in Canada of a consulate of the People's Republic of China and, if so, what are the intentions of the government in this regard?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The views expressed by the Chinese Benevolent Association regarding the opening in Canada of a consulate of the People's Republic of China have been noted. The Chinese Embassy has expressed an interest in the possibility of establishing a Consular or trade office outside Ottawa. As we wish to negotiate a consular understanding with the People's Republic of China, we consider that it would be desirable to define the terms of our consular relations before giving more detailed consideration to the question of establishing a Chinese consular or trade office outside Ottawa.


FEDERAL PURCHASES IN ONTARIO, QUEBEC AND BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1971 AND 1972
[Stage Direction]
In 1971 and 1972, what, in dollars, was the amount of federal purchases of goods and services in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia?
Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: The following figures relate only to th year in which contracts were placed and not to the year or years in which the work was performed or payments made. Therefore, care must be taken not to infer trends or make conclusions on the basis of performance in one year. Further, the location of a company is often that of its administrative office rather than the location where the work or service was actually performed or rendered. The figures cover only DSS contracts and do not include contracting by other government departments or agencies under delegation by DSS.
Department of Supply and Services is tabulated on a fiscal year basis.
Ontario	Quebec	British Columbia1971-72	$459,574,000	$300,248,000	$35,259,000April-December,	1972	361,985,000	269,145,000	32,168,000


EXPENDITURES UNDER PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT,
[Stage Direction]
1.	How much money was paid out under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in 1972?
2.	How many farmers received payment?
3.	What is the financial standing of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act?
Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The total amount of awards to farmers in 1972 was $4,496,322 and was paid to 16,912 farmers. The above payments include 469 awards made in December 1972 applicable to the 1972 crop in the amount of $134,750.
2.	Answered in Question No. 1.
3.	Total payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act from inception to December 31, 1972 were $393,298,374. Total levies collected from farmers on grain sales in this period were $215,378,247. Total contributions by the federal government amounted to $177,920,126. The credit balance in the Prairie Farm Emergency Fund at December 31, 1972 was $14,910,286.


SEALS-REGULATIONS FOR 1973 FOR EAST COAST OF CANADA
[Stage Direction]
1.	What are the regulations for 1973 under which various species of seals may be taken on the East Coast of Canada and adjacent waters?

March 7, 1973
[Stage Direction]
2.	What quotas, if any, will be allowed to be taken?
3.	What plans, if any, has the Department of the Environment decided upon for the conservation and management of the various species of seals on the East Coast of Canada for the next five years?
Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to starred question 610 regarding the seal hunt is as follows. The answer to the first part is that regulations for 1973 remain the same as those set out in 1972. With regard to the second part respecting quotas, Canadian large vessels operating on front, 60,000; Norwegian large vessels operating on front, 60,000 and Atlantic landsmen sealers, this is an allowance of 30,000. With regard to the third part, conservation and management for harp seals, continued research on population status and continued study of the relationship between the gulf and front herds. With regard to hood seals, increased study of the hood seal population off the Labrador coast.
Order Paper Questions


IMPORTATIONS UNDER THE UNITED STATES DISC LEGISLATION
[Stage Direction]
What were the names of the products and the names of the U.S. corporations that have been found to be importing goods to Canada under the U.S. DISC legislation?
Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Names of Products: The shipment of goods to Canada under the benefits of DISC legislation covers a whole range of commodities imported from the U.S. and it would be impracticable to provide a list of the products. Names of U.S. Corporations: The Customs Act prohibits the disclosure of information provided by exporters on Customs documentation; the release of names of individual corporations would, therefore, not be in conformity with the Act.


DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES-PURCHASE CONTRACTS BY REGIONS LABOUR UNION MEMBERSHIP IN CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 614-Mr. McKenzie:
1.	In the fiscal years 1968-1969 to 1971-1972, how much money was contracted to each of the five regions of Canada by the Department of Supply and Services?
2.	What was this in per capita terms for each region?
Jean-Pierre Goyer: The following figures relate only to the year in which contracts were placed and not to the year or years in which the work was performed or payments made. Therefore, care must be taken not to infer trends or make conclusions on the basis of performance in one year. Further, the location of a company is often that of its administrative office rather than the location where the work or service was actually performed or rendered. The figures cover only DSS contracts and do not include contracting by other government departments or agencies under delegation by DSS. See Appendix "A" following.


TABLE A
[Stage Direction]
Distribution of DSS Contracts Placed in Canada by Regions Fiscal Years 1969/70<O to 1971/72
Yukon
Atlantic	Quebec	Ontario	Prairies	British Columbia	and N.W.T.$'000	$'000	$'000	$'000	$'000	$'0001969/70	33,978	380,807	305,365	54,528	23,706	6901970/71	48,324	274,672	327,132	84,607	29,795	1,0531971/72	73,777	300,248	459,574	93,107	35,259	1,117
Value of DSS Contracts-Per Capita Population by Regions Fiscal Years 1969/70«>
to 1971/72
Yukon
British and
Atlantic Quebec Ontario Prairies Columbia N.W.T.
$/Capita	$/Capita	$/Capita	$/Capita	S/Capita	$/Capita1969/70	17	64	41	16	ii	151970/71	24	46	43	24	14	201971/72	36	50	60	26	16	20
h>The Department of Supply and Services was established on April 1, 1969.
1.	What was the total labour union membership in Canada by December 31, 1972?
2.	What were the three largest labour unions in Canada in terms
of membership, by December 31, 1972 and how many members did each have?	*
3.	How many man-days were lost in strikes and lock-outs under federal jurisdiction in 1972?
4.	How many work stoppages were there in Canada in May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December of 1972 and how many man-days were lost in each month due to these work stoppages?
5.	What percentage of Canada's labour force is supported either directly or indirectly by government payrolls?
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Labour and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows:
1.	Labour union membership in Canada as of January 1, 1971 was 2,210,554. This is the latest information available.
2.	The three largest labour unions in Canada in terms of membership, as of January 1, 1971 and their total membership: United Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC) 156,000; Canadian Union of Public Employees (CLC) 138,088; Public Service Alliance of Canada (CLC) 121,877.
3.	The number of man days lost in strikes and lockouts under federal jurisdiction in the first 10 months of 1972: (a) Federal Public Service, 48,440; (b) Federal Industries, 262,020; Total, 310,460.
4.	Number of work stoppages and man days lost in Canada by selected months in 1972 are as follows:
May
June
July
August
September
October
Number of Stoppages
118
89
78
Man-Days
Lost
936,600
1,195,060
1,162,030
647,360
467,310
419,520

March 7, 1973
Order Paper Questions
5.	On the basis of a monthly sample survey of households by Statistics Canada, the percentage of the Canadian labour force reported to be working for all governments or government enterprises was estimated at 18.2 per cent in December 1972.
Answers to 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the latest information available.


NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING BELOW POVERTY LINE
[Stage Direction]
1.	What percentage of families and of unattached individuals in rural areas of Canada lived below the Statistics Canada poverty line in 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?
2.	What percentage of Canadian farmers were employed to some degree in a non-farm job in 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?
Alastair William Gillespie: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. An estimated 36 per cent in 1969 and 32 per cent in 1971 of all families living in rural areas of Canada had incomes below the low income line. Similar estimates for unattached individuals were 50.4 per cent and 56.1 per cent in 1969 and 1971 respectively. No data are available for 1970 and 1972. Units were below the low income line if their income was below:
1969	1971			
$1,894	$2,013	for	unattached	individuals$3,157	$3,355	for	families of	two$3,788	$4,026	for	families of	three$4,420	$4,697	for	families of	four$5,051	$5,368	for	families with five or more members	2.	Only data for 1971 are available at present. An estimated 50 per cent of census farm operators reported some earnings from non-farm sources in 1971. These earnings include wages and salaries and/or net income from non-farm self employment.


DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE, FAIRS AND MISSION BRANCH PERSONNEL
[Stage Direction]
How many French-speaking, bilingual Francophone, Englishspeaking and bilingual Anglophone civil servants are employed by the Fairs and Mission Branch of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and what is the salary and the duties of each?
Alastair William Gillespie: The Fairs and Missions Branch of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has a total of 45 employees. Of this group, none are unilingual

French-speaking, five are bilingual Francophones, 33 are English- speaking and seven are bilingual Anglophones. The five bilingual Francophone employees occupy positions as follows: 1 Assistant Divisional Chief, $18,314-$24,-098; 1 Project Assistant, $8,569-$9,415; 1 Financial Clerk, $7,496-$8,238; 2 Stenographers, $6,233-$6,849. The 33 English-speaking employees occupy the following positions: 1 Director, $22,000-$28,000; 4 Division Chiefs, $21,155-$26,-445; 1 Assistant Division Chief, $18,134-$24,098; 7 Project Managers, $14,473-$21,281; 5 Project Managers, $10,578-$14,694; 1 Financial Officer, $11,262-$12,797; 1 Office Manager, $8,569-$9,415; 3 Project Assistants, $8,569-$9,415; 1 Project Clerk, $7,496-$8,238; 1 Filing Clerk, $5,486-$6,028; 1 Director's Secretary, $7,460-$8,200; 4 Divisional Chiefs' Secretaries, $6,676-$7,338; 1 Stenographer, $6,233-$6,849; 2 Stenographers, $4,027-$6,292. The seven bilingual Anglophone employees occupy positions as follows: 1 Assistant Divisional Chief, $18,314-$24,098; 3 Project Managers, $14,-473-$21,281;	1 Project Manager, $10,578-$14,694;	1
Research Assistant, $8,569-$9,415; 1 Project Assistant, $8,569-$9,415.
I English]


STUDIES ON THE COST OF GROUND-INSTALLED TELECOMMUNICATIONS
[Stage Direction]
1.	Have any studies been conducted by the government on the cost of ground-installed telecommunications for the north versus satellite telecommunications such as Anik 1 and, if so, who conducted the studies and where can the results be found?
2.	Did CBC spend any money on Anik 1 and, if so, what was the amount?
3.	Does CBC own any Telesat common shares and, if so, how many and at what cost?
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, in so far as Telesat Canada is concerned, (1) information and conclusions relating to telecommunications in the north are included in the following: "Upper Atmosphere and Space Programs in Canada", Science Secretariat Special-Study No. 1,February 1967, "A Space Program for Canada", Science Council of Canada Report No. 1, July 1967, White Paper on "A Domestic Satellite Communication System for Canada". Hon. C. M. Drury, Minister of Industry, March 28, 1968. The three aforementioned studies are available at the Library of Parliament. A fourth study, "Satellite Communications in Canada", in five volumes was presented to the Department of Transport in June 1967, and the information was used in the preparation of the white paper mentioned above.
In so far as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is concerned, the answer to No. 2 is no and the answer to No. 3 is none.


CANADIAN OBSERVERS IN VIET NAM
[Stage Direction]
Will the Canadian observers on duty in Viet Nam have the right to inspect prisons in South Viet Nam and to report on the living conditions of political prisoners?
Mitchell William Sharp: The answer to this question cannot be given in
March 7, 1973

categorical terms. While there is no direct supervisory role to be undertaken by the International Commission in respect of the treatment given to civilian internees, the International Commission of Control and Supervision may become involved in visiting prisons and other places of detention in South Viet Nam. Primary responsibility for carrying out Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol on Prisoners of the Paris Agreement rests with the two South Vietnamese parties, the Republic of Viet Nam and the Viet Cong. These two parties have agreed to resolve the question of civilian internees between themselves. The basis of this agreement is the 1954 Viet Nam Ceasefire Agreement which formulated a definition of "civilian internees." In the Protocol on Prisoners, the two South Vietnamese parties agree to do their utmost to resolve this question within 90 days of the ceasefire. The observer teams of the International Commission of Control and Supervision are responsible for observing the return of detained civilians in South Viet Nam. This involves sending observer teams to the "last detention places from which these persons will be taken to the places of return" and to "each place in Viet Nam where these persons are being returned." However, the ability to carry out this supervisory function depends on the prior agreement of the two South Vietnamese parties regarding the location and operation of the ICCS teams, and other necessary arrangements to facilitate the operation of the teams. At present, the International Commission of Control and Supervision has made preliminary arrangements to form teams to carry out this supervisory function and is awaiting the required decisions by the South Vietnamese parties. Therefore, the ability of the International Commission of Control and Supervision to discharge its responsibilities concerning prisoners cannot be separated from the matter of the responsibilities of the South Vietnamese parties on this question and their co-operation in laying the groundwork for the release and return of prisoners.


STATISTICS CANADA-PUBLICATION &quot;ESTIMATES OF EMPLOYMENT BY PROVINCE AND INDUSTRY&quot;
[Stage Direction]
1.	Does Statistics Canada intend to resume publication and distribution of "Estimates of Employees by Province and Industry", catalogue number 72-008 and, if so, by what date?
2.	What are the reasons for not publishing this folder in the past?
Alastair William Gillespie: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. Yes. It is now expected that publication and distribution of "Estimates of Employees by Province and Industry" will be resumed late this year.
2.	Problems developed in the interpretation of the questionnaires used for the small firm monthly employment sample survey as well as with the newly developed computer systems and programs used in the tabulation of this series. More recently, these problems were compounded by difficulties related to a shift from Unemployment Insurance Commission to Department of National Revenue employer registrations as the source for updating the universe on which this small firm sample is based.
Order Paper Questions


IMPORTS OF COFFEE, OIL AND BINDER TWINE FROM ANGOLA
[Stage Direction]
1.	Is the government now permitting the importing of goods such as coffee, oil and binder twine from Angola?
2.	Is this in violation of a United Nations' trade embargo?
Alastair William Gillespie: 1. Yes.
2.	There is no United Nations' embargo on trade with Angola.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF LOCAL INITIATIVE PROJECT BY QUEBEC MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Is the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs authorized to communicate via the media that a local initiative project has been approved, without the federal government having given its approval and, if not, what action does the government intend to take to stop this practice?
Robert Knight Andras: The Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs may announce to the public, through the media, that a local initiatives project has been cleared by the province; but the decision to approve a project rests with the federal Minister of Manpower and Immigration, under whose auspices the program functions.


NUMBER OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED IN OTTAWA AND HULL
[Stage Direction]
1.	Since 1968, how many federal buildings were constructed in the regions (a) of Ottawa (b) of Hull?
2.	What was their estimated cost?
3.	What was their actual cost?
Hon. lean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 1. (a)
7 buildings in Ottawa; (b) 1 building in Hull.
2.	(a) $91,000,000; (b) $12,128,886.
3.	(a) $81,445,913; (b) $12,941,233.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
Who were or will be the various Canadian suppliers who benefited or will benefit as a result of Export Development Corporation financing under (a) Agreement No. 72-1 signed February 7, 1972 between the Export Development Corporation and Comision Federal de Electricidad of Mexico for some $4 million, repayable, commencing on August 1, 1974, in 21 semi-annual payments with interest at 71 percent per annum (b) Agreement No. 72-9 signed March 22, 1972 between the Export Development Corporation and Panafrican Paper Mills (S.A.) Limited of Kenya for some $3.9 million, repayable commencing on June 30, 1975 in 16 semi-annual payments with interest at 71 percent per annum (c) Agreement No. 72-16 signed June 14, 1972 between the Export Development Corporation and Furnas-Centrais Electricas S.A. of Brazil for some $10 million, repayable commencing on June 1, 1975 in 25 semiannual payments with interest at 71 percent per annum?
[Stage Direction]
March 7, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Alastair William Gillespie: Export Development Corporation states that: The principal Canadian suppliers who have benefited, or who will benefit, as a result of its financing, in each case mentioned below, are the respective companies listed for each such case; (a) its agreement signed February 7, 1972 with Comision Federal de Electricidad, Mexico: Combustion Engineering Superheater Limited, Montreal/Sher-brooke; Orenda Limited, Toronto; Trench Electric, Scarborough; Sangamo Company Limited, Toronto; (b) its agreement signed March 22, 1972 with Panafrican Paper Mills (E.A.) Limited, Kenya: Babcok & Wilcox of Canada Limited, Galt; Boston E & S Limited, Montreal; FMC of Canada Limited, Toronto; Foresteel Industries, Montreal; Graham Manufacturing, Fort Erie; Nicholson Murdie Machines Limited, Victoria; Otis Elevator Co. Limited, Hamilton; Whiting Equipment Limited Welland; Clarke Equipment Co. Limited, St. Thomas; Canada Wire and Cable Limited, Toronto; S. W. Hooper and Co. Limited, Sherbrooke; J. Rene Hebert Limited, Montreal; (c) its agreement signed June 14, 1972 with Furnas-Centrais Electricas, S.A., Brazil: Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, is so far the only successful Canadian bidder in the buyer's international tender call. The EDC financing was made availabe to cover any contracts won by Canadian electrical equipment suppliers thereunder.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-LOAN AGREEMENT WITH CAISSE ALGERIENNE DE DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
Has the Export Development Corporation an outstanding relending loan agreement with Caisse Algerienne de Development of Algeria for approximately $10 million and (a) if so (i) what are the terms of the agreement (ii) on what date was it executed (iii) what are the names of the exporters in Canada who will benefit from the agreement (b) if not, does the Export Development Corporation intend to execute such an agreement and, if so (i) what will be its likely terms (ii) what are the names of exporters in Canada who will benefit directly or indirectly from such an agreement?
Alastair William Gillespie: Export Development Corporation states that: (a) it does not have an outstanding re-lending loan agreement with the Caisse Algerienne de Developpement of Algeria; (i) N/A; (ii) N/A; (iii) N/A; and (b) it is prepared to make an agreement for a re-lending loan if discussions with the Caisse Algerienne de Developpement of Algeria can reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion; (i) an agreement would establish the right of the borrower to propose one or a series of purchases from Canada, financing for which would be provided by EDC, and the terms would be negotiated and established in the agreement; (ii) since no agreement exists, no purchases have been proposed, and so it is not possible to say what exporters in Canada would benefit.


PUBLIC WORKS-CONSTRUCTION OF POST OFFICE, NEWMARKET, ONTARIO
[Stage Direction]
Has the government any immediate plans to build or rent a new post office in Newmarket, Ontario and (a) if so (i) on what date
does the government intend to call for tenders for the construction of the new building or for rental proposals (ii) what do they plan to do with the present post office facility if it is no longer required for post office purposes (b) if not, does it plan to have the present facility renovated and on what date do they anticipate the renovation will begin?
Jean-Eudes Dubé: The
government has no immediate plans to build or lease a new post office at Newmarket, Ontario. However, the Post Office Department has indicated a requirement for improved and expanded accommodation at Newmarket which is tentatively planned for implementation in 1975/76. (a) (i) This has not yet been determined (ii) The future use of the existing building will be determined at a later date when a decision has been made regarding the provision of the proposed improved accommodation; (b) No renovations are planned pending provision of improved accommodation.


PUBLIC WORKS-ACQUISITION OF LAND IN CAMPBELLTON
[Stage Direction]
Has the Department of Public Works acquired a piece of land in Campbellton, east of Cross Point Bridge in Campbellton and, if so, from whom and for how much?
Jean-Eudes Dubé: The
Department of Public Works has not acquired any land in Campbellton, east of Cross Point Bridge in the last 30 years and are not negotiating any purchases at this time.


