1973-02-05

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce that Her Majesty the Queen has approved the continuance in office of the Right Hon. Roland Michener as Governor General of Canada until November 30, 1973 and that the Governor General has agreed to remain in office for this period. This is the second time that His Excellency has consented to remain in office for a further period and is an indication of the dedication he brings to the high responsibilities of this office.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada highly appreciate the eminent services that Mr. Michener has performed with the capable and gracious assistance of Mrs. Michener and that they will heartily welcome Her Majesty's consent to extend the Governor General's term of office.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the difficulties arising from the new regulations regarding air charter travel and the immediate effect upon the Canadian public. Inasmuch as the new advance booking charter regulations will have the net effect of making air charter travel more expensive, more difficult and discriminatory for large numbers of the travelling public, while at the same time failing to provide adequate safeguards for passenger funds, together with the prospect of driving a significant part of the air charter business out of the country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That the new regulations governing air charter travel be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications and that the committee be empowered to call as witnesses representatives of the airlines, the Canadian Transport Commission, members of the travelling public, officials of the Department
of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. lohn's West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask leave of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the widespread opposition to a 20-storey complex in St. John's, Newfoundland, of which Canadian National is to be the principal tenant, and of the transfer of Canadian National property to the St. John's Development Corporation. This property, owned by the Canadian National, should be publicly advertised, with tenders called for its purchase.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. He is now submitting argument in support of his motion. The hon. member cannot do that. According to the practice relating to Standing Order 43, the hon. member should indicate what the motion is that he proposes for the consideration of the House.


Walter C. Carter: I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to have the CN defer all future negotiations or actions in this case; that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport; and that all agreements, correspondence and related material be tabled in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's West?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.
936

February 5, 1973
Oil Supplies ENERGY


OIL SUPPLIES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I desire to introduce a motion arising out of the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in the House last Friday to the effect that he would welcome an opportunity to discuss the whole matter of the availability of oil supplies in Canada. We would not ask for a debate on this motion, and if the government wants to leave the matter open until tomorrow I would be glad to move it again then.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the annual report of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works for consideration and report.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We on this side would be prepared to agree to the motion if the House generally would agree to pass it without debate at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I will ascertain first whether there is unanimous consent. The motion proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands requires unanimous consent under Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be unanimity. I will therefore put the motion. Mr. Douglas seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moves:
That the annual report of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works for consideration and report.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-136, respecting Canada Flag Day.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Nels Edwin Nelson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to emphasize the unity of the Canadian nation and further, to commemorate the ideals of the Canadian Bill of Rights and of the late Right Hon. Lester Bowles Pearson.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Mather: What is the average sentence actually served by persons convicted of murder or of non capital murder and released from prison in Canada from 1961 to 1971?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Capital Murder (Death-Commuted)
Periods prior and subsequent to amendment to Parole Act Regulations- (January 4, 1968)
Jan. 1 1961	Jan. 4 1968
to	to
Jan. 3 1968	Dec. 31 1971
Average time served	 12 years	13.5 years'
'not included-1 man who served 39 years, 10 months and 17 days.
Non-Capital Murder (Life)
Average time served		6.2 years	7.8 years*
"average includes three juveniles sentenced to life for capital murder.


Mr. Coates: 1.	What has been the total increase in the investigation staff of the Unemployment Insurance Commission from January 1 to December 31,1972?
2.	Were all those retained recruited through the Public Service Commission and in every instance, were the positions in question advertised and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the estimated additional cost to the Unemployment Insurance Commission for the increased staff in the fiscal year 1972-73?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. The increase in investigation staff January 1 to December 31, 1972 is 133.
February 5, 1973

2.	All those retained were recruited under delegation from the Public Service Commission and all positions in question were advertised.
3.	The estimated additional cost in the fiscal year 197273 is $644,456.


Mr. Mather: What was the interest cost of the national debt on a per capita basis in (a) 1968 (b) 1971?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Since the Public Accounts of Canada are based on a fiscal year ending on March 31 of each year, it is not possible to derive the cost of the national debt on a per capita basis in any given calendar year. The gross interest and related costs of the national debt on a per capita basis for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1969, and March 31, 1972, were $70.64 and $92.23 respectively. A major portion of these costs arises from the government's role as a financial intermediary extending loans to Crown corporations, agencies and departmental loan programs. These activities generate a return on investments which is recorded as a budgetary receipt. Although not netted out against public debt charges, the return on investments may be considered as an offset to the gross cost of the national debt. The per capita costs of the national debt, net of the return on investments, for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1969, and March 31, 1972, were $37.46 and $40.22 respectively.


Mr. Coates: 1.	Has a decision been taken to establish computer centres for the Department of National Revenue, Customs Division and, if so, on what date was this decision made?
2.	(a) What towns or cities have been designated as the computer centres for the Customs Division in Canada (b) will the establishment of these centres require a transfer of present operations to these centres from existing facilities and, if so, what services will be transferred to the computer centres and in each instance, what will be the estimated transfer of employees from existing facilities to the computer centres?
3.	Will these computer centres be established in existing office accommodations in either federal buildings or leased space that presently exists or will there be new arrangements for the establishment of these centres and, if so, in each instance (a) have the arrangements been made (b) will the centres be located in federal buildings and, if not (i) have lease agreements already been entered into by the Department of National Revenue for rented space (ii) what is the additional cost in dollars annually for this leased space?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
Yes, for headquarters, on May 25, 1972.
2.	(a) Other than at headquarters, the following are tentative terminal locations: St. John's, Nfld.; Halifax, N.S.; Saint John, N.B.; Quebec, Que.; Sherbrooke, Que.; Lacolle, Que.; Montreal, Que.; Fort Erie, Ont.; Hamilton, Ont.; Kitchener, Ont.; London, Ont.; Niagara Falls, Ont.; Oshawa, Ont.; Ottawa, Ont.; Sarnia, Ont.; Windsor, Ont.; Toronto, Ont.; Winnipeg, Man.; Regina, Sask.; Calgary,
Order Paper Questions
Alta.; Edmonton, Alta.; Vancouver, B.C.; Pacific Highway, B.C.; Victoria, B.C.
2.	(b) No.
3.	The Revenue Collection Functional Centre computer equipment will be housed at the Taxation Data Centre in Ottawa in space that now exists for this purpose. It is planned to modify existing office accommodation to install the terminal equipment in the designated Customs Ports. The plans for the modifications are just commenced and no arrangements have yet been made.


Mr. Wise: What was the government's total expenditure on each of the Lake Erie harbours of Port Stanley and Port Burwell between the years of 1958 to 1964 inclusive and between the years 1965 to 1971 inclusive?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Year	Port Stanley	Port Burwell	Total1957-58	$ 178,194	$ 	$ 178,1941958-59	112,630	248,404	361,0341959-60	123,931	188,240	312,1711960-61	89,255	158,451	247,7061961-	62 1962-	63	77,401	101,641 43,187	179,042 43,1871963-64	78,612	35,578	114,190Sub Total	660,023	775,501	1,435,5241964-65	27,804	57,334	85,1381965-66	261,175	523,402	784,5771966-67	374,855	308,832	683,6871967-68	266,689	253,284	519,9731968-69	127,474	241,584	369,0581969-	70 1970-	71	1,973 152,992	69,458	71,431 152,992Sub Total	1,212,962	1,453,894	2,666,856Grand Total	1,872,985	2,229,395	4,102,380


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Public Works on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms or individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	What contracts for publicity and/or information were awarded in the current fiscal year, what are the names and addresses of contractees, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 1.
1968-69, $111,813; 1969-70, $134,495; 1970-71, $113,771; 197172, $161,259.

February 5, 1973
Order Paper Questions
2.	Nil. All publicity and/or information handled internally.
3.	Graphic Communications Inc., 6999 Cote des Neiges, Montreal, Quebec. Promotional, public relations and advertising program re- opening of Phase I, Place du Portage, Hull, $120,000. Due to the delay in opening brought about by the recent elevator strike the expenditure of this amount will be carried over to the 1973 fiscal year.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Science and Technology on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1968-69,1969-70, 1970-71,1971-72?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms or individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	What contracts for publicity and/or information were awarded in the current fiscal year; what are the names and addresses of contractees, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 not applicable as all expenses of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology up to March 31, 1972 were paid from Privy Council appropriations. 1. N/A.
2.	N/A.
3.	Achievements in Science and Technology Project. Mr. M. Schiff and M. J. M. Poliquin of the city of Ottawa were hired as supervisors and editors for the project, which was designed to employ summer students as journalistic researchers of Canadian achievements in the areas of Science and Technology. $6,964, $950; (b) Mr. B. Curley of the city of Ottawa was hired as a public relations officer to set up an information program related to the Ministry and the University Community. $15,000; (c) Mr. J. Fairchild and Mr. J. Belanger of the city of Ottawa were hired as a speech writer and media relations writer respectively on a short term basis. $4,460, $4,460; (d) Agreement with Presentation of Canada Ltd. Pd. $1,400. Public relations fee to introduce the government new policy of contracting out research and development to companies in the private sector.


Hon. Daniel I- MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. 1968-69, $19,003.31; 1969-70, $15,417.17; 1970-71, $7,150.39; 1971-72, $31,609.37.
2.	Petersen-Hulme Advertising, Toronto. 1968-69, $15,721.31; 1969-70, $4,120.17; 1970-71, $3,750.39; 1971-72, $24,161.37. The purpose of the Veterans Affairs advertising is, primarily, to inform Canadian veterans and other eligible persons of continuing benefits in the Veterans Charter legislation, and particularly of changes in those benefits; and also to support directly and indirectly the Veterans Affairs agencies and programs in the achievements of their objectives. John Doherty & Co., Public Relations, Ottawa: 1968-69, $3,282.00; 1969-70, $11,297.00; 1970-71, $3,400.00; 1971-72, $7,448.00. The purpose of the public relations contract is to provide assistance and advice to meet peak loads in the Public Relations Division. An example of a specific task in 1969-70 was to provide assistance and advice in connection with the publicity for the White Paper on Veterans Pensions.
3.	For the current fiscal year the Department has contracts with the same two firms mentioned above and for the same purposes. It is estimated that, for the current fiscal year, the amount which will be paid to Petersen-Hulme Advertising (now Hulme Advertising) will be $8,000 and to John Doherty & Co., $5,000.



INSTALLATION OF SEWAGE LINES AND TREATMENT


Mr. Forrestall: Is it the intention of the government to proceed under current arrangements with the Province of Nova Scotia for the installation of sewage lines and treatment facilities in Eastern Passage, Halifax County, Nova Scotia?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary of Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: The current Special Areas and Highways Agreement with the Province of Nova Scotia does not provide for the installation of sewage lines and treatment facilities to service the Eastern Passage area. The inclusion of such a project in a future agreement will depend essentially on provincial priorities. Discussions between the Department and provincial authorities about this matter are in progress.



DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS-PUBLIC RELATIONS PROGRAM

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Veterans Affairs on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms or individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	What contracts for publicity and/or information were awarded in the current fiscal year, what are the names and addresses of contractees, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?



TRANSPORT-ADDITIONAL CONTAINER PIER FACILITIES, PORT OF HALIFAX

Mr. Forrestall: When will a decision be made with respect to location of additional container pier facilities within the Port of Halifax?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
National Harbours Board advises as follows: It is anticipated that upon the accumulation and evaluation of all relevant data, a decision will be made in the course of 1973 as to the location of any additional container pier facilities that may be required in the Port of Halifax.
February 5, 1973



BRYDEN REPORT

Mr. Forrestall: Is it the intention of the government to release the Bryden Report and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President oi the Privy Council):: The Bryden Report was commissioned on the understanding that it was to be an internal, confidential document for the use of the Minister through whom the Public Service Staff Relations Board reports to parliament. It is for this reason that the Bryden Report has not been released. When the proposals relating to changes to be made in the Public Service Staff Relations Act are presented to the House, however, the government will then review the situation to determine whether it would be in the public interest to publish the report.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-&quot;MV ABEGWEIT&quot;

Mr. MacLean: 1.	What is the estimated remaining useful life of the MV Abegweit operating on the Borden, Prince Edward Island-Cape Tor-mentine, New Brunswick route?
2.	Has the Department of Transport a plan in being to replace this vessel with a new, similar ice-breaking, train-carrying ship and, if so (a) when is it planned that such a replacement should take place (b) has the replacement ship been designed (c) have tenders been called for its construction (d) what is the planned date for completion (e) what will be its carrying capacity for (i) automobiles (ii) railway cars?
Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister oi Transport): Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: 1. No precise date can be put on the useful life of this vessel.
2. Planning is currently underway for the total future needs of the P.E.I. ferry services and the question of replacing the MV Abegweit will be considered within this context.



TRANSPORT-&quot;MV JOHN HAMILTON GRAY&quot; FERRY

Mr. MacLean: At what date will the MV John Hamilton Gray be available for full-time, year-round ferry service on the Borden, Prince Edward Island-Cape Tormentine route?


Jean Marchand: It is
anticipated at present that the MV John Hamilton Gray will be required to assist in the summer passenger traffic on the Newfoundland service. Meanwhile, the MV Lucy Maud Montgomery has been moved to the Borden-Tormentine service, and the MV Prince Edward has been added to the Wood Islands-Caribou service, considerably increasing capacity overall.



DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE-NUMBER OF PERSONNEL

Mr. Knight: 1.	How many full-time employees are there currently in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce?
2.	How many of those employees are earning more than $18,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister oi Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Number of full-time employees in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as of December 31,1972, 2,372.
2. Employees earning more than $18,000 annually, as of December 31, 1972
Number	Salary Interval
37	$18,001-19,000
56	19,001-20,000
90	20,001-21,000
169	21,001-22,000
22	22,001-23,000
32	23,001-24,000
61	24,001-25,000
56	25,001-26,000
112	26,001-27,000
23	27,001-28,000
19	28,001-29,000
7	29,001-30,000
1	25,000-31,000
8	27,000-31,700
4	28,000-35,000
1	40,000-45,000
Total 698



INCENTIVE GRANTS TO FALCONBRIDGE NICKEL MINES

Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	Have any grants under the Regional Industrial Incentive Act been offered for and accepted by Falconbridge Nickel Mines for its iron ore recovery plant as Falconbridge and, if so, what was the amount and purpose of the grant(s)?
2.	Has the Falconbridge Nickel Mine Company benefited from rapid write-offs for pollution abatement equipment for its iron ore recovery plant at Falconbridge and, if so, in what amount?
3.	With respect to the $4,000,240 grant offered to and accepted by Falconbridge Nickel Mines under the Regional Industrial Incentives Act in January, 1971, for a new facility in Becancour, Quebec, what is the nature of production intended to be undertaken at this plant, specificaly, will nickel be pelletized at the Becancour plant with raw ore being supplied from the Falconbridge area?


Marcel Prud'homme: 1. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion has not authorized a development incentive under the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act to Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd. for its facility at Falconbridge, Ontario.
2.	N/A.
3.	Nickel will not be pelletized at the Becancour plant. The project consists of a refinery that will, as a part of its operation, treat a portion of the nickel-copper "matte" normally shipped to Norway for refining.

February 5, 1973
Order Paper Questions LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What was the total number of applications received by the LIP for assistance in the fiscal year ended 1971, by province?
2.	Of those approved, how many applications were exercised by the applicants, by province?
3.	What was the total operating cost of the Program for the same period (a) exclusive of grants (b) inclusive of grants?
4.	What was the average cost, based on the above, of each decision made by the Program on applications received?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. In the Fiscal year ended March 31, 1971, the Local Initiatives Program was not in existence.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.



BILINGUAL FACILITIES AT CUSTOMS OFFICES, PORTS OF LANSDOWNE AND JOHNSTOWN

Mr. Cossitt: Have surveys been conducted to determine the need for bilingual facilities at Canada Customs Offices at the Ports of Lans-downe and Johnstown, Ontario, by the Department of National Revenue and, if so (a) on what dates were such surveys taken (b) by whom were such surveys taken (c) by what methods were such surveys conducted (d) what were the specific results of such surveys?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Yes. (a) (b) (c) and (d). Please see following statement.
4.	N/A.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
August, 1969
September 1969 to March, 1970
April, 1970
October, 1971
Management of Central Ontario Region.
Uniformed Examining Officers
District Collector (Ottawa)
District Collector (Ottawa)
In accordance with Section 10 of the Official Languages Act a study was made of the English-French make up of the geographical areas served by the international bridges at Prescott and Lansdowne, using the 1961 Census figures.
The number of occasions they were addressed in French or specifically requested by the travelling public to provide service in French.
A statistical study of returning Canadians based on the number of vehicles and passengers and the linguistic composition of the geographic areas served by the two bridges.
Analysis of sampling of Exemption Entries (E. 24).
The estimated demand for service in the French language warranted the provision of bilingual resources.
Inconclusive due to the long standing habit of the travelling public only dealing with our officers in English at these centres.
Extrapolation of this data indicates a significant number of French-speaking Canadians use the bridges at Prescott and Lansdowne annually.
Of the total number of exemptions filed by returning Canadian Residents at Lansdowne and Prescott, approximately 25% were estimated to have been presented by Frenchspeaking Canadians.



EXPLORATION FOR PETROLEUM RESERVES AT SUFFIELD MILITARY RESERVE

Mr. Andre: Did the Department of National Defence, during 1972, engage any firms for the purpose of exploring for petroleum reserves on the Suffield Military Reserve and, if so, what firms were given contracts and what was the amount of the contract in each case?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: During 1972, no firms were engaged for the purpose of exploring for petroleum reserves at CFB Suffield. However, through Defence Construction (1951) Limited, contracts were awarded to three companies to perform work on the development and improvement of existing station gas supplies which provide fuel for all utility purposes on the base: Dresser Industries Inc.-completion of wells, $33,797.00; Renting Big Indian Drilling-drilling seven wells, $90,923.00; Western Industrial Contractors Ltd.- collector system and testing, $33,975.00.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-&quot;MV BLUENOSE&quot;

Mr. Haliburton: 1.	Is the MV Bluenose fulfilling, and is it expected to continue fulfilling adequately the Canadian transportation requirements for (a) tourist needs (b) freight needs (c) cars (d) trucks, between Yarmouth, Nova Scotia and Bar Harbour, Maine?
2.	Has the Department of Transport a plan in being to replace or to assist in the replacement of this vessel with a new and enlarged ship and, if so (a) on what date is it planned that such a replacement should take place (b) has the replacement ship been designed (c) what will be the carrying capacity?
3.	Has the Department of Transport a plan in being to enlarge or to assist in the enlargement of the ferry terminal at Yarmouth and, if so, on what date is it planned that enlargement should take place?
4.	(a) How many days each year of the past three years was the MV Bluenose not in service (b) how many trailers were not able to get on that boat in the past three years because of size?
5.	What advertising does CNR do to promote the use of the MV Bluenose?


Jean Marchand: 1. (a) (b) (c)
and (d) Yes.
2.	The Department of Transport has no plans at present of replacing or assisting in the replacement of the MV Bluenose in this service.
3.	Not at this time.
4.	(a) 1970, 48 days on annual refit, 2 days off for Christmas 1970; 1971, 28 days on annual refit, 2 days off for Christmas, 2 days bad weather; 1972, 27 days on annual refit, 2 days off for Christmas; (b) Trailers are usually local traffic and as such, vessel limitations are generally

February 5, 1973

known. No record has been kept but there have been occasions when oversized loads have been turned away.
5.	In 1972, the total amount spent on Bluenose advertising was approximately $55,000. Of this, $30,000 was spent in a joint program with the Nova Scotia government, resulting in advertising worth $60,000. Two ads were used, one for spring and one for early summer. These ads appeared primarily in eastern United States newspapers. Surveys show that these areas are the major source of ferry traffic. The media were the major daily newspapers in Hartford and New Haven, Conn.; Boston, Mass.; Springfield, Conn.; Newark, N.J.; New York, Albany, Buffalo, Long Island, Rochester, Syracuse and Baltimore, New York; and Providence, Rhode Island. In addition, C.N. had its own campaign for the Bluenose costing $14,800. This consisted of ads which appeared in papers in Halifax, New Glasgow, Sydney, Truro, Antigonish, Kent-ville, Bridgetown, Bridgewater, Liverpool, Lunenburg, Pictou, Shelbourne, Windsor and Yarmouth in Nova Scotia, and Portland and Bangor in Maine. This advertising was to generate local traffic. Radio stations in Halifax, Truro, Bridgewater, Bridgetown, Antigonish and Yarmouth were used primarily to reach tourists on the move. A total of 650,000 colour brochures were printed for distribution in 1971 and 1972 at an approximate cost of $10,555. In addition, 350,000 inserts were printed in 1972 with the current schedule and fares. This cost $2,065. There are four (4) permanent billboards advertising the Bluenose, two in Maine at Kittery and Brewer, and two in Nova Scotia at Annapolis Royal and Italy Cross. In addition, C.N. was able to obtain the use of temporary billboards in Maine for the promotion of the Bluenose service as part of an agreement with a national U.S. magazine. Total cost of the Bluenose service for this additional advertising was $50.