COST OF IMPLEMENTING POSTAL CODE TO DATE
[Stage Direction]
1.	What is the total cost of implementing the postal code system to date?
2.	What part of this expenditure represents the cost of installing the computer system?
3.	What computer system has been selected for installation, and by whom is it manufactured?
4.	What other computer systems were considered by the Post Office Department and (a) in each case what was the estimated cost of installation of these systems (b) where were each of these computers manufactured?
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: 1. $4,980,000.
2.	$2,900,000.
3.	The main letter sorting and computer equipment will be supplied by ITT Canada Ltd. The first two letter sorting machines were manufactured in Belgium. The balance of the order is being manufactured in Guelph, Ontario.
4.	The Department also considered, for the first installation, equipment offered by Plessey Canada Ltd. Telefunk-en and GEC Elliott Ltd. Only equipment offered by ITT and Plessey was considered for the balance of the system, (a) Because of different speeds and configuration of equipment and because of various amounts which would have to be ordered no accurate total cost of installation of each of these systems can be made. However, in the case of Plessey and ITT, bids for the full system, assuming that the maximum amount of equipment would be ordered and installed, the cost of ownership of each system over

March 7, 1973

15 years in budget dollars would be, Plessey $98,660,408 and ITT $70,811,221. (b) Plessey offered equipment made in Great Britain, Australia, Japan and Canada. ITT offered equipment made in Belgium and Canada. Tele-funken offered equipment made in Germany and Canada and GEC Elliott offered equipment made in Great Britain and Canada.


DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES REPORT COST
[Stage Direction]
1.	What was the cost of production, printing and distribution of the Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972, for the Department of Supply and Services?
2.	How many copies of the Report were distributed?
Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. The cost of the 1971-72 Annual Report of the Department of Supply and Services was $5,193.
2. 1,850 copies have been distributed to date.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE, CUSTOMS AND EXCISE-COST OF ANNUAL REPORT
[Stage Direction]
1.	What was the cost of production, printing and distribution of the Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972, for the Department of National Revenue, Customs-Excise?
2.	How many copies of the Report were distributed?
Hon. Robert St anbury (Minister of National Revenue): 1.
The Department of National Revenue spent $3,060 for the production and printing of the "Report of the Department of National Revenue, Customs, Excise and Taxation" for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972. Information Canada handled all distribution except for 300 copies which came to this Department.
2. 1,175 copies.

[Stage Direction]
1.	What was the cost of production, printing and distribution of the Report for the year ended December 31, 1971 for the Department of External Affairs?
2.	How many copies of the Report were distributed?
Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The cost of producing and printing the Annual Report of the Department of External Affairs for the year ending December 31, 1971, was $5,417.36 ($3,095.23 for the English edition and $2,322.13 for the French edition). Detailed figures are not available for distribution costs, but they are estimated to be about $1,000.
2.	4,600 English and 2,500 French copies were
distributed.
Order Paper Questions



SUPPLY AND SERVICES-CONTRACT FOR FILE FOLDERS

['I believe it would be much better for the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to examine the guidelines. If it felt, after consideration, that changes should be made, it would be agreeable to the government to have the changes considered. I believe it would be a bit hasty to have a vote on this matter without the Committee on Procedure and Organization having had an opportunity to consider it. If I may say so to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, I purposely precipitated this discussion because I am concerned about this question. I am concerned about making the greatest amount of information possible available and that when information is denied a clearly stated ground will be available for hon. members to consider. I hope that out of that debate we will have that conclusion.\nMarch 7, 1973']
Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	(a) Yes. The following firms submitted tenders: Ben Sanders Co. Ltd., Ottawa, $14,010. Rapid Data Systems & Equipment Ltd., Ottawa, $20,090. Pathfinder Systems Design Ltd., Ottawa, $21,952. The Shannon Ltd., Toronto, $22,050. Canadian Filing Equipment Ltd., Don Mills, $23,226. Office Analysts and Business Systems Ltd., Ottawa, $31,850. (b) No. The second lowest. Lowest tenderer did not meet specifications.
3.	No.
4.	Hanging file folders required for use by all government departments and are stocked items at DSS Suppply Centre at Ottawa and Port Credit.
5.	By competitive Invitation to Tender call.



Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract, GP.2552517, for printing services in the amount of $90,000 awarded to Ronalds Federated Ltd., Montreal, Quebec?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	What was the nature of the work and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes. A Standing Offer Contract. The toted requirement was for $140,000 and standing offers for this total were also issued to: Alphatext Ltd., Ottawa, $30,000; Richardson Bond & Wright Ltd., Owen Sound, Ont., $30,000.
2. (a) Yes. Competitive tenders were called and the following firms submitted tenders: Ronalds Federated Ltd., Montreal; Alphatext Ltd., Ottawa; Richardson Bond & Wright Ltd., Owen Sound; Fast Typesetters Ltd., Montreal; Howarth & Smith Ltd., Toronto; McLean Computer Graphics Ltd., Montreal; Cooper & Beatty Ltd., Toronto; Alpha Graphics Ltd., Toronto; Mono Lino Typesetting Co., Ltd., Toronto; (b) Ronalds-Federated Limited, Alphatext Limited and Richardson Bond & Wright Limited submitted the lowest second lowest and third lowest aggregate bids respectively. Having regard to the com-

March 7, 1973
Order Paper Questions
plexity of the work involved it was considered advisable to place three offers which would provide maximum flexibility thus ensuring satisfactory service to the User Department. Under this agreement the lowest tenderer will be employed to the maximum of its capability and subsequently the second and third as necessary depending on current workloads and delivery.
3.	No.
4.	Cold type composition layout and make up, and illustrations as required to convert edited manuscript copy to reproducible camera ready copy for various technical publications for delivery to Ottawa, Ontario, on an "as and when required basis" up to March 1973. The requirement is for the Department of National Defence.
5.	By competitive Invitation to Tender.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES-CONTRACT FOR PUBLICATION
Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract, GX.67051-P536-1, for publications in the amount of $140,651 awarded to Graphic Centre (Ontario) Inc., Toronto, Ontario?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	What was the nature of the work and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	(a). Yes. The following firms submitted tenders: Graphic Centre (Ontario) Inc., Toronto; $140,650. Rolph-Clark Stone Ltd., Bramalea; $148,424. Montreal Lithographing Ltd., Chomedey, Laval; $152,518. Pierre des Marais Inc., St. Laurent; $153,410. London Printing & Lithographing Co., Ltd. London; $157,492. Ashton-Potter Ltd., Toronto; $158,274. The Lawrence Lithographing Ltd., St. Laurent; $159,275. McLaren Morris & Todd Ltd., Mississauga; $172,470. Richardson Bond & Wright Ltd., Owen Sound; $173,103. Ronalds-Federated Ltd., Montreal; $173,167. Universal Printers Ltd., Winnipeg; $181,826. Gaylord Lithographing Ltd., Toronto; $190,436. Condor Printing Inc., Montreal; $196,977. Regal Stationery Co. Ltd., Toronto; $202,198. (b) Yes.
3.	Yes. Author's alterations totalling $480.
4.	144 page booklet entitled "Adventure Tours off the Trans-Canada Highway". Required for Canadian Government Travel Bureau.
5.	By competitive Invitation to Tender.


CBC-EXPENSES SINCE 1968
Mr. Matte: 1.	By year, what were the total expenses of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation since 1968?
2.	By year, what were the total expenses (a) of the French network (b) of the English network, since 1968?


Hon. lames Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. The corporation's total operating expenditures since 1968 were as follows: 1967-68, $190 million; 1968-69, $196 million; 1969-70, $207 million; 1970-71, $218 million; 1971-72, $237 million.
2. It has not been customary to require the CBC to disclose detailed figures showing that portion of the above total CBC expenditures allocated to French and English radio and television networks. However, over the five-year period in question, the percentage breakdown of the portion of expenditures allocated to the networks was approximately 40 per cent for French networks and 60 per cent for English networks.


INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION-STATUS ON POINT ROBERTS, U.S.A.
Mr. Reynolds: What is the status of the International Joint Commission on Point Roberts, U.S.A.?


Mitchell William Sharp: On April 21, 1971 the governments of Canada and the United States submitted a reference to the International Joint Commission requesting it to investigate and recommend measures to alleviate certain conditions of life of residents of Point Roberts. In October 1971, the International Joint Commission appointed an International Board to conduct the investigation. The Board held a public hearing in Point Roberts in December 1971 and has submitted two semi-annual progress reports to the International Joint Commission in the course of 1972. The Board is exploring all possible long term solutions and is also looking into the possible alleviation of current problems affecting the Point. It hopes to submit its final report to the International Joint Commission by October 1973.


ESTABLISHMENT OF LAND MARINE PARK
Mr. Nelson: Does the Department of the Environment have any plans to establish a land marine park in the Indian Arm area in conjunction with the Provincial Parks Branch of the Department of Recreation Conservation?


Hon. lean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The Department of the Environment is represented with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on a federal-provincial task force investigating the possibility of Marine National Parks in the whole of the Strait of Georgia area. The task force recommendations are not available to date.


APPRAISAL REVIEW BOARD-LOTS ON BLOCK 37
Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	Does the final report of the Appraisal Review Board for Banff released February 13 make any reference to the Lot or Lots on Block 37 in Banff and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Who are the leaseholders for the Lot or Lots on Block 37 in Banff?
3.	How much rent will be paid by each leaseholder for each Lot on Block 37 in Banff?
March 7, 1973

4.	What is the appraised value of each Lot on Block 37 in Banff?
5.	What was the appraised value of any property exchanged for a Lot or Lots on Block 37?
6.	What was paid as an upset price for each Lot on Block 37?


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is the report of the Appraisal Review Board for Banff does not refer to any lots in block 37. Lots one to seven are leased on the basis of the Crown receiving a percentage of the lessee's gross receipts and there is no rental review involved.
2.	The leaseholder of the lots under lease in Block 37 is Big Horn Inn Ltd.
3.	The specific terms and conditions of any lease is privileged information which we cannot divulge without the consent of the lessee. If a lessee so directs, we will release any information requested.
4.	Because the land is not subject to rental review as explained in No. 1, there was no formal appraisal made of the value of the lots in Block 37.
5.	The lots exchanged were appraised for rental purposes at a total value of $76,155.
6.	No upset price was paid. The exchange of leasehold lands and the percentage of gross return to the Crown were negotiated as a "package" for the lease on lots 1 to 7, Block 37.


ASSESSMENT OF DRUG QUALITY
Mr. Rynard: In response to the recent press reports concerning drug products on the Canadian market, and my previous question, is the Minister of National Health and Welfare now in a position to assure the House that the Health Protection Branch adequately fulfils its responsibility in assessing the quality of drugs on the Canadian market?


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, under the Food and Drugs Act and regulations, all drug manufacturing and distributing facilities, large or small, are inspected by staff of the Health Protection Branch. Detailed and exhaustive examinations are made of the manufacturing process, the facilities and quality control procedures including storage and record-keeping systems and the source of raw materials. This testing may be done by the firm itself or by a competent analytical laboratory.
Newspaper articles alleged that four small Montreal companies were marketing drugs after only minimal testing. Recent inspections which took place before these articles appeared showed that the products sold by these four companies were subjected to a satisfactory level of testing, including appropriate methods for the identity, purity and potency of the product, disintegration of the tablet and, where applicable, expiry date and stability.
The four firms mentioned are only distributors and neither manufacture, label nor package drugs. Their operations involve storage of packaged drugs and distribution only. They maintain the records required by law. Their products are manufactured, packaged and labelled for them by pharmaceutical manufacturers who comply with the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act regulations. Firms such as the forementioned are expected to ensure
Order Paper Questions
that their storage and distribution facilities are acceptable, and these four companies have been so inspected and found satisfactory. It was alleged that the Health Protection Branch did not know of the existence of some of the products of these four companies. This is untrue. These companies and all their products are well known to the Health Protection Branch. The newspapers' claim that Laboratoires Anger Ltee produces ten products is not substantiated either by company records or our own, which list seven.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, it will take another three minutes to finish the answer, but if it is the will of the House we could take it as having been read.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it is a well established practice that with the consent of the House an oral answer to a starred question can be tabled or made an order for return. When a parliamentary secretary has an answer which appears to be rather long, perhaps the suggestion might be made at the beginning that it be made an order for return or that it be tabled. Is that agreed in this instance?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Norman Augustine Cafik: It had been my original intention to ask for such permission but since the hon. member who had raised the starred question was not present in the House at that time I decided it would be inappropriate to do so.


Mr. Rynard:: I was held up, Mr. Speaker. When I came in, the hon. member was in the middle of reading the answer. Yesterday he promised he would give me a copy so that I would know what was on that paper.
[Editor's Note: The balance of the above answer follows:]
This was verified after the newspaper article appeared.
Health protection branch has complete information on the number of drugs sold by each of these firms, and on the name, composition, manufacture and testing of each one. This information was obtained by actual inspections of each firm within the last 12 months, and by the filing with the branch of information on each product as required of every firm by the food and drug regulations.
Branch records are based on the drug notification forms which by law must be submitted by each manufacturer for every one of his products within 30 days of his commencing sale of that products within 30 days of his commencing sale of that product. We are giving consideration to the possibility of reducing this time period.
Health protection branch monitors the pharmaceutical industry to ensure that essential tests are carried out. These tests, which usually number more than four, are those considered essential to ensure that drugs will be safe and effective when used as directed, and can by no means be considered minimal.
Appropriate tests must also be carried out to ensure that a particular product meets necessary manufacturing

March 7, 1973
Orders for Returns
and testing specifications unique to it. Bioavailability tests are not at present mandatory. This whole field is very much in the developmental stage, with the clinical significance of bioavailability data still not fully understood. To put this in perspective we have commissioned an advisory committee of non-governmental medical experts to consider all aspects of it and report within the next few months.
I trust that this information will reassure hon. members that the activities of the health protection branch do provide the needed assurance that drugs on the Canadian market are safe and effective.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Department of Labour on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.


DEFENCE RESEARCH BOARD-CONTRACTS FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND CONSULTING SERVICES
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Defence Research Board on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES- EXPENDITURES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES
Mr. Grier: 1. How much has the Department of Supply and Services spent purchasing goods and services in each province for each of the past three fiscal years?

2. How much has the Department of Supply and Services spent purchasing goods and services in foreign countries, by country, for each of the past three fiscal years?
Return tabled.


PROGRAM FOR EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What were the names of the recipients of grants or loans under the Program for Export Market Development in each of the fiscal years 1971-72 and 1972-73 to date, and what were the amounts in each case?
2.	What are the objectives of the above program?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?
Return tabled.


CANADA MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAM- TRAINING-IN-INDUSTRY AND ON-THE-JOB TRAINING
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What were the names of employers who entered into contracts with the Department of Manpower and Immigration under the Canada Manpower Training Program for the purpose of training-in-industry and on-the-job-training, in each of the fiscal years 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 to date?
2.	In each case and in each fiscal year, what were the amounts spend and for 1972-73, what is the amount committed?
3.	What are the objectives of the Program?
4.	Has the Department conducted any evaluative study of the Program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS-BILINGUALISM POLICY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Department of Communications adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that deparment's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?
Return tabled.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-WIRELESS ELECTRICAL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
Mr. Gillies: 1.	What was the value of wireless electrical communications equipment, in dollars, that was purchased by the Department of National Defence during each fiscal year beginning 1968-69?
2.	How much of this equipment, in dollars, was purchased by the Department from firms operating in (a) Canada (b) the United States of America (c) Britain (d) Japan (e) all other countries?
Return tabled.
March 7, 1973


HOMES ON INDIAN RESERVES
Miss MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands): 1.	Among Indian families living on reserves across Canada in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972, how many lived in houses of three rooms or less?
2.	What percentage of Indian homes on reserves were equipped with electricity in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?
3.	What percentage of Indian homes on reserves were equipped with sewer services or septic tanks in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?
4.	What percentage of Indian homes on reserves were equipped with running water, indoor baths and indoor toilets in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?
Return tabled.


PENITENTIARIES-NUMBER OF INDIANS INCARCERATED
Miss MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands): How many Indians were incarcerated in Canadian penitentiaries in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?
Return tabled.


EXPERIMENTAL FARM, LACOMBE, ALBERTA-SALE OF CATTLE AND SWINE
Mr. Hollands: 1.	During the year 1972, what was (a) the number of cattle sold by the Experimental Farm at Lacombe, Alberta (b) the value of the cattle and to whom they were sold?
2.	What was the number of swine sold, to whom were they sold and what was the value per head?
Return Tabled.


SUPERINTENDENTS OF NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	Since 1960, who have been the superintendents of each national park in Canada and, in each case, what were the reasons for any changes?
2.	Is it the policy of the government for an individual to have a minimum and/or maximum length of service as superintendent of a particular park and, if so, what is (a) the general minimum (b) the general maximum?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 160 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and the authorization of the government authorities concerned.
Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 160 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 160-Mr. Latulippe:
Than an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all briefs, correspondence and other documents exchanged from January 1, 1968 to date, between the government and any municipality, agency and individual in the constituency of Compton, relating to the construction of post offices or other federal buildings in the said constituency.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Would you be so kind, Mr. Speaker, as to call notices of motions Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 23, 28, 29, 44, 122, 123, 125, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150,151, and 155.


EVALUATION REPORT OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 7-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Industrial Design Assistance Program (IDAP).
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the evaluation report is of a confidential nature, and I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, I should like the question to be put.


Mr. MacEachen:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


EVALUATION REPORT OF PROGRAM TO ENHANCE PRODUCTIVITY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 9-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Program to Enhance Productivity (PEP).
John Mercer Reid: The same objection, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: The same comment, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

Motions for Papers


EVALUATION REPORT OF INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
March 7, 1973
Motion No. 10-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Program (IRDIA).
John Mercer Reid: The same objection, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: Ditto, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


EVALUATION REPORT OF PROGRAM OF THE ADVANCEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 11-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Program of the Advancement of Industrial Technology (PAIT).
John Mercer Reid: The same objection, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


EVALUATION OF SUBSIDIES PROGRAM UNDER EMERGENCY GOLD-MINING ASSISTANCE ACT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 16-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Subsidies Program under the Emergency Gold-Mining Assistance Act (EGMA).
John Mercer Reid: The same objection, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


John Edward Broadbent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in his comments on motion No. 7 the parliamentary secretary said that there was such a report but that it was of a confidential nature. I want to be clear about the other ones, whether there is such a report and if it is being retained for the same reason, or is there no report?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that in the case of all of those to which I have said there is the same objection there is an evaluation report but it is confidential as an internal government document.


Mr. Speaker:: These motions are transferred for debate.


EVALUATION REPORT OF THE GENERAL ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 23-Mr. Rodriguez:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the General Adjustment Assistance Program (GAAP).
John Mercer Reid: The same objection, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Transfer for debate. Mr. Speaker: Transferred for debate.


EVALUATION REPORT OF THE CANADA MANPOWER MOBILITY PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 28-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Canada Manpower Mobility Program.
John Mercer Reid: The same objection, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


EVALUATION REPORT OF CANADA MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 29-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the training-in- industry and the on-the-job-training components of the Canada Manpower Training Program.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, there is no evaluation report of the training-in-industry and the on-the-job-training components of the Canada Manpower Training Program. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


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


EVALUATION REPORT BY BANK OF CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 44-Mr. Gillies:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report prepared by the Bank of Canada concerning the effects on the Canadian economy of the floating dollar.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, in the regular and frequent meetings that the governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance have they exchange information and views on a wide range of economic and financial matters, including the impact on the Canadian economy of developments in international trade and payments and the exchange rate. These meetings are regarded as confidential, as are the internal documents which serve as the basis for the discussions. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Gillies:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
March 7, 1973


EVALUATION REPORT OF 1972 LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 122-Mr. Leggatt:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the evaluation report of the 1972 Local Initiatives Program.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion stands.


EVALUATION REPORT OF 1972 OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 123-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the evaluation report of the 1972 Opportunities for Youth Program.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion stands.


CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO LOCAL INITIATIVES PROJECT NO. 211-1970 FOR 1971-1972
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 125-Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all papers including correspondence, contracts and payroll stubs relating to local initiatives project No. 211-1970 for the fiscal year 1971-1972.
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is the policy of the department to regard all correspondence and other such documents pertaining to local initiatives projects as confidential and I therefore regret they cannot be produced. In view of this, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO NEW POSTAL CODE Motion No. 136-Mr. Dinsdale:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other documents received by the government on the subject of the new postal code and the replies thereto.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, it is physically impossible to gather all this correspondence. It would take at least six man-months of research, assembly and copy time and the cost would be enormous. Under the circumstances I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the protests are voluminous. Could the motion be transferred for debate, please?


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Motions for Papers


EVALUATION REPORTS BY TREASURY BOARD OF COUNSELLING ASSISTANCE TO SMALL ENTERPRISES PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 137-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the evaluation reports prepared in the past two years by the Treasury Board of Counselling Assistance to Small Enterprises Program (CASE), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, there is no known Treasury Board evaluation report of Counselling Assistance to Small Enterprises Program (CASE). Therefore I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Edward Broadbent: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


EVALUATION REPORTS BY TREASURY BOARD OF DEVELOPMENT OF MANAGEMENT COURSES PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 138-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the evaluation reports prepared in the past two years by the Treasury Board of Development of Management Courses Program (DMC), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, there is no known Treasury Board evaluation report of Development of Management Courses Program. Therefore I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Edward Broadbent: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


EVALUATION REPORTS BY THE TREASURY BOARD OF DEFENCE INDUSTRY PRODUCTIVITY PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 139-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the evaluation reports prepared in the past two years by the Treasury Board of the Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIP), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, there is no known Treasury Board evaluation report of the Defence Industry Productivity Program. Therefore I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Edward Broadbent: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

March 7, 1973
Motions for Papers


EVALUATION REPORTS BY THE TREASURY BOARD OF THE PROGRAM FOR EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 140-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the evaluation reports prepared in the past two years by the Treasury Board of the Program for Export Market Development (EMD), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, there is no known Treasury Board evaluation report of the Program for Export Market Development. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Edward Broadbent: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


EVALUATION REPORT BY THE TREASURY BOARD OF PROGRAM FOR AUTOMOTIVE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 141-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the evaluation reports prepared in the past two years by the Treasury Board of the Automotive Adjustment Assistance Program (AAA), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, there is no known Treasury Board evaluation report of the Automotive Adjustment Assistance Program. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is because there was a suspicion that these notices of motions appeared on the order paper, and it may be that there was some reason for suspicion. These answers lend a great deal of substance to the whole critique of the propriety of the so-called corporate rip-off we have talked about.


Mr. Baldwin:: And you voted for it.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion will be transferred for debate.


EVALUATION REPORT BY TREASURY BOARD FOR PROGRAM FOR BUILDING EQUIPMENT, ACCESSORIES AND MATERIALS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 142-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the evaluation reports prepared in the past two years by the Treasury Board of Building Equipment, Accessories and Materials Program (BEAM), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, there is no known Treasury Board evaluation report of Building Equipment, Accessories and Materials Program. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion as these evaluation reports are continuing and not specific.


John Edward Broadbent: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


EVALUATION REPORT BY TREASURY BOARD FOR PROGRAM FOR SHIP CONSTRUCTION SUBSIDY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 143-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the evaluation reports prepared in the past two years by the Treasury Board of the Ship Construction Subsidy Program (SCSP), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, there is no known Treasury Board evaluation report of the Ship Construction Subsidy Program. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up any more of the time of the House for these totally useless answers. If it is agreed by the parliamentary secretary that his answer is going to be the same, I would let it be known now that they could all be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that motion Nos. 143 to 151 be transferred for debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Transferred for debate.


EVALUATION REPORT BY TREASURY BOARD FOR PROGRAM TO ENHANCE PRODUCTIVITY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 144
John Edward Broadbent: That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the evaluation reports prepared in the past two years by the Treasury Board of the Program to Enhance Productivity (PEP), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Transferred for debate.


EVALUATION REPORT BY TREASURY BOARD FOR PROGRAM FOR ADVANCEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 145-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the evaluation reports prepared in the past two years by the Treasury Board of Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology (PAIT), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 146-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the evaluation reports prepared in the past two years by the Treasury Board of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Remission Program (MVM), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Transferred for debate.
March 7, 1973

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 147-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the evaluation reports prepared in the past two years by the Treasury Board of the Machinery Remission Program (MACH), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 148-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the evaluation reports prepared in the past two years by the Treasury Board of Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act (IRDIA), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 149-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the evaluation reports prepared in the past two years by the Treasury Board of the Industrial Design Assistance Program (IDAP), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 150-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the evaluation reports prepared in the past two years by the Treasury Board of the General Adjustment Assistance Program (GAAP), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 151-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the evaluation reports prepared in the past two years by the Treasury Board of the Employment Support Program (ESP), administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Transferred for debate.
Mr. Speaker:: No. 155.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the motion stand as well as the remaining motions for papers.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before today's proceedings 61 notices of motions for the production of papers had been transferred for debate, to which we must add those that have been transferred today. The great bulk of those motions were transferred for debate at the insistence or the request of the govern-
Motions for Papers
ment on the stated ground that the information or papers sought to be produced were confidential, or some such similar designation. A number of instances have arisen in the past when the government refused to produce documents on the basis that they were confidential and subsequently they became public, thereby proving they were not in fact confidential.
I submit what is happening here is that the government is misusing its authority to transfer items for debate. There are 61 on the order paper now, so many of them will never come up for debate, let alone a vote. I think it is an abuse of the rules of the House to permit the government to hide behind this kind of sham answer of confidentiality.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might comment on the very important point of order raised by the hon. member with regard to the question of notices of motions for the production of papers. I have been very conscious of the very large number of such motions that have appeared on the order paper both in the last and the present parliaments. I have also examined as well as I could the grounds upon which the government has been obligated from time to time to refuse the production of various papers. It places the parliamentary secretary in an unenviable position to have the job each Wednesday of refusing what to hon. members appear to be legitimate requests for information.
The government has reviewed the grounds very carefully, based upon parliamentary practice and based on its willingness to make available as much information as possible to hon. members. I hope that at an early date, when we are debating one of these motions that have been transferred for debate, it will be possible for me to discuss in some detail the grounds upon which we are reaching these decisions and also to table for the benefit of hon. members the guidelines that are being used. It seems to me that if these guidelines, which we think are based upon good practice, are fully understood by hon. members, maybe there will be a better understanding of this question on the part of private members and the government. I would like to have it debated on an appropriate occasion when we are dealing with one of these motions and put before the House, the guidelines that we have brought up to date and are following and are asking departments to follow. The fundamental principle we have adopted is to make as much information as possible available. Only where the refusal can be founded on solid grounds is the request refused.
I make these comments because I believe it is important to indicate that we have considered the matter and are willing at a later date to debate the whole question of notices of motions for papers.


Mr. Fairweather:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the House is entitled to see the guidelines the minister speaks about. I am of the view that it is the security of the government and not the security of the state that motivates the government in making so much of this material confidential.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 7, 1973
Motions for Papers


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I hope the minister will fulfil his undertaking and bring this matter forward at the earliest opportunity. There is much too much restricted information at the present time.


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


Frank Howard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The revelation by the government that it at least recognizes that a problem exists is welcome, but I suggest that a course might be followed in respect of this matter that might afford parliament an opportunity to make a determination. That would be for the minister, not just in a debate on one of these notices of motions for the production of papers because that would be inconclusive and leave the government's position intact, to agree now to table the guidelines that have been developed so that we could examine them. Following that, representatives of the parties could discuss the guidelines with the minister and come to some conclusion in a co-operative way on whether or not they are proper. Otherwise, the government will still be in the position of making these decisions, and we know from experience that their decisions have been wrong and absurd and have been made for the purpose of preventing the government from being embarrassed rather than to provide information to the public.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for St. Catharines seeking the floor on the same point of order?


Mr. Morgan:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask that the guidelines be tabled now so that, as the hon. member for Skeena said, some parliamentary group can discuss them or so that the debate will at least have some meaning when it occurs. We will then be able to debate the guidelines with some degree of knowledge.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that next Thursday when we would be debating this question I would make a statement and make the guidelines available to the House at that time. It would certainly be agreeable to me that when the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization meets it consider these guidelines because, in so far as we have been able to ascertain, they are based on solid grounds and upon good practice that has been followed in other jurisdictions. It is a matter that should be considered in order to bring about a better common understanding of what is involved in producing some of these papers.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on the same point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of hon. members are seeking the floor on the same point of order. There is, of course, no objection to pursuing the debate for a while, but I am wondering whether some hon. members may not feel that we are anticipating the debate that I gather is to take place later today, particularly in regard to the terms of reference that will be considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. It was the opinion of the Chair that this was the very purpose of the debate called for this afternoon. It might be better to continue

with our normal routine proceedings and eventually come to orders of the day when an opportunity will be afforded to hon. members to discuss this very point.


George Harris Hees: I rise on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I will be very brief.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may be very brief and I will recognize him, but other hon. members also want to take part and I will recognize them also.


George Harris Hees: Would it not facilitate things greatly if the government House leader simply disclosed the fact that the government's guidelines are that it refuses to disclose anything that could be in any way embarrassing to the government?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may have been brief but he was also out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order to make one suggestion. My suggestion is that, when we come to the debate on Thursday afternoon on one of these motions for the production of papers, the government having indicated its guidelines, arrangements be made for that motion to stay at the top of the list until the next appropriate Thursday so that there can be a vote on that particular motion. This will give the House the opportunity to say whether or not it agrees with the guidelines.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I was going to make the same point and I put it directly to the minister. Will he give his undertaking to the House that once the guidelines have been revealed the House will have a chance, in one form or another, to express its views about their correctness and any possible amendments to the guidelines by a recorded division?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe it would be much better for the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to examine the guidelines. If it felt, after consideration, that changes should be made, it would be agreeable to the government to have the changes considered. I believe it would be a bit hasty to have a vote on this matter without the Committee on Procedure and Organization having had an opportunity to consider it. If I may say so to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, I purposely precipitated this discussion because I am concerned about this question. I am concerned about making the greatest amount of information possible available and that when information is denied a clearly stated ground will be available for hon. members to consider. I hope that out of that debate we will have that conclusion.
March 7, 1973



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Are he and his department acting as co-ordinator of the federal government's over-all interests and responsibilities regarding the James Bay project and, if so, when was he given that responsibility.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have been assigned, within cabinet, the responsibility of co-ordinating my colleagues' efforts in this regard. I cannot recall the exact timing of it. I would have to go back and check the record.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister, at his very early convenience, make a statement on motions as to what the over-all policy of the government of Canada is with respect to this project, because the government's over-all policy seems to be very murky and obscure?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I might remind the hon. gentleman that we had a very full debate on this question on an opposition day in the last session, and I suggest that as a starting point he might do a little research there.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to direct my next supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask him whether the appointment of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to this co-ordinating role, in view of his reputation for liking to push people around, indicates-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate that a question in those terms is hardly in order.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for exciting my hon. friends so much. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the appointment of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to this co-ordinating role indicates that the government of Canada attaches more importance to the energy aspects of this project than it does to the human values involved in it?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the hon. member would be able to ask that kind of question no matter who was co-ordinating. There are always some aspects that must prevail in certain circumstances, but a co-ordinator is just that, a person who takes into account all aspects.
Oral Questions


JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-PLANS TO DEFEND RIGHTS OF NATIVE PEOPLE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In light of the Prime Minister's statement regarding the human aspects of the matter, and as the government knows that the James Bay project will be irreversible as of July 1, 1973, can the minister tell the House what contingency plans are being made to actively defend the way of life and the constitutional rights of some 8,000 native people in the James Bay area, or is the government prepared to abandon these people to cultural genocide?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning I had the opportunity of answering the hon. member's questions on this subject for two hours; I think the committee was satisfied with government initiatives to protect the Indians in this case. The latter have now submitted their case to the courts, and we have helped them as much as was in our power. I can assure hon. members that we are continuing to take an interest in all aspects of the problem and that although the matter is now before the courts, we are in continuous contact with the government of Quebec and the Indians to try to find an agreement that would suit all those involved.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in light of the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands. The hon. member for Skeena seeks the floor on a point of order.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the minister has just said, as I understood the translation, that the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development was satisfied with the responses he gave yesterday. That is not correct. The minister, in response to a series of questions about this matter yesterday, was evasive and indirect and indicated that the government was not concerned about doing anything in a real way to protect the interests of the James Bay Indians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope the hon. member would appreciate that this is debate rather than a point of order. If the minister claims or suggests that the answers he gave were satisfactory and the hon. member says they were not, I wonder whether that is not debate rather than a point of order.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the only members of that committee to whom the attitude of the minister was satisfactory were his own colleagues in the Liberal party, and nobody else.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that right at the beginning of the question period I should remind hon. members that if we spend half the question period on the very first question a number of hon. members will be

March 7, 1973
Oral Questions
disappointed. The hon. member for Kingston and The Islands has a supplementary.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, since the minister seems to be well satisfied with what he said yesterday, can he now tell the House if the government is prepared to present a formal brief outlining the government's views either to the interlocutory injunction hearings or to the government of the province of Quebec?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In connection with the current legal proceedings, Mr. Speaker, I have explained several times that we have given the Indians every possible assistance in bringing their views before the courts. I should not like to be paternalistic or to take over what the Indians have started; I just want to help them.
With regard to our getting in touch with the government of Quebec, I must say that we have made many representations; I have myself met the premier of Quebec several times, and it was even my pleasure to speak with him on the matter this morning.


JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-INDEMNIFYING OF NATIVE PEOPLE
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Can the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development say whether the federal government and the Quebec government are now considering the possibility of compensating the natives of the James Bay area for the land that they are going to lose to the hydroelectric development in that area?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, about two years ago I began asking the Quebec authorities and the James Bay Development Corporation to offer a fair and reasonable compensation to the Indians for the development of that area.


JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-FEDERAL APPROVAL OF BRIDGE OR OTHER WORKS-POSSIBLE WITHHOLDING UNTIL INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION PROCEEDING DECIDED
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Since the federal government has clear jurisdiction in the James Bay area under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, has the minister issued any approval under that act that would allow the corporation to proceed with bridge building or any other developments, which will be irreversible even if the native people do succeed in obtaining an interlocutory injunction?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such authorization, but I will inquire in the department to see if there was some discussion before I became Minister of Transport.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government to withhold any approvals that he would be required to give under that act until the decision on the interlocutory injunction hearings is finally made in the James Bay case?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will not get from me, either directly or indirectly, any legal opinion on what the province may do. However, I shall inquire about negotiations that may have taken place between the department and the Quebec government.


Charles Joseph Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid both the Minister of Transport and I had difficulties with the translation device. My question to him, which I think was misunderstood, did not have to do with the legal powers of the province of Quebec but rather with the intention of the government of Canada regarding use of its powers under the Navigable Waters Protection Act in a way that would prohibit any further development of the James Bay area until the conclusion of the interlocutory injunction hearings. That was my question, and I am sure the minister would want to reply.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member assumes that the legal question has been clarified and that our rights in that area are well established. There are still some unclarified points. I have been informed by the Minister of Justice that certain matters which should have been clarified were not and that is why I cannot give a definite answer, since the Minister of Justice himself has not been able to take a definite stand in the matter.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
FOOD PRICE INCREASES-ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM UNDER*ACT TO PROMOTE CONSUMERS' INTERESTS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs arising out of a reported statement by him that he has no power to do anything about food prices. I want to ask him whether he or his department has set up any machinery under section 6(1) of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs Act giving him authority, among other things, to "initiate, recommend or undertake programs designed to promote the interests of the Canadian consumer"-other powers are set out which you would not want me to read now, Mr. Speaker-in relation to food prices or any other prices?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. member's question, in the statement to which he referred I did say
March 7, 1973

that there were powers given to me under the terms of the Combines Investigation Act where the prices in question were affected by unlawful restraint of trade. With respect to his reference to the section in the departmental legislation, any action under it would obviously have to be taken not by me in isolation but as part of my work as a member of the cabinet and as part of government policies. Certainly I am always in consultation with my colleagues as to appropriate methods of expanding the terms of reference of the department.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the same section, in another subsection, gives the department authority to do certain things, for example, to provide inspection services as the Governor in Council may direct, may I ask the minister whether he has made any recommendation to the Governor in Council with regard to inspection of prices across the country, particularly food prices, or has he taken any other step under that section of the act under which he functions?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the department does in fact maintain inspection services with respect to such matters as quality of food at the retail level, adequate weight of food, and so on. But with respect to the hon. member's more specific inquiry, to answer it would in effect call upon me to discuss confidential matters within the purview of cabinet. Therefore I am not able to give a more complete response at this time.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot just fob this off with that kind of answer. I am asking him, as the minister responsible for the department which was set up by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs Act, to inform the House whether he has set up any machinery or initiated any program, which under various parts of section 6 he has authority to do, with respect to prices or anything related to prices-a research program, a monitoring program, an inspection program or any other kind of program in that area which he has authority to undertake?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think we have already informed the House about the contingency planning work in the field of prices and incomes control. This work has been carried on under the jurisdiction of my department. With respect to the creation of other programs, this obviously would be a matter of over-all government policy and would be announced in the House in the usual manner.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Before he made his decision that there was no national consensus that there was in fact an emergency situation with respect to rising food prices, did the minister hold discussions with his provincial counterparts and did he discuss the government's contingency plan with them? Since there is no reply-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of hon. members wish to ask supplementaries. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Villeneuve and return to this matter later.
Oral Questions


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my question is very important. I submit to you, Sir, that perhaps it escaped the minister's attention. If the minister did not hear the question, I will be glad to repeat it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Villeneuve.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could repeat the question. It is very important.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Chair might recognize the hon. member for Villeneuve. We have not finished the first round of questioning. In fairness I think we should, before the end of the question period, allow one representative of the hon. member's party to ask a question, and then I will give all the time hon. members require in order to pursue this matter further.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Oza Tetrault (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Following the foul murder of three American and Belgian diplomats over the weekend by Palestinian terrorists, can the minister tell the House whether he intends to implement special security measures in order to protect Canadian diplomats against the murderous and undiscriminating madness of Palestinian commandos?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the safety of diplomats in foreign countries is, of course, the responsibility of the government of the country to which they are accredited, just as we have responsibility for ambassadors who are accredited to Canada. We do, whenever it seems appropriate, apply special security precautions to diplomats from other countries who might be threatened with attack. I hope other countries do the same for our diplomats.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for York South. Will the minister tell us how many inquiries, since he became minister, he has directed under section 8(c) of the Combines Investigation Act, which permits him to initiate investigations on his own? If the answer is none, would he indicate why?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have been following the same

March 7, 1973
Oral Questions
practice in this regard as has been followed by previous governments, including that of the hon. member's own party.