FALCONBRIDGE MINES LTD.-JOB RETRAINING PROGRAM

Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	How much did Falconbridge Mines Ltd. receive in Manpower ^training grants from the government in each year 1970, 1971 and
2.	In each year 1970, 1971 and 1972, how many persons (a) started (b) completed the job retraining program at Falconbridge Mines Ltd.?
3.	From among those individuals who started the job retraining program in 1970 at Falconbridge Mines Ltd., how many are still (a) with the Company (b) in the mining industry?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Min* ister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Falconbridge Mines Ltd. received training cost reimbursement as follows: 1970, nil; 1971, nil; 1972, training contract not completed yet.
2.	The following numbers of persons started and completed training: 1970, nil; 1971, nil; 1972, 19 persons started training and 15 completed it.
3.	No individuals started training in 1970 at Falconbridge Mines Ltd.
Order Paper Questions



DREE PROGRAM-INCLUSION OF SMITHS FALLS AS A DESIGNATED AREA

Mr. Cossitt: Is the government giving consideration to including Smiths Falls, Ontario as a designated area eligible for grants under the DREE Program?


Marcel Prud'homme: At present there are two designated regions in Ontario. Incentive Region B is scheduled to remain designated until December 31, 1973. Incentive Region C is scheduled to remain designated until June 30, 1973. (Smiths Falls is not in either region.) Prior to the foregoing dates, there will be consultations with the Province of Ontario regarding future designated regions. These consultations will take place over the next few months. No decision will be made regarding any changes in the present designated regions until these discussions have been completed.



CONSTRUCTION OF POST OFFICE IN VILLAGE OF HILLSBURGH, ONTARIO

Mr. O'Connor: Has the government decided to construct a Post Office in the Village of Hillsburgh, Ontario and, if so (a) what is the legal description of the land purchased or to be purchased (b) from whom was it or will it be purchased (c) what was or will be the purchase price (d) what was or will be the date of completion of the transactions (e) have tenders for construction been let and, if so, when will they be opened (f) what is the anticipated date of completion of the project?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes. (a) All and Singular that certain parcel or tract of land and premises, situate, lying and being in the Village of Hillsburgh, in the County of Wellington and Province of Ontario, being composed of part of lot 40 on the southwest side of Anne Street and part of Lot Y East side of Main Street according to the unregistered plan of the Village of Hillsburgh filed in the Registry Office for the Registry Division of Wellington as Plan No. 62, the said parts being designated as Part One on a plan of survey deposited in the said Registry Office as Plan No. 61 R-328. (b) Royal Bank of Canada; (c) $3,000; (d) January 31, 1973; (e) Yes, tenders will be opened February 1, 1973; (f) May 31, 1973.



ICEBREAKERS CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Allard: Is it the intention of the government to order construction of more icebreakers to overcome the apparent lack of such ships in service?


Jean Marchand: The government intends to increase the icebreaking capability of the Canadian Coast Guard by placing an order for the construction of an icebreaker for service on the Great Lakes, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the St. Lawrence River in winter and for deployment to the Arctic in summer. Construction will commence later this year with delivery expected towards the end of 1975. Under consideration at the present time are plans for the construction of three more icebreakers of a similar class and a decision on this program will be forthcoming in the near future.

February 5, 1973
Order Paper Questions



HARBOUR FACILITIES, 16-MILE CREEK, OAKVILLE, ONTARIO

Mr. O'Connor: Is the government considering undertaking a detailed investigation into the adequacy of the harbour facilities at the mouth of 16-Mile Creek in Oakville, Ontario and, if so, is it considering initiating redevelopment of such facilities in co-operation with the Town of Oakville and the Province of Ontario?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: No.
The harbour of Oakville is not a federal facility. It is owned, controlled and administered by the Corporation of the Town of Oakville.



DEPARTMENTAL LOGOS

Mr. Schumacher: 1.	By what program and under what authority were the departmental logos changed from the Coat of Arms of Canada to the present logos?
2.	What agency or firm was responsible for the redesigning and what remuneration was paid for such services?
3.	What was the cost, by department and in total, of the government's program to change logos in departments, on cheques, etc.?
4.	Does the government intend to remove the Coat of Arms of Canada from any further locations where it still remains?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: 
Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	Does the RCMP intend to relocate the Detachment now situated at Thorsby, Alberta and, if so (a) has the RCMP received protests as to the proposed relocation due to Thorsby's proximity to the Pigeon Lake resort area (b) how many objections have been received?
2.	Will the RCMP reconsider the proposed relocation in view of these representations?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the answer to parts 1 and 2 is as follows: the primary responsibility for determining where Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachments shall be located within those provinces policed by the force on a contract basis rests with the Attorney General of the respective province. However, I have been informed that there are no current plans to relocate the detachment now situated at Thorsby, Alberta.



TAX REVENUE COLLECTED ON SOFT DRINKS

Mr. Latulippe: What revenue did the government collect through the tax on soft drinks in (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972?
[Mr. Marchand (Langelier).l


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: We are unable to provide the information requested as all sales tax revenue is recorded in one general account with no distinction as to sources.



CANADA SAVINGS BONDS, FISCAL YEAR ENDING MARCH 31, 1972

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	During the fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, what was the total amount of savings bonds issued by the government?
2.	What was the amount acquired by the Bank of Canada?
3.	What amount of savings bonds was repurchased by the government in the same period?


John Napier Turner: 1. Gross sales of Canada Savings Bonds during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1972 were $2,609,860,000.
2.	None.
3.	Gross redemptions of all outstanding issues of Canada Savings Bonds during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1972 amounted to $704,200,000.



CANADA SAVINGS BONDS-SALES UP TO DECEMBER 31, 1972

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	During the current fiscal year up to December 31, 1972, what was the total amount of savings bonds issued by the government?
2.	What was the amount acquired by the Bank of Canada?
3.	What amount of savings bonds was repurchased by the government in the same period?


John Napier Turner: 1. Gross sales of Canada Savings Bonds during the current fiscal year up to December 31, 1972 were $2,012,490,000.
2.	None.
3.	Gross redemptions of all outstanding issues of Canada Savings Bonds during the current fiscal year up to December 31, 1972 amounted to $626,600,000.



WINTER WORKS CAPITAL PROGRAM-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

Mr. Laprise: Under the Winter Works Capital Program announced by the Minister of Finance, December 6, 1972, has the Government of the Province of Quebec wholly or partially accepted the $113.9 million offer and, if not, has any reason been given?


John Napier Turner: The Quebec government has accepted in full the amount of $113.9 million which represented its share of the Winter Works Capital Program.
February 5, 1973



DREE PROGRAM-INCLUSION OF GANANOQUE AS DESIGNATED AREA

Mr. Cossitt: Is the government giving consideration to including Gananoque, Ontario, as a designated area eligible for grants under the DREE Program?


Marcel Prud'homme: At present there are two designated regions in Ontario. Incentive Region B is scheduled to remain designated until December 31, 1973. Incentive Region C is scheduled to remain designated until June 30, 1973. (Gananoque is not in either region.) Prior to the foregoing dates, there will be consultations with the Province of Ontario regarding future designated regions. These consultations will take place over the next few months. No decision will be made regarding any changes in the present designated regions until these discussions have been completed.



LORNEVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY

Mr. Fairweather: Will the Lorneville Environmental Impact Study be released and, if so, on what date?


Mr. William Romplcey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the study will be released on February 7, 1973.



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 Science and Technology 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.



NORTHERN MINERAL EXPLORATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Firth: 1.	What were the names of recipients benefitting from the Northern Mineral Exploration Assistance Program (NMEAP) in each fiscal year 1968-69 to 1972-73 to date, and what were the amounts of money involved in each case?
2.	What are the objectives of the above program?
Oral Questions
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?
Return tabled.



LIP PROJECTS

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): How many LIP projects were received by the Department of Manpower and Immigration as of December 31, 1972 (a) what was the total amount involved (b) how many projects were approved as of December 31, 1972 (c) for what amount (d) how many projects were approved for the Province of Quebec as of the same date (e) for what constituencies and what was the amount involved in each?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether any agreement has been reached with the United States in the one area that the minister has said is under discussion, that is, assurance of a supply of oil to eastern Canada in the event of eastern Canada's sources of offshore oil being cut off?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker, no agreement has been reached. At the moment we are looking forward to a renewed discussion of this question by officials.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister what the difficulty is in reaching an agreement and whether, before making any such agreement, the United States authorities are seeking a specific assurance with regard to a continued supply of oil and/or gas from western Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not a specific assurance, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister indicate to the House what sort of assurance the United States is seeking before entering into an agreement with Canada in order that we may have some assurance with regard to the supply of oil for eastern Canada in the event of an emergency?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House last week, their concern is with regard to the possible importation of oil, essentially into the mid-continental market.

February 5, 1973
Oral Questions


JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT-QUEBEC INTENTION RESPECTING SALE OF POWER TO UNITED STATES
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister confirm the statement he made yesterday to the effect that the government of Quebec has informed the federal government it does not intend to sell any power from the James Bay power project to the United States?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, up to the present time we have had no indication that any part of that power would be sold either to Ontario or outside the country. Our understanding is that the site will be developed for the purpose of the Quebec load itself.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This understanding, then, is not based on any proposition that the federal government would resuscitate the old idea of a national power grid?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the question of a national power grid is another question. One of the objectives of an energy policy should be to promote, wherever possible, the interchange of electric power among the provinces of Canada. Specifically, with regard to the James Bay project my understanding is that it is for consumption in Quebec only that the project is being proceeded with.


OIL-AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLIES FOR MARCH, APRIL AND MAY
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and arises out of his statement on January 9, found on page 87 of Hansard, that "there is apparently no problem in continuing supplies for refinery feed stocks", and his statement in the House on Friday last when in answer to my question he said:
We are aware of the fact that there is pressure with regard to the oncoming situation in March. At the moment it is not clear whether the industry will be able, as I suggested, to solve the question themselves.
May I ask the minister what factor has intervened in the meantime to alter the situation from what it was on January 9, when there was no question about the adequacy of supplies, so that the situation now is that the minister and the industry are uncertain about the availability of supplies for March and the coming months?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the very sharp increase in the level of demand. As the hon. member will recall, in a statement about ten days ago the president indicated a further increase in the United States quota on the importation of Canadian oil.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the statement by the Minister of Mines and Minerals of Alberta, Mr. Dickie, in which he said that February would be the first month in the history of Alberta when there would be more consumers for the province's oil than it could supply, can the minister now assure the House that there will be adequate oil supplies

to meet Canadian needs for the coming months, particularly March, April and May.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Sir, I will be glad to repeat that assurance. If the industry shows that it is incapable of meeting the prior claims of the Canadian refineries, the government will take action under the National Energy Board Act to make sure that happens.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the minister give us any comparative figures as to the amounts of oil we are exporting and importing? I am not asking for exact figures. Are they in balance, or are we exporting more oil than we are importing?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would say that there is an excess in one direction. The figures were roughly in balance last year. I could not give the current monthly figures, but I would say there is a slight excess, on balance, in favour of exports.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands and to the question I put to the minister a moment ago when I asked the minister about the nature of any assurances the United States is requiring with regard to supplies of oil or gas in exchange for an assurance relating to the supplying of our market needs. Could the minister not be specific and indicate the nature of the assurances the United States is seeking with regard to the supplying of Canadian oil for the United States midwest?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can be specific as to their position right now. They adopted a certain position in the past which we felt was not in our interest. As I indicated, it would be useful to have another discussion between officials to find out specifically what their objectives are and to see if agreement can be reached.


SUGGESTED AMENDMENT OF OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION ACT RESPECTING CONTROL OF OFFSHORE OPERATIONS
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. In light of the statement made on Friday by the minister that investment in an oil pipeline from western Canada to Montreal could become obsolete in the event of success of an offshore field off the east coast, and in view of the importance of offshore exploration activities at this time, will the minister now consider repealing portions of the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and substituting in their place more comprehensive and concise legislation concerning the operation of controls in offshore regions?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think as an indicator, the activity off the east coast shows that the legislation is no kind of deterrent.
February 5, 1973


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question on another subject and direct it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact the government of France is preparing further nuclear tests in the South Pacific, what steps is the government of Canada planning in opposition to these tests beyond belated support of the New Zealand resolution at the United Nations last October 21?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to disabuse the hon. member's mind. Canada was the first to protest about these tests in the Pacific, and we will continue with this policy. We have been leading in the world in trying to bring nuclear testing to an end, whether in the atmosphere or underground.


Mark Willson Rose: Does Canada plan to join Australia in bringing a case against France before the International Court of Justice on the ground of pollution of the high seas and the temporary interruption of peaceful passage in international waters, as was occasioned last time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet had any definite news as to the position Australia will take. However, I can assure the hon. member that we will be joining with other likeminded countries in whatever is the most effective way of stopping the tests in the Pacific.


Mark Willson Rose: Since Canada did not support a Canadian vessel harassed by France during the previous French test, does Canada plan to provide such support at this time? Also, has there been any reply from France so far relative to the damage caused to Captain David McTag-gart's Greenpeace III last summer?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on the final question, we have spoken to the French government on behalf of Greenpeace III. We understand that there may be a reply shortly but there has not yet been one. We do not plan to put any Canadian vessels into the area that may be affected by the forthcoming test.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since the local initiatives program provides for an average weekly salary of $100 and some agencies whose projects have been accepted pay only $50 a week, could the hon. minister tell us whether there is an agreement with the department to favour certain people or whether the difference is just remitted to the electoral fund of his party?
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kingston and The Islands.


Miss MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that he can give notice of his intention of discussing a matter later, only if it is in order. If the hon. member gives notice, then the Chair determines whether the matter respects the rules of the House, that is, whether it is in order.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council. In view of the confusion and concern with regard to the land claims of the Nishga nation of Indian people, would the President of the Privy Council inform the House whether he is going to use his good offices to arrange immediately for the organization meeting of the standing committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development so that the committee can deal specifically with this issue?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the committee can move ahead with the organization meeting just as soon as it has some item of business that will allow it to deal with this matter. I am at present considering with the parliamentary secretary to the minister what the most effective way would be to bring this matter before the committee.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Would the President of the Privy Council undertake to do this immediately and report to the House tomorrow?


REQUEST THAT ANNUAL REPORT OF DEPARTMENT BE REFERRED TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Privy Council. As a motion from the New Democratic Party was accepted today by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to examine the annual report of that department, will the minister cause the annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to be referred to the committee so that it can start to get to work?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that seems to be the most direct way of bringing this about, unless we wait a week or so for reference of the main estimates. However, either one will do it.

February 5, 1973
Oral Questions


SUPREME COURT DECISION IN NISHGA LAND CASE-SUGGESTED RE-ARGUMENT BEFORE FULL COURT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Justice whether consideration has been given to the suggestion I made which, incidentally, has received pretty general support across the country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Not from members opposite who do not know what we are talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Has any consideration been given to discussing with the Chief Justice of Canada a re-argument of the question so that a final determination can be made, instead of the present uncertainty with three judges on one side and three on the other?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my view that it would not be the role of the government or myself to make such a request in regard to this situation when we are not directly involved. I am sure the parties to the litigation heard the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman, and it might have been open to them to raise the matter in this fashion with the court. I do not know at this stage whether either party has done so.


John George Diefenbaker: Was there not a case in the province of Quebec some years ago in which a decision respecting civil liberties had been given by the Supreme Court and am I not right that the Department of Justice then got in touch with the Supreme Court of Canada with a view to having a re-argument of that particular matter? Indeed, on the re-argument the Supreme Court decided quite differently from what the court had decided earlier.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rather think the situation would still be unusual in a case like the present one. Here we have a situation where the government of Canada has not been involved in the argument of the case in any way.


John George Diefenbaker: That answer shows the interest the government has in the Indians.



INCOME TAX


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that during the past few days Dominion Stores has spent huge sums of money advertising in the press, can the minister advise whether this cost is allowed as a tax deduction, which means that the people of Canada are paying for it, or are we paying for it through increased prices of food?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will hon. members kindly resume their seats? I always have some doubt whether it is in order to ask a supplementary to a question which is out of order. Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway would like to rephrase her question.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes Mr. Speaker. Very simply, can the minister determine whether we are paying for it both ways?


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. As the defence budget has, with the exception of provision for a small pre-election pay raise, been frozen for the past five years, is it the intention of the government in the very near future to unfreeze the budget to make possible necessary upgrading of capital equipment to the required standards and allow for an improvement in the effectiveness of the training of our armed forces?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that the defence budget has been frozen. It is now the government's intention to unfreeze the defence budget for the fiscal year 1973-74.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: It is true that this is in part to meet capital requirements.


George Harris Hees: We are naturally very glad to get that news. I will ask a further question. Since our defence forces cannot remain effective unless their annual budget is increased every year in proportion at least to the increase in inflation in this country, would the minister bring this important fact to the attention of his colleagues and ask them to stop, in the future, trying to starve our armed forces as has been the Prime Minister's policy for the last five years?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley.



DECISION ON REPLACEMENT FOR ARGUS AIRCRAFT

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of National Defence. Can the hon. gentleman tell the House when a decision will be reached concerning the replacement for the Argus aircraft which is long overdue in terms of lead time?


James Armstrong Richardson: The government has decided to replace the Argus but we have not yet made a decision as to the type of aircraft to be ordered. We have sent out letters to five airplane manu-
February 5, 1973

facturers inviting them to make proposals against our specifications and we have requested that these proposals be in our hands by March 21.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate the minister's answer up to a point. It is basically the same answer as we have been given for the last one and a half or two years. Is there any way in which the hon. gentleman, who is new to his office, can expedite the assessment of these proposals so that an early decision can be reached inasmuch as the present aircraft is fast getting to a point at which safety is becoming a large factor in its operation? Will the hon. gentleman also make sure that the plan to allow all parts of Canada to share in the replacement of the aircraft will not adversely affect the decision?


James Armstrong Richardson: I believe I indicated we were moving ahead. We have set a deadline for proposals to reach us from the manufacturers; their proposals are to be in our hands by March 21. We will also be looking at the regional aspects and, hopefully, this major purchase will bring industrial benefit to all regions of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: There are a number of hon. members wishing to ask supplementaries. We shall return to this subject in a moment.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
As Canada imported in the last few weeks several million dollars' worth of butter from New Zealand, can the minister tell the House whether he will recommend to the Canadian Dairy Commission that it take more adequate steps to protect our dairy industry in the coming months?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the import program of the Canadian Dairy Commission does protect the dairy industry, and the dairy industry has been more stable under that program than it has ever been before in the history of Canada. It is my intention to discuss with the Canadian Dairy Commission the program for production this year. I have already had some discussion with them.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Can the minister tell the House whether, in addition to what it has imported from New Zealand, Canada has also imported butter-and I said "butter"-from other countries?


Eugene Whelan: None that I know of lately, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE



INCREASE IN 1973-74 BUDGET-POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER CUTBACKS IN MANPOWER OR BASE CONSOLIDATION-PAYMENT OF MILITIA UNIT PERSONNEL

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of National Defence tell the House in connection with the unfreezing of the armed forces budget whether the extension of the budget is intended to cover capital costs only or whether the government has contingency plans for further cutbacks in manpower or base consolidation to meet annual escalation of costs, the point to which attention was drawn by my hon. friend earlier?


James Armstrong Richardson: The figures for the 1973-74 budget will, of course, be revealed when the estimates for the department are tabled. I can only say at this time that the budget is unfrozen. It has been unfrozen in order to meet increasing costs and particularly to provide for new capital equipment. Expenditure on capital equipment will be greater than last year and will also represent a larger percentage of the total budget.


J. Michael Forrestall: Would the House permit me to ask the minister whether he has taken any steps in the interim to offset the extraordinary difficulty which militia units across the country have faced in the last month or so with respect to cash on hand to meet payrolls?


James Armstrong Richardson: We shall perhaps never have all the funds we need in each area, but the unfreezing of the budget is in part to meet that requirement.



SUGGESTED REDEPLOYMENT OF ARMED FORCES ELEMENTS TO NEWFOUNDLAND TO CONSOLIDATE STRATEGY AND PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr. lack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: In
view of the admirable intention of the Minister of National Defence to promote the decentralization of industrial development to assist western Canada, would the hon. gentleman advise us whether he is considering giving attention to the redeployment of elements of the Canadian Armed Forces to the province of Newfoundland in order to consolidate defence strategy and promote economic development where it is most needed?


James Armstrong Richardson: I stated in answer to a question a few days ago that I was looking at our search and rescue operation in Newfoundland, but I have nothing at this time to report to the House.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the fact that egg prices went up 16 per cent and bacon prices went up 46.5 per cent last year, and in light of the government's food supply policies

February 5, 1973
Oral Questions
last year, has the government shitted its priority from reducing cigarette consumption to forcing people to stop eating breakfast?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please I am not sure what that supplementary is supplementary to.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government entered into negotiations with the German Democratic Republic with a view to establishing diplomatic relations and developing trade with that country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. Will the unfreezing of the defence budget be reflected in additional funds available to cadet corps across Canada whose members are no longer permiteed to undertake familiarization flights?


James Armstrong Richardson: Not specifically, Mr. Speaker. We are, of course, concerned about the cadet program-it is a major part of our work-but the unfreezing of the budget is not related directly to that program.


Stanley James Korchinski: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously hon. members are asking supplementaries that are not related to the last question. We must try to establish some order. The hon. member for Leeds.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General. Did the minister's department succeed in collecting thousands of dollars of postage due because of insufficient postage being placed shortly before October 30, 1972, by the Liberal

party of Canada on imitation personal letters from the Prime Minister that were mailed to some 35 constituencies, including the constituency of Leeds?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question should be placed on the order paper.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would the acting minister tell the House when his department intends to implement the recommendation of a Northwest Territories task force that the housing responsibilities of the Northwest Territories Council be increased?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am not the acting minister but I will take that question as notice. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has indicated in some public statements that by and large he agrees with the spirit of the task force report on housing issued by the Northwest Territories Council, though he had some reservations.


Erik Nielsen: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, my point of order refers to the question just asked, relating as it does to a question of policy. It has been the practice, experience and tradition of this House that acting ministers are appointed to assume the responsibilities of ministers who are absent for lengthy periods or are ill. While we all regret the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, there is ample precedent in this government for the appointment of acting ministers. For instance, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has acted on behalf of one of his colleagues in the past and similar examples can be given throughout the treasury benches. The parliamentary secretary, as able as he is, cannot answer questions calling for information about government policy; he is not a member of the cabinet and is not privy to their discussions. Surely we in the opposition are entitled to have an acting minister answer for the government on questions of policy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Prime Minister, who indicated the other day, whether intentionally or not, that there was an Acting Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would it be too much to ask that the House be told who the acting minister is?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will do that very gladly, Mr. Speaker. The acting minister is the Minis-
February 5, 1973

ter of the Environment, Mr. Davis; the second acting minister is the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Daniel MacDonald; and the-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; he was minister of agriculture in that very excellent government of Premier Campbell. The parliamentary secretary is that very capable Member of Parliament for Kamloops-Cariboo, Mr. Marchand, who will continue to answer for the minister in the House, though of course he does not have the legal power to sign documents on behalf of the minister.


Erik Nielsen: Nor to answer policy questions.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to ask the Minister of Justice. Having in mind the statement made over the weekend by the Attorney General of British Columbia to the effect that that province is considering the possibility of provincial-federal co-operation toward establishing a unified family court system, may I ask the minister whether he is aware of the gravity of these broken home situations, and will he give consideration to the representations of British Columbia?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we will, of course, be very willing to have discussions with British Columbia or, indeed, with any province about methods of improving the settlement of family problems that become the subject of litigation. The whole question of family law is under consideration by this government as well as by the Law Reform Commission. I look forward to their recommendations which may also deal with the question of divided jurisdiction and the possibility of overcoming some of the problems involved.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether it is the government's intention to implement the recommendations of the Johnston commission on the Canada Labour Code?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the second part of the recommendations, in terms of general application we are studying the recommendations and the department hopes to come to a decision on the matter within the next two weeks.
Oral Questions


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact the commission's report has been in the hands of the government since December, may I ask the minister when the government proposes to bring in amendments to the Canada Labour Code?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, we will first have to come to a policy decision whether to act on the general over-all recommendations to which the hon. member is referring. It will then be necessary for the cabinet to approve that decision and legislation might then be placed on the order paper. As to when such amendments will be considered in the House, the hon. member's guess is as good as mine at this stage.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In light of the shooting down of a third Toronto policeman over the weekend, is the minister prepared (a) to reconsider his views on the need for amendment of the Bail Reform Act, and (b) to consider implementing the suggestions made by the police association regarding the ownership and registration of firearms in Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it has been the clear view of the government from the time of the last changes in the bail law that we would examine the experience of this law and be prepared to make changes as a need became apparent. Certainly it is not yet apparent that the changes made to the law are the cause of any of the problems to which the hon. member is referring. He should be aware of the fact that many people were at large on bail under the previous law, and indeed it was simply a matter of the poorer people being kept in jail while those with money, whether their own or with the assistance of friends, criminal or otherwise, were at large. Therefore I think it is quite wrong to point the finger at the changes made in the bail law as being the cause of any of these troubles. Notwithstanding that, I believe that with additional experience more can be done to operate the bail system, or the freedom to be at large system, in a way that is more fully consistent with the defence of the subject in our society.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: May I ask the minister whether there is any possibility of bringing in legislation regarding the ownership and registration of firearms? I would appreciate his answering that part of the question.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as has been indicated to the House previously, this is a question which is under consideration by the government. In effect, the problem is that regulations in relation to firearms most certainly interfere with the ordinary activities of a lot of law-abiding citizens, whereas in no way are they certain to interfere with the activities of criminals.

February 5, 1973
Oral Questions CONSUMER AFFAIRS



SUGGESTED INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER DOMINION STORES ADVERTISING MISLEADING

Nels Edwin Nelson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that today's advertising by Dominion Stores claims that Dominion Stores has "spearheaded an industry-wide downward spiral of pricing" at this time, is the minister prepared to investigate this statement in order to determine whether or not it constitutes misleading advertising, as articulated by the Criminal Code?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will draw the hon. member's question to the attention of the officials responsible for the administration of this part of the Combines Investigation Act, and we will wait to see what the result of the investigation may be.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the pressing need for improved ice surveillance in northern fishing waters as well as for monitoring the location and numbers of foreign fishing fleets and the provision of charts showing the exact location of wrecks and other bottom obstacles, has the minister taken any steps to provide this information to Canadian fishermen through the Bedford Institute of Oceanography?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I should point out to the hon. member that responsibility for the Bedford Institute, except in one respect, is no longer with my department. I would have to examine the question of to what extent I or my colleague can respond to it.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has he been approached by any sizeable group of pork producers with the idea of forming a national marketing agency for hogs?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I met a group in Manitoba that presented a paper to me. If that is the group of which the hon. member is speaking, we are studying their submission. They agreed

that their plan would have to be a national plan and naturally it would be a plan that all hog producers in Canada would have to approve.


Jack Burnett Murta: In view of the fact the minister has stated in various speeches that hog producers have shown an interest in a national marketing agency, is he just echoing his own wishes that this is the kind of thing he personally would like to see?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eugene Whelan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the hog producers made their representations to the national marketing council, not to me. They have voiced these views to me.



POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE IN INITIAL PRICES

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that the selling price of grain has been increasing in the past months, is the Wheat Board going to raise the initial price of grain paid to the producer?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the initial prices for wheat, oats and barley were all raised during the month of October.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare perhaps I could address my question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that some time ago the government gave assurance that legislation would be introduced to exclude Old Order Mennonites from compulsory payments under the Canada Pension Plan, contrary to their religion, can the minister assure the House that legislation will be presented at this session to put an end to this form of threat to religious freedom?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: will be glad to consult with my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the House leader on this matter, Mr. Speaker.
February 5, 1973



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact farm costs have been going up in the last few months, can he tell us what action is being taken by the government to implement the recommendations of the Barber commission in order to bring down the cost of farm machinery and farm machinery repairs?


Eugene Whelan: None at the present time, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the undertaking by the former minister of agriculture that Canada would import more farm machinery from other countries, would the minister tell us what action has been taken to date on that commitment?


Eugene Whelan: I have met with two ambassadors from other countries who are trying to have us educate our farmers to use different kinds of machinery. Our farmers are not indentured in respect of the use of any kind of machinery. It is up to them to buy it if it is available to them.



COST OF FARM MACHINERY-POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE IN AMOUNT AVAILABLE TO FARMERS UNDER FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT

Mr. Norval Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the high cost of farm machinery, is the government considering increasing the maximum amount of $15,000 now available under the Farm Improvement Loans Act?


Eugene Whelan: I met with some of the officials this morning, but no decision has been taken on that at this time.



AIR TRANSPORT


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister had a chance to examine the regulations proposed by the Canadian Transport Commission regarding advance booking of charters inasmuch as the net effect will be an increase in cost to the travelling public and much more difficulty in making arrangements? There is also the fact that some suggestion has been made that there are inadequate safeguards for the handling of passenger funds. Has the minister had an opportunity to examine the regulations and can he report to the House?
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already tried to answer this question. The new regulations were published in the Canada Gazette on January 8. These are entirely new regulations. I should like to have some experience in the implementation of these regulations before we make any change. In the meantime, if the hon. member has any case of abuse I would be ready to look into it to see what can be done.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In view of the fact that large numbers of the travelling public have made representations to the Canadian Transport Commission and indeed, I believe, to the minister, would the minister consider having the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications examine the air transport regulations so that witnesses from all sectors of the travelling public could be called?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a representation to be considered by the minister.



BILINGUALISM-PAYMENT OF BONDS TO MEMBERS OF PROTECTIVE STAFF

Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State responsible for federal subsidies to bilingualism programs.
Can he tell us whether or not he intends to give subsidies to the members of the security staff of the House of Commons?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it the intent of the government to establish a minimum price per ton of sugar beets based on today's sugar prices and, if so, is the government prepared to support such a price by a direct cash subsidy if present market prices decline?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, our present stabilization program is still in force. It has not had to be used in the last two years. As long as the world price of sugar stays with that program we are not really that worried about where it is going to go or what it is going to do. I think this is why so many people are anxious to produce sugarbeets.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Since the Prime Minister publicly supported the resolution on an automatic surtax submitted by the Canadian Horticulture Council and supported by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, can the minister

February 5, 1973
Oral Questions
indicate when legislation will be introduced concerning this matter?


Eugene Whelan: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before calling orders of the day, perhaps the Chair might be allowed to recognize the hon. member for Mackenzie who has been trying to ask a supplementary for a while.



COURT RULING THAT SASKATCHEWAN HOGS CANNOT BE SOLD IN MANITOBA UNLESS THROUGH PROVINCIAL MARKETING BOARD-FEDERAL INTERVENTION

Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Lisgar. I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether, as a result of a ruling by the Manitoba courts that Saskatchewan hogs cannot be marketed in Manitoba unless they go through the hog marketing board, he intends to intercede on behalf of Saskatchewan producers since this would seem to be in contravention of the British North America Act?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I know of no representations being made to me expressly by the Saskatchewan hog producers at this time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order having to do with the House business. I realize that the Secretary of State announced the business for today, but in view of the very great interest shown in the motion brought forward by the Secretary of State for External Affairs dealing with Canada's participation in Viet Nam and in view of the fact the minister has indicated his willingness to vote for the amendment introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), I wonder whether the government House leader would be able to satisfy the desire of the minister by arranging that this matter be brought forward tomorrow? I think we could obtain agreement that hon. members would not participate further in the debate so the motion could be voted on. Would the government House leader consider that request?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. friends will dispose of the unemployment insurance bill and the appropriation bill today we will consider bringing that on tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-124, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 1), as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, there are before the House on the order paper at the present time three notices of motion of which notice has been given pursuant to Standing Order (75(5). I have given very serious thought to the many procedural aspects of the three motions. I am not sure what the position of the House would be from a procedural standpoint in respect of these motions and I have the same qualms and reservations about the three motions. But perhaps I might, for the purpose of discussion, put for the consideration of the House from a procedural standpoint the first one which stands in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That Bill C-124, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 1), be amended by deleting lines 4 and 5 on page 1 and substituting therefor the following:
"1. Subsection 137(4) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 is repealed and the following substituted therefor: '(4) The total amount outstanding at any time of advances made under this section shall not exceed nine hundred million dollars except where an advance is approved by a resolution of the House of Commons introduced and passed in accordance with the rules of that House'".
If hon. members have procedural objections to this proposed motion, I will hear them and at the same time of course hear any arguments which might be advanced in support of this motion.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the motion stands in my name, I think it is only appropriate that I make some submissions with respect to the advisability of accepting the motion as it stands. We are very much aware of the fact that section 137(4) of the Unemployment Insurance Act indicates that there is a ceiling, and if I am not mistaken, that ceiling is set at $800 million. What is occurring at present is that the government, has given any indication of its wish to remove that ceiling. I would say that section 137(4) presently provides that the total amount outstanding by way of repayable advances or loans by the government to the Unemployment Insurance Commission shall not exceed $800 million. If that is self-explanatory, it needs no further comment.
But at the same time, clause 1 of Bill C-124 would give the government the power to make advances to the commission unlimited in total amount. I should like to say at this time that there is a figure which is floating in the air but the government does not indicate what that figure should be. The message and recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General is to the same effect, and the relevant words are "to remove the ceiling on
February 5, 1973

advances". Amendments No. 1 and No. 2, the first standing in my name and the second in the name of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), would set a new limit of $900 million. In this regard, I would point out to you for your deliberation and consideration, Sir, paragraph 251(1) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, 1958, which reads:
It may happen that the resolution sanctions some expenditure without fixing the maximum amount to be spent. If, for instance, the resolution recommends that adequate salaries be paid a newly constituted body and the amounts of the salaries are fixed in the bill based on that resolution, the committee on the bill has the right to increase those amounts, because, in doing so, it does not go beyond the scope of the royal recommendation.
I respectfully submit that the attitude that the Chair should adopt in discharging its function of protecting the rights of the non-government members with respect to money resolutions, is set out at pages 804 and 805 of May's Parliamentary Practice, seventeenth edition. The paragraph reads:
In view of the way in which the terms of a money resolution limit the scope and extent of the charging provisions of a bill, the Speaker has had occasion to deprecate an excessive amount of detail in the drafting of such resolutions as tending to restrict unduly the power of private members to propose amendments.
In this regard I would say that the right of this House to control supply is the reason for the existence of this House. Against the right of the Crown to demand supply in a specified amount is the right of this House to refuse to grant that supply or to reduce it in amount. To argue that the Crown, simply by asking for an unlimited amount of supply, can defeat the right of this House to refuse or reduce supply is to deny that the right of this House to exist, or, at best, that this House, on its first day of business, should vote the government unlimited supply and then go home for the next five years. I am not saying that facetiously, Mr. Speaker, I am stating this is all sincerity.
I would refer Your Honour to Clement Attlee's writings in the 1930's when he said that this was what the Labour Party in England would do when it took office. On the first day of business, he declared, the government would push a bill through all three reading stages in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, which would provide that the Labour government could do anything it wanted to do by order in council. That would dispose of the opposition and it would dispose of parliament. I respectfully submit that we are going to be placed in this bind or boxed in as a result of a general resolution which we are not given an opportunity to amend, except for the fact

and I know that Your Honour may bring this to our attention-that we would have the right to vote against it.
I think that the matter goes much further than this. I respectfully submit that the proposition which I placed before Your Honour should be treated with understanding, as I know it will be, because, as I stated-and I will not debate this any further-we do not have an opportunity to amend general, nondescript phrases. What the government is doing is removing the ceiling on advances. We are really talking about some limit, but because of the devious nature of the government, we do not get the chance to find out what the limit would be, whether in fact there should be a limit or what type of limit the government has in mind. I respectfully state that in these circumstances a favourable consideration should be given
Unemployment Insurance Act
to the arguments that I have put forth with regard to the acceptability of the amendment proposed by the opposition.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising at the moment to participate in the debate on the question of order but would draw Your Honour's attention to Standing Order 51 which states that:
Whenever Mr. Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament,-
I know Your Honour has not gone that far. You have merely stated some doubts.
-he shall apprise the House thereof immediately-
Which Your Honour has done.
-before putting the question thereon, and quote the Standing Order or authority applicable to the case.
I am wondering, in order that we might have some idea of Your Honour's doubts in this matter, whether the Chair would be prepared at this time to inform the House as to the root of those doubts in terms of which standing order or rule might be offended.


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that the hon. member for Hamilton West was himself suspicious as to what the motives would be, and he dealt precisely with the points I had in mind. There are a number of them. Hon. members might like to look through citation 246(3) and also citation 250(4). It is my impression, my fear, that perhaps not only the hon. member's proposed amendment but the others also would suggest the importing of a new principle. I also suggest that they may infringe on the financial initiatives of the Crown. This is the area where I have trouble, and this is the area which the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has covered.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit that the proposed amendment with which we are now dealing is not in order. I shall take the same position with respect to the other two, and for substantially the same reasons. Therefore I hope that if the debate on amendment No. 1 takes a bit of time, we might not have to repeat the arguments with respect to the other two.
Before I state, as succinctly as I can, my own reasons for regarding this amendment as out of order, may I comment briefly on two things that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has said. In the first place, I think he put himself right out of court in his opening paragraph by referring to the Unemployment Insurance Act as it now stands. He said that as it now stands, it provides in section 137(4) for a ceiling of $800 million. He made it clear that what his party would like to do would be to change that figure to a higher one. The reason I say that I think he has put himself out of court by making that reference is that, in making it, he has admitted that what he is trying to do is not to amend Bill C-124 which is now before us but rather he is seeking to amend the act behind the bill, in other words, the Unemployment Insurance Act itself.
The hon. member also referred repeatedly to the fact that the House of Commons must control supply. He said we must be in charge of expenditures and control those

February 5, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act expenditures or there is no reason for parliament being here. I am sure I could find quotations in my name that would be along those lines, but I wish to point out that this is not a supply bill. This is not a measure in which we are providing supply or money for expenditure at all. This is merely a bill dealing with the question of advances to a commission to enable that commission to carry out a law which parliament has already passed, calling for the payment of unemployment insurance benefits. I submit, therefore, that the general rules about the voting of money and expenditures do not apply, and in that respect that citation 251(1), which he quoted, really has no bearing at all.
Citation 251(1) in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition deals with a measure which has provided for an expenditure, and indicates that under certain conditions-that is, if the Governor General's recommendation were in general terms-it would be in order to increase that expenditure. But we do not have before us a bill providing for an expenditure. Rather we have before us a bill concerned with advances of working capital to enable the Unemployment Insurance Commission to carry out the law as passed by this parliament.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having made those comments on the submission of the hon. member, may I state my own two reasons for feeling that this amendment is out of order, and perhaps I have already stated those reasons by implication in what I have said.
In the first place the amendment of the hon. member for Hamilton West, despite the fact that it is couched in terms of an amendment to Bill C-124, is not an amendment to that bill at all. It is an attempt to amend the act which Bill C-124 seeks to amend. In other words, he is trying to get behind the bill to the act itself. If he is going to bring in a bill to amend the act itself he has to meet the general rules about that, such as notice, getting the Governor General's recommendation, and all of that. I submit that that is a flaw that is almost fatal, the fact that he is trying to amend not Bill C-124 but rather the Unemployment Insurance Act itself.
The other objection to this amendment is of course the one that is brought out by a couple of citations to which Your Honour has already referred, citation 246(3) and citation 250(4), both in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. Let me read at least parts of those citations. No doubt others who take part in this debate will have to read them as well. Citation 246(3) reads:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the Royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
Citation 250(4) reads:
The fundamental terms of a money resolution submitted to the House with the Governor General's recommendation upon which a Committee of the Whole is set up cannot be amended. Amendments will only be in order if they fall within the terms of the resolution.
Now, the Governor General's recommendation attached to Bill C-124 is very clear. It reads:
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure to amend the Unemploy-

ment Insurance Act, 1971 to remove the ceiling on advances under section 137-
There is more to that, but I shall read the rest of it when we are dealing with proposed amendment No. 3. At the moment, we are dealing just with proposed amendment No. 1 which relates to the question of the ceiling, and I submit it is very clear that the recommendation is that there be a complete removal of the ceiling on the amount that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) can advance to the Unemployment Insurance Commission to enable it to carry out its obligation. I submit that an attempt to substitute for that definite removal of the ceiling the reinstitution of a ceiling simply at a different figure is not in order, and I go back to the language of citation 250(4), is not an amendment that "falls within the terms of the resolution."
No matter how one dresses it up, as has been done in both the first and second amendments, by referring to the approval of parliament and so on, the fact of the matter is that the attempt to put in a ceiling is completely outside the terms proposed in the Governor General's recommendation, which is to the effect that the ceiling should be removed completely. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because this amendment-and I would make the same arguments with respect to the other two, perhaps with some slight additions-seeks to amend the act behind the bill rather than the bill, and because it proposes something that is completely outside the parameters of the Governor General's recommendation, I feel that it is not in order to be presented at the report stage of this bill.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, since I shall endorse the position which has been put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I may be able to spare Your Honour a rereading of some of the sections to which he has already directed the attention of the House.
It seems to me that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), in making his argument, has not only sought to amend the initial unemployment insurance commission bill but that he has also advanced arguments which relate to the wisdom of the policy which it is proposed to adopt in Bill C-124, rather than to admissibility. He spoke about the need for controlling government expenditure and things of that kind, which I submit are related to the wisdom of the matter before us and not related to the admissibility of the amendment.
There are two reasons it seems to me why these amendments in general, and the first amendment in particular, should be ruled out of order. The first of these is the one which has been so ably presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. That relates to the financial initiative of the Crown and is found in the citations which he has already read, citation 246 section 3 and citation 250 section 4. Without reading these, I would just draw to the attention of the House that the principle with respect to any limit on the financial initiative of the Crown is outlined in citation 246(3) which reads in part:
. .. the objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
February 5, 1973

It seems to me this is exactly what the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West seeks to infringe.
Turning to citation 250(4), it is clearly stated there that the fundamental terms of a money resolution submitted to the House cannot be amended. I believe that is what this amendment seeks to do.
In addition to that argument, I would draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that this amendment is a direct negation of the bill. In its recommendations the bill states very clearly that one of its two purposes is to remove the ceiling on advances. I believe that the amendment which is proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West, in its substance, directly opposes the removal of a limitation and seeks to place a new ceiling in the act. This fact may be somewhat obscured by the words which are contained in the amendment. If I may direct Your Honour's attention to the amendment, there is what we might call a substantive section which proposes that:
The total amount outstanding at any time of advances made under this section shall not exceed nine hundred million dollars-
This is the substance of the amendment. Then, there is a procedural proposal:
-except where an advance is approved by a resolution of the House of Commons introduced and passed in accordance with the rules of that House.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the words following "except" are purely a procedural proposal and the substance of the amendment is contained in its first clause. That clause is clearly and directly a negation of the purposes of the bill as set out in the recommendations.
If I may draw Your Honour's attention to citation 202 subsection (12). It reads:
An amendment proposing a direct negative, though it may be covered up by verbiage, is out of order.
I would submit with all due respect to the hon. member for Hamilton West that there is verbiage which attempts to cover up the basic contrariety between the substance of his amendment and the bill before the House. Mr. Speaker, these are the reasons it seems to me you ought to rule this amendment out of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to junior counsel for the government who followed on the heels of senior counsel, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who made his arguments on behalf of the government, if I may put it that way.