George Harris Hees: When we were in office there was no Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


FOOD PRICE INCREASES-FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER PRICING AT WHOLESALE LEVEL AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a further supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. May I ask the minister if it is his contention that in the area of food prices he has no jurisdiction over pricing at the manufacturer's or wholesale level or over the transportation component of prices of goods that move imterprovincially or are exported from Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be asking me for a legal opinion, but as far as I am aware I have only that jurisdiction over prices given to me by parliament. Parliament has not yet given me or my department any general authority to regulate prices. The only authority is that contained in the Combines Investigation Act.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Howard Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of my question, directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, is based on charges involving corruption, incompetence and a reign of terror in the Montreal Unemployment Commission offices and that officials are not helping the unemployed but are merely meeting quotas and arbitrarily throwing eligible claimants off lists of claimants eligible for benefits. In view of these charges, will the minister make a statement relating to the eviction of UIC workers in the Montreal area, and does he intend to investigate this whole matter and report to the House.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, my preliminary investigation would indicate that the premise of the hon. member's statement is really quite incorrect.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is based on the nearly complete breakdown of the administration of unemployment insurance claims in the Montreal area. Will the minister now open and reopen offices in rural and small town areas outside Montreal, where once there were UIC offices, and put an end to the callous, cruel and inhuman administration?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate, I am sure, that a question asked in those terms is an assertion or declaration rather than a question.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The hon. member should be given an opportunity to ask his supplementary question.


William Heward Grafftey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The urgency of my supplementary question is based on the fact that eligible claimants, often because of the lengthy waiting periods encountered under the present administration, are thrown on to the welfare rolls of the province of Quebec. In view of this incredible situation, will the minister now open and reopen offices in small towns and rural areas? It is a simple question, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as I have said countless times in the House, I am not satisfied with the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act and I suspect that anybody else holding my portfolio would not be satisfied until we achieve absolute perfection, which I doubt will ever come about. Having said that, I am sympathetic to the concerns of all members about delays in processing claims for benefits. I think the commission is doing all in its power to improve the service and overcome the difficulties that it faced during the past year, which are well known. I would appeal to all hon. members to give the commission a fighting chance, a fair chance, and not to make the job of the commission that much more difficult through accusations and innuendoes unsupported by facts.


John R. Rodriguez: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the days of wine and roses in the Unemployment Insurance Commission offices in Montreal, will the minister agree to make a statement on motions as soon as possible so as to clarify and clear up a situation which is detrimental to the efficiency of the organization on which hundreds of thousands of workers have to rely for prompt and fair treatment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that the hon. member's question is the same as the one asked originally by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


John R. Rodriguez: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister inform the House how the Commission plans to deal effectively with the hundreds of thousands of unemployment insurance claims when it cannot even properly handle its own unemployed staff?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question, of course, is out of order.
March 7, 1973


STUDY ON DECENTRALIZATION OF OFFICES-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Can he tell the House whether he intends to publish the recommendations of the study now being made by his department on the timeliness and urgency of decentralizing Unemployment Insurance Commission offices? If so, does he intend to make those recommendations available to hon. members?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there is an examination of the idea of decentralizing the services of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. This was made well known when I appeared before the committee at the time miscellaneous estimates were being examined. When I have had a full opportunity to join with the chairman of the commission in making a decision on implementation and to assess all the implications of so doing, I will be glad to make that decision known to the House. I might say that some of the delays to which my hon. friends opposite are referring and screaming about came about as the result of their deliberate hold-up of funds-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the reply he just gave us-Mr. Speaker, if our Progressive Conservative friends could be as polite to us as we are to them-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


André-Gilles Fortin: I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the minister has just told us that he was considering the possibility of hastening the issuance of these cheques, could he tell us when exactly he will come to a decision about decentralizing this inhuman, provocative and unfair system as far as claimants are concerned?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, again I take exception to the use of the term "inhuman system". In reply to the question, may I say that I will be doing it just as quickly as is humanly possible.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration related to the general policy of centralization and computerization which was instituted a couple of years ago. Can the minister say whether this particular program, which we were assured would
Oral Questions
save administrative costs, has resulted in the administrative costs tripling in the past three years despite the other problems to which reference has been made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Y orkton-Melville.


PROVISION OF APPEAL PROCEDURE FOR CLAIMANTS WHERE OVERPAYMENT IS ALLEGED
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the complaint that I believe a number of members have received that a claimant cannot appeal an overpayment made to him or her by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, is it the intention of the minister to introduce an amendment to the act so that the claimant will have the right of appeal in a situation where he is overpaid by the commission?
Kon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, whether I have to do it by regulation or amendment to the act, that matter bothers me too. I want to look into it to see if we can alleviate any injustice that may have been inadvertently perpetrated.


WHEAT-POSSIBILITY OF PURCHASE FROM UNITED STATES TO MEET CANADA'S EXPORT COMMITMENTS
Mr. I. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice who is in charge of the Wheat Board. Will he inform the House and the country how many million bushels of wheat Canada is prepared to buy from the United States in order to meet our export commitments?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to assure the hon. member, as I have about 55 times previously, that we have several hundred million bushels of unsold wheat on hand at this time and we are not intending to buy any wheat from anywhere else.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is the minister aware that in the state of Montana Canadian buyers are prepared to pay 50 cents a bushel more to American farmers than they ordinarily receive for wheat to be moved into Canada to meet our export commitments?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that. I am aware that a certain amount of publicity is being put out in the state of Montana about the fact that Canadian prices are about 40 cents higher than American prices and urging that American prices be brought into line.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
1992

March 7, 1973
Oral Questions


ACTION TO AVOID POSSIBLE LAKEHEAD GRAIN HANDLERS STRIKE-REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF TRANSPORT CONTROLLER
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In light of the warning that negotiations at the Lakehead with grain elevator workers are at an impasse at the present time and that the situation could lead to a strike next month when the shipping season opens, can the minister inform the House whether he personally has been in touch with both parties to the dispute to encourage productive negotiations and assess what initiatives the government should take to avoid any possibility of a strike next month?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, depending, of course, on the seriousness of the situation, everyone in this House is aware of the ultimate action that government and parliament can take. In the meantime, officials of my department have been available to the parties involved and are doing their very best to assist in arriving at a settlement.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I again bring to the attention of hon. members that we will be running short of time. We do get into difficulty from day to day when there are too many supplementaries to every question asked. I seek the co-operation of hon. members in this respect. The hon. member for Lisgar will be recognized for one last supplementary.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a short supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture. In order to improve the credibility of Canada as a wheat exporter, is the government giving serious consideration at the present time to introducing legislation to establish a grain transportation controller with adequate powers to ensure that grain transportation will not be disrupted in the future?


MANPOWER
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister advise the House if there is any progress in the planning of the local employment assistance program and if his department is now receiving applications? Also, is it a fact that the staff are now in the field, ready to go into operation on April 1?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be making a statement on this matter very shortly. I will be glad to furnish that information to the hon. member just as quickly as I can.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue in connection with the current deplorable practice conducted by some small businesses, especially in the west, of discounting income tax rebate cheques. Is the minister considering implementing regulations similar to those implemented by the Unemployment Insurance Commission last year to prevent the assignment of rebate cheques to such businesses?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I have been giving consideration to this problem which other members as well as the hon. member for Selkirk have drawn to my attention. It would probably require an amendment to the Income Tax Act to correct this. We want to be cautious so that we do not create any hardship for people who might have quite substantial refunds coming to them and would like to deal with reputable financial institutions. However, if there are cases, even under the present law, where this kind of usury is being practised, I think charges could be laid without an amendment to the Income Tax Act. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe the practice in my department is not to make cheques payable to anyone but the taxpayer, so that it would be necessary for the taxpayer to sign some kind of legal assignment or power of attorney in order for anyone else to get the benefit of the refund.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. It is my understanding that the Department of Justice did take legal action in respect of discounting of unemployment insurance cheques last year in Alberta. Can the minister indicate to the House the status of that case at the moment?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to gather this information and report directly to the hon. member.


HARBOURS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Public Works. It relates to an answer to an order paper question last week regarding Ladner harbour. The minister's answer was that dredging of this harbour would start in April. As I toured the area over the weekend, as the report I received from his department is that they cannot start until July, and as the mouth of the harbour is almost closed and the fishing season starts on March 15, can the minister assure the House that he will ensure that the department dredges the harbour so the fishermen can enter and leave it in order to earn their living?

March 7, 1973


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the representation made by the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might allow the hon. member one supplementary and then recognize the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue in my constituency. Just to have heard the representation is not good enough. Will the minister look into this matter and give us an answer, because it involves the livelihood of a number of fishermen in Ladner? I toured the area by boat last weekend with the fishermen and the boat became stuck in the silt.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

Oral Questions


SECURITY OF OIL SUPPLIES FOR EASTERN CANADA- NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Bearing in mind the continuing concern with regard to the security of oil supplies for Montreal and the eastern part of Canada, did the minister make any progress in his negotiations yesterday with United States officials?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I can confirm that Canadian and United States officials did meet yesterday to discuss the question of the insecurity of overseas supplies. No agreements were arrived at, but the officials are to meet again within the next several weeks to continue the discussions.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Prime Minister, but he must have been able to read my mind because he has bolted. It refers to a statement made by the Minister of Finance on Monday. Was the minister enunciating government policy when he stated to the Canadian Labour Congress that he was certain there was no nationwide demand or interest in wage and price controls?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, that was on my mind, which I can read a little better than the hon. gentleman.


Duncan M. Beattie: The minister also stated at that meeting that there was no consensus among the provinces relating to wage and price controls. Can the minister inform the House when the provinces were consulted?


John Napier Turner: At the last meeting I had with the provincial ministers of finance, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. lean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Can he tell us whether the new program to send messages of public interest in the envelopes containing the old age pension and family allowances cheques is supposed to make up for the lack of efficiency of that white elephant Information Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A question put in those terms is hardly in order.
* *
*


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. On February 26 I asked the Prime Minister a question with reference to the continuing strike of members of the International Union of Elevator Constructors. This strike is going on in ten provinces, or at least in nine with a slowdown in the province of Quebec. In light of the fact that this work stoppage is affecting apartment blocks and 748 projects across Canada, and the minister having taken the position that under the constitution this is a provincial matter, inasmuch as the Prime Minister said he would look into my suggestion, would the minister call together the ten provincial ministers of labour in order to come to grips with the problem and bring this terrible strike to an end?


John Carr Munro: What is the question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I heard the statement of the hon. member. I am not sure whether he put a question. The hon. member may be referring to an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail. The fact is, though, that this is a provincial matter. On several occasions we have indicated our concern over the serious economic implications of a continued strike of this kind and its adverse effect on the country and the hardship caused to employees. If the province of Ontario, where the major problem resides, wishes to call upon us for assistance, we shall be pleased to respond positively. We have received no such request. It is their responsibility to find a settlement and I would hope, as I am sure all members would hope, that they would go about getting it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
1994

March 7, 1973
Oral Questions


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not wish to take up too much time on this matter. I will put my question very briefly. This strike is affecting houses, apartment blocks and new construction. When I asked the Prime Minister the same question, he said: "Mr. Speaker, I will certainly consider the request." Even hiding behind the constitutional question the minister is trying to hide behind-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -will the minister bring together the ten provincial ministers of labour in an effort to put an end to this strike which is affecting ten provinces, not one?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Again, I would say to the hon. member that, as anyone knows who is familiar with this strike, the major impact of this continued dispute is in the province of Ontario. It seems apparent that if the strike is settled there, it will be settled elsewhere throughout the country. That is where the initiative has to be taken. If the hon. member would agree with that conclusion, it seems to me he must also agree that the primary obligation rests there, and that to bring the ministers of labour together would not provide a satisfactory solution-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Minister of Labour is misrepresenting the facts. It is true that the strike is going on in Ontario, but it is also going on in British Columbia; it is going on in Alberta; it is going on in Saskatchewan; it is going on in nine provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is rising on a question of privilege, after which the Chair will have to call orders of the day.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the minister resume his seat?


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If the minister wishes to misrepresent the facts-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for Calgary North will agree with me that a dispute as to facts, which is the basis of this question of privilege, cannot found a question of privilege. There may be a point of dispute or debate with the minister, but I would not think it could be considered by the House as a question of privilege.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, surely the minister is not permitted to come here and deliberately misrepresent the facts. This strike is going on in ten provinces, not one. He is trying to leave the impression that it is going on in only one province where there happens to be a Conservative government. I want him to accept his national responsibility and stop hiding behind the constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I pointed out a few moments ago, no question of privilege arises. The hon. member claims he is not satisfied with the response given by the minister. It is well established that such a situation cannot found a question of privilege. The hon. member may have a protest or feel there is a question of debate. Further, it is unparliamentary to accuse another hon. member-the rule does not refer to a minister but to any hon. member- of deliberately misrepresenting the facts. I am sure that these words went beyond the intention of the hon. member for Calgary North. It is well agreed that in debate hon. members can suggest that other members misrepresent the situation, misrepresent the facts or give incorrect facts, but it is not in accordance with the well established traditions and practices of the House respected by all members that we should accuse one another of wilful misrepresentation. I would hope the hon. member for Calgary North would agree with me on that point.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, for you, who are so gracious, I will withdraw the word "deliberate", but either through illiteracy or negligence he is still misrepresenting the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not know how else to put it.


Mr. Oberle:: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before calling orders of the day I will recognize the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River. May I say that I am sure all hon. members will agree that I hear complaints from time to time about the question period. I have complaints, too, about the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that this is the occasion on which to indicate what my complaints are, but certainly I suggest that too much time is taken during the question period on points of order and questions of privilege, that there are too many supplementaries, and that too many questions are asked day after day by the same members. I think this is unfair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This is not really a difficulty for the Chair because it is as easy for the Chair to recognize a frontbencher as a backbencher. But I feel it is not entirely fair to some of our colleagues who do not have the honour to be Privy Councillors or to sit in the front row that day after day they are given a secondary role during the question period. I am always anxious, from day to day, to give them a chance but it seems that when we spend 20 or 25 minutes on the first two or three questions asked it becomes an impossible task to give a fair break to hon. members who do not happen to sit in the front rows.
March 7, 1973


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I would seek the co-operation of hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to apologize to the hon. member who has risen on a point of order, but he has lost his precedence because we now have a question of privilege.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, a lot of statements and charges were made by the hon. member for Calgary North, in connection with which I could take offence. There was, I think, a deliberate misinterpretation of my answer. But I find it so difficult to take the hon. member seriously at any time that I am prepared to let the matter drop.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River rises on a point of order.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to agree with you today and disagree with my hon. friend from Calgary North.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: The point is the same. I interpret it to be a point of order. I concur with my hon. friend that the minister is misleading the House when he says there is an elevator strike in Ontario only.


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


Frank Oberle: The problem is quite as grave in British Columbia; it is as much a problem there as elsewhere. These people do not know what is going on in British Columbia or they would not make these statements.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: We shall have another 40 minutes tomorrow to pursue the debate. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Standing Orders and Procedure
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization be authorized to consider the standing orders of the House and procedure in both the House and its committees with special regard to all the matters that Mr. Speaker suggested during the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth parliaments that may require the consideration of the said committee, and to report to the House its views on any facets thereof that may require reform and to recommend what manner of reform may be required;
And that the committee be authorized to travel outside of Canada during consideration of the aforementioned subject.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the events of the last hour and a half have provided an excellent backdrop to the discussion that we hope will continue for the rest of the afternoon and culminate in the acceptance of this motion and an early beginning by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization of its deliberations.
There are many problems and issues that can be raised in commencing discussion of this motion, particularly the list of items which Your Honour has put together from time to time as subject matter for study by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. I should like to confine my remarks to brief comments about the process of parliamentary reform in Canada; second, to general comments about the operation of the House of Commons; third, the question period; fourth, Standing Order 43; fifth, the supply procedures; sixth, the committee system; and finally, any other matters that may be of interest to the House.
The process of parliamentary reform in Canada has in recent years become a continuing one. What was once a very sporadic effort has become a continuing process. Hon. members will know that the original rules adopted in 1867 were first revised in 1876. It was then 30 years before further revisions were made in the rules of the House of Commons. The 1906 reforms were followed by further amendments in 1910 and 1913. There were further revisions at approximately 15-year intervals-in 1927, 1940 and 1955.
The present process of continuing reform that is proposed in this motion began about ten years ago. Provisional reforms were adopted in 1964, and work by special committees culminated in the adoption of very major revisions to the rules in 1968. At that time the notion of a permanent Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization was embedded in the Standing Orders. Since 1968, only two amendments have been made to the Standing Orders, the 75a, 75b and 75c rules which are well know to hon. members, and the statutory instruments committee rule.
We, like the British House of Commons, have been constantly aware of the need to reassess and re-examine whatever changes we have made in the recent past, and also to reassess and re-examine old rules that may not have been revised in recent years. It stands as an axiom that the operation of parliament and the operation of the House of Commons requires the constructive co-operation of the members of all parties in the House of Commons. Each one of us may on one day or another behave improperly but we are sustained by the common, constructive balance that is usually maintained by the other members of the House of Commons. Because of that the House is able to operate effectively and to conduct its business.

March 7, 1973
Standing Orders and Procedure
There is great controversy at times in the House. Yesterday was a raw day so far as debate was concerned, but it was a good day for the House of Commons. The strong tempers that were displayed were healthy, but a daily diet of that explosive and tense atmosphere could hardly make for a continuing operation in the House of Commons.
The House is maintained by the Standing Orders, the rules and the Speaker. But as was pointed out in the report of the special committee that travelled to Westminster in 1968, it is also maintained by a subtle understanding of the spirit of parliament that is deeper than the rules and institutions. It is the deepening of that subtle understanding of the spirit of parliament that probably will engage the attention of the members of the standing committee.
The House of Commons is always working against time. The standing committees are always working against time. Time is the most precious commodity; it is precious not only to human beings generally but it seems to be more important to Members of Parliament and to the institution itself. When the members of the special committee visited Westminster in 1968, two observations were heard most frequently from members of the British House of Commons. One was, "We have decided that there are only 365 days in the year". The second was, "We have decided that in debate there comes a time when enough is enough". That was the sentiment that was expressed, not by members of the government but by members of the opposition.
Because of the more frequent changeover in government in the United Kingdom, the people we discussed problems with had experience both in government and in opposition. Their most frequent refrain was, "Time is precious; time is of the essence. There are only 365 days in the year, and if Members of Parliament are going to discharge their responsibilities to their constituents, there must be a predictable, regular way of dealing with parliamentary business".
It was in the light of examining that experience in the United Kingdom as well as our own experience that the special committee made its report to the House, as found in Journals for March 13, 1968. I had the honour of chairing that committee and other hon. members, including the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), were distinguished members. That report, in essence, was the foundation for the general revision of the rules that was undertaken in 1968. It was the foundation and contained the philosophy upon which the subsequent committee built its conclusions.
Referring to the comments heard in Westminster, that there are only 365 days in a year and that time is of the essence, the question has been asked as we look at the calendar on March 7, particularly by the media, "What has been accomplished in this twenty-ninth parliament of Canada?" We have now spent two months in the House of Commons and we have operated under the rules. It is interesting to observe how strongly bound is the operation of this House by the rules which we ourselves adopted.