John Napier Turner: Now, we are getting the paralegal service.


Gerald William Baldwin: I see that the hon. members opposite do not like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to advocate their point of view. I am amazed at that. While he is not always right, and he is not this time, he very often is. I think the government needs a procedural expert to make arguments on their behalf from time to time.
Mr. Speaker, by simple process of reductio ad absur-dum, which is the first point I am making to Your Honour-


John Napier Turner: You are good at that.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Gerald William Baldwin: -I hope to ask you to eliminate all this nonsense we have heard. If one examines the transcript of the proceedings before the committee in a case the government made when we were examing this bill in the House, the government was saying over and over again that what they were attempting to do by the first clause in this bill which my hon. friend from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) is seeking to amend was in no way to deal with ways and means, in no way to deal with the amount of benefits of unemployment insurance but with the extent to which there may be a debit or credit position at the end of each fiscal year. They are simply saying, "Because we made such an awful mess of this act, and our estimates as to expenditures were so out of kilter, we found that this $800 million ceiling to provide for advances was no longer valid. Therefore, we are removing that ceiling." What remains, then, is ceiling unlimited-no limit at all on the ceiling or the extent to which the government may make advances. I would still argue that as strongly if what the government was attempting to do was to deal with the situation which related to the actual payment of benefits. But it is not that at all, Mr. Speaker.
If my hon. friend from Hamilton West, instead of moving this amendment, had simply moved to delete the clause in question, then Your Honour has already held that would be a valid amendment. But if that were the case, then what would the situation be? If the House saw fit to approve the amendment, we would then be back to the ceiling set in the original act of $800 million. If we can do that, then I submit we certainly can do what we are now attempting to do, that is place some hobbles on this spendthrift government and say to them "not an unlimited ceiling but a limited ceiling".
I dismiss out of hand, of course, the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that the hon. member for Hamilton West is attempting to deal with the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971. He is only attempting to restrict the government's capacity to make advances. This is not a money spending bill. The argument of the government, and they have repeated it ad nauseam, is that it is a question of making advances. If they asked for the right to make unlimited advances we would refuse, but would place a limit on what they could advance. Surely, that is the purpose of the amendment. If Your Honour rules us out of order, then he is saying, in effect, that all we can do is vote against the bill. That is the effect, as I see it. We are not interfering in any way with the actual expenditure of money.
I come back to this because I think it needs to be made plain to my friends opposite that we are saying there must be a limitation, for a number of purposes which I do not need to deal with now but will deal with if we get into the amendment. If not, then I will be compelled to deal with it on third reading. I say if we are deprived of this opportunity the opposition is then restricted to voting against the bill. I agree that we should move to delete clause 1.
The government has seen fit, if one accepts the argument made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and his assistant, to place an unlimited ceiling on the fund. That is what it wants to do. But we, on the other hand, want a limited ceiling. We want less, not more. If the

February 5, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act government were to say, "We will limit the ceiling to $900 million," and if we were then to move a motion at the report stage to delete that clause and provide for a higher ceiling than the one the government wanted, we should probably be doing what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has argued should be done. So, on that basis I say we are really not dealing with the payment of moneys for a specific government purpose. We are dealing with the question of loans, and I ask the Chair to look at my argument in that light.
The citations mentioned so far have dealt with moneys being spent or bills which have been brought in to deal with actual expenditures by the government. I think the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) mentioned Citation 251. May I mention Citation 270(1), which reads:
A private member may move that certain specified taxes be readjusted and that the scope of tax exemptions be enlarged ...
That seems to me to involve not the same principle, but to permit a similar situation in that there may be a change in the incidence of certain measures proposed by the government. Citation 276(4) reads:
The House can make amendments which diminish the amount of reduction of taxation, or postpone the day when the reduction takes place, .. .
If the House can, without calling upon the government to take the initiative first, move an amendment which diminishes the amount of taxation, I argue by analogy that we can also move an amendment which diminishes the actual amount which the government seeks to use as advances.
Under the government proposal the government would, if the bill were to pass in its present form, be able to advance in the next year $3 billion; judging from the way things are going, that is a very plausible figure. In other words, the government could well advance $3 billion to the unemployment insurance fund. We say, no, not that much. We ought to come back to parliament and debate the matter if we want to lift the ceiling that has been set. I fail to see how that action would in any way interfere with the initiative of the Crown and, within the meaning of Citation 246(3), interfere with the rule that a bill such as the one brought in by the government deals once and for all not only with the amount involved but also with the objective for which that amount is provided. We are not interfering with that objective. We are not interfering with its purposes; we are not interfering with its conditions and we are not interfering with its qualifications. We are saying that the ceiling should not be as high as proposed until the matter has come to this House and been approved. If we are denied that right, I submit there is not much use in this House dealing with measures of this kind.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal for a moment with the points raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Either the hon. member has been here too long, or he is restricting his usually lucid arguments on the rules to give comfort to the government. I am not suggesting he has done this deliberately; but, really, he distorted the submission of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) when he accused him of trying to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act by

means of the amendment that he put before the House. He said that he tried to do this by increasing the limit now existing under the Unemployment Insurance Act from $800 million to $900 million. I say, not at all, Sir. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre were seeing things clearly, he would see that the attempt of the hon. member for Hamilton West is directed entirely, exclusively and solely at amending clause 1 of Bill C-124 which removes entirely the ceiling from the existing act. The hon. member for Hamilton West is not trying to increase the limit under the existing act but to limit the limitless ceiling with this amendment involving section 137. All this will become clear as I go along.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has tried to erect a straw man when comparing the amendment and bill before us with a supply bill. He tried to knock down the amendment on the basis that it might be proper if it related to a supply bill but that it is not proper with respect to the bill before parliament. The hon. member for Hamilton West tried, as he made clear in his argument, through his amendment to retain that parliamentary control over appropriations, which would disappear entirely if the ceiling of $800 million were allowed to be lifted, as proposed. This is what will happen if Bill C-124, in its present form passes. If C-124 passes in its present form without amendment, there would be no ceiling and there would be no parliamentary control. Actually, that would be putting a blank cheque into the hands of the government, and would permit the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to make as he pleases advances from time to time to the fund. There would be no restrictions whatsoever on the hundreds of millions of dollars or, indeed, billions of dollars, potentially, that could be advanced without a yea or nay from parliament.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asserts that the bill in its present form enables the government to give effect to the law now on the statute books concerning unemployment insurance by giving the Minister of Finance power to make the necessary advances and make available unemployment insurance benefits. That is what the hon. member asserts. I say, Sir, that Bill C-124 as it now stands goes far beyond the position asserted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It does not merely enable the government to carry into effect the provisions of the act as that now stands; it enables the government to go to limitless horizons in supplying moneys for the purpose of paying unemployment insurance benefits.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre referred to Citation 251(1) and cites, in support of his argument, the fact that we do not have a bill before us to provide for expenditures. Those, I believe, are his words paraphrased. Actually, there is before the House a bill to provide for expenditures. We have before us a bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and that bill, if passed, would authorize the government to make limitless expenditures for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the act for making certain payments. We have heard, in two standing committees, of those variables that can occur and that can increase the demands made upon the Minister of Finance to supply advances under section 137.
February 5, 1973

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made two points. The first was that the mover of the amendment, the hon. member for Hamilton West, is attempting to go behind Bill C-124 and amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that argument is not deserving of any merit at all because the amendment deals directly with clause 1 of the bill and attempts to limit the authority of the Minister of Finance to make advances under that section.
The second point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was that the resolution which recommends the bill to the House cannot be amended. Of course, that is the general rule, but he states it very loosely. I find this rather surprising coming from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre because normally he is very precise in advancing this type of argument to the Chair. We should look at it in some detail because, I suggest, that is the only real point of substance which Your Honour must consider.
I dismiss at once the argument raised by the previous speaker that the amendment is a negative. It is no such thing. It would be if the hon. member for Hamilton West had advanced an amendment that would have had the effect of negativing the bill, but this has not occurred. Citation 246(3) of Beauchesne's reads, and I quote:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all-
As pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, those last three words are in italics.
-(unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
Those latter categories have been dealt with by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I draw Your Honour's attention to the use in that citation of the words "not only the amount of a charge". The citation is very specific on that point. The use of those words compels one to an inference that an amount of a charge must be set. In BillC-124, we are dealing with an unlimited amount. There is no stipulated amount. In fact, there is no ceiling at all.
With regard to citation 250(4), I think it would help to review that with Your Honour. I quote:
The fundamental terms of a money resolution submitted to the House with the Governor General's recommendation upon which a Committee of the Whole is set up cannot be amended. Amendments will only be in order if they fall within the terms of the resolution.
In my submission, they do fall within the terms of the resolution. I think this point will be made even stronger by subsequent citations from May which I intend to draw to Your Honour's attention.
The procedure in committee on those resolutions follows in principle the procedure of the Committee of Supply, and amendments are out of order if they are proposed with a view to substituting an alternative scheme to that proposed with the royal recommendation.
In my submission, this is not an alternative. If it were, the hon. member opposite, who argued well but weakly, would have been correct in urging Your Honour to find a
Unemployment Insurance Act
negative, if it were a negative, but it is not. In support of my submission, I want to quote some citations from May to show that it does not offend the rule with respect to offending the resolution introducing the bill. I wish to cite first from page 514 of May's 18th edition under the subheading, Proceedings upon Italicized Words and Privilege Amendments. I quote:
It has already been explained . .. that any clause or part of a clause which imposes a charge is printed in italics. Italicized words cannot be considered by the committee, unless a money resolution authorizing them has been agreed to by the House. By S.O. No. 47 no question is put for inserting words already printed in italics, and, if no alteration has been made in such words and no amendment has been made elsewhere, the bill is reported without amendment. If it is desired to alter the italicized words, an amendment can be moved in the ordinary manner, provided that it falls within the scope of the money resolution; but any increase or extension of the charge authorized by the italicized words is only in order to the extent to which the scope of the money resolution exceeds the scope of the italicized words.
We do not follow the practice here of italicized words, but the important submission I have to make with respect to this citation is that this amendment, by inference, can be moved in the ordinary manner if it falls within the scope of the money resolution. I submit that the limitation of an unlimited authority falls within the scope of the resolution. Again, it sets out a negative position in that citation, "but any increase or extension", which the hon. member for Hamilton West does not seek to do, namely increase or extend the charge authorized. May states that any increase or extension of the charge authorized by the italicized words is only in order to the extent that it falls within the terms of the resolution.
Page 694 of the same edition of May, under Bills and Financial Resolutions, reads:
In the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth century, the royal recommendation under the Standing Order of 1713 was given to petitions, clauses of bills, instructions and motions moved in the House itself. Now it is only given to motions either relating to a particular bill or referring a particular matter to the consideration of the House. Here all that need be said is that the latter, which is the earlier form, is adapted to a generalized statement of the purposes of expenditure initiated by the Crown, and leaves a measure of discretion to the Commons; while procedure for financial resolutions relating to bills can be used to draft a motion, sanctioning expenditure recommended by the Crown, in almost as complete detail as the provisions of the bill which lay down the conditions under which this expenditure is to be administered. By this method the principle of the financial initiative of the Crown can be turned into a means of restricting the power of the Commons to amend financial legislation almost as completely as the form of the estimates restricts their power to adjust administrative expenditure.
I make this point to bolster my submission to Your Honour that by amending clause 1 of the bill to limit the authority sought by the bill, the amendment falls within the meaning of the phraseology in this citation of May, namely that the financial initiation of the Crown is not impaired if the amendment sought does not seek to limit or restrict the clauses in the bill.
Lastly, from page 750 of May under the subheading Proceedings on Financial Resolution:
Debate on a motion for a financial resolution is confined to the terms of the resolution itself and must not be extended to the related bill nor to the merits of matters excluded from the resolu-

February 5, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act
tion. The function of the House in financial matters being restricted to the approval or the reduction of the expenditure under consideration or an increase in the stringency in the terms and the conditions of the charge thereby created, amendments are restricted to these objects.
So, in substance the suggestion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that we are interfering in any way with the financial initiative of the Crown falls to the ground in the light of these citations. The amendment which my hon. friend from Hamilton West puts forward does not seek to expand the terms of the resolution; it does not seek to extend the authority requested by the government under the bill. Rather, it seeks to limit; it seeks to reduce. In bills with an appropriation aspect, such as this one, it has always been in order for hon. members to introduce amendments which seek to limit or reduce expenditure.
I agree readily with the argument that no amendment can be accepted which seeks to extend or expand expenditure. But this is not what is being done here. In these circumstances, I submit that none of the earlier arguments which have been placed before Your Honour in this discussion either by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or others, have any merit. I strongly submit on the basis of the citations I have put forward that Your Honour should find these amendments in order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is likely that none of us arguing the case against the hon. member who has just resumed his seat would qualify on the grounds of merit or substance in any of the arguments we might put forward. But we are arguing, hopefully, with an eye to the Chair rather than with an eye to the reaction of the hon. member and his friends. I found it difficult, really, to disentangle the politics from the procedure in the comments which have been made from the other side of the House. Hon. members can complain as loudly as they like about the fact that the ceiling is to be removed by the bill. They can argue that this is bad policy, and they are entitled to do so. They did so in the committee, and they failed to convince members of the committee that it was bad policy. Now, they have come back to the House, and in the guise of a procedural argument they have restated the same policy arguments against the proposal contained in the bill.
I believe that in some cases when a point of order is being argued in the House there can really be strong differences of opinion. But in this case it seems to me the inadmissibility of the amendment is crystal clear, not least on the ground that the royal recommendation is entirely explicit in stating that the bill is to remove the ceiling. Surely, when an hon. member comes forward with an amendment saying that the ceiling shall not exceed a particular figure of $900 million, the gist of the Royal recommendation is being very seriously challenged. This appears to me to be a conclusive argument against the amendment.
We are now engaged upon the report stage of the bill, a relatively new stage for this House of Commons, a new procedure. And we must bear in mind that what has passed earlier has a bearing on what can be done in the House at the present time. In a sense, the report stage, inasmuch as it enables members to deal with amendments to clauses of a bill with the Speaker in the chair, is an

assimilation of the Committee of the Whole. This is probably only an argument by assimilation, but, certainly, whatever happens on the report stage must take into account the approval in principle which was given to the bill on second reading. It was clear at that time that the main principle of the bill was that the ceiling be removed. If there were any principle in the bill, if one could find a major conclusion, it certainly was that the ceiling on advances to the unemployment insurance fund be removed.
I refer to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice which is constructive and helpful on this point. It states at page 550 in the discussion of admissible amendments-admittedly in committee but there is nevertheless similarity to our situation here, because in both cases the second reading stage has been concluded:
An amendment which is equivalent to a negative of the bill or which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to on second reading is not admissible. Where the scope of a bill is very restricted it is not always easy to grasp the full effect of this rule.
I make no aspersions in the direction of hon. members opposite. Two examples are given of the application of this rule. The first is as follows:
The scope of the Parliamentary Elections Bill, 1880, being restricted to the repeal of a section in a statute, an amendment which proposed the continuance and extension of that section was ruled out of order. The Chairman stated that, though the committee had full power to amend, even to the extent of nullifying the provisions of a bill, they could not insert a clause reversing the principles which the bill, as read a second time, sought to affirm.
Surely, what the second reading confirmed was that a ceiling of any kind was eliminated or removed. Any attempt, in my humble submission, to restore the existence of the ceiling would certainly reverse the principle adopted by the House on second reading. This same argument, if I might say so, would apply even more directly to the amendment in the name of the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). The final amendment, proposed by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is really a total rejection of that very clause that he seeks to amend. He is asking us to regard the vote as an appropriation, though the bill asks us to regard it as an advance, and instead of voting against the clause which he dislikes so much, he bothers the House by this kind of silly amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: The trouble is you are afraid to vote on the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their very interesting comments. As I indicated earlier this afternoon, I have given very serious thought to these several amendments. They have caused me a good deal of concern. I reviewed them, looked at May and Beauchesne and Bouri-not and, of course, Standing Orders, hoping that I could see a ray of light which would make it possible for the Chair to allow them and hoping, also, that hon. members could convince me that these amendments were acceptable and would be a vehicle for discussion of this important legislation under Standing Order 55.
In spite of the arguments which have been advanced this afternoon, I find it very difficult to accept that these amendments are in order. I want to insist on the fact that I have gone out of my way to study the arguments that have
February 5, 1973___________________COMMONS DEBATES______________________________________959
been brought forward by those who have taken part in this debate in support of the acceptability of the amendments. I was particularly impressed by the argumentation of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). In citing the precedents he did, I had the impression that, were I sitting on the bench, I would have come to the conclusion that he has worked very hard to advance very cogent arguments in favour of what, basically, was a very weak case.
I think the hon. member will have to recognize, as will any member who takes an interest in precedents and in procedure, that these amendments are not even borderline. I would find it extremely difficult to reconcile my judgment of such matters with accepting the amendments. I was hoping that perhaps some accommodation could be reached, but as I say I would find it difficult to countenance accepting the amendments.
My objections to them are those that I indicated when, at the suggestion of the hon. member for Yukon earlier in the discussion, I voiced my reservations about them. Arguments in opposition were brought forward and the hon. member for Yukon quoted a very interesting citation taken from chapter XXVlI of the 18th edition of May. My impression is that what he referred to is more historical than anything else. He, himself, recognized that part of the citation to which he referred dealt with the procedure that existed in the 18th and in the first half of the 19th centuries.
This very interesting paragraph im May illustrates the evolution of the control of the treasury. Obviously, anyone reading these paragraphs will come to the conclusion that this control has not evolved in the direction that might be indicated by the first paragraph, but rather has gone the other way. The first paragraph reads as follows:
When the increasing frequency of such amendments had familiarized the House with the nature of the machinery for expressing the financial initiative of the Crown, and it was appreciated that the terms of the financial resolution recommended by the Crown decided once for all the limits of amendment to the bill itself-
Then, later on:
This change in procedure has not been accepted without protest by the House.
I can well understand that hon. members may want to protest developments over the centuries, but I find it difficult to accept the argument put forward philosophically by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) to the effect that the Chair in some way should disregard or forget the rules so as to permit hon. members, as defenders of the rights of members against the Crown, to initiate amendments and to propose legislation which in some way infringes on the financial initiatives of the Crown. The hon. member for Hamilton West has put a very attractive suggestion to the Chair, but I am wondering whether the Speaker would end up, as Speakers in past centuries have, by having his head chopped off if it were accepted.
May I refer to one of the arguments made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) which I thought very interesting. He contended that the Chair had recognized in the past the acceptability of an amendment that deleted a clause. That is, of course, quite so, but it does
25714-6U
Unemployment Insurance Act
not necessarily apply to a bill that consists simply of one clause, and that clause seeks to delete a section from the statute being amended. I think hon. members will recognize that at the point it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find an amendment that is procedurally in order.
I suggest to the hon. member for Peace River that, his argument might be acceptable in a case where there is more than one clause and the amendment seeks to delete but one of them. In a case where the motion, in effect, seeks to negative the bill entirely the situation is somewhat different. In this regard, I go to page 550 of May's seventeenth edition, which was quoted by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). That provision reads as follows:
An amendment which is equivalent to a negative of the bill or which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to on second reading is not admissible.
I am afraid that that is an objection which is very difficult to overcome.
I doubt whether it is necessary for me to read once again the citations already referred to in Beauchesne, but I propose to refer to the first part of paragraph (3) of citation 246, which reads as follows:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
The hon. member for Yukon brought to my attention that the citation refers to the fact that an amendment cannot alter or amend the amount of a charge. However, the citation refers not only to the amount of a charge but also to its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications; these too cannot be changed. So even when there is no question of amount, I think the House is still bound by the principle that an amendment cannot be brought forward which in some way changes the objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications of the Royal recommendation.
Paragraph (4) of citation 250 was also referred to by hon. members. It provides:
The fundamental terms of a money resolution submitted to the House with the Governor General's recommendation upon which a committee of the whole is set up cannot be amended. Amendments will only be in order if they fall within the terms of the resolution.
I have the impression that the amendment proposed by the hon. member does not fall within the terms of the resolution. Indeed, it seems to me contrary to the resolution in that it appears to introduce an entirely new principle. I think it should be pointed out that, in addition to the words in the first part of the hon. member's amendment, the later words bring in an additional principle:
-except where an advance is approved by a resolution of the House of Commons introduced and passed in accordance with the rules of that House.
This would be entirely outside the reference to the Royal recommendation and would appear to be a principle going beyond the principle of the bill itself, as agreed to by the House of Commons on second reading.

Unemployment Insurance Act
With respect to all hon. members, fully conscious of the importance of this matter and taking into account the very strong arguments put forward by various hon. members, I still do not see how I can in conscience, respecting my obligations to the House, accept amendments which might have made it a little easier for the House to consider the points made by hon. members. It is my hope that this will be done when we reach a later stage of the bill. Hon. members will then have every opportunity to move amendments which I hope will be in order. If we do eventually move on to third reading of the bill, and amendments are moved which will make it possible for the House to consider the very interesting aspects of the matters incorporated in such amendments, then I shall certainly look at the amendments objectively and, if they are within the rules, allow the House to consider them.
I regret very much that I have to reach this decision. It has caused me much anguish and pain, and I hope all hon. members will appreciate the difficult position in which the Chair is placed in such circumstances.


Mr.   Andros@: that the Bill be concurred in.


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We were addressing ourselves directly to the first amendment in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and Your Honour in the course of your address, I won't say disparagingly but without too much enthusiasm, expressed your sorrow about the matter. I am equally sorry, possibly even more so. I think possibly the remarks of Your Honour were particularly appropriate to the amendment of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) but I believe there might have been some debate in respect of the first amendment and my amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is well taken. I felt that the same difficulties applied, unfortunately, in respect of the three amendments. I did not intend to deprive hon. members who might wish to do so of the opportunity to submit arguments in support of the other motions. I believe the hon. member for Peace River will appreciate that. I did pause a moment before I proceeded with the next step of procedure in the expectation that someone might take up the other point relating to the other proposed motions. Without prejudice in respect of their acceptability, I would have no objection if hon. members would like to speak to these other motions. I am sorry I did not appreciate that the hon. member for Peace River wished to do so.


Gerald William Baldwin: I think, Mr. Speaker, I would be inclined to agree that the remarks you made are applicable to the second amendment in the name of the hon. member for Yukon. However, I think there is this additional comment which might be made. I think we might examine the philosophy under which the new rules were brought forward. Let us look, for example, at clause 2. If we were in Committee of the Whole the clauses would be put by Your Honour one by one. If clause 2 were put, surely it would be within the competence of the members of the Committee of the Whole to vote against clause 2. They could vote for clauses as they saw fit, but could vote against clause 2. Your Honour will see the predicament in which the House

is placed by the decision which has been made. Having examined very closely the decision of the Chair in respect of reasoned amendments, as I construe the situation it becomes virtually impossible for members of this House to deal with a bill in which there are two clauses which are completely separate and independent. Certainly, no one I am sure can argue that clauses 1 and 2 have any relation to each other. Members are placed in an unfortunate position. We have indicated our willingness to accept changes with regard to the ceiling, although we disagree with the government concerning the amount. However, we say there may be a need to establish some ceiling.
Then, we say we do not like what the government is attempting to do in clause 2 and we want an opportunity to explain our position and indicate our objection to clause 2. Certainly, in Committee of the Whole we could have done this. We might take as an example the amendment which stands in my name. Let us say that we eliminate the second part of it. Your Honour will observe that the amendment provides that we amend the bill by deleting lines 6 to 27 inclusive on page one and substituting therefor the following. Let us say that the substitution had not been included in the amendment and I had simply moved that we delete lines 6 to 27 which are, in effect, the entirety of clause 2. Then, we would have had a chance to challenge the government and give members of this House an opportunity to divide on this issue of the second clause. We do not like what the government is attempting to do. We say we may have to be prepared to accept the change in the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 which does something in respect of the ceiling, but that we do not like what the government is doing in respect of this other matter and we want an opportunity not only to speak to it but also to vote our opposition to it.
In the light of what Your Honour has ruled on other occasions we are deprived of the opportunity to voice our opposition. I know it is not for Your Honour to correct the defects in the Standing Orders, but I submit there is an ancient practice that in a situation of this kind the Chair should be vigilant in trying to find an opportunity for hon. members to have their voices heard and their votes noted. With respect, I suggest that this is a very serious matter. No matter what Your Honour may say about our opportunities during third reading, any opportunity to present a meaningful amendment in respect of this repugnant clause would not only be limited but would be eliminated. All through the course of this debate the government has been saying that this is not an appropriation but is an advance. The government is attempting to say it is an advance under clause 137 of the bill. Of course by so doing it is declaring that it never was an appropriation. If it had been declared to be an appropriation, certainly all we would need to do would be to vote against that clause, but we lose that opportunity because we would have to vote against the whole bill.
I submit to Your Honour, with a strong sense of urgency, that as ingenious as we might be it would be very difficult for us to find an amendment at third reading which would permit this House to divide on the question of the impropriety of what is proposed in clause 2 of this bill. I ask Your Honour to consider that particular suggestion.

February 5, 1973


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the only difference between this amendment and the other two is the fact that this relates to clause 2 of the bill and the others relate to clause 1. With all due respect to the procedural knowledge of my hon. friend from Peace River, I may say that his talents have been much better employed on other occasions. In this case he has not attempted to make an argument in terms of rules or citations. He has rather made his argument in terms of "might have been". He is suggesting that if the rules had been different the result might have been different, or that if Your Honour's ruling had been different the result might have been different, or even that if his own amendment had been different and were not phrased the way it was but were phrased differently, the result might have been different. All those "might-have-been" arguments are interesting to listen to, but they contribute very little to the procedural discussion on this point. I would suggest that the ruling which you have already given applies in its entirety to this amendment.
* (1620)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I take it that when you were last on your feet you ruled out of order amendment No. 1 and that it is generally accepted that the same ruling applies to amendment No. 2. However, we are now discussing amendment No. 3. I would like to put in a word for the thousands of readers of Hansard who will be devouring the pages of this afternoon's debate to point out that thus far amendments No. 2 and 3 have not been put on the record. I think that at some point, either they should be read from the chair or some indication be made so that readers of Hansard will know what it is all about.
I wonder if I may comment briefly on the sad position in which the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) says that he and his colleagues find themselves, namely, that they have no opportunity to vote directly on clause 2 of the bill. I am really amazed. All he needed to do was to file an amendment last Friday which would stop after the words "page 1" in the amendment that is now before the House. In other words, if he had simply said that Bill C-124, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 1), be amended by deleting lines 6 to 27 inclusive on page 1-


Erik Nielsen: That is negative.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a moment. Your Honour has already declared that if a bill has only one clause it is difficult to see how it is possible to put forth a report stage amendment to delete that one clause. It is just a negative of the proposition itself. But, Sir, you have allowed many times amendments to a bill at the report stage deleting individual clauses where a bill had more than one clause. If I may, for example, remind hon. members of the long debate we had on the Criminal Code amendments a few years ago where some of the clauses were offensive; we had votes on individual clauses simply on that kind of a motion, that clause such-and-such be deleted. Since there are two clauses and since, as the hon. member has said, they are different, they are not attached to each other, he could have done it that way.
Unemployment Insurance Act
If he missed that opportunity, and is a member without much experience in drafting such amendments, I can tell him that even today he can still draft an amendment when we get to third reading. I suggest that he can still draft an amendment which says that Bill C-124-is the hon. member taking this down-be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration for the purpose of reconsidering clause 2. If he moves that amendment, he will get in the House, if he wants to, a recorded vote expressing the views of hon. members on clause 2. So I do not think we should waste too much sympathy on the hon. member being in a difficult position simply because he did not know how to draft his amendment.
With respect to the amendment itself-and I think we can be brief on it-I submit that it has the same flaws that amendments No. 1 and No. 2 had in that it goes beyond the bill to the act and that it goes beyond the confines of the Royal recommendation. When I was on my feet before, I read the first part of the Royal recommendation but I did not read the latter part because I was waiting until we reached amendment No. 3. The latter part of the recommendation reads:
.. . and to provide that the amount authorized under Manpower and Immigration Vote L30a of Supplementary Estimates (A) 197273 shall be deemed an advance under that section and not an appropriation described in paragraph 133 (b) of that act.
That is a very clear recommendation. How you can propose an amendment that suggests the very opposite and say that that is within the terms of the Royal recommendation is really beyond me. So there are two points: first, that it goes beyond the bill to the act, and second, that it is outside of the terms of the Royal recommendation.
I submit that there is a third problem. My friend, the hon. member for Peace River, is still only a private member of this House. Things can change around here. He might be over on the other side some day, you know, but how can a private member move something that involves an appropriation-and that is what he is doingasking that some $450 million which at the moment represents only a loan, be an appropriation charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund? I submit that if he is going to do that, he has to have the Royal recommendation, but I do not think that he has as yet the authority to announce that he has the Royal recommendation. So, I think that this amendment is even more out of order than the other two and that the Chair should not be influenced by the plea that there is no way for members of the Official Opposition to show their displeasure with one or the other clause of the bill. It takes only a little ingenuity to achieve that situation.


Erik Nielsen: I will not be making any submissions of length to you, Mr. Speaker, except to reserve a position which perhaps should be raised at this time so that on third reading I am not met with the same argument that I was met with on second reading before the bill went to committee. I refer to the resolution and its terminology and the clause in the bill itself and its terminology, the use in the first line of clause 2 of the word "authorized". Clause 2 uses the language of the resolution. It reads:

February 5, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act
The amount authorized for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 in the fiscal year ending on the 31st day of March, 1973, under Manpower and Immigration Vote L30a of the Supplementary Estimates A 1972-73 tabled in the House of Commons on the 8th day of January, 1973 shall, notwithstanding any other provision of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 ...
The resolution uses the term "authorized" and Your Honour will recall that I raised the argument at the time that the bill was anticipatory of the work of the committee and that since the committee had not yet authorized the estimate, the bill could not be dealt with. On deeper reflection, I believe that the terminology used goes beyond the authorization which was granted on division in the committee and goes to the appropriation bill itself. I believe that the resolution which accompanied Bill C-124 contemplated that the authorization of which it spoke in the resolution was an authorization by the appropriation bill. In that sense, I believe that the consideration of this clause at this time is anticipatory and consequently out of order.
I raise the matter at this time because of something that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said. He said that the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River directed itself toward the Unemployment Insurance Act, when nothing could be further from the truth because what clause 2 of the bill seeks to do is to reverse the effect of section 23 of the Financial Administration Act, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Unemployment Insurance Act. I raise the matter now, Your Honour, simply because when third reading comes along I do not want to be confronted with the admonition by Your Honour that it should have been raised at an earlier point.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in support of the submission made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) on the point of order which he has now placed before the House, there can be no question but that this matter was dealt with earlier on second reading. At that time there was a certain hesitation displayed by many of us arising from a reading of Bill C-124, in particular of clause 2, which in effect anticipated the ending of something which was then occurring in another place, namely, the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee.
At that time the matter was dealt with in a very general way. As I recall, there were several cogent arguments placed before Mr. Speaker, both pro and con, with the ultimate result that there was no disposition of the matter.
As I say, at that particular time several arguments were placed before Mr. Speaker for his consideration, one of them coming from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who, in his wisdom, indicated that the bill could be proceeded with on second reading, be dealt with in committee, returned from committee and be dealt with on report stage. However, there was some question in his mind, as there is still in my mind at this stage, as to whether we could approach third reading of the bill while we were still seized with the dilemma with respect to something occurring in another place.


Erik Nielsen: That is what he said.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not want to take the hon. member's words out of context. I am paraphrasing his contribution, but I think that he would say I am doing it correctly. The problem we are faced with here is quite simple. The Miscellaneous Estimates Committee did sit, and it dealt with many other votes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I shall allow the hon. member to continue, if he wants to, in a short while, but my understanding is that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was raising this matter by way of a caveat, at the moment, so that he would not be stopped from raising this very important and interesting point when we reach third reading, which we have not yet reached.
My understanding is that at this point we are considering arguments either for or against the procedural acceptability of the third motion under Standing Order 75, the one which stands in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). When we dispose of it and go to third reading, that is the point at which we would want to hear the arguments now being put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton West in support of those which, I assume, will then be placed before us by the hon. member for Yukon. If the hon. member agrees, I think we might proceed on that basis.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly follow your suggestion, but I just wished to emphasize the point of order raised by my colleague as a caveat. In any event, I believe it was couched in such language that it could be interpreted as a point of order. I agree that we are now dealing with arguments with respect to the admissibility of the amendment standing in the name of my colleague from Peace River.


Mr. Speaker:: Again I thank hon. members for their assistance to me in reaching a decision in relation to the motion which stands in the name of the hon. member for Peace River. It was my thought, as indicated a moment ago, that many of the comments and reflections put forward addressed themselves to all three motions.
I have the same difficulties, basically, in relation to the motion of the hon. member for Peace River, which is why I had assumed that I could at that point go ahead with the seeking of concurrence on the part of hon. members. I have heard the additional arguments suggested for the guidance of the Chair, and I would have to rule that what I said before in relation to Motions Nos. 1 and 2 also applies to the third motion.
Essentially, the motion of the hon. member for Peace River is a new proposition which he is submitting for the consideration of the House. I would quote citations 246(3) and 250(4), to which allusion has been made earlier, and an additional reference could be made to paragraph (5) on page 509 of May's eighteenth edition where it is stated:
An amendment which is equivalent to a negative of the bill, or which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to on the second reading, is not admissible.
This is in relation to the principle of the bill. There are also the difficulties relating to the royal recommendation, to which I referred earlier, and which, it seems to me, still face use squarely.
February 5, 1973

I would like to suggest to the hon. member for Peace River that there is at least something to what has been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre regarding the possibility of having this very important point considered on third reading. As I said before, I would certainly hope there is that opportunity. I would think it should be consistent with the rights of the House that we find, through our procedures, a method to have this matter put to a vote and I would hope that in the course of the third reading stage, whenever that is reached, a method will be advanced by hon. members.
This could be done by an amendment which would be acceptable to the Chair procedurally, which would make it possible to have debate on that specific point, and a division of the House, if that is what hon. members seek. For the moment, to make sure that everything is at least half clear, I will refer to motions Nos. 2 and 3 so that they can be placed clearly on the record.
Motion No. 2 stands in the name of the hon. member for Yukon. Mr. Nielsen, seconded by Mr. Wagner, moves:
That Bill C-124, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 1), be amended by deleting lines 4 and 5 on page 1 and substituting therefor the following:

"1. Subsection 137(4) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
'(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 23 of the Financial Administration Act, the total amount outstanding at any time of advances made under this section shall not exceed nine hundred million dollars.'"

Motion No. 3 is as follows: R. Baldwin, seconded by Mr. Wagner moves:
That Bill C-124, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 1), be amended by deleting lines 6 to 27 inclusive on page 1 and substituting therefor the following:

"2. Such amount, if any, as may be authorized for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 in the fiscal year ending on the 31st day of March, 1973, under Manpower and Immigration Vote L30a of the Supplementary Estimates (A), 1972-73, tabled in the House of Commons on the 8th day of January, 1973, shall, notwithstanding any other provision of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be deemed to be an appropriation described in paragraph 133(b) of that Act.".
I suppose that it is now clear that these three motions, namely Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3, were deemed out of order, and that the House is now proceeding to the next stage, that is consideration of the motion of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Mr.   Andros@: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.
Unemployment Insurance Act
Mr. Andras move that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, without being repetitious I believe I laid the groundwork with respect to a caveat, and I should like to enter it now. I notice that in terms of height and personality, the occupant of the Chair has changed but I think that the wisdom that comes from the Chair is still with us. We now have a Speaker who was not in the chair about five minutes ago, but since it was he who dealt with this matter of the bill being anticipatory, we are glad to see him. I would remind Your Honour of the problem we brought to his attention on January 25 when we commenced second reading of the bill. At that time, a point of order was raised that we on this side of the House found some difficulty in proceeding with the bill. Arguments were presented, which Mr. Speaker followed in his usual courteous manner, to the effect that Bill C-124, in clause (2), deals with a matter which was before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee as Vote L30a. We all know what it is about.
Notwithstanding that the Vote was dealt with in committee, I submit it has not been authorized yet, that is the authorization of $454 million by way of Governor General's warrants which the government now wants to call an advance rather than an appropriation. I respectfully submit that until such time as Vote L30a is authorized, not only coming from the miscellaneous estimates committee by way of a division but authorized by way of the Appropriations Act, we are faced with a very peculiar situation. Apparently in error-I do not know whether it is in error or not-the government thought that this would be an excellent way of having the House deal with a bill which anticipates. I cannot see how we can go into third reading now unless a bill has been passed, of which I have no knowledge, which would then bring the word "authorized" into full play and acceptability. I respectfully state that the word "authorized" must have some meaning at this particular time. The proper interpretation of the word is that the appropriation bill has been passed; it is in order; that what is supposed to have occurred somewhere else has already occurred. I submit that it has not.
I am pleased to note what my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-whom I like to quote now and again because I say one should give credit where credit is due-said on January 25 as reported in Hansard in the right hand column of page 652. He made a very cogent argument-


Erik Nielsen: Try where he starts wracking his brain.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I see the hon. member has already found it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I told you where to look.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There is one thing, Mr. Speaker, that we have not forgotten. We believe that when an argument is based upon wisdom, experience and knowledge of the House rules, one should never forget it. The hon. member was dealing with the problem he knew we would have to

February 5, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act face because it seems to me that we cannot deal with an anticipatory bill and he said:
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point as to whether or not we should proceed with this bill, I confess I have been wracking my brain trying to recall something that has happened in this area but I am sure that the gentlemen at the table will be able to find it. I believe there have been rulings that would support the contention of my hon. friend to this extent-
With all due respect, I think he was not talking about me at this particular time. I have no expertise so I think he was talking about others who have the expertise, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Gerald William Baldwin: He says I have not got'it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
continued:
-that it would not be procedurally correct for the House of Commons to give the bill third and final reading-in other words, not possible to pass the bill finally-if it contained in it a reference to something that was not at that point a fact. I do not think we could give third and final reading to the bill until the House had authorized the supplementary estimate referred to therein.
What august thought do we have in this regard? He said it is questionable that we should even deal with it, much less pass it. I see my hon. friend is now wracking his brain, wondering how he could have made such a mistake.
I belabour the point, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is one of some importance. I do not want to get mean or nasty, but at times there have been some devious interplays taking place around here with respect to this and other bills and it is time this matter came to a head. Surely, we cannot deal with this bill when nothing has happened in terms of the final disposition or authorization Vote L30a. One has to admit being subject to error, but I do not think I am in this regard. With proper anticipation I can come to no other conclusion than that Bill C-124, clause 2 refers to the amount authorized. My point is that the amount was not authorized and we are estopped from dealing with this bill at this time, unless we can agree to sever it and deal with the part that .eliminates the ceiling. There is some difficulty in reaching a consensus on whether there should be a ceiling or not but that can be dealt with easily. An easy way to get around this legal dilemma is to agree that we deal with one clause at a time until such time as we know that Vote L30a has been passed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to follow the argument made by my hon. friend, but I must say that the more I listen to lawyers in the House of Commons the more I wonder why they go to law school.