We spent eight days on the throne speech debate. In view of the fact that almost 100 new members have seats in this House, it would be unrealistic to expect that less than eight days should be spent allowing them and other members to express their views in the House of Commons. As I say, that debate took eight days. Then we spent four days on establishing the prices committee. Was that too long? Surely it was a good debate and brought to the attention of the country a most important question. We spent four days on the controversial unemployment insurance bill removing the so-called ceiling. This provided to members of the House a wide-ranging debate on the whole question of unemployment insurance.
Then the government had to come to the House of Commons looking for $1,300 million in supply. That took nine days. Perhaps that was too long, but certainly it was an opportunity for members to examine the additional spending program of the government in the standing committee. Then, without any time allocation and with the freedom given to hon. members both on second reading and in committee on the clauses and schedules, we used up nine days. Then we had six days on the budget debate.


An hon. Member:: Seven days.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was six days if you do not count yesterday. We had two opposition days, two days on old age security, and four days on the important question of capital punishment. So that is what has taken up the time of the House.
If hon. members want the House to move faster, then they have to strike out days from the budget debate and the address in reply. If they want the House to move even faster, then they have to adopt even more stringent supply provisions than we have at the present time. But that is what the House has done. Those in the media who ask what we have been doing obviously have less than a full understanding of the nature of the House of Commons and the purpose of Members of Parliament. In the words of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker), "It is not a sausage factory." It is not a sausage factory in any sense. That is how we have spent our time since we returned here on January 4.
The immediate cause of accelerating this reference is the operation of the oral question period. Hon. members and Mr. Speaker have on this very day expressed their frustration with the operation of the oral question period. We are not exactly flying blind when we discuss the oral question period in the House of Commons, because on previous occasions the House, through its standing or special committee and in debate in the House, has focused on the operation of the question period. Certainly the 40-minute question period is a result of a recommendation of the standing committee which was unanimously adopted by the House of Commons.
I am sure if hon. members re-examine in the committee the matter of the time of the question period, they will find inexorably that there is no final solution to the operation of the question period by extending it by 10 minutes or 20 minutes. In fact, Mr. Speaker has been more than generous in not seeing the clock during the question period. As I listened to the question period today, I had in front of me the report of a special committee of the House
March 7, 1973

on procedure and organization in April, 1964. That committee was chaired by the then Speaker. That report, which was later concurred in by the House as a whole, had a number of important points to make about the operation of the question period. It reads in part:
Your committee believes that the so-called orders of the day question period should be tightened up.
It continues:
Your committee believes that the implementation of Standing Orders 39(5) and 39-A, as noted above, will provide a basis for more effective use of the right of members to ask questions-
That was a reference to what is now embodied in our practice as the "late show." It goes on to say:
Your committee recommends that the House accept and support the following guidelines. (1) Questions asked prior to orders of the day should be governed by the provisions of Standing Order 39(1).
That is our present Standing Order 39(5) which makes this very clear when it provides:
-questions on matters of urgency may be addressed orally to ministers of the Crown, provided however that, if in the opinion of Mr. Speaker a question is not urgent, he may direct that it be placed on the order paper-
That is the Standing Order and it relates to the question of urgency. The guidelines went on to state:
(2) Such questions should
(a)	be asked only in respect of matters of sufficient urgency and importance as to require an immediate answer;
(b)	not inquire whether statements made in a newspaper are correct;
(c)	not require an answer involving a legal opinion;
(d)	not be asked in respect of a matter that is sub judice;
(e)	not be of a nature requiring a lengthy and detailed answer;
(f)	not raise a matter of policy too large to be dealt with as an answer to a question.
Then recommendation No. 3 reads:
Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, should deal with the matter raised, and should not provoke debate.
We know perfectly well as we observe the question period that these guidelines, especially the one in respect of provoking debate, are observed more in the breach: answers contain debating material and questions contain debating material. It is as certain as the fact that night follows day that any member who adduces an argument or controversy in his question will receive an argument and a debate in the reply if the person replying is at all sensitive to the kind of political forum in which we operate. So it works both ways.
I have every sympathy with the idea of undertaking a further study of the question period, but why do we not go back and look at what we have done already, what we have concurred in already and what we have asked Mr. Speaker to place before us as the rules of the House? I have great sympathy for Mr. Speaker during the daily question period, who with patience attempts to be reconciliatory and solve the impossible task of recognizing every hon. member who rises in his place to ask a question.
Perhaps I may conclude this reference by referring to observations that were made in the report of the special committee of 1968, at page 765. These have not yet been
Standing Orders and Procedure
adopted by the House of Commons. In its report the committee stated as follows:
Another topic that engaged our attention was the question period. At Westminster no questions are asked without notice.
Then it goes on to say:
The effect of a notice requirement in discouraging trivial questions and trivial answers is valued highly by your committee.
We did not recommend the full adoption of the British question period system because I believe our question period is more lively, more entertaining and has many more of the characteristics of the theatre than the British question period. I do believe, however, that we probably could improve the operation of the question period if we relied more on notice, because once a minister has been given notice of a question he is bound, certainly by a sense of duty, to give a much more detailed and much more helpful answer to a question.
I commend the work already done by the committee in respect of the question period, the views of the other committees which examined the matter, and also the possibility that we might take a slight step forward if we adopted the practice of notice, on a trial basis or on a voluntary basis if it is not embedded in the rules.
The suggestion has been made that questions are asked during the oral question period because they are not answered quickly enough by the government when they are placed on the order paper. There may be some validity to that claim, although questions in the oral question period are not entirely for the purpose of seeking information; they are for the constructive purpose of embarrassing the ministry or showing weaknesses, if any exist, in the ministry and scoring political points. However, in my humble opinion the number of questions which appear on the order paper has really gone quite out of sight. If hon. members wish prompt answers to questions which appear on the order paper, it would seem to me that they should be selected in such a manner that pressure could be put on the department to get the answers out as quickly as possible.
In 1968-69 there were 189 sittings which produced 2,723 questions. So far this session we have had 1,420 questions asked in 44 sittings, 329 of which have been answered. This is a very large increase, and the response in 329 cases is not a bad response. Certainly I and other ministers are pushing the departments to get answers out. Sometimes it is like pulling teeth to get information out of departments on time. It is not entirely a matter of ill-will. It seems to me that much has to be done to improve the servicing of parliament by departments. During the last few weeks I have devoted a good deal of time to examining this whole question. It is not an easy one. I believe there is something which can be done to accelerate the process.
Standing Order 43 is a relatively new phenomenon. Why was it brought in? It is a strange thing, but there is a sort of balance which occurs in the House of Commons. When we had Standing Order 26 in respect of questions of urgency, mini-debates developed under the guise of points of order. This was obviously irritating to the Chair and to members of the government, because into the so-called point of order there was bootlegged a whole baggage of political material. This was most unsatisfactory, but that was the way it worked and everybody realized it.

March 7, 1973
Standing Orders and Procedure
The change was not imposed upon hon. members unwillingly. They accepted it. We introduced the "late show" and introduced Standing Order 26 in a new form in order to make it more efficient. Since it does not provide the opportunity for political debate, it is hardly used at all. The technique now has shifted to the use of Standing Order 43. The use of Standing Order 43 has increased very remarkably. In this session, 107 such motions have been presented. Five of these have been accepted for one reason or another. There were 107 matters of "national emergency", or 2.2 "national emergencies" presented every sitting day of the House of Commons. This is the point we have reached. Of these motions, 41 sought to send matters for study, investigation or examination to standing committees of the House, committees that are already sagging from overwork.


James Aloysius McGrath: Two-thirds of them have not yet started meeting.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The burden will be there. The estimates are ready for the consideration of the committees. I shall say a little more about the committee system later. What do we do about Standing Order 43 every day. I say "No". I become embarrassed saying "No". Why do I say "No".? It is not because I am unsympathetic to the efforts of hon. members to have investigations, but it seems to me that if the House of Commons is to pass a motion it should do so after some deliberation and thought. I instinctively recoil against that as a matter of policy and of inappropriateness for the House of Commons. That is one reason which is perhaps a matter of taste. The other reason is that our operation could become bogged down, because if these motions are to be debated they would supersede government business. They could go on all day, and the next day and the next day-and when would we be able to complete our legislative program and give expression to the needs of the nation as contained in the government's program?
If hon. members continue to put up motions, if that provides an outlet, fine. But we on this side, because of the reasons stated and unless the matter is of universal interest, will continue to use that unhappy expression, "No". It is really not the way to run anything, let alone parliament. I may say that I hope the standing committee will find a way of providing some kind of mini-debate that could capture the interest of the House-occasionally-on the orders of the day or thereabouts, that would give expression to opinions and in which there could be a good interchange. The present system is most unsatisfactory for members as a whole, in my opinion, and if something could be done and the committee could come up with another system, I think it would be most useful.
The supply procedures that were adopted by the House in 1968 were unanimously adopted.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: You mean "clubbed".


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, unanimously adopted. My friend, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) was one of the hon. members on the other side of the House who took, not so much exception to the general pattern of

supply, not so much to the predictability and the certainty that was introduced into the supply system, but basically to the abolition of the committee of supply and to the fact that estimates were totally withdrawn from the committee of supply.


James Aloysius McGrath: Good for him.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yesterday the right hon. member for Prince Albert, in the remarkable intervention which he made on a point of order, said as recorded at page 1943 of Hansard:
I think of that awful scene of a few months ago when we voted through $16 billion in four and a half hours because the rules imposed by closure had actually determined the denial of the right of parliament to examination.
That requires a certain amount of clarification, because the rules under which we are operating were generally approved by the House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The rules of supply. I am afraid my hon. friend is mistaken on that point. However, I will not get into an argument on it except to say that under the present supply procedures, patterned basically upon the British system, we send the estimates to the standing committees, rightly or wrongly, and there they are examined, witnesses and ministers are called and individuals present briefs. Many hours are spent on the examination of the estimates. Then they are reported to the House.
It is true that when the guillotine falls it seems appalling that billions of dollars must go through when the Chairman of the committee of the whole House calls the clauses and schedules without debate, but behind that scene- which the right hon. gentleman described as awful-is the enormous amount of study and investigation that took place before. Is it good, or is it bad? I think that is the subject that must be studied.
The hon. member for Peace River mentioned the other day the possibility of bringing some estimates into a committee of the whole. I think that could be examined by the standing committee, because I believe it was beneficial to have had the supply bill for $1.3 billion before the House and before the committee of the whole. I think it provided an excellent debate. It provided hand-to-hand fighting between the opposition and the government, and that is very healthy.
I have not discussed this with anybody else, and I speak only for myself, but I believe that is an aspect that should be considered, namely, whether we should not, with the proper safeguards and maintaining the predictability and the certainty that supply will be granted at certain intervals and the vote will be taken, be given some opportunity under carefully worked out safeguards to debate the estimates in a committee of the whole.
That was one of the issues raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in December, 1968. The most dedicated advocate of the new supply procedures in that debate was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who concluded, based upon his experience and the studies in the United Kingdom, as did the government, that this was an
March 7, 1973

improvement. It was a real improvement, in my opinion. But it could be further refined to meet the requirement of examination of estimates in a committee of the whole.
I would like to say a few words about the operation of the committee system. It could be said, with regard to the operation of the committee system, that more changes have been made in the format and the role of House of Commons committees in the past decade than in all the preceding years combined. Beginning in 1962 and culminating in the extensive reorganization of 1968, the committees have taken over more and more of the responsibilities which previously belonged to the House of Commons as a whole.
The rationale of our committee system is fairly straightforward. The committee system allows us to break down the membership of a large group for the sake of efficiency. It allows us to sort our parliamentary workload into more manageable parcels of detail, and it allows members to develop a greater degree of specialization in particular areas of interest. That is the theory, at least.
Hon. members who have been here for the past several years will be aware of the evolution, or perhaps revolution, of our committee system since the early 1960s, but perhaps for new members-there are quite a number of them in the House-I might be able to say a word or two about the major changes that have taken place. The main one, of course, is the requirement that all estimates and all bills, except for budgetary items, be referred to an appropriate committee for detailed study unless the House orders otherwise.
For example, in the last parliament we ordered that a number of bills-I believe the public order bill, and certainly the government reorganization bill-be examined in committee of the whole. Prior to that it was up to the government of the day to decide whether, and when, estimates should go to standing committees. At the same time, the number of standing committees was increased from 14 to 21, and the twenty-second was added in the last session. The average membership was cut in half, from 40 members per committee to about 20.
Another major change was the procedure in changing the membership of committees. Prior to 1968 that was a relatively rigid procedure. Today it happens quickly. You notify the whip and the clerk of the committee, and suddenly you could have a brand new committee.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The taxi squads.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would suggest that the procedure committee may want to look at our substitution system to see whether we have exchanged an overdose of rigidity by an overdose of flexibility.
I think it is fair to say that in practice the amount of material referred to standing committees, apart from estimates and legislation, has increased substantially. There seems to be no end to the appetite to send more things to the standing committees. Whether it be members or ministers, it seems that a standing committee is the outlet, forgetting all the while that the time of Members of Parliament is at a premium and that at present the committee system is overloaded.
Standing Orders and Procedure
Virtually all standing committees, in the course of the previous and current parliaments, have had subject matters of substantial significance and public interest referred to them. We have had committees studying such things as the televising of House proceedings, the question of aboriginal rights, our northern waters' icebreaking services, veterans' pensions and services, tax reform, external affairs and defence policies, regional transportation services, the role and responsibilities of the Auditor General and his department, the question of bilingualism in the public service, election expenses, plus literally dozens of others, major and minor.


Gerald William Baldwin: You missed the Happy Hooker.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not think that anyone, particularly any member who was here prior to the 1965-68 changes, will question the motives behind those changes. Parliament acted with the best intentions and in the sincere belief that what we were doing would strengthen our system and add to the ability of members to do a more effective job.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister permit a question? He has given an intelligent summary of what happened previously, but would he not agree that when the changes were made in 1968 there was some political motivation behind them, particularly because at that time there was a majority government, just as we in this party had at one time? Would he not agree that some of the weaknesses in the rules may be showing up in the new atmosphere of a minority government? I think he should weigh that point.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The point is a valid one. The problem is a different one in a minority government. Some of the points I will put on the record. Some of the information I have here was collected long before this debate, because this was a matter of concern to me before the end of the twenty-eighth parliament. I believe that some of the things I will mention will indicate how dramatically we have changed the committee procedures. It may be that experience will have shown that we have gone a bit too far, and that perhaps we have not gone far enough in other directions. Certainly the increase in the number of committees, as well as the growth in business transacted by committees, places a very heavy burden on Members of Parliament.
It might be of interest to note that in the second session of the twenty-eighth parliament, committees held 759 regular meetings at which legislation, estimates and other matters referred to them by parliament were examined. Contrast this with the second session of the preceding parliament, the twenty-seventh parliament, when the figure was 218. The increase in the number of meetings is in the neighbourhood of 300 per cent.
If we calculate these statistics in hours and relate them to the number of days on which the House sat, the result is even more dramatic. In the two sessions of the twenty-seventh parliament the House sat for 405 days and committees sat for a total of 1,450 hours, approximately-an average of 31 hours of committee meetings for every day that the House sat. In the first two sessions of the twenty-eighth parliament the House sat for 353 days and committees sat for approximately 3,000 hours. This works out to

March 7, 1973
Standing Orders and Procedure an average of 84 hours of committee meetings for every day that the House sat. As a matter of interest, I might note that in the last two sessions of the previous parliament the House sat for 335 days and our committees logged 2,175 hours, for an average of 61 hours for every day the House sat.
So far this session committees are sitting an average of two hours for every day the House sits, which is a pretty high ratio for the beginning of a session when only a few committees are operating. A similar pattern is shown for committee attendances. In the second session of the twenty-seventh parliament there were 3,105 committee attendances by hon. members, and by the second session of the twenty-eighth parliament this had increased to 9,909.
I said earlier that the new committee system places a particularly heavy onus on members. It places an even heavier onus on government members, more so than on non-government members and for understandable reasons. If committee attendance is down and business cannot get under way, that deficiency reflects more upon the government than it does upon the opposition. Regardless of which government has been in office, this has been the case. This government has been in office during the new committee regime and the heavier onus is upon government members, particularly government backbenchers who, with opposition members, are the real workhorses of the committee system.
I will not complain about the present situation. We are facing it as well as we can in manning committees with government members. When ministers, because of other meetings, are not able to sit on standing committees, government members have to carry an extra burden. I will not go into the statistics, but if one examines the attendance record of the last parliament you will see there is no question about it; government members had a very high attendance record, higher than any other group. That is because of the nature of the opposition, the nature of the House, the nature of the political process and for other reasons that I have mentioned.
Committee activity has increased. The volume of work has increased. We have to ask ourselves whether this increased activity on the part of the committee system has detracted from the image and impact of parliament itself. If the answer is yes, then do we want it that way? If it is no, then what do we do to remove some of the difficulties in the present committee system? I have the impression that not all of the changes have lightened the parliamentary load. In some cases they have duplicated the parliamentary load. I have one table here at least, Mr. Speaker, giving a summary comparison of committee activities in the second session of the twenty-seventh parliament and the second session of the twenty-eighth parliament. The figures I have already given show that the workload of committees has increased tremendously, as has the burden on private members.
There is no doubt, in my opinion, that that is one of the reasons why private members in the last parliament and in the present one have asked for greater assistance in their constituencies and in this House. It is because of the demands made upon their time in committees and in the House of Commons.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has asked why I, as government House leader, allow committees to meet while the House is meeting, especially in committee of the whole. There is no way in which we can operate this system unless we permit committees to meet when the House is sitting. In the last session, seven or eight committees met while the House was sitting. I made it a rule that unless there was a desperate emergency, no more than four committees should sit while the House was sitting. This matter must be considered if we are to clear the estimates away and clear away our legislative program. Members not in the House are in committee, or in their offices working, or in their constituencies. That applies to most of them. There are faithful servants of parliament in this House, members who go to committees, who attend in the House and who really make this place live. I will come back to my point. We cannot avoid committees sitting when the House sits.
In the previous parliament we established, with the co-operation of other parties, a scheduling system that attempted to reduce, I think successfully, the number of conflicts that might arise, so that members could be given the opportunity of attending three or four committees without obvious conflict. We are proposing to re-establish that system during the present session. I have many ideas about how the committee system might be changed and improved and I hope at some point to be given the opportunity to make my view known to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
I have mentioned some of the problems that have arisen in the operation of our parliamentary system. There are many others. I believe that the work of the procedure and organization committee is of great importance. The work done by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for Edmonton West and by others in renovating the rules was prodigious. They sat on subcommittees and brought together all the material and information that resulted in the system we have today. The system is not perfect but it is an improvement.
I hope the committee will take on the big job of doing justice to the items that Mr. Speaker has drawn to our attention. If it has more time, and an appetite for difficulties, it might take on the question of supply procedures and of the committee system. These, however, are very big problems indeed. I apologize to the House for the time I have taken and thank hon. members for paying such close attention to what I have said.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the government House leader with respect to one item that was extensively studied by the committee last year and referred to in this year's Speech from the Throne? I am talking about the whole matter of broadcasting the proceedings of the House and of committees. As the minister did not mention this item when cataloguing those things that the committee might deal with- perhaps his omission was wise-could he indicate, since this was such an important concern of the committee, particularly in its last year of activity in the previous parliament, when, how or in what way one might expect to see some action on this, bearing in mind the fragility of
[Mr. MacEachen.J
March 7, 1973