Gerald William Baldwin: Who is your counsel over there? Who is the dean?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I, of course, do not include you in that, Sir. I want to make it absolutely clear that I would not cast any reflections on any member of the legal profession. In this argument my hon. friend said that we are confronted with an anticipation. It is said that there are two bills-actually there are not two bills. There are notices of motions on the order paper and they have been considered by a standing committee of the House. They

relate to the supplementary estimates. That is one proceeding to which my hon. friend referred. The second proceeding is the bill now before the House at the report stage. The argument of my hon. friend is that the bill now before the House anticipates the matter that is to be legislated following approval of the motion.


Erik Nielsen: What motion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The motion that constitutes the supplementary estimates. They are in the form of motions now, and will be concurred in as motions.


Erik Nielsen: You hope.


Gerald William Baldwin: The government already has that guarantee, has it? It has already worked out that deal?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The supplementary estimates are filed as motions. If they succeed in passing, they form the basis for an appropriation bill. At the moment they are in the form of motions.
Erskine May's Seventeenth Edition deals with the rule of anticipation. Page 399 of that authority reads:
A motion must not anticipate a matter already apppointed for consideration by the House .. . whether it be a bill or an adjourned debate upon a motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: But Erskine May did not contemplate a government like the present one.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If that wording makes any sense at all, it must mean that the motion which anticipates will produce the same legislative effect. If it is to have any meaning, it must mean that and nothing else. In other words, it cannot have a different legislative effect.


Gerald William Baldwin: Better talk to Otto.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In my opinion, that is pretty sound logic, because the legislative effect of the motion that was passed for the supplementary estimates was not that of defining an advance or appropriation; the effect of carrying that motion was that of providing certain sums of money, nothing more and nothing less than that. That is what happened in that committee. What this bill is seeking to do-


Erik Nielsen: It has not happened yet.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But it happened in the standing committee.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, but it has not happened here yet.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not here, yet. What is proposed in this bill is merely to make it absolutely clear that that legislative effect in the standing committee will be defined as an appropriation rather than an advance. In other words, it is a clarifying and defining statement.
I simply say that the matters are not the same. They are different although related, of course. What matters in the legislative process are not related? Of course they are related, but they are not matters already appointed for
February 5, 1973___________________COMMONS DEBATES______________________________________965
consideration by the House and cannot be anticipated by a motion. I simply say they are different matters.
If I am to have really sound authority for validating my argument, I ought to go back to the ruling made from the Chair recently. That relied on the following words found at page 399 of Erskine May's Seventeenth Edition:
.. . the rule against anticipation ... is that a matter must not be anticipated if it is contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it is sought to be anticipated .. . but it may be anticipated if it is contained in an equally or less effective form.
It is obvious, if one goes that distance and concludes that the same matter is dealt with in both proceedings, that one must conclude with Mr. Deputy Speaker that a bill is a more effective form of proceeding that a motion. Certainly, that is my position and that is the gist of the conclusion arrived at by the Chair a few days ago.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to add anything further of substance to the point I raised on January 25 and again today. I do, however, want to comment on something the President of the Privy Council said. The more he listens to lawyers in this House, the more he wonders why people go to law school. Sir, the more I listen to the minister and the interpretations he places on May, Beauchesne and other authorities, the more I see the need for more lawyers to understand those interpretations.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Touche.


Erik Nielsen: I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre owes the House the obligation of participating in the debate of this point of order if for no other reason than that of explaining the position he took on January 25. I would think it has not changed, although perhaps between that time and the present there may be some results from that brain wracking he was doing when he made his remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that one is so warmly invited to take the floor. I am happy to respond to the invitation. May I say that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), when he quoted my remarks, quoted them in full and did not take any of them out of context. What he said I said, I said.


Erik Nielsen: But?


Stanley Howard Knowles: And, there it is.


Erik Nielsen: But?


Stanley Howard Knowles: However, I point out that I made those remarks conditionally and, in particular I asked Your Honour to put the gentlemen at the table to work in trying to find the precedents I could not recall when wracking my brain, to repeat the phrase I used on January 25.
I must say, Sir, that since that date I have given this matter more thought and concluded that there were one or two flaws in my argument. For example, if it is true, and Your Honour may so find, that we cannot pass Bill C-124 because the estimate referred to has not been authorized, it means not just that the bill authorizing that
Unemployment Insurance Act
estimate has to pass third reading in this House, but that it must also be dealt with in the other place and be given Royal Assent by His Excellency, the governor general, or his deputy. I think, if one were to push the things I said on January 25 that far, that would be the position, and it does raise certain questions. I am still convinced that there have been occasions on which we have had to stop something because of something else, and I was hoping that the gentlemen at the table might find them. Hence I am leaving this matter for Your Honour to rule on it.
Further, there is this point to be raised: the language of clause 2 of Bill C-124 refers to an amount authorized pursuant to supplementary estimates. Supposing we were to pass this bill, and supposing those supplementary estimates are never authorized. In that case this bill, even if it becomes law, would not have any effect. That must be a point Your Honour ought to take into consideration. I freely admit I said those things recorded in Hansard of January 25, although I submit they were said mainly to help us over the hurdle at that point, namely, the difficulty over proceeding with second reading. However, I think the matter must be given further consideration by Your Honour before Your Honour renders a final decision.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do other hon. members wish to make a contribution to this debate? May I have some indication whether other hon. members wish to contribute, before we proceed to our five o'clock business? I see the parliamentary secretary will participate. A decision will be rendered thereafter as to which comes first, the chicken or the egg, hopefully without the Chair laying the egg-


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Veterans	Affairs-Disability	pensions-
Request for statement on steps to expedite decisions on applications; the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett)-Harbours-Transfer of administration of small craft harbours to Department of the Environment; the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty)-Communications-Bell Canada rate increase application-Inquiry as to opposition by government.
It being five o'clock, the House will proceed to private members business, namely, notices of motions.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, in order to be helpful, if you stand them all until item 43, this will meet with the approval of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreeable to the House?
966

February 5, 1973
Public Service


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce amendments to the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code to ensure that all the provision of the Canada Labour Code relating to fair employment practices will apply to the public service of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this motion, I am mindful from reading the Canada Labour Code of the progression of history in labour relations that is evident from the pages of the Statutes of Canada, a history that began when there was no Labour Code or no such legislation, but carried itself through the years until the passage of this statute in the 1966-67 session of this House and its subsequent approval and coming into force.
The purpose of that statute was to govern equitably the relationships between employers and employees in this country, particularly with respect to those areas of jurisdiction which were within the competence of this parliament. In so doing, I think it commanded the respect of both employers and employees. As a result, it is fair to say, with some exceptions, that in so far as the statute applies, this is a reasonable Labour Code. It constitutes a reasonable step along the road to the point of perfection which all of us would like to reach and toward which all of us strive.
Section 2 of the statute is important. It defines the categories which are deemed by the statute to be federal words, undertaking or business. The unfortunate thing about the definition section is that nowhere is it specifically defined that employees of the government of Canada who are subject to the Public Service Commission are covered by the very worthwhile provisions relating to fair employment practices in the statute.
Section 5 is the next important section. It deals with what is generally called prohibited employment practices. It reads:
No employer shall refuse to employ or to continue to employ, or otherwise discriminate against any person in regard to employment or any term or condition of employment because of his race, national origin, colour or religion.
The next important section deals with equal pay. This is Part II of the statute. There is a provision in section 14 to establish a fair wage officer. The section on application is important. It applies to, and I quote:
(a)	employment upon or in connection with any federal work, undertaking or business;
(b)	employers engaged in any federal work, undertaking or business;

(c)	employees employed upon or in connection with any federal, undertaking or business; and
(d)	employment of employees by any corporation established to perform any function or duty on behalf of the Government of Canada;
In effect, it says that within all those matters within the jurisdiction of the federal government, even to that type of business which is done on behalf of the government by agencies of the Crown, the Crown corporations are covered by the Provisions of the Section but the Public Service of Canada is not so covered, at least with respect to equal pay.
Section 7 of the statute establishes penalties. The statute goes on to deal with hours of work, minimum wages, annual vacation, general holidays and all other matters.
I want to deal specifically with Part II of this statute which has to do with equal pay for female employees. Nowhere does this appear to apply to the Public Service of Canada. Section 16(1) reads, and I quote:
No employer shall employ a female employee for any work at a rate of pay that is less than the rate of pay at which a male employee is employed by that employer for identical or substantially identical work.
Section 16(2) deals with the criteria for deciding what work is, in fact, equal and how one would decide what work is substantially identical. There are exceptions, however, which do not apply to the matter before us.
Section 17 of the statute provides an important protection with respect to the discharge or some other form of discrimination against any person because that person has made a complaint, given evidence, or assisted in any way with regard to the initiation or prosecution of a complaint under that section of the act which is meant to protect with respect to equal pay. There is an adequate enforcement procedure set forth in section 18.
Section 23 permits the minister to make certain orders in an appropriate case for the establishment of equality in that particular field. With respect to the question of equal pay, the statute provides an admirable procedure for the protection of female employees of the government of Canada, but the application of Part II of the statute is very limited as I have said. It is limited because of the limitation contained in the definition section. I have searched to see whether there is some portion of the Public Service Employment Act in which this protection would apply to public servants and I am sorry to say I have failed to find any. I am satisfied it is not an omission which has been perpetrated for any bad purpose, but it is nonetheless an omission which is important for those who seek employment in the public service of Canada.
I had occasion when considering the matters we were about to discuss to review the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and the impact of women in terms of numbers, output and ability on the public service of Canada. It is interesting to note that at the time of the publication of this report-no doubt the figures have changed since then-27.3 per cent of the public service was made up of women, a very high proportion. Approximately 42 per cent of these women were single, 43 per cent were married and 15 per cent were widowed,
February 5, 1973

separated or divorced at the time of the Report. Of those women who were married, 55 per cent supported one or more children.
The government of Canada is the largest employer of women, and, indeed, the largest employer in Canada. At the time of the report there were some 475,000 persons employed by the government of Canada of whom 25 per cent were located in the national capital area, part of which I have the honour to represent. There is a statement in the report of the Commission which I believe to be extremely important. It sets forth more clearly than I could ever do the importance of women in the scheme of things for the government of this country. The following appears at page 105 of the report:
The position of women employees in the Government of Canada deserves close examination, not only because the government employs a large number of women in a great variety of occupations but because government employment practices should demonstrate its principles. Since Canada has officially subscribed to principles recognizing women's rights to equality of opportunity, the Canadian government must ensure that its employment laws, policies and practices reflect and implement these principles. The government should also make its own adherence to principle conspicuous to other employers.
I am sure there is no one in this House who would disagree with that statement. I believe there is no better way of doing as the Royal Commission suggested than by the government making its adherence to principle conspicuous to other employers by establishing within the statutes governing employment, that at least as far as women are concerned there should be no discrimination on the basis of sex or any other aspect. Some may say provision for this is already in the statute. But I have examined the Public Service Employment Act, and I find that though there is some statement with respect to the question of discrimination on the ground of sex it is not as embracing as I think all of us would like it to be.
I am referring specifically to sections 10 and 12 of that statute governing the appointment and selection standards of the public service. It is stated that appointments within the public service shall be based on selection according to merit "as determined by the Commission and shall be made by the Commission at the request of the deputy head concerned." And so on. Section 12 gives the Commission the power to set selection standards. It reads:
The Commission may, in determining pursuant to section 10 the basis of assessment and merit in relation to any position or class of positions, prescribe selection standards as to education, knowledge, experience, language, age, residence or any other matters which in the opinion of the Commission are necessary or desirable .. .
Then, with respect to selection, subsection (2) reads:
The Commission, in prescribing selection standards under subsection (1) shall not discriminate against any person by reason of sex, race, national origin, colour or religion.
These are good phrases. But my point is that they only apply to one field of legislative protection, that is, in relation to selection. There is nothing in the act with respect to men or women in relation to sex, national origin, colour or religion to give them protection in carrying on their duties in the particular positions to which they are appointed.
Public Service
There is, as well, in section 10 a bald statement that questions with respect to merit should be determined by the Commission. While I am prepared to say that the Commission ought to have the authority to employ reasonably, I am not prepared to say in the same breath that the employees of that Commission and the employees of the government of Canada generally ought not to be given the reasonable protection which is provided by the Canada Labour Code, protection which has proved effective on the industrial side, protection which is accorded in most of the provinces of Canada and which should be granted to women and to others in the public service of Canada. As I say, as the largest employer in the country, the government should be expected to provide leadership.
I recognize that this is a question which has been subject to some debate. I think its importance has been crys-talized in the growing concern that has centred on the concept of delegation of authority. Section 31 of the statute deals with this matter. It reads:
Where an employee, in the opinion of the deputy head, is incompetent in performing the duties of the position he occupies, or is incapable of performing those duties-
The section goes on to outline what may happen in that event. Mr. Speaker, justice can vary with the length of the chancellor's foot, so to speak and many instances of this unfortunate variation have come to my attention. With respect to this matter and many others, there should be incorporated into the statute the protection which is afforded under the Canada Labour Code. The statutes considered and passed by this parliament, as opposed to regulations which we as Members of Parliament never see, ought to be the basis for the rights I want to see protected, confirmed and advanced. I proposed this motion because I believed that the government should always be in the van of labour-management relations. It should always be pointing the way to the industries and other undertakings in Canada so that these industries and undertakings can look to the federal government for leadership and for example. I believe that by establishing in the acts set forth in the motion the fair employment practices as suggested by the motion the government would be providing this leadership.


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is significant that I rise following the learned speech of my colleague and friend from Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), who in his opening address to this House a few weeks ago was pleased to state that in one sense I am a constituent of his. And, indeed, that is so; but in another and very real sense the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is a constituent of mine. He comes to this chamber every day to perform his parliamentary duties, and in so doing comes into the riding I am very pleased to represent.
On many occasions in the past, the hon. member and I have practised our profession in a friendly or adversary way in this community, and I am sure that during our joint careers in this House we will have the same opportunity to engage in this type of friendly debate. It is the kind of debate that is designed for all hon. members of the House, and on this occasion seeks to provide for the public service of Canada the best possible fair employment practices.
968

February 5, 1973
Public Service
The motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce amendments to the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code to ensure that all the provisions of the Canada Labour Code relating to fair employment practices will apply to the public service of Canada.
The hon. member is referring, I submit, primarily to part I of the Canada Labour Code, which is that part of the statute that deals specifically with fair employment practices. He has, of course, also referred to other parts of the act to which I shall briefly make reference. However, at the moment I should like to review the existing fair employment practices that are in fact now available to all public servants through the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and the board and commission set up under those acts to see that the acts are fairly and justly administered in the interests of all public servants across this country.
In addition to the acts I have mentioned, there is an order in council dated November 9, 1972. The intent of this Order in Council was to remove any vestiges of discrimination which might have theretofore existed with respect to employment practices within the public service. The order in council, P.C. 1972-2569, reads as follows:
His Excellency, the Governor General in Council on the recommendation of the President of the Treasury Board and the Secretary of State, pursuant to paragraph 5(f) of the Public Service Employment Act, is pleased hereby to assign to the Public Service Commission, the duty to investigate any complaint of alleged discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, national origin, colour or religion in respect of the application or operation of the act.
The order in council to which I have referred, together with the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act, indeed provide to the public servants of Canada and ensures to them fair and just hiring practices; and, after hiring, fair and just labour relations practices that are as good or better than those applicable to any other public service in North America.
Having said that, I believe, as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has said, that no system is perfect, that we must strive to find perfection. We must continually scrutinize all our legislation to ensure it meets the needs of a rapidly changing society.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, today there was a release by the Public Service of Canada with respect to that specific order in council. The release stated that the Public Service Commission of Canada had recently been authorized to investigate complaints of alleged discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, national origin, colour or religion in respect of the application of the Public Service Employment Act. The public service of Canada is not covered by the Fair Employment Practices Act administered by the Department of Labour, and consequently the commission was assigned to this duty by the order in council which stipulates that the commission shall perform such other duties and functions with reference to the public service as are assigned to it by the Governor in Council.
The Public Service Commission has in fact established an investigation branch to carry out these responsbilities. The branch is autonomous and its officers will carry out

their investigations wherever and however they consider necessary. The investigation branch will not, however, process complaints received from personnel employed within the Public Service Commission itself; such complaints will be investigated and dealt with by investigators from outside the commission who will act independently.
The responsibilities of the appeal branch of the commission remain the same and will not be replaced by those of the investigation branch. Where a person alleges that his or her failure to be selected for promotion, or that the decision to have him or her released or demoted, was due to discrimination and this person has the right of appeal under section 31 of the Public Service Employment Act, an appeal should be filed with the commission's appeal branch.
The appeal board established to conduct inquiries into such allegations will be able to call upon the investigation branch to investigate and report upon the matter. Upon receipt of the report of the investigation branch, the appeal board will render its decision on the basis of all the evidence available. Inquiries or complaints concerning the announcement that was made today may be addressed to the investigation branch of the Public Service Commission here in Ottawa.
This indeed provides additional investigatory powers so that those items of discrimination which might be termed unfair labour practices can be investigated by a body that has no allegiance to the employer or the employee, thereby ensuring that discrimination, or any act that may appear to be discrimination, is examined and the proper remedy applied.
It is a recognized fact that the passage of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act in 1967 was a major step forward in the general field of hiring practices and labour relations with respect to public servants in Canada. Indeed, it has been recognized and examined as a model to be followed by many other countries who have sent delegations to Canada to examine the workings of these two acts. This legislation has attracted international attention, and it is my understanding that the delegates who have examined the operation of these acts in Canada have in almost all cases commented favourably upon them as being bold, imaginative and progressive legislation.
However, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) recognized, as he stated on October 21, 1972, that during the five years since these acts were passed much valuable experience has been obtained in a relatively short period of time. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated:
In the light of that experience, many comments have been made about the strength and the weaknesses of the present system.
He went on to assure the public servants of this country that the government is prepared at all times to reconsider any legislation on the basis of experience.
I would like now to briefly examine the existing legislation I have referred to from the point of view of the objectives of that legislation and the manner in which those objectives are implemented on a day to day basis by the commission or the board set up under the respective
February 5, 1973_______________ COMMONS
acts. The Public Service Employment Act, which establishes the Public Service Commission, provides by section 8:
-the commission has the exclusive right and authority to make appointments to or from within the public service-
This includes the appointment, appraisal, promotion, demotion, transfer, lay-off or release of employees. The commission by legislation is under specific direction that it shall not discriminate against any person by reason of sex, race, national origin, colour or religion.
In addition to the mandatory obligation of the commission not to discriminate on the grounds I have just mentioned, order in council 1972-2569 has imposed upon the commission the additional obligation to investigate any complaint brought to the attention of the commission where there is an allegation of discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, national origin, colour or religion relating to the appointment, appraisal, promotion, demotion, transfer, lay-off or release of employees. Furthermore, any allegation of any discrimination resulting in disciplinary action may be the subject of a grievance, and if the employee's grievance has not been dealt with to his satisfaction he may refer the grievance to adjudication under the Public Service Staff Relations Act if the disciplinary action resulted in discharge, suspension or financial penalty.
Where any such grievance is referred to adjudication, the adjudicator is obliged to give both parties to the grievance an opportunity of being heard which, of course, includes the right of the grievor to be represented by counsel. After consideration of the grievance, the decision of the adjudicator is final and binding upon both parties. It may be trite to say, Mr. Speaker, that the adjudicators are completely independent of the employer or the employee and are appointed by the governor in council. Such appointment is made by the governor in council on the recommendation not of the employer but of the Public Service Staff Relations Board.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the legislation presently covering fair labour practices under the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act provides all of the fair employment practices that are defined in the Canada Labour Code and to which the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has referred. Therefore, the adoption by this House of the motion presently under debate would net provide any additional protection to employees of the public service with respect to fair employment practices, but would only serve to add confusion to an already complex situation.
If the motion were to be carried by this House it would add a conflict whereby a minister of the Crown, namely, the Minister of Labour who administers the Canada Labour Code, could find himself in a difficult position were a dispute to arise within the Department of Labour. Then the Minister of Labour who is charged with the administration of the Canada Labour Code would be charged with the additional responsibility of investigating the complaint where he or his department may be named as a defendant.
For example, a grievor may say he was unjustly dismissed from the Department of Labour. He might at that point name as defendants the Department of Labour and
DEBATES ___________ 969
Public Service
the Minister of Labour. The grievance might be such that it would be subject to investigation and examination by the investigators in the Department of Labour who are answerable only to the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour might also at this time be a defendant in the grievance procedure, in which case the Minister of Labour would be the investigating body which would have jurisdiction over the tribunal which would hear the grievance and might at the same time be a defendant himself.
Such a patent and obvious conflict of interest would cast suspicion upon the just administration of the Canada Labour Code in relation to the public service, and thus could bring into disrespect a system of fair labour practice presently existing within the public service without providing any additional benefit to the public service by implementation of the Canada Labour Code in relation to the Public Service of Canada. Such an obvious conflict of interest is clearly unacceptable and cannot be permitted to exist.
In the previous parliament this government proposed additional protections against discriminatory practices in the areas of marital status and age. This bill, unfortunately, died on the order paper. This proposal is one which I would support. I hope that the government would bring it in at the earliest opportunity, together with other amendments which in the light of experience would be advisable at this time. The bill presented in the previous parliament to which I have referred was Bill C-206 which provided for the following amendment:
The commission, in prescribing or applying selection standards under subsection (1) shall not discriminate against any person by reason of sex, race, national origin, colour, religion, marital status or age.
This, in effect, would add marital status and age which are not presently contained in the legislation. This would be a specific direction that the commission should not discriminate on these grounds. I would hope that that bill would be brought in again by this government. In addition, some improvement could be made to these acts by making other matters subject to arbitration. This House was advised in the Speech from the Throne as follows:
You will be asked to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) has stated publicly that there will be proposals made to parliament for amendment to the Public Service Staff Relations Act. He has stated that experience gained since the inception of the act has indicated that there are a number of subjects which cannot be arbitrated now but which in his view should be. There are some specific items that are not now subject to arbitration but which should be examined further to determine whether they should properly be made subject to arbitration under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The proper time to discuss the specific changes is when the government brings forth the legislation referred to in the Speech from the Throne.
Many items that have general application across the public service are referred, with the consent of both the union and the employer, to the National Joint Council for thorough examination and a recommendation is made by the NJC often leading to improved benefits or policy