this parliament and the need for progress to be made on this important matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to answer that question. I was as disappointed as other members that we did not have an opportunity to deal with the report of the committee. I am proposing at some time to put on the order paper a motion to the effect that the House of Commons either agrees or disagrees with the televising of its proceedings. Once a decision is reached in principle, if it is favourable the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization can come to grips very quickly with the technical requirements. I hope that the standing committee will not deal again with the question of television unless a decision either pro or con has been reached by the House of Commons.
As soon as possible I should like to put this matter before the House and let the House decide whether it wants television in this chamber. If we decide that we do, I think it will be relatively easy for the committee to put the matter in a form that can be implemented readily. It is a complex issue. I realize that there are strong views on the question of television and not everybody behind me, I am sure, or in front of me agrees that it is a good idea to televise our proceedings.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question? After referring the matter to the House, as he suggested, does the minister not think that we should allow a free vote on the question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not discussed that with my colleagues, but I hope we would not make the matter of television in the House a matter of party discipline. The British House has dealt with the question a couple of times. I feel that every member should decide this for himself and then we will know where we stand on the matter.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The last time the question arose there the answer was a resounding no.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) for his useful and interesting contribution. Speaking as a House leader, I may say that our relations have always been cordial and reasonable, unlike those I experienced before his elevation to this office. While I may say some unpleasant things about the government, I want to except the minister from those statements because in the very difficult hot-house sort of atmosphere in which the various House leaders live he has been very accommodating and reasonable. I extend the same remarks to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), limiting them, of course, to his capacity as House leader. I also extend them to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) in the same context.
I will not deal with all the questions raised by the minister. Some of my colleagues will deal with certain aspects of the problem to which he referred, and other issues will be mentioned. Before continuing, I wish to refer briefly to the question period. The real problem with the question period stems from the obvious difficulties which the government has constructed for itself. I agree
Standing Orders and Procedure
with the President of the Privy Council that during the question period we are not necessarily seeking factual information. During that period the adversary system under which this House operates comes to the fore. Those who suggest that the adversary system is passe should take a hard look at the structure of our society. For that reason, and for other reasons which the minister mentioned, the question period is the crowning jewel in the diadem of our parliamentary life. I admit that problems have been created during the question period and that members of opposition parties do not always ask questions which are consistent with the rules. However, the real difficulty-I say this genuinely-comes from the application by the government of the three "D's" in government answers: there is too much deception, deviousness and delay.
Your Honour may recall that back in 1958-59 the ministers of the day came to this House well prepared to answer questions. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), who was responsible for several important portfolios in the cabinet of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), always came to this House well briefed. There was hardly a question to which he did not have the answer. The answer did not necessarily satisfy the questioner, but at least he was aware of the subject and had part of the answer. The same cannot be said for members of this government. I suggest, as other hon. members have suggested, that ministers of the Crown in the present government enter the House unprepared to answer a question which must have been obvious, and incapable of giving an answer. The answer may not contain all the facts which may be asked for, but at least it should be adequate.
Time after time we hear the statement, "We will wait until we are able to find the information and the hon. member will be informed in due course." These are the characteristics of those on the treasury benches which drive members of the opposition to frustration, anger and cause them to perpetrate, sometimes unconsciously and certainly unwillingly, infractions of the rules with regard to the question period. That is all I am going to say about it. I think the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) will deal with this later. It is a very important part of our parliamentary life. It is the time when the government, under the full glare of the spotlight of publicity, must meet the challenge, scrutiny and questioning of hon. members from all sides of the House who have been sent here to deal with government problems, government delays and government prejudices.
I am sometimes taken aback by the calm assumption of so many people, including many Members of Parliament, as to the sacrosanct quality and irreversible nature of the democratic process and rule of law as if having once achieved these things, sometimes by force, they will never be lost or even diminished, that the present eclipse of parliament and its function is merely temporary. These are dangerous assumptions to make. Those who believe in them are living in a fool's paradise. The human race has taken over half a million years to achieve the present position, and democratic institutions are 100 or 200 years old. This is certainly not a very long time in the context of

March 7, 1973
Standing Orders and Procedure the history of mankind, certainly not long enough to have become part of the bloodstream and nerve centre of social evolution.
This very delicate and fragile institution is under continuous attack from executive government. The ever-hungry, monolithic monster of bureaucracy keeps chewing away at the few rights which remain to parliament, and on these they are receiving the very loyal and enthusiastic support of the elected branch of the executive, the cabinet. Certainly this is the case in Canada.
I could not do better than chronicle some of the highlights of this session's activities as a litany of the incidents of use or abuse of the executive power, uses that have caught the attention of this House over the past two months. There is the Vietnamese situation wherein the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) calmly asserted that parliament may be given some very brief and innocuous right of discussion long after the event. He refused to bring back for discussion and decision the motion launched under his name.
There is also the matter of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. There is the question of not only the deprivation of the right of scrutiny of this House by taking away certain changes in this legislation, but what we see going on day after day and what has been the subject of a very searching and intelligent cross-examination today as to the kind of rules and changes which are being made at the whim of the minister.
There are serious problems regarding unemployment insurance. I know that the government faces some of those. Why in heaven's name does the government not seize the nettle, bring the question into this House and let the House decide? We are the people who have been elected by our constituents all over Canada. We know what will be the impact of programs of this kind and of changes that are envisaged. Let this House look at the situation and decide.
The department of immigration has given away hundreds of millions of dollars to LIP and OFY programs which are sanctioned and spent without one bit of approval by this House until long after the event. With regard to the auto pact, all we are able to do is contained in the question period with the not-so-artful dodging of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie). Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent, and if we include the provincial contribution it is probably billions of dollars, on the construction of airports for which this parliament is not asked for one bit of advice. There is the James Bay project, which engaged the attention of the House today, and other matters.
These indicate beyond any doubt what is happening. They demonstrate the means employed by this government to downgrade, bypass, ignore or overrun the legislature. In each instance it is an example of the mishandling of arbitrary executive authority to create or intensify problems. This is not only happening in Canada. In the United States today, the President is locked in a conflict with Congress as to appropriations. There were the problems with regard to the Viet Nam war, the resolution following the Bay of Tonkin incident and the powers given to the President at that time. We are not isolated in these instances, although we have a government com-

posed of people who have become very skilful in their adoption of these executive powers.
It would be bad enough to surrender more and more power to the government even where the exercise of these powers results in greater efficiency and brings benefits to the people who are ruled, but such is not the case, certainly not in Canada where we see misrule, inefficiency and incompetence grow in direct proportion to the increase in authoritarianism. This debate is an opportunity for members of the House to dig in their heels and say, "Enough!"
This minority government seemed to give us one last chance to regain some of the rights which had been wrenched away, but in light of the conduct of my friends in the New Democratic Party, I am beginning to wonder. I say as rationally as I can and quite objectively, it is becoming quite clear that we do not have a minority government in this House. We have an actual, practising coalition, so much so that I sincerely wonder about the right that may well be asserted by the New Democratic Party to move a motion on an allotted opposition day. I point out to members of this House that under the Standing Orders, this right is reserved to those who are, and I quote, "in opposition to the government". There is a strong reason to suspect, and certainly Your Honour can take judicial notice of this, that the members of the New Democratic Party are anything but in opposition to the government.
I have heard it said by both the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and by the leader of the New Democratic Party that they are going to try to make parliament work. I welcome this statement. I try to believe it. I work hard at believing it. However, having observed these distinguished gentlemen in action, I have my doubts. Making parliament work for them seems to have a very different meaning than it has for me and most members of this House. For the Prime Minister it means making it work in such a way that he can look in the mirror every day and ask, "Mirror, mirror on the wall, am I still the biggest of them all?" then come here and take his place in the Prime Minister's seat. For the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) it is not quite as satisfactory. For him, making parliament work means his ability to come into the House every day, look at the Prime Minister sitting in his seat and say to himself, "There, by the grace of David Lewis, sits Pierre Elliott Trudeau." The more I watch these two distinguished members of this House-I say this with due apology to both of them-the more I notice how much they resemble each other.
The fact of the matter is, there has developed a sort of collusive understanding to deny to the Progressive Conservative party, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, all real opportunity to have any point of view accepted by the House. The events of the last few weeks have demonstrated this to be the case beyond any shadow of doubt. So much so, indeed, that if our party were to put forward a motion proposing a revision of the prayer with which the proceedings of this House open, I anticipate that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the leader of the New Democratic Party would rise in their places and scream that this, too, indicated a lust for power in our ranks.
March 7, 1973

Despite these misgivings, I have the duty to put before the House for the consideration of the committee on procedure some views with respect to what might be examined by the committee, on what should be done and on what course might be taken with regard to this motion. Certainly I agree with the President of the Privy Council that the whole question of supply and of opposition days as related to the consideration of departmental estimates ought to be closely examined in light of the experience of the last four or five years. This experience demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that committees can never be a substitute or an alternative for the House of Commons. They must be ancilliary to rather than in substitution for this chamber.
I do not say that committees cannot be used as an excellent means of providing an occasion for the examination of witnesses, of hearing evidence from ministers and from senior officials, of allowing the presentation of briefs by interested citizens throughout the country, because they are valuable means of obtaining the views of representatives of sectors of the public affected by issues which demand parliamentary attention. These things simply cannot be done in the House itself. Committees, used in the way I have described, are extremely effective in conjunction with the operation of the Commons.
I have already suggested, however, that the right should be reserved to this House, either in committee of the whole or through the revival, in a limited way, of the committee of supply, to deal with several departments of government, those departments to be selected by the opposition. The leader of the House has been good enough to indicate some acceptance of this view, subject, I agree, to certain safeguards as to the time to be taken and the manner of the proceedings. I should like to make a firm suggestion to the President of the Privy Council right now. We would not be unwilling to agree, as an experiment, during this session, even while the standing committee on procedure is considering the matter, to allocate some of the opposition days during which the estimates of several departments might be examined. Hon. members to my left, as well as members of the Creditiste party, might agree to co-operate, and maybe one or two government days could be made available for this purpose.
The committee on procedure would then have an opportunity to examine the experiment actually in progress and be in a better position to bring proposals back to the House. The government has nothing to lose by accepting a proposition of this kind. It might be a useful way of coming to grips with this question. I agree with the minister that there has been a good deal of misunderstanding shown in the media and elsewhere as to the manner in which the present rules apply. Among the most important functions of this House is the granting of supplies of money to government to enable it to carry out its programs and operations. It is at this point that the right of the opposition to voice grievances and seek redress is available to hon. members. But these opposition days upon which such grievances can be raised are not chosen by us. They are granted by the government. The government has every right to say to us: You will take this day, or that day. It is true that the minister has done his best to be accommodating, but the government has the right to
Standing Orders and Procedure
say to the opposition: These are the days on which you will bring forward your motions.
The problem too often arises that on those particular days reports are not yet forthcoming from committees examining the estimates. For example, the estimates are just going before the committees, now. It might well be that intelligent and hard working opposition members will ascertain, having followed the evidence and crossexamination of witnesses in those committees, that there are certain aspects of the estimates which might well be the subject of an opposition day. But this is not an opportunity which is presented to us at the present time. One of the steps which might be taken is this: the days might be fixed by the government in consultation with the opposition so that at least we should be able, from time to time, to indicate much more strongly than at present that we have certain views of our own as to what days should be selected.
We moved a motion last Monday and we moved a motion yesterday, not necessarily because we wanted those particular days but because those days had been chosen by the government. The choice of subject matter was ours, of course. When the Minister of Finance was dealing with the motion yesterday he was, in my opinion, guilty of the most nauseating and juvenile hypocrisy when he suggested we were taking up the time of the House improperly by dealing with the motion and, in effect, preventing the House from attending to other matters.
Mr. Speaker, we were debating that motion yesterday because the government had directed that yesterday was a day upon which we would be able to bring down a motion on an opposition day. The reason is plain. Two or three days ago the government introduced supplementary estimates. Those estimates must be passed by the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates and reported to the House. Only after this has been done can there be an appropriation bill voting supply to the government. Considering the course on which we are now launched, this cannot be done until the last of the seven opposition days has gone by. So the government must ensure that those seven days are taken before the end of March, perhaps even earlier than March 26, if my recollection is correct, bearing in mind that the appropriation bill must go to the Senate, and one never knows how long the other place will take to consider a bill dealing with estimates.
I will go further. Let us admit it, on many of the opposition days when motions have been put down which do not involve the question of confidence, no matter how entertaining the subject matter, no matter how effective the debate, no matter what status is enjoyed by the hon. members who participate, by the time three speeches have been made all interest peters out. There have been one or two exceptions, but that is our experience. Interest falls off, not only among those whose duty it is, or should be, to report these proceedings, but among many hon. members as well.
I should like to suggest to the committee on procedure that consideration is given to making it possible for there to be a vote at the end of each of the opposition days. I do not suggest that each one of these will be a non-confidence motion. I am in definite agreement that there must be some limitation in that regard. But I do suggest that if

March 7, 1973
Standing Orders and Procedure there were to be a vote with respect to each of these opposition days, it would permit all members-that is, all members genuinely in opposition to the government-to bring down motions and compel the House to divide on the issue.
As I have pointed out, this need not involve the question of confidence. It may well be that some of them will be passed. However, I think it would present an opportunity that does not exist now and would raise these opposition days' discussions to a level they do not possess at the present time. I realize there are some practical difficulties, but it would do a lot to improve interest. I hope the committee will look at that issue.
Another issue is one we have discussed in the House but which has never erupted openly. I refer to what we in this party assert is the sole prerogative of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, namely, to introduce motions of non-confidence. This results from the procedure which was adopted on supply days. If there is to be a motion of non-confidence, I submit with respect it is the prerogative of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to so move. This leaves the other opposition parties quite free to move amendments. This was the procedure adopted when we had supply motions and it worked very effectively and was satisfactory to all parties. I hope that the committee on procedure will take a look at this matter as well.
The matter of supply relates directly to problems that have been experienced in the operation of the committees. The minister recognized this during the course of his speech and some of my colleagues will have more to say on the matter. There is no doubt at all that our experiences over the last few years have not been happy ones. For example, there are questions such as the size of committees, the number of members and committees, the chairmanship of committees, areas of responsibility, the right to make reports, the right of debating and dealing with reports, and the opportunity to come to a firm decision in the House on such reports rather than have them expire on the order paper as is now the case.
Once a motion to adopt a report has been debated for one day, it becomes a government order and it is only at the option of the government that it can be revived. This is a highly unsatisfactory system, one that is most frustrating to members who have a keen interest in the subject matter. I think it should not be possible for the government to frustrate and to deprive the members of the House who have served on the committee in question of the chance to have the House debate the committee report to a conclusion so a decision may be arrived at.
I should like to make a strong suggestion regarding a new facet of the committee system. I would suggest that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization collaborate with the Joint Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments with a view to building up a jurisprudence for the operation of that committee. In my opinion, this joint committee could well become, depending upon the wisdom of the members who compose the committee from both places, the chairmanship of the committee and the tolerance of and assistance

given by members of this House and the other place, the most important committee in this parliament.
However, some rules will have to be laid down, and probably introduced into the Standing Orders of this House and of the other place, permitting the joint committee once it gets underway to bring into the House for debate from time to time some of its reports, views and recommendations regarding its review of government by order in council and decree. There will have to be some way by which parliament, and certainly this House, can under certain circumstances have a power of review, with even a power of amendment if necessary and of disallowance where it has been established that there have been abuses by government when it proceeds to govern by way of decree, order in council and regulation.
I should now like to make a few proposals regarding the rights of private members. I do not think there is any doubt that there is a great deal of frustration and unhappiness on the part of private members, particularly the new members, with regard to the limited extent that they are able to debate to the point of decision in the House measures and proposals that they put forward in the form of private members' public bills or notices of motions. I say this recognizing, of course, that there must always rest with the government in the main the right to initiate legislative and spending proposals.
Under the constitution and in accordance with the practice that has been built up in this House, we have the safeguard that no member of the House other than a minister of the Crown can introduce measures which have any monetary consequences. In order to comply with the constitution and the practice of the House, there must be a recommendation by the Crown in this regard. So I suggest there would be no harm done if private members' public bills were allowed to come to a decision. The difficulty is, of course, as the minister said, finding the time. I suggest we can find means to permit, at least in some number, private members' public bills being debated to the point of decision. I think we should get away from the involuntary hypocrisy, the frustration and fraud that exists in the House today-through no one's fault- because of the practices that have been built up.
I think this can be done in such a way as not to deprive the government of the time it requires to transact government business. My view has been, at least over the last two years, that taking the hour between 5 and 6 p.m. for private members' business often results in a loss of time. I can think of innumerable occasions when the House was debating a government measure, every opportunity for debate had about been exhausted, and where I am convinced that had the debate continued until six o'clock it would have been concluded and the question put or the bill passed without question.
I suggest that the committee give some consideration to retaining the hour between five and six o'clock for government business and that private members' hour be taken either from 7.30 to nine o'clock or from 9.30 to 11 p.m., giving an hour and a half instead of the hour as at present. I must say at this point that I think there has to be some kind of limitation on the number of private members' public bills that are in fact introduced. I am not going to deal with this arbitrarily or lay down any specific
March 7, 1973

number, but I do think that this business of one member putting down 30, 40 or 50 bills in the hope that he may-


Mr. Lefebvre:: There is already an agreement on that matter.


Gerald William Baldwin: I recognize that, but I should also like to see in the rules some limit placed on the number of bills. Then I propose that there be a ballot for, say, 20 bills. Or better still, we could follow the British and, I think, the Australian practice and have a ballot for 20 members. Those who were successful in the draw would receive a certain priority on the clear understanding, through a change in the Standing Orders, that the bills that they see fit to introduce would, within the one and a half hour period devoted to private members' public business, be brought to a clear decision. All questions would have to be put within that hour and a half so that second reading would be completed.
I now go beyond that, Mr. Speaker. I would assume that these bills would go to a committee where some would fall by the wayside. I would not expect that those 20 bills would pass the acid test of committee approval. A fair guess would be that ten might emerge from the committee. Then ten days should be provided for another draw when the private members' public bills which were completed in the committee would be brought into the House for report stage and third reading.
This would mean that over the course of the average parliament of four sessions, we might well see anywhere from 20 to 35 private members' public bills pass this House at all stages. I do not know what would happen to them in the other place. I have every reason to believe this would be of great inspiration and would do a great deal, not only for private members but for the people in the country who delegate their members to bring forward certain issues in an attempt to obtain remedial legislation. No one would suffer and the government would lose no time, as I have worked this out. Some hon. members would be compelled to sit additional hours from time to time. I do not suggest this should be every day, but I put it forward in the hope that the committee will look at my suggestion.
I am going to direct my attention now to one more question before I sit down. In doing so, I am not in any sense underrating the other issues which have been referred to in the terms of reference. Other hon. members will deal with them. I would point out that there is available, through the courtesy of the Chair, a direction in the terms of reference, if one goes behind it, to the time and place in Hansard where these issues were discussed. That is a starting point when the committee considers these other issues.
I want to deal with the question of reasoned amendments. I am particularly concerned about this, because of the nature and the type of legislation which is now brought forward by governments. In the earlier days, when the precedents in respect of reasoned amendments were laid down, an examination of the kind of bill then brought forward would show a rather simple measure with a clearly defined principle, in this country and else-
Standing Orders and Procedure
where, and it was easy to say that this was the principle involved, have a debate on second reading and when the legislature passed or rejected the measure it was dealing with a clearcut and discernible principle. That is not the case today. Today, virtually all legislative bills are composite and deal with a number of subject matters which are complex and frequently highly technical in nature. Virtually all include very large regulation-granting sections. It is just impossible to say in respect of most of these bills that there is only one principle involved.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House, because one need only go down the index of statutes to see the kind of legislation that is deemed necessary today to introduce to this House. For that reason I have sought, together with some of my colleagues in all opposition parties, over the last few years to move the type of reasoned amendment which would permit a division in the House on second reading beyond the simple yea or nay limitation which is now being inflicted upon us, the motion for six months' hoist or the other motion which can be moved in referring the subject matter to a committee.
I am sure it will not have escaped the attention of the Chair, as it has not escaped my attention and the attention of my colleagues in all opposition parties, that this has been done and that the Chair has so far both determinedly and successfully been able to resist our efforts to put forward reasoned amendments of the type frequently accepted in the United Kingdom. Yet the anomaly, Mr. Speaker, is that the precedents in Erskine May's which have been preserved and brought forward into Beau-chesne's are precisely the same precedents which today exist in England.
I have put on the record here on a number of occasions a dozen or more illustrations of amendments of the type which have been moved and accepted in the United Kingdom, yet attempts to move similar motions here have been rejected. Frequently the government has resorted to what I call the nit-picking rule. I say with regret that such arguments have been too often accepted by the Chair in rejecting these amendments.
The plain fact is that many bills introduced in this House deal with a number of subjects and in many instances we accept particular parts as being proposals that are necessary, essential and good for the country, our constituencies and the economy; but the bills often contain other measures which are repugnant, do nothing for the country and to which we object. What is the House to do on second reading, in that event? If we are limited to the simple procedures I have detailed to the House, we must accept or reject the entire bill. If we reject it, then we reject some proposals we find quite acceptable. If we accept it, we include in it certain proposals which we do not like and feel should not be included.
The reasoned amendments which are put in the United Kingdom so often-I have placed these on the record of this House-usually say that while accepting the principle, or the need to do certain things, the House rejects other aspects, philosophies or principles of the bill. These amendments are very simply worded and permit the House to have an interesting and informative debate on a particular issue, and they permit the opposition party or a

March 7, 1973
Standing Orders and Procedure member ot the government to compel the House to divide on the issue.
I would therefore ask the standing committee which will look into this matter very seriously to consider the question of reasoned amendments. There is just no way in which the House, asked to deal with the kind of detailed and complex legislative proposals which come before us, can cope with these on second reading. In fact, I should like to go further: I see no reason why we should not consider the proposition that second reading be limited only to reference to a committee. Why should there be a question of principle involved at all? Why not say second reading is merely the examination of a piece of legislation and an opportunity to debate it at first blush, with the only result being the passage of the motion and reference to the committee?
Under the procedures on the basis of which we operate today, it is only after a bill has gone to a standing committee, perhaps been amended, and comes back to the House for the report stage and third reading that this House sees the final form completely before it and completely exposed. At that time, of course, there is no escape and hon. members must divide on the issue if they see fit. I would suggest that the committee might very seriously consider recommending that second reading be relegated to a much less important phase of the legislative process than is the case today.
Before I leave that matter there is a related aspect which I should like to raise. It is probably not squarely within the terms of reference, but because we have had this dispute in a good humoured way between the Chair and hon. members it seems to me there should be some way in which the House might, where there is a continuing division of opinion between the Chair and hon. members, be provided an opportunity, without going through the process of recommendations from the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, to obtain the views of members of the House. By this I mean that the last substantive rule changes of any consequence were made in 1968, and we are now in the year 1973.
I would like to think that even if an election should intervene, the deliberations of this committee would be forwarded on to the committee which will be established in the next parliament. It may well be a year and a half from now before any rule changes have been recommended by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization and have become part of the operative conduct of this House. There is a very simple procedure which I would hope might be used. I want to make abundantly clear that I am not suggesting that we revert to the old practice of appeals to rulings of the Speaker. However, I believe there is a very simple way to make use of the device of a stated case. If we do not do this, I think there is a danger from the procedural aspect because the House might become locked in positions of absolute inflexibility, which is not a good thing.
If an issue should arise it might be that the Chair itself might direct a stated case. It may be that a minimum number of members would be required to give a reply, but the process of a stated case would be that the Chair

would state the facts, the statutes and the precedents which prompted the Chair to give a decision, and there would be limited debate. On that basis I think there would be a freshness and vitality in our proceedings which seem to be lacking at the present time. In this way there would be guidance to the Chair in respect of making decisions and giving rulings on this aspect.
This has been a limited contribution, although I am afraid it has been long as to time. This is one of the difficulties in this House. As the President of the Privy Council pointed out, there is so much to do and so little time in which to do it. The government might give consideration to the idea of a new calendar which would provide 15 months and 36 hours in each day.
I come now to a proposition I have previously put forward in this House. I agree with those who say that this is not a House of perfection. I would like to add that I hope it never will be. We are here to serve as a mirror for the hopes, aspirations, fears and anxieties of the people we represent. We are these people, warts and all, with their defects as well as their genius. Despite that, there is far more hope to be found in the House of Commons, with all its imperfections, comprised as it is of men and women who are in continuous and daily contact with the people in their constituencies in all parts of Canada, than in all the ivory palaces of the bureaucracy filled with the theoreticians, the bureaucrats, the schemers and the fixers.
The problem we face, as always, in so arranging our rules of conduct in this House with due regard to the adversary system is that our debates and our decisions will truly reflect the demands of the aggregate of all our constituents in Canada, for within them lies the true, ultimate political wisdom.


Mr. Jerome:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes.


James Alexander Jerome: Allowing that the considerations the hon. member has put forward in his brief intervention in this debate are valid considerations on behalf of opposition members, and allowing his suggestions in respect of expanding the privileges of opposition members when asking questions and in tabling amendments, as well as generally involving themselves in the proceedings of the House, and allowing for the fact that this would require an expansion of what already represents about 60 per cent of the time of the House being allowed to opposition members, would he feel that the committee might consider measures which would provide a counter-balancing reduction in other time and suggest the introduction of a new system of control over the time of debate on government measures?


Gerald William Baldwin: I would not agree to such a program. The hon. member is incorrect in the assumption he made. I think he did so deliberately. My proposal in respect of private members' hour would be such that in fact no time would be lost to the government. If the hon. member would examine what I said, he would see that it is simply a question of moving the time and perhaps providing a little extra time after ten o'clock. It did not involve a
March 7, 1973

reduction of the time the government presently has for government business.


Mr. Watson:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member accept another question?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes.


Ian Watson: The hon. member during his speech this afternoon said that this House should look at programs in depth, such as the UIC, LIP and problems like the James Bay development. Presumably when he was talking about the House he was also talking about the committees of this House. The other day I made a suggestion in the House that we adopt the automatic referral to committee of all annual reports of the various departments and of the Crown corporations as a practice. I should like to ask the hon. member through you, Sir, what his reaction to that kind of suggestion would be.


Gerald William Baldwin: I think it might well be a very good suggestion. I believe, in fact, that with certain safeguards it would probably be very useful. Certain matters could be presented before a committee at a much earlier stage than might otherwise be the case. I wish to correct the hon. member in respect of one statement he made concerning what I said about such things as the UIC, and so on.
My fear is that the government, by taking control of issues of this kind, could deprive parliament of the chance to deal with them and that therefore the democratic process would be pushed to a very dangerous stage. The great difficulty today in respect of the legislative process is that if one examines the statute books of this country, one will find that 60 per cent or 70 per cent of the statutes are amendments. The trouble-I think this applies to all provincial governments as well-is that there is incompetence, inability in respect of drafting amendments and an unwillingness to take into account legislative programs and spending proposals. This is what besets us today. Governments which are unable to contemplate these things and take unto themselves this power really place the democratic process in a very difficult position. That is the point I was trying to make.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some trepidation this afternoon following such distinguished hon. members as the two House leaders who preceded me. I cannot rival them in experience and I certainly cannot rival them in eloquence. In addition, according to the rules of this House I cannot even rival them in length of time. I do not wish to detract from the contribution they made by mentioning the length of time they spoke, because I believe the information presented to us by the government House leader and the suggestions presented to us by the House leader of the Official Opposition will be of considerable use to the committee when it examines the procedures and organization of the House.
My party welcomes this opportunity to discuss procedure and organization. It is entirely appropriate that at least once in a parliament this House should take the time to examine its method of operation with a view to ensuring that we are capable of so ordering our business and
Standing Orders and Procedure
our time that we are able to discharge our duty to the Canadian electorate with the greatest possible efficiency and effectiveness.
I use the word "efficiency" with some reluctance because all too often critics of parliament tend to base their assessment of its efficiency upon criteria which are better suited to time, speed and motion studies in industry than to a legislative body. Parliament should not be viewed as some kind of legislative assembly line producing bill after bill and the only judgment made upon its efficiency being the time it takes to complete the process. Rather, parliament's efficiency in terms of legislation should be judged upon the degree to which opportunity is given for the various views within the country to be expressed and considered, the degree to which items before the House relate to the needs and desires of the people of the country, needs and desires both real and imagined, and the degree to which the resulting legislation satisfies those needs and desires.
I would hope that in its re-examination of our rules and procedures, the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization will take considerable pains to ensure that its work is based upon a realistic assessment of the current role of individual members and a realistic appraisal of what we can legitimately expect the legislative assembly to accomplish in today's positive state, rather than upon theoretical expressions of the role of the legislature and its members or upon a nostalgic desire to return to the good old days or to some golden age of parliamentary democracy which probably has never existed in any case.
Traditionally, the role of the legislature has been to devise laws for the governing of the country, to decide upon means of raising the revenue necessary to implement those laws, and to supervise expenditure in order to ensure that money is spent in a way desired by the legislature. Traditionally, also, the legislature was to provide a means of redress of grievance for citizens adversely affected by the state.
In a modern state, because of the multiplicity of its interests and the highly technical considerations involved in meeting those interests, initiative in three of the four areas mentioned above-legislation, taxation and supervision of expenditures-has gravitated almost naturally into the hands of the executive, the cabinet and the bureaucracy which serves it. I doubt very much that we could operate effectively as government were the situation otherwise. Thus, a realistic assessment of the potentiality of the legislature would seem to be that it be able to offer advice to the executive in each of these three areas- legislation, taxation and supervision of expenditures- advice which would, hopefully, be listened to by the government, and that in addition the legislature be able to effectively hold the government accountable for governmental action.
It is in this sense of accountability that I believe parliament should exert its control of the executive. Bernard Crick in his book "The Reform of Parliament" had this to say about parliamentary control:
The only meanings of parliamentary control worth considering, and worth the House spending much of its time on are those which do not threaten the parliamentary defeat of a government, but

March 7, 1973
Standing Orders and Procedure
which help to keep it responsive to the underlying currents and the more important drifts of public opinion. All others are purely antiquarian shufflings. It is wholly legitimate for any modern government to do what it needs to guard against parliamentary defeat; but it is not legitimate for it to hinder parliament, particularly the opposition, from reaching the public ears effectively as it can. Governments must govern in the expectation that they can serve out their statutory period of office, that they can plan-if they choose-at least that far ahead, but that everything they do may be exposed to the light of day and that everything they say may be challenged in circumstances designed to make criticism as authoritative, informed and as public as possible.
Thus, I would like to assert that in looking over rules and procedures in the House the standing committee should dedicate its efforts to ensuring that parliamentary control of the sort mentioned by Bernard Crick in that passage is possible. Similar considerations apply to the individual member. His traditional role was to devise policy for the government of the country, to decide upon means of raising revenue and to supervise expenditures. Those were considered to be his major duties and they were expected to occupy the bulk of his time in this institution.
Therefore, the procedures and the organization and the services provided to members were designed to assist them in fulfilling those specific roles. Moreover, the services, organization and procedures were to a large extent determined in a period when the House dealt with matters lacking the complexity of the issues with which the House is obliged to deal today. The role of the member has changed. More and more of the member's time is devoted to assisting individual constituents with their problems, and this fact must be acknowledged when changes in services and rules of procedure and organization are contemplated by the standing committee.
With that sort of general approach as background to my remarks, I would like to offer some fairly precisely defined suggestions for the consideration of the standing committee, suggestions which I believe would greatly assist this chamber and its individual members effectively to discharge their duties as currently defined by practice rather than theory.
First, following the line taken by the two previous speakers, I should like to take some time to look at the question period which is one of the greatest causes of frustration to all members of the House, I might add, especially to backbench members. This situation is extremely unfortunate because the question period is potentially one of the most effective means of exercising control over executive actions in the sense of bringing them to the light of day; it is also one of the most effective potential methods of securing redress of grievances.
It is my impression that over the past number of years the question period has developed into an occasion for a mini-debate which is invariably dominated by the front-bench members of all parties. It is no longer an occasion for eliciting information from the government or drawing to the attention of the government the adverse effects of their policies and the shortcomings in their administration of those policies on a broad range of issues.
Beyond that, the question period should be a much more effective vehicle than it is now for drawing to the attention of the government matters of national policy and the results of national policy which are of concern to

individual members and their constituents. It is in this regard, with a view to increasing the number of potential participants in each question period and to increasing the variety of issues which might be raised in the House in any question period, that I would strongly urge the standing committee to give serious consideration to discovering a means of permitting Mr. Speaker to limit the number of supplementary questions permitted an individual member and the number of supplementary questions permitted on any given topic on any given day.
Another current cause of frustration for backbench members arising out of the current method of organizing our question period is that many questions are taken as notice by ministers. This is an entirely acceptable procedure, but its difficulty is that in order to ultimately obtain an answer to the question put, the member must utilize another occasion on which he must be successful in catching Mr. Speaker's eye to again pose the same question. In circumstances where the member cannot legitimately expect to catch Mr. Speaker's eye more than once or twice a week, if that, and where he may be interested in a good many more subjects than the one involved in his original question, he must forgo the opportunity to demonstrate his interest in additional areas of concern if he is to obtain an answer to the question asked in the first instance.
I would strongly urge that the practice be adopted of placing on the order paper any question taken as notice by a minister. It should be placed on the order paper as a starred question, and such starred questions should be considered as additional to the three starred questions which currently each hon. member, at any given time, is permitted to place on the order paper. Such a practice would ensure that members would obtain an answer without having to ask the same question repeatedly, and at the same time it would avoid the kind of problem which Mr. Speaker encounters when a minister, after answering a question, launches into a reply to another question asked several days previously, using the preface, "While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker-". I will not go further into the question period at this stage.
In the final analysis, the success of the question period depends on the wisdom and forebearance of the members of the House. It also depends upon their courtesy. One of the greatest handicaps to the question period being effective is the practice that is employed by a considerable number of members in all parties, raising spurious points of order and spurious points of privilege as vehicles for asking more supplementaries, or of raising another matter, all to the disadvantage of other members of the House. We need to be self-regulating in that regard. I would strongly urge the standing committee to study seriously the two specific suggestions which I have made.
Is is only slightly overdrawing the case to say that within the last 125 years we have gone full circle from legislatures being relatively weak advisers to and opposition for government to full legislative control and responsibility, and back again to the situation where a legislature is in fact of only peripheral importance in the governing of the nation.
March 7, 1973

Parliament stands in danger of becoming, as has the monarchy, a largely honorific element in the constitution. I make these remarks in no partisan sense. What has happened in Canada is happening throughout the world. The decline of the power of parliament in relation to the cabinet and to the first minister has been allowed to proceed as far as it has, in part because the process was neither the result of stated policy nor, for the most part, of conscious effort. The change is, rather, the result of innumerable individual decisions made on a pragmatic basis over a long period of time and as a consequence of two major developments-the growth in the scope of responsibility of the modern state and the marked strengthening of party discipline which has taken place since confederation.
Whatever the reasons for the change, whatever the reasons for the phenomenon of the decline in power of the legislative arm of government in relation to the executive arm, it is absolutely necessary for us to use every means at our disposal to attempt to halt the trend, if not reverse it. I make this assertion, not because of some antiquarian concern for the dignity of the House but, rather, because the more power becomes concentrated, the less responsive is the government to the felt needs of the people. I have no doubt that this very concentration of power is producing the current, entirely legitimate demands for "people power" in democratic states and is producing, as well, some of the less savoury aspects of that movement.
It is within this context that I wish to discuss some suggestions for change in our current committee system, which I hope will be considered by the standing committee, because I see the committee system as having the greatest immediate potential for beginning the process of re-establishing, in fact, the control of the executive by the legislature or, to put it another way, of ensuring the responsibility and accountability of the cabinet to parliament. Our present committee system was set up in 1965 on a trial basis and was given formal approval by the House in December, 1968. The committee system, I think I can assert without fear of contradiction, has not worked quite as we had hoped it would. I think I can also assert without fear of contradiction that the time has come to give it a thorough re-examination. In establishing the committee system, parliament gave up a number of its more effective controls over executive powers, such as the study of estimates in committee of the whole, at which time grievances could be raised with the government with some effect. We have lost that control and the committee system has not replaced it with another equally effective method of control.
Parliament's power to supervise has declined because of the increasing demands being made on its time, and because its members are representative men and women best equipped to deal with general principles, broad objectives and fundamental issues. It is not a technical body. When it comes to dealing with technical legislation there exists a substantial information gap between the private member and the cabinet minister. Cabinet ministers can draw upon the talents and resources of the legions of public service experts, which the cabinet controls, for necessary information in any field. With rare exceptions, such as the audit office, parliament can call upon no such able assistance. The result is that debates in
Standing Orders and Procedure
the House tend to be rather unequal and the ability of parliament to assess adequately and scrutinize every government action is severely reduced.
Committees would have the potential to remedy this situation if their memberships were more stable. I believe this is something to which the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) referred. In other words, if Members of Parliament remained on a given committee for a longer period of time, were not shuffled about so frequently, and if there were periodic adjournments of the House for the purpose of enabling committees to do their work, they could help remedy this situation. With respect to periodic adjournments of the House in order to allocate time to committee work, a number of different systems have been suggested. I will not go into them now, Mr. Speaker. They are known to the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. I simply content myself with saying the committee would be well advised to seek the most satisfactory means of providing committees with the time they need to do their work properly without the interference of other duties, such as attendance in this chamber.
It is with the same end in view, that of enhancing the ability of committees to reduce the information gap between parliament and government, that I would recommend that committees be provided with adequate staff support. I refer especially to research staff who would possess the expert knowledge necessary to assist Members of Parliament in preparing themselves for their various committee duties. The value of such staff has been made manifestly obvious in the case of external affairs and national defence by the work of Mr. Peter Dobel and the parliamentary research centre. I would strongly urge the standing committee to examine the relationship of Mr. Dobel to that particular committee with a view to seeing if similar principles could be applied to other committees of the House.
There is a problem in deciding whether such staff should be permanent of rotating, assigned to a single committee or moved from committee to committee as required, whether the research staff should be the creature of the House or whether it should be of a semiautonomous nature as is the case with the parliamentary research centre. I tend to opt for a permanent staff with some degree of autonomy, but the point is that able research staff is urgently required by committees. That is the point I wish to establish at this time, and I hope the standing committee will examine it during its deliberations.
A related suggestion is that a standing committee be permitted, as a matter of course, to act as a committee of inquiry. For example, I see no reason why the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in the situation now confronting the nation, should not find it to be a normal part of its duties to inquire into the relationship between inflation and unemployment, or into the possible effects of the American DISC program upon our economy and, accordingly, make appropriate policy recommendations in these fields. Such a development would have two major beneficial effects, the first of better equipping parliament to assess government policy decisions in these areas by having committees engage in fun-