February 5, 1973
Public Service
across the public service. This joint consultation has been a very satisfactory means of settling matters which would be extremely difficult to resolve at 80 bargaining tables. The recent medicare and hospitalization premium improvements are an excellent illustration of the product of effective and joint consultation.
I fully agree with the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton that there should be no discrimination on the basis of sex or marital status within the public service. However, I would submit that at the present time there is no discrimination on the basis of sex or marital status within the public service under the existing legislation. Coming, as I do, from a house full of women, I am very conscious of the fact that there should be no such discrimination. Indeed, if I were to advocate or support it I would be in trouble in my own home.
Recently I had the opportunity as a member of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates to witness at first hand the excellence of the Canadian public service. Supplementary estimates were brought before that committee by many government departments. The Department of Agriculture provided information to the committee through senior public servants with respect to crop loss to farmers in eastern Canada as a result of adverse weather conditions. Their in-depth knowledge of the affairs of the department was of great help to me and to all who were sitting on that committee and it is indeed reassuring to know that the policies of this parliament are being executed by public servants of such high calibre.
The same can be said of the public servants who provided factual information to the committee with respect to their department, whether the Department of the Environment, the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Finance, the Department of Manpower and Immigration, the Department of National Health and Welfare; indeed, all of the departments which had supplementary estimates to be considered at the most recent sitting of the committee. On many occasions the public servants who were witnesses were subject to in-depth probing and cross-examination by members of all parties who were on that committee as well as other Members of Parliament who asked questions.
It was my observation that the public servants in all cases showed a mastery of the particular field in which they were interested and provided the committee with useful and factual information with respect to their particular subject. What I witnessed recently in that committee confirms again the true excellence of our public service. Such a public service should, indeed, have the benefit of fair and just personnel relations policies.
Although many of those who testified before the miscellaneous estimates committee were senior public servants and therefore not within the bargaining unit, I am sure they would be the first to acknowledge with me that they would be unable to do their job as efficiently or as well without the assistance of the majority of public servants who are within the bargaining unit.
In summary, therefore, it would appear from a review of the legislation respecting labour relations practices within the public service that amendments to these two

acts to incorporate the provisions of the Canada Labour Code would, in fact, add no significant benefits to the public servants that do not already exist and are available to them under the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act, but that amendments such as suggested by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton would only add, as I have indicated earlier, confusion to what is already a complex field of labour relations. They might, in fact, detract from the benefits now enjoyed under these acts and the order in council referred to and presently available to the public service.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my contribution to this afternoon's debate I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin) on his maiden speech. I suggest that he gave us a very scholarly defence of the status quo; nevertheless, it does not take away from the kind of intelligence he put into the preparation and the presentation of his remarks.
I support the motion put before us by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I would like to say, also, that I was impressed by the kind of detailed information, deep thought and study that he has demonstrated before us this afternoon. We have had an afternoon in which we have been treated to the fascination of procedural debates which are a little like chamber music; they are great for the participants but sometimes they are hell to listen to. Nevertheless, I would say that this is not the first time I have interested myself in the concerns of public servants not only in the capital area but also in my own riding.
I can report with some accuracy, I think, that the morale of the many thousands of public servants we have in Canada is probably not at its greatest apex or peak, and this has been true for the last four or five years. I think the concern is real enough and it should be apparent to the government that the loss of three Ottawa seats last October 30 indicates that perhaps all is not well, as some of us may have been led to believe by the words of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, because these Ottawa ridings have heavy populations of civil servants.
While it is convenient, perhaps, to lay the blame on the loss of these three seats on some racist demagoguery of some candidates-I hasten to add that probably in the heat of the campaign some hasty and unfortunate statements were made-as one who supported, and still supports, the bilingual policy and the bilingual legislation behind that policy I think it is as accurate to say that there has been a heavy-handed implementation of that policy which has but added to the already massive frustration and uncertainty felt by many public servants.
If we as employers desire to be more civil to civil servants, we must be more sensitive to the legitimate aspirations of public servants and their demand for stable and enlightened treatment by the largest employer in the country-the government of Canada. In fact, the government of Canada has an obligation in my view-not just the responsibility, but more than that; an obligation-to be a model for the country on labour and management relations. This has not been the case in the past. It is responsible for the large amount of resentment which festers among an otherwise excellent group of public
February 5, 1973

employees and causes them, I think, to perform in a less positive manner in many cases than if their sensitivity to some of the other problems that face them has been recognized by the government.
I think the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton was fairly accurate in pointing out at least what some of these problems might be. There is a good deal more behind the declining morale of public servants than the uncertainty caused by the bilingual program. I refer to the words related to the treatment of women within the public service dealing with promotional opportunities, which most times we can say are dubious at best.
I think we can also say that the hon. member's points related to equal pay and opportunities to proceed without the kind of male-female discrimination that abounds are well taken. We should recognize that discriminations exist. This is one of the reasons a woman was appointed not long ago to be one of the three commissioners; it was recognized that the opportunities for women in the public service were not equivalent to those of men, despite the fact that approximately one quarter of the government's employees are women.
However, I think there is much more to the problem than is stated in the motion and there are a number of other areas with which we should examine apart from the specific details cited as one act that relates to this act which relates to some other act. I think perhaps it is insufficient to get to a legal interpretation and hang one argument on one clause and then move to another clause. I am probably presenting this kind of defence because I am not prepared to do otherwise this afternoon. I do not, however, think that is the matter before us. Both hon. members have outlined the pros and cons and the details of the problem, one mildly defending the government and the other mildly attacking it.
There are a number of more general questions: for instance, reclassification has been going on since 1967 and has not yet been completed to date. Naturally, the delay creates a certain amount of unrest and instability among members of the public service. Even among members of the professional institute alone there is a tremendous reclassification backlog, stretching over a period of almost six years. We should not ignore delays like that. I repeat that I do not think we can lay the blame for all the uncertainty that faces public servants solely on the bilingualism act: that attitude is superficial; it is merely looking for an easy way out along the road toward some kind of bigotry and I do not think it is necessarily the case at all.
We must also face the question of bargaining rights. The dispute over clause 7 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act has gone on for years and years. For the sake of hon. members who do not know what clause 7 implies, I will read it. It provides:
Nothing in this act shall be construed to affect the right or authority of the employer-
That is the government.
-to determine the organization of the public service and to assign duties to and classify positions therein.
Public Service
What kind of bargaining rights are those? Doesn't this place massive power in the hands of the government to control almost everything in the public service, everything related to decent kinds of employment practices and fair employment practices and leave virtually little of importance to the public servant? What happened recently in the postal dispute? In my view the government was unable to settle that dispute as quickly as possible because the arbitrator in his recommendations went beyond the terms of clause 7. As a matter of fact, he recommended that certain matters which had previously been completely within the prerogative of the government should henceforth be negotiable.
It seems to me that if parliament is going to give these awesome powers to the government to determine the organization of the public service, to assign duties and to classify positions, and after some time say that the crucial things are not negotiable, then the government can get away with murder. And it does. It gets away with such things as allowing for arbitration to provide for a raise in salary at a particular level and then a few weeks later reclassifying the position concerned so that the employee in effect gets a salary raise and a cut at the same time. This has happened in the corrections branch and in a number of other agencies of government. Such behaviour adds to the over-all uncertainty and resentment of many public servants.
The controversial clause 7 is a subject which I have raised previously, Mr. Speaker. I first raised it on December 7, 1970. At that time the answer was, "We are considering amending this." Surely the government should have reviewed this question a long time ago. I spoke again on the subject on February 22, 1971. At that time I tried to reconcile the statement of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) that the Public Service Staff Relations Act was under review, which he made on November 27 of the previous year, with the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in a letter to the professional institute some time in December saying it was not under review. It simply could not be under review and not under review all within a matter of weeks. But after being around this place for four years I can readily understand the confusion that sometimes exists between the Prime Minister and other members of his cabinet.
Apparently that review was pursued later. On November 16,1971,about six months later,I learned that indeeda review had taken place. But, Mr. Speaker, now it was an internal review headed by Mr. Bryden, a man who has and deserves the respect of a great many people. As a result, his report was preserved as an internal document. I submit that whenever the government wants to get credit for something, it becomes public; but if the government wants to check on something that is really "dicey", it goes to the extremes of furtiveness. For example I cite the case of the Bryden report. As I have said, I learned about it on November 16, 1971. Now here we are in February of 1973. Where is the Bryden report? It is still secret. This is the kind of procedure that contributes to the morale-shattering mood of too many public servants. That is why the appeals to public servants and why promises made to them fall on deaf ears. They have heard that song before.

February 5, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act
There are a great many other problems related to the public service, but I notice the time is nearing six o'clock and I have no intention of talking-out the hon. member's motion. I want it to come to a vote. I am certain there is not anyone on the government side who wishes to stand up and talk it out. But, Mr. Speaker, I see the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) getting ready over there, and his readiness destroys my confidence in him. He is an excellent medical man but on the matter of the public service I am afraid he is going to protect the government, as usual. At any rate, he is listening to the debate.
. As I say, there are many other problems in the public service. There was the matter of the back-to-back casual employment in the postal service whereby casuals in many post offices in 1968 and 1969 outnumbered the permanent employees. In addition, tremendous lethargy has been displayed with respect to the superannuation act and improving pensions, particularly with the 2 per cent cost basis for benefits.
The Speech from the Throne promises reviews and amendments. I do not know what these will be but I would point out, in dealing with discrimination and other problems within the public service, that I have on the order paper a private member's bill which anticipates a separate appellate body. I have found that if an employee questions the decision of a superior in the public service, the matter goes right back down the line to the person who made the decision in the first place, so that there cannot be a fair and impartial hearing of a legitimate grievance within the public service.
When these matters are rectified we will develop better attitudes and morale in our public service which even now is recognized as one of the greatest in the world. And when matters of which I have spoken are rectified the Canadian public service will function unquestionably as the greatest public service in the world.


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

At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-124, to amend the Unemployment
Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 1), be read the third time and do pass.
Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, on January 25 of this year a point was placed before you which is almost identical to the point which you have now to consider. It would appear that the only substantial difference between that point and the one which you now have to deal with on the question of anticipation is that a different stage of the proceedings was in question. We were then at second reading stage of Bill C-124, and now we are considering a similar point at third reading stage.
The ruling which you gave at that time appears at page 661 of Hansard of that date, and makes the point that there is a descending order of values for matters in the parliamentary process. It was this conception which I believe you used at that time to enable you to decide that the most effective form of proceeding before the House then was Bill C-124 rather than the estimates. Mr. Speaker, I believe that is still the case. Although the estimates are now before the House, they have not been considered by it. This bill is in a more advanced stage and I believe this would still be considered to be the more effective form of proceeding before the House.
I would therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the basis for your decision of January 25 is still a valid basis; that the principle of descending order of values and of a more effective form of proceeding still applies. In light of this principle I believe Your Honour's ruling should be to the same effect today as it was at that time. It would be difficult indeed to see how this question could go any other way because the two proceedings are tied together, each is dependent upon the other and each could be said in a sense to anticipate the other. If we were not to establish one as having priority over the other, one could go to an infinite regression in attempting to decide with which one we should begin. I am sure that would not be the wish of Your Honour or the parliamentarians of this House.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) placed before us, I believe, the question of the state of the bill in the case that the estimates which are before the House would not subsequently be approved. In that case, Mr. Speaker, on the assumption that this bill is passed, but taking the hypothesis that the estimates would not subsequently be approved, we would have an act of parliament in proper order which would be entirely valid but one of the sections of the act might be rendered inoperative as a result of the fact that the estimates had not passed.
I think we have to read the second clause of this bill with a close eye to the grammar therein. There is no verb before the word "authorized". It is not a verbal phrase, it is a participle, and it would seem that the best way to understand this wording would be in the sense of "the amount when authorized" or "the amount if authorized". In other words, it is a clause which is dependent upon another happening, which is conditional upon it.


Erik Nielsen: It does not say that.


Mark R. MacGuigan: But one has to start somewhere; one has first to approve either the estimates or the bill. We are

February 5, 1973

dealing with the bill, and on the basis of the principle which Your Honour elaborated at an earlier time the bill is to take precedence.


Erik Nielsen: It does not say "if authorized".


Mark R. MacGuigan: I know what the bill says, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: Don't put an "if" in, then.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Hon. members may have their own ideas of what the bill says. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has been giving his interpretation and putting in words, now I am giving my interpretation of what the clause means. I am suggesting there is no contradiction between the estimates and the bill; the two work together. There is no other way in which the two could work together. It is a simple question for the Chair to decide which has priority.
Mr. Speaker, in light of the principle which you have established I suggest that the bill which is now before us ought to be given priority, and the point of order raised by the hon. members opposite should be found to be invalid.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) on the point of order.


Erik Nielsen: There are just two points I should like to discuss, Your Honour. The hon. member opposite has spoken of a descending order of values in his attempt to equate what is happening now with your ruling of January 25. He has advanced to Your Honour the argument that the bill is a more appropriate instrument for dealing with the matter than is an estimate.
The point I made on the point of order, which he apparently fails to appreciate, is that the whole matter turns on the word "authorized". That has to do with the authority of this House which comes into effect upon passage of the appropriation bill that comes in with the estimates, and it has nothing to do with the estimates themselves. So we are dealing with two instruments that are equivalent, a bill which is an appropriation bill coming in with the estimates and, on the other hand, the bill now before us. There can be no choice about any descending order of bills when there are two bills to deal with.


An hon. Member:: Not at all.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why do you not deal with both together?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as I did not hear that interjection I cannot deal with it. Also, one clause of Bill C-124 might be inoperative if the estimates fail to pass, as has been suggested. That argument bolsters what I have been saying, that the bill before us anticipates the appropriation bill being brought in with the estimates; that appropriation bill is an essential prerequisite before the bill presently before the House can be dealt with.
I urge strongly upon you, sir, the idea that Bill C-124 anticipates an authorization that has not yet been given. The resolution itself uses the word "authorized". The use of the word "authorized", regardless whether it is used as a participle, presupposes that the appropriation bill will
Unemployment Insurance Act
authorize the expenditure of funds in a manner in which this bill seeks to do, namely, to change those expenditures from an appropriation to an advance. Therefore I submit that my hon. friend and the government are trying to put the cart before the horse. This is a totally irregular procedure and would cast doubt entirely upon the validity of Bill C-124, if it should ever pass in its present form.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, further to the point of order, we have reached the point in the debate this evening that was anticipated in the second reading debate on this bill.


An hon. Member:: Keep talking. We can wait until Christmas.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: At that time I indicated to Your Honour, in speaking on the point of order raised in the earlier debate by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), that the language of this bill, particularly with regard to clause 2 dealing with an item in the estimates, is total nonsense and an abuse of language in any way that one can reasonably consider it. With the objective of rescuing the government from its ineptitude with regard to unemployment insurance, some hon. members in the House are trying to hide behind the backs of the thousands of recipients entitled to unemployment insurance and, as a result, we have been taken to the brink of disaster because of that unconcern for the people.
The government, however, has chosen this method of asking the House for carte-blanche with respect to ceilings on loans or advances from the Minister of Finance. Having taken action through governor general's warrants, and having followed the requirements of the Financial Administration Act to convert those items which appeared on the governor general's warrants into advances-


Erik Nielsen: Seduction with intent.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -the government has introduced this bill before the appropriation bill has come in, and the appropriation bill has not been passed by this House. I say this is a nefarious bill because it claims, in so many words, that this House has already authorized those advances. That is the point.


An hon. Member:: True.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is what the bill says.


An hon. Member:: No.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There has not been any authorized advance under any appropriation bill.


An hon. Member:: Go back to law school.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No appropriation has been put through and therefore no advance has been authorized by parliament.


An hon. Member:: No.

February 5, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It has not been
announced by parliament.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And yet the government simply says-


An hon. Member:: Tell that to your constituents who want to collect benefits.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If hon. members opposite have dined well, perhaps they could go elsewhere and enjoy themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In that connection there was a great deal of argument in committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There was argument on that particular point. I know that hon. members opposite who find this situation amusing have not even looked at the proceedings before the committee. They have not even bothered to inquire. They want to be able to say as they used to, "Mr. Speaker, we want to pass this bill." But the bill must make sense, and it does not.
I invite Your Honour to consider the arguments we proposed the other night on a point of order. We were then told that perhaps we were anticipating something, but now is the moment of truth. I invite Your Honour to consider carefully the language of the bill and the language of the item in the estimates which will form part of an appropriation bill, because neither the Chair nor any member of this House can guarantee that the appropriation bill will come forward soon or next month. Actually, there is no indication that the appropriation bill will be brought forward at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Or the Senate could turn it down.