March 7, 1973
Standing Orders and Procedure damental research work and, secondly, of providing government with the advice of Members of Parliament who, while they might not possess in all cases, in fact usually never possess, the same technical competence as the government's expert advisers, can present their advice from the point of view of persons representing constituents, persons who must be responsible to the electorate.
There would be no necessity, in keeping with the traditions of the parliamentary system, for a government to implement policy recommendations presented by a committee. But at least the committee should have the power to make suggestions to the government, and the government should present some response to the committee. That does not happen at the moment.
We must also seek ways and means to make it impossible for a government to ignore the recommendations of a committee. To this end, the standing committee should give consideration to the proposition that it should be made mandatory for a motion of concurrence to be moved in connection with all committee reports and that such a motion shall be deemed to be debatable. This would provide two salutory effects: first, the recommendations of the committee would be aired in public; second, if concurrence were granted, the government would be forced to explain its reasons for failing to act upon a recommendation of the committee. It would have to pay more attention to what the committee did.
Obviously, this suggestion poses problems with regard to the time of the House. Some means would have to be discovered for limiting debate. Perhaps a Standing Order could provide that only a certain number of reports could be debated in a session or, more likely, an over-all time limit for such debates could be established and the opposition given the choice of which reports to debate within that time. Perhaps more allotted days could be granted, with the express purpose of such debates in mind. Once again, Mr. Speaker, the actual technique decided upon does not concern me at this stage so much as the principle. I am willing to trust the wisdom of the standing committee and let it go into the details as to how such a device might be established. However, I think it is necessary.
I also wish to suggest that in order to strengthen the impact of committee reports, committees be required to prepare at the end of each session a running record, covering previous sessions as well, of the recommendations it has made to the government and the action the government has taken on those recommendations. Such a record could be a powerful weapon in the hands of individual Members of Parliament determined to make the government take some account of the work done in committees. If, for example, over a period a committee made 27 recommendations and the government did not do anything about them, the government's failure to act could be devastating ammunition in the hands of opposition members.
The idea is not original. It is derived from the practice of the British public accounts committee which each year prepares an epitome of proposals. It is also the practice in Westminster that after a committee makes a recommen-

dation the ministry, not long after, provides that committee with a response to that recommendation. In addition, the committee is informed of any action that the minister might take on the recommendation, if it has merit. If it has no merit, the committee is told why it has not. I think that sort of requirement in our committee system might be of considerable value.
I also suggest, in speaking of the committee system, that minority reports should be permitted to be tabled along with majority reports from committees. It seems to me that democracy not only means majority rule but also respect for minority opinions. It is simply not good enough to say that a member can always issue a press release or express his opinion in the House if he does not agree with a report which he has assisted in drawing up. Such ventures do not have equal weight with a formal, written document and tend to be transitory rather than part of the permanent record. If the education is a major role, or is of major importance, in the work of committees it would be valuable both to this House and to our population if minority opinions and reports were published in Votes and Proceedings along with majority opinions of committees.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That is done now with reports of royal commissions.


Douglas Charles Rowland: I suggest that committees be granted a greater degree of independence from government control and that they be allowed an initiative in matters referred to them by the House. I have in mind that committees be allowed to present a resolution to the House suggesting a subject matter for committees to examine, rather than being forced to wait upon the government for action to be taken as is frequently the case. I think this procedure would overcome the argument that such initiatives on the part of committees would tend to obscure the fact that they are and should be subordinate to the House, because the House would determine the fate of the committee requests. The House can always turn down the request of a committee for a matter to be investigated.
May I make a few further very brief submissions about the organization of the committee system. I believe that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization should look into the manner in which committee chairmen are selected and assigned. I think we should examine the possibility of adopting the British system in which committee chairmen are appointed either from the opposition or from the government. Also, I think we should examine the possibility of our having a panel of chairmen who might move from committee to committee. They would be members who are schooled in the rules. Committees might operate more effectively and efficiently under trained chairmen. Let us look at these ideas when examining our organization and procedure.
Leaving committees, I wish to say just a few words about the form in which legislation is presented to this House. In order to save time may I say, with respect to reasoned amendments, that I support the remarks by the hon. member for Peace River. More specifically, I wish to draw the attention of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to what seemed for a time to have become standard practice on the part of the government,
March 7, 1973

that of introducing omnibus bills, a practice about which Mr. Speaker has expressed great reservations on several occasions.
In order to illustrate my point and to show that this practice should be halted, may I refer to a bill introduced in the previous parliament, the government organization bill. When that bill was presented to the House we were asked, in considering it, to pass judgment on no less than nine different subject matters and on at least five, perhaps more, matters of principle with only one vote. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), speaking in the second reading debate on that bill, summarized the situation as follows, as reported at page 2760 of Hansard for January 26, 1971:
To recapitulate in a slightly different way, we are being asked to create a new department; we are being asked to vary administrative duties of some existing departments; we are being asked to create ministers of the Crown who will formulate and develop government policy and, as well as providing for these salaried ministers, we are being asked to provide for additional salaried parliamentary secretaries. Distinct from those matters, we are also asked to vote yea or nay, without hearing witnesses, on behalf of those affected on the question of the retirement rights and obligations of public servants.
Steven Leacock once described this as a place where "men come together merely to hear the latest legislation and indulge in cheers, sighs, groans, votes and other expressions of vitality." I expect parliament often fits that description. But despite that, it serves the useful function of helping to focus public attention on matters of concern and of defining and delineating the considerations involved. In so doing, parliament aids the public in coming to intelligent conclusions about the actions of government and helps individual members of the public to decide their own position on questions of importance. This whole process, so key to the effective functioning of a democratic state, is injured and perhaps even dies when the issues before parliament become unfocused and blurred about the edges, as happens when the manner in which they are presented lacks clarity and precision. Nothing could obscure issues more than bringing before this House omnibus bills.
Under a majority government-I am not speaking of minority governments-with the well established pattern of voting solidly by party, votes in parliament are virtually meaningless and useless as a means of effecting parliamentary control. What is important in the functioning of parliament is that there be opportunity for discussions. What is important in the functioning of parliament is the quality of the discussion conducted. What is important in the functioning of parliament is that discussion be focused. How, in heaven's name, can discussion be focused when a bill includes as many as five different matters of principle? How are the gentlemen in the press gallery to follow the theme of a debate which may bounce from pollution, in the case of the government organization bill, to ministers' salaries, pensions, parliamentary secretaries, to the Post Office and back again? How, as a consequence, is the public supposed to form any opinion except that this House is in a hopeless mess.
These are some of the suggestions which I wish to present for the consideration of the House and, more specifically, to the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. I hope that they will be
Standing Orders and Procedure
looked at closely. I have not said anything about supply procedures since I think most of the relevant considerations were mentioned by the two previous speakers. I shall finish now as I want to leave time for the representative of the Social Credit party to speak.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I was eagerly waiting for the opportunity to take part in this debate on procedure and organization regarding the business of the House, in view of the fact that we are a third party but nevertheless belong here. Now, in most cases, Standing Orders which, as we know, were made several years ago, provide for only two parties, not four.
That is why consultations between House leaders have expanded in the last few years ago in order to make more flexible the two-party system, to enable the New Democratic Party, ours or any other to participate in the proceedings to a greater extent and to have their say in regulating the business of the House.
I am honoured to do this job which gives me the opportunity of finding a lot of small details in the Standing Orders-and sometimes important problems-which are such that our business is not always as efficient as you and we would wish.
Since this House represents the people of Canada, it must reflect in the course of its business what Canadians are expecting from us. They expect that the House business will have efficient results and enable hon. members to take a real part in the proceedings. The present provisions of the Standing Orders and the procedure being so complex, an hon. member who would like to represent his constituents adequately cannot always do so.
Given our minority government, one can see that the procedure has been more flexible and has let to better results. One can see as well that there has been at least twice as much consultation between parties as before. Therefore, I wonder why under a majority government and with the same Standing Orders we do not get the same results, there is less consultation and democracy in this House.
Does that mean that the procedure is here to serve the interests of one specific political party? Should the procedure not serve rather the interests of each hon. member at any time, regardless of the number of members in such or such party, and enable him to express himself, whether the government has a majority or not?
I will get the answer that because of the interests of the people there is obviously a need because of the minority government for further discussions, further consultations, further consideration of the views of all hon. members. I would say to that that it is abnormal for a minority government to serve the interest of the people better than a majority government. I think that both should serve the people equally since it is the express wish of the people to elect either a majority or minority government. This is why in both cases the people should have a right to expect efficiency on the part of hon. members.
Mr. Speaker, my general remarks address themselves to the motion introduced today by the President of the Privy

March 7, 1973
Standing Orders and Procedure Council (Mr. MacEachen) to refer to the Committee on Procedure and Organization the 60 or 80 recommendations that you yourself suggested very cleverly during the two last Parliaments and to also have a study made of the various criticisms that hon. members had to make on the subject of procedure so as to make it more contemporary and efficient. That is why I support this motion which will enable us to improve procedure.
I think that the motion currently before the House provides the Committee on Procedure and Organization with broad enough terms of reference so that there is enough reason to hope for a thorough reform of our Standing Orders as well as the procedure of the House and its committees; at more or less regular intervals the House of Commons usually revises its rules and procedures to make them more efficient and accelerate its proceedings and debates.
Several hon. members complain-rightly I am sure- about several aspects of parliamentary business. The major problem is undoubtedly the question period which has become a real cause of frustration for most hon. members as well as the Chair.
When I say it is frustrating for most hon. members, I am not referring to front benchers, but to the very great majority of back benchers, if not all, whose only hope lies in the notorious supplementary question. If hon. members could not fall back on supplementary questions and if they were ruled out on a trial basis, let's say for a week, keeping to the same system, it would be seen that front benchers, willing or unwilling, would then have to give back benchers a chance to put questions.
In my opinion, the Chair's problem, and ours, stems from abusive recourse to supplementary questions, and I shall return to that later.
The second problem I should like to bring to the attention to my colleagues is conflicting schedules. When standing committees and the House are in session simultaneously, an hon. member should be in the House, where he is in duty bound to be, and also in a parliamentary committee to which he has been duly convened. Since he is not gifted with ubiquity, this leads to vast problems for hon. members. I understand that discussions are under way between various parties in the House to establish a fair schedule allowing efficient functioning of both the House and the committees. However, Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether anything can be achieved by juggling schedules. I rather believe our schedules should indicate periods for committee work and periods for the proceedings of the House of Commons.
There is a third problem that I should like to bring to the attention of the House: it is the ridiculousness of setting aside an hour for private members to introduce bills or motions for papers when there is little or no chance of their proposals' receiving serious consideration.
As all hon. members know, at the beginning of the session, as long as the first 40 hours have not been taken up, an hour is set aside on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays for private members' business, while if the 40 hours have been used up, only two hours are set aside for that purpose.
[Mr. Fortin.l
On the other hand, it is clear from the items on the Order Paper that the volume of private members' business is increasing all the time; a way out of this situation will have to be found, not only so as to encourage private members to introduce bills or motions, but also so as to afford them some hope of getting them heard.
For my part, I have been proposing the same motion for five years, since I came to the House. The motion was finally debated in the fifth year, which is perfectly ridiculous, and shows once again that some members are justly frustrated by the excuse that they do not sit on the government benches. This is a blatant contradiction of the professions of democracy that are broadcast during election campaigns so as to win votes.
My fourth point is that when specific motions are introduced under Standing Order 43, requiring the unanimous consent of the House, they can be rejected by any member, without his identity having to be revealed.
According to Standing Order 26, if an hon. member raises a question of national emergency after giving notice to the Speaker, what happens? The Speaker then decides for himself whether the motion is of national urgency or not. In fact, the Speaker alone is responsible for deciding whether the motion is in order under Standing Order 26.
Therefore, I cannot see how it would be fair to allow hon. members to say "no" in an anonymous way, without anybody knowing who they are. Frankly, I think that, if the Speaker is called upon to decide whether a motion proposed under Standing Order 26 is in order, a member opposing a motion under Standing Order 43 should identify himself. I am sure nobody is going to agree with my proposal.
Mr. Speaker, this shows how ridiculous Standing Order 43 is. This rule has become for most members the only possibility to speak on a particular and important problem by way of a motion. Anyway, a solution will have to be found to the problem arising from Standing Order 43 because I am convinced that it will continue to bother the Chair, to delay the question period and yet to satisfy hon. members resorting to it since, otherwise, they would not be able to participate in the oral question period. And all this is due to Standing Orders 43 being abused.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to deal with the problem of committee business which has taken ever more significance, specially since 1970. In fact, since then the number of questions referred to the committees for study has been increasing. Consequently, the committee business has been slowing down, the agenda is so overloaded that sometimes we are completely confused. It has become extremely hard work and it should not be forgotten that the committees' working hours are in conflict with the House sittings. The committees' workload has grown heavier for the last few years. This was not bad as an experience but I also think that any procedure reform is somewhat experimental. Consequently, I wonder whether it would not be desirable that the committees seriously study the possibility of increasing the workload of the committee of the whole House instead of handling more work themselves. I do not mean that all questions should be referred to the committee of the whole House but surely it would be desirable that, when introducing its
March 7, 1973

bills, the government should decide which legislation will be studied in committee of the whole House. We should also study the possibility of using more the committee of the whole House which enables hon. members to work all the more meaningfully as they work publicly. In fact, they can discuss with ministers and with quite a few hon. members and this permits them to get information on questions with which they are not so familiar. Therefore, this is surely a thing which, to my mind, should be considered.
I would like now to talk briefly about the problem of written questions. I shall make but one remark on this, to say that the time it takes the government to answer questions on the order paper makes us wonder whether this has not become a practice or policy.
The questions on the Order Paper deal with extremely serious matters, Mr. Speaker. Under Standing Order 39- if I remember correctly-a practice has been strongly established thanks to the ability of the Chair, namely that when a member puts a question orally and that, in the opinion of Mr. Speaker, it is not obviously urgent, he may suggest to the member that the question be put on the Order Paper. Three months later, the member is still waiting for an answer. This is why, Mr. Speaker, delays in answering questions on the order paper are annoying the member and put him in a difficult position.
On the one hand, we do not want to challenge the Speaker's ruling-and I think that this is a good thing- and on the other hand, we must agree, at his request, to put the question on the Order Paper. Furthermore, there is no way we can demand a written answer to our question from the government. Consequently, I think that this is a serious shortcoming of Standing Orders and constitutes an interference with the member's right and privilege to obtain information as he is entitled to.
I will make the same remark about motions for papers. That matter has been raised today on a point of order. I refrained from making any comment in that connection, because I felt it would delay the proceedings and that the matter was being raised at the wrong time. Since it is now the right time, I will merely say, as far as motions for papers are concerned, that some 20 per cent are acceptable to the government and that at least 80 per cent are rejected. The very clever Standing Orders governing our proceedings-if you will allow me to say so, Mr. Speaker- then provides that such a matter may be transferred for debate. Now, when will the matter be discussed? Never! When two Sundays come in one week! Thus the member is frustrated and denied the right and privilege of obtaining some papers or specific statistics. The hon. member has no other choice but to write to the minister but even then, what with bureaucracy, he never sees the end of it.
That is why, I am anxious for the President of the Privy Council to reveal on the basis of what criteria motions for papers are accepted or rejected, that we might be able to judge whether they are truly honest, fair and equitable, and whether they, in fact, respect the rights and privileges of hon. members.
Mr. Speaker, I will come back to oral questions and to Standing Order 39(5). Since 1964, hon. members have had the privilege of being asked to put their questions on the Order Paper when their urgency is not obvious or when
Standing Orders and Procedure
they call for statistical data. That, to my mind, is an excellent rule, because it allows some control of the quality of the questions. In fact, if a question is not a matter of urgent public interest, it surely does not belong in the oral question period. I think this is an excellent practice.
However, I wonder why there should not be some kind of control or co-ordination on the subject of supplementary questions. I have discussed the matter of the oral question period with my Creditiste colleagues. This is one aspect we are surely going to delve into from beginning to end and we are not going to quit because this has become a highly ridiculous situation. To realize this, one only has to sit in the gallery and ask the people what they think of the oral question period.
When people leave this place, Mr. Speaker-and hon. members will forgive the expression because we are in a place where we faithfully express the views of our constituents-they think very often that it is a circus.
Mr. Speaker, I think that our fellow citizens who watch the question period are right. We suggest that we now have enough time, but that we make bad use of it. We make bad use of the 40 minutes. If we extend it to 80 minutes without changing the rules, we will not improve the situation.
It seems to me that the 40 minute period is long enough. However, there should be a fair division of time between opposition parties during the oral question period. There should be a first round with a maximum of two supplementary questions and then we could come back to allow more hon. members to participate in the question period.
There is nothing preventing us from coming back on the subject a second time.
We also discussed other subjects in this House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but as it is six o'clock we should adjourn now and resume this discussion on another day.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the business of the House. In view of the fact that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) has not yet completed his speech and there seemed to be one or two other contributions forthcoming, and since it is important to get this committee's work started as soon as possible, would the government House leader indicate if we could complete this matter within a brief period either tomorrow or no later than Friday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the suggestion of my hon. friend, I should like to call as the first order of business tomorrow the Old Age Security Act amendment. If that were completed early, we could deal with this particular motion until five or six o'clock. If we needed to go into private members' hour, that might be agreeable. I would be happy to call it tomorrow night, but unfortunately I do not expect to be in the House from eight to ten

March 7, 1973
Standing Orders and Procedure o'clock and I should not like the motion to be completed without my being here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this matter can be settled by negotiation through the usual channels. We should like to see the motion concluded with as little more debate as possible, but we do not want our dealing with it to interfere with getting the old age security bill past second reading.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on the old age security matter, I think it has already been indicated that in view of the importance of the matter we would be happy to have it go with dispatch to the committee, and perhaps both matters could be expedited in that way tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 6.03 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 8, 1973