An hon. Member:: It will be introduced next.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In short, we are asked to approve language saying that a certain item authorized in the appropriation bill shall be deemed to be an advance within the meaning of section 137 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. That part is an abuse of language and is totally out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I thank hon. members for their contributions. Earlier today, when Bill C-124 was called for third reading, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) raised a point of order to the effect that Bill C-124 could not be proceeded with at this time. It was the hon. member's contention that since certain moneys were to be provided under vote L30a, and since that money could not be authorized until the passage of a supply bill incorporating vote L30a, the wording of clause 2 of Bill C-124 was meaningless and invalid. The hon. member suggested that the word "authorized" as

used in clause 2 of Bill C-124 meant authorized by an appropriation act. While the Chair dealt in a preliminary way with the point of order on January 25, as will be found at page 661 of Hansard, it should be said that the question of considering concurrent or interdependent bills, if that phrase may be used, has been raised on other occasions in recent years.
On April 20, 1970, as recorded in Hansard at pages 6046-7, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) raised a point of order relating to Bill C-204, an act to amend the Fisheries Act. He contended that it was defective inasmuch as that bill incorporated, by reference, certain provisions of two statutes which did not then exist, namely, the Canada Water Act and the Northern Inland Waters Act. The hon. member went on to say that presumably those references related to Bill C-144, an act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada including research and the planning and implementation of programs relating to the conservation, development and utilization of water resources, and Bill C-187, an act respecting inland water resources in the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories, both of which were before standing committees of this House for clause-by-clause consideration.
"We cannot be asked," he said, "to assume that these bills will come out of committee unamended or pass through the necessary further proceedings in this House and in the other place unamended. We cannot even assume that the similar provisions in this bill and the other two bills will come out in the same legislative form. They will be dealt with by three different committees; the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. Until these other two bills are in perfect shape as statutes, this bill must be considered to be in imperfect shape". That is the end of the quotation from the argument of the hon. member for South Shore. It was suggested on that occasion by the Chair that the hon. member's point of order was very interesting and not without merit but, as suggested, it might have been premature. The matter did not arise again.
I might also refer hon. members to Hansard for July 30, 1958, at page 2872 to 2874 wherein a discussion is reported in relation to other companion bills, that is, bills with interdependent provisions. On that occasion, bills to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Customs Tariff Act were being considered, and while no decision was made by the Chair it would be fair to suggest, I think, that it was felt at that time that it was not a question of order but, rather, a matter of how best to achieve logical progression of companion or interdependent bills through the House.
There is little doubt in my mind that many examples could be found where companion bills were being considered concurrently by the House. For example, I am sure that interrelated provisions can be found almost annually in the budgetary taxation bills. Other recent examples would be the bills in 1967 relating to the revision of the Bank of Canada Act, an act respecting banks and banking, and the Quebec Savings Banks Act were being con-
February 5, 1973

sidered concurrently by the House at one stage or another.
In the same session, bills in relation to the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the Financial Administration Act and the Statute Law (Superannuation) Amendment Act, all with interdependent provisions, again were being considered concurrently by the House. In that regard, I suggest that reference be made to the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Joint Committee on the Public Service of Canada in the 1966-67 session. In the 1968-69 session, reference might be made to amendments to the Financial Administration Act and an act respecting the organization of the government of Canada, both of which received royal assent on March 28, 1969.
I have spent some time on these examples because I was asked to do so by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and I know other hon. members share his interest.
It could have been suggested that the bill and the related estimate, which in fact form an integral part of the preliminary stage in the passage of a supply bill now before the House, were not considered by the same committee and that substantive provisions of one of them could be or could have been altered or amended so that one would not have been consonant or consistent with the other. That question, I suggest, is one that could and must be resolved at the committee of the whole or report stage on the second bill to reach either stage.
What would be the alternative? It would be, surely, to set aside consideration of this bill and take in all its stages the item in the supplementary estimates. This would not only involve the approval of the estimate as it now exists as item 5 at page viii of today's Routine Proceedings under "Notice of Motion Pursuant to Standing Order 58(4)(a)." This would also in effect mean the amendment of a statute of parliament through an item in the estimates. This procedure in the past has always been vigorously resisted by members of the House of Commons.
That is, in effect, what the Chair was trying to say on January 25, as reported at page 69 of Votes and Proceedings-and I gave earlier the reference to the page in Hansard-when I stated, in part, "that the authorizing bill must become law before the authorization of the relevant estimate by the Appropriation Act". May I draw attention to the use of the words "authorizing" and "authorization" as used in that citation which was taken from May's eighteenth edition at page 731.
Given the choice, I feel that members of the House would expect that the Chair would favour the method that members themselves have advocated consistently on past occasions. The Chair has always agreed with this position, and it is to be consistent with past rulings that I suggest that the procedure now before us is the desirable one. Accordingly, the third reading will proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).
Unemployment Insurance Act


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of leading off this debate. Incidentally, we are all very pleased to see that the minister is back in harness. I understand that he had been affected by the flu. I am sure I speak for all hon. members when I say that we are very pleased to have him back in our midst.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Having said that, I want to know why the usual custom of the minister who is carrying the load is not being followed,'that is, his making the necessary submissions in which he could perhaps discharge the heavy onus that is upon him as a result of requiring these changes.
I think it is quite irresponsible for the government to bring in this bill, have second reading, at which time the minister did speak, and take the bill to committee without making available the responsible minister. I do not blame him for that; we all understand that he was sick. The government brought in the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). If the minister is not quite up to it at this time perhaps we should have the Minister of Justice here to again give us his wisdom which most of us in committee, except for those on the other side, did not accept.
Many questions were raised during the committee stage which have been left unanswered by the fast-footing of the Minister of Justice who was sincere in his fast-footed-ness. We expected the minister to look at the proceedings to find out the several questions that we asked. Perhaps he thinks they were not asked correctly. I am at a loss to understand why the minister is not putting forward the position of the government at this time. Be that as it may, I do not see anyone jumping up to accept my challenge. I assume he does not wish to speak. If the minister wished to speak, he would have put a little something on the record so that the nation would know he is back, healthy and prepared to support this bill. I will certainly defer to him for as long as he wants. I will sit down, Mr. Speaker. I hope that as a result of my charity the Speaker will not look upon me as having lost my place. If we cannot have it that way, the minister can speak later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I should bring to the attention of the hon. member that following the rules and practices of this House, in moving third reading the minister is deemed to have spoken. That is the interpretation of the rule. As no one is entitled to speak in reply on third reading, the hon. member should complete his speech or give the floor to another hon. member.


Gerald William Baldwin: We understood this. This is why my hon. friend suggested the House would give unanimous consent to the minister to answer the thousand-and-one questions which the people of Canada are waiting to hear answered. We are prepared to give unanimous consent to the minister to speak now and deal with this matter. I think he should.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. We all know the House is master of its own rules and that the minister may speak by unanimous consent. But the Chair could not

February 5, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act permit, as suggested by the hon. member, some kind of an interrogation to take place on all subjects. If the minister wishes to speak and unanimous consent is given, the Chair is ready to recognize him; but I will find it difficult to allow all kinds of questions to be asked.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is not my suggestion at all.


Robert Knight Andras: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to say I accept the hon. member's kind remarks about my return to the House after a bout of 'flu. I regret the inconvenience which has been caused to hon. members of the committee. But I did present myself, with my officials, during two meetings of the committee for some six hours, for some six hours. Also, and a great deal of effort has been put forward this evening to establish that the subject matter which was then considered is somewhat relevant to that which is under consideration now, with which I agree. We did present ourselves for six or seven hours and I understand there were a further dozen hours or so of questioning. I suggest that if opposition members ask questions for between 12 and 18 hours on a bill which contains only two clauses-


An hon. Member:: Why not answer them?


Robert Knight Andras: I have read the transcript and I have not seen anything in the questions which would suggest there was anything to be gained by rising now and speaking on the motion for third reading.


Erik Nielsen: On the point of order to which the minister has just spoken, I wish to point out that there were 19 members on that committee and the minister is accountable to the House of Commons, not to a standing committee. The very fact that he was absent for three or four of those meetings prevented us asking him many of the questions we wanted to ask as members of the opposition, so he cannot take refuge in the device of saying he cannot find anything intelligent in the committee proceedings. Again, perhaps this was because of his absence.
My second point is this. I was under the impression that my hon. friend from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) was speaking on a point of order directed to calling attention to the ordinary custom in this House, that the minister make an opening statement when he presents a motion for third reading of a bill. Surely we are entitled to such an opening statement. The hon. member for Hamilton West will be our lead-off speaker after Your Honour has disposed of the point of order. I request that the minister make that opening statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) might wish the Chair to rule on the point of order he has raised. First, as to what took place in a committee, as far as the Chair is concerned it is not in a position to take into account such procedures or the absence of hon. members from committee meetings. Were it otherwise, we would get very deeply involved indeed. The fact that the minister may not have appeared in the committee to the satisfaction of hon. members-possibly for a good reason-or the fact that he does not elect to make an opening statement on third reading does not constitute grounds for a valid point of order.


John Mercer Reid: Why not listen to the hon. member for Hamilton West? He might have something to say.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, my dear colleague, I shall have something to say. There is one thing you cannot do in this place; you cannot prevent us from speaking, as you tried to do in the standing committee, by moving closure in an effort to prevent Members of Parliament doing their jobs.
This bill was supposed to be a panacea to cure all the ills of the original Unemployment Insurance Act. This was to have been the means of ensuring legislation which would work to the advantage not only of the government but of everyone else involved in the structure of the unemployment insurance scheme. We were led to believe that his was the answer; this was what the government had attempted to do with its former bill, Bill C-229. Who would have imagined that we would find ourselves in the terrible dilemma we face today?
The act was supposed to bring benefits of administration. Events have proved otherwise and the heartlessness of the government has brought frustration to many thousands of Canadians. In the last analysis it is obvious that the bill has not turned out to be a panacea as we were led to believe. Responsibility for the dilemma now confronting us can be placed squarely on the snoulders of the government. If we were to believe what we were told, the structure of the fund would maintain equilibrium provided unemployment was less than 4 per cent. In these circumstances there was a responsibility upon the government to develop the economy; to ensure that the economy reached full employment, if we can accept this phrase as being meaningful. In this case the contributions made by the government would beat the lowest figure.
What happened? The government attacked inflation by bringing about high unemployment. Hon. members opposite have since confessed that this was wrong. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) sat in his high chair and said, "I will go to 6 per cent."


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that they should say "No, no" I say this is what he said. He said he was prepared, in order to cure inflation, for unemployment to reach at least 6 per cent. In doing so he caused a degree of frustration among thousands of Canadians which citizens of a civilized country should not have to endure. High levels of unemployment meant that the unemployment insurance scheme was hopelessly handicapped.
I notice the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) realizes, at last, that it is necessary to produce a target figure for unemployment. After much prodding he has finally admitted that the government's goal for 1973 is a rate of less than 6 per cent. It is quite a challenge. We hope the government will accept the challenge, because if it is overcome there is no need for us to worry about huge advances being made to the unemployment insurance fund; we will not have to worry about a large amount being taken from the consolidated revenue fund as part of the government's share. This should be the government's goal. It should have been its goal in the first place, but it abdicated its responsibilities in this regard.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
February 5, 1973

I am pleased that the minister made a small interjection, which was his speech. He said that he could not understand how such a small bill could create so much confrontation, so much debate. That shows that the minister does not really realize how devastating is the bill. I admit that it is a short bill: it has only two clauses. But their effect is devastating inasmuch as the consequences of the two provisions mean the removal of parliamentary control. I see the minister shake his head. The government are not only removing control but at the same time are asking us to give them a blank cheque.


Mr.   Andros@: No.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have heard the government say no before. Let hon. members opposite not get confused over advances, appropriations, funds and accounts.


Gerald William Baldwin: They don't know the difference.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: No, they do not know the difference, though I will be charitable and say that a few may. The government is asking for a blank cheque so far as advances are concerned. They were limited at one time to advances of $800 million as working capital. This was money put at the disposal of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in the event that the premiums paid by employers and employees were insufficient to carry on on a month to month basis.


Robert Knight Andras: And what else?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The government said, "Let us put a ceiling on it of $800 million".


Robert Knight Andras: But what about the government's share?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: When the government brought in these amendments, firstly to remove the ceiling and secondly in an attempt to make legal that which was not legal in the first instance under clause 2 they assumed a tremendous onus to discharge the matter satisfactorily, not only as far as Members of Parliament are concerned but also the people of Canada. Hon. members on this side went to the committee sincerely, hoping, that for some reason or other the government would tell us that the reason they needed to remove the ceiling was so-and-so.
Instead, the reasons we were given were unacceptable; they were the same reasons the government had given for imposing the ceiling in the first place. These reasons stem from 1971, at which time the reasons were satisfactory to the government and should have been satisfactory to us and to the nation. And we bought those reasons, Mr. Speaker. But what we bought was one of the biggest messes this country has ever seen in terms of government expansion. At the same time, the workers attached to the labour force and who are entitled to these payments were not given a break.
The government are now asking us to buy a pig in a poke; we are being asked to give them a blank cheque. I resent this type of thinking. Surely, if someone wants me to buy something they have to give me a price, some sort of figure. Not one member of this House at this time
Unemployment Insurance Act
knows what this scheme is going to cost during 1973, despite the excruciatingly persistent cross-examination of the officials in committee. Surely the minister should not come to the House with this bill unable to project what the scheme will cost. That fact alone means he is in trouble, at least as far as we on this side are concerned.
I know the government is able to make a projection because it did so with the governor general's warrants. The government between October 5 and February 8 projected two significant amounts; I believe the first warrant was for $234 million and the second was for $220 million. This covered a period of four months. We are now asking the government to make a projection for the future, but the government says it cannot be done.
What bothers me when we talk about money is that to this government any sum is just a drop in the bucket. The former minister asked, "What's $220 million?" and said it was only a drop in the bucket. Amazingly, the same minister said that the people of Canada did not care how much it cost so long as the unemployed got their money. I do not know where he developed this kind of reasoning, because I should like to tell him that the people of Canada do care. Certainly they are concerned about their tax dollars, and rightly so. Whether the government likes it or not, one of our duties is to be the watchdog of the public purse.
I hear one member over there laugh at that. I should like to know what his thinking is with regard to this matter. The role of the opposition is to criticize constructively.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is what I am doing. I am trying to make the government behave.


Mr. Breau:: Who supported the bill? You did.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My hon. friend across the way says I supported the bill. If he recalls, we supported the bill on division after such haranguing and harassing in terms of bringing in meaningful amendments. I will tell him about one right now, and that was the eight weeks attachment to the labour force. Why does the hon. member not talk about the amendments that we tried to bring in? There were several and various amendments that we said would make the bill much more acceptable, which would make it a true unemployment insurance bill. For example, we talked about attachment to the work force. Now the government is being subjected to all kinds of criticism.


Robert Knight Andras: This is only a short bill, you know.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister had his opportunity to make a speech. His great contribution tonight now seems to be to try to interject, to talk about amendments that his government did not accept, and did not accept for reasons which even now I cannot accept. It seems to me that anything the government says about the bill just cannot be believed. What they said previously could not be believed; time has shown that. The government has given us no reasons for believing them now. I agree it is a short bill, but the minister does not understand why we are talking about it. We are talking about it because we were sent here to talk about it. I recall that during the last

February 5, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act
election campaign people asked me what was going on with regard to the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
The government said in 1972 there would be something in the order of $1 billion in terms of employee benefits. We know what it is now. It is almost $2 billion. Yet we are told that we do not have the right to probe into that matter and ask questions about it. Are we being told that we should be as irresponsible as members opposite have been and still are? As I have said, one of the prime functions of the opposition should be that of a watchdog on the public purse. We must not forget that. They may not like what we are doing, they nay not think it is necessary, but I say they must take their lumps. The minister said they must take their lumps. Certainly they do, because they were wrong then and are wrong now in attempting to remove this ceiling. In effect they are removing parliamentary control and are emasculating the supremacy of parliament in doing so. I say that no one should vote in favour of this bill without carefully considering the paramountcy of parliament in respect of government spending. Where are we going? Are we being told that the matter of spending should be left to the whims and fancies of cabinet? Surely that is not what this great institution is all about.


An hon. Member:: What about the committee?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The committee does not mean a thing when the government is still insistent on maintaining the principle of removing the ceiling. Should spending be at the whim and fancy of cabinet, or should it be on the direction and approval of parliament? I suggest it should be the latter.
The Minister of Justice, as a matter of fact-who played some role before the committee-indicated he agreed with the proposition that moneys which are appropriated from the consolidated revenue fund should be appropriated in accordance with the terms set out by parliament; he agreed with that. But for some reason or other he says that is what he would say in any other circumstance, but in this circumstance this is not needed and that they will do it on their own.
The former Minister of Labour, in one of his more exciting contributions when involved in this matter, said the opposition was not needed, that they could do it themselves without us. However, I say they need us to check them. I do not want anyone to make any mistakes. There are some members over there who are confused. What we are talking about are the advances, the working capital. It seems to me that in 1971-72 the working capital, or the advances were under control. We endeavoured with all our wherewithal to ascertain from this government why it had the control in the first place or why it had the limit in the first place. There was much speculation. The Minister of Justice, speaking on behalf of the minister who was ill at that time, said he thought it was useful, convenient and desirable. He did not say, however, that it was needed. I respectfully say that it was not only useful, convenient and desirable but that section 137(4) was needed on the basis of the information they had received from either the minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Finance, the Department of Manpower, or the Unemployment Insur-

ance Commission and all the statistics that could be gathered together.
They decided they should be careful and place a limit in order to have some control. The Minister of Finance said he could not be paying out money helter-skelter at the whim of cabinet, but must have some control. What came out of all that? Here we have it. This was the bible at the time: it is a document giving facts and figures on unemployment insurance in the seventies. What a snow job that was! Now they discount it. They tell us to throw it away because they did not mean to say what is contained in this document. As a matter of fact, I believe the Minister of Justice said that it was sort of a guess. I remember that the unemployment insurance hierarchy indicated that under every circumstance which they could possibly bring forward, including consideration of all the variables, the amount that would be sufficient for the advances was $700 million. But they went one step further. They thought they would toss in another $100 million.
Is it not amazing that at that time they were so sure? They were absolutely positive that a ceiling was necessary in the new panacea for the ills of the Unemployment Insurance Act. What do we have now? We have the old flip-flop, the U-turn. As I look at this government, "U-turn and flip-flop" would seem to be its new name. When this government wants me to buy this nonsense, I say I am not buying it. They came to us in 1971 and asked us to believe them. We said we could not because we had figures which showed they were wrong. Then they told us not to believe our figures because they were wrong. They said that they had the expertise, the bureaucracy and the knowledge.


An hon. Member:: And the computer.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let us not get involved with the computer. I say that controls are needed. I was convinced about this in the first instance. I say this is needed so that the people will have some indication of what is going on in terms of their money. This is the only protection the people have. We say that the government should come to parliament. We are not saying that the government cannot have any more money, but we are saying that it should come to us when it wants money. This is our responsibility; that is what section 137(4) is all about. Every conceivable argument was raised to have that provision included at that time. Now every conceivable argument is being projected in order to take it out. We cannot accept this flip-flop philosophy. It is not only unacceptable, it is irresponsible. It brings into question the competence and integrity of this government in enacting any of its policies, and especially its policy on unemployment insurance.
I am not saying that they did this deliberately, but perhaps they should get rid of all that staff because now we are questioning the government's intelligence. Perhaps they are the ones who should have gone. I see that a few of them are still around but I do not want to mention names. I will leave the poor former minister alone because he has been my friend over the years. He was sold a big bag of goods and he had to defend this bill for all its worth knowing that perhaps, as he said, he should
February 5, 1973

have come to parliament and let us know earlier of the situation of the fund. He wondered whether perhaps he was not wrong in this regard.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says that the government was wrong and stupid, but he goes along with them-he a man who cherishes the paramouncy of parliament.


An hon. Member:: Come on.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: An hon. member in the rear has made a remark. I do not know what his problem is. He has not had a chance to speak since January 4. This is his maiden speech.


Mr. Rowland:: Not quite.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The reason that they give now for removing the ceiling is the constantly changing situation. There is one thing about it-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have heard the hon. member speak before but I have not heard him speak off the cuff. He reads his typed speeches word for word. If there is one thing that he should learn to do it is to rise and take part in the debate as Members of Parliament should. I am not mentioning any names but I am referring to the hon. member in the red shirt over there. If he wants to rise on a question of privilege, let him stand up and the whole nation will know who I am referring to when I speak about the hon. member who reads his speeches in the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are two members with red shirts over there.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am referring to the one with the loud mouth. Mr. Speaker, one would hope that this debate would be treated seriously and that we could score more serious points. But when you have buffoons interrupting you every five minutes it is not possible to have any continuity of thought.


John Mercer Reid: You could not sustain it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am still right on the road and I am speaking to the minister in charge of housing. We are waiting to hear from him. I am sure he has another panacea for the people of Canada. I know we will have to get involved with that matter sooner or later, and I hope he will not be smiling then as he is now; I hope he is deadly serious, because we are concerned about housing for low income people and I hope his bill will have some answers.


Mr. Basford:: It has some of them.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As I was saying, the reason which they give for removing the ceiling is based on constantly changing and unpredictable factors such as national and regional unemployment rates, constantly changing average earnings and the growth of the work force, in other words, the added participation in the work force, as well
Unemployment Insurance Act
as the length of the benefit period. All of those factors were known in 1971.
Since then we have solved these problems; we have reached our conclusions after deliberation on all those matters to which I have just referred. However, they were absolutely adamant that there should be a ceiling. What do they say now? They say that it does not matter what they did in 1971, they just do not have the competence to project. I do not know whether they are referring to the incompetence of the Department of National Revenue in their projections, the incompetence of their economic advisers, the incompetence of the UIC, the incompetence of the Department of Manpower and Immigration or the incompetence of the Department of Finance.
I cannot for the life of me understand why at one time they were able and willing to bring forth projected costs, but now in 1973 they say they cannot do it. Yet they expect us to buy this bill, this pig in a poke. We cannot do that. We would be irresponsible if we did. The government should tell us how much this is going to cost in 1973. If they could do it in 1971, they can do it in 1973. Not a soul throughout this great land of ours knows now, or will know until such time as this government wants them to know, how much this scheme will cost. This is irresponsibility at its worst.
I wish the government could take this matter seriously, because they have not discharged their responsibility. They stated that they are able to project costs for four months, but when it comes to projecting costs in order to satisfy the public with respect to their money they say they cannot do it. Not only do they say that they cannot do it, but they will not do it. The minister says that he cannot hazard a guess. No one is asking him to guess. We say to the government that they should put their economic advisers to work in the departments which I mentioned so that they can come up with a figure, because if they do not do so the Canadian public will not be satisfied that there is a necessity to remove the ceiling. I want the government to believe that. The public wishes to know what the scheme will cost.
We should know in fact whether the bill is worded in such a manner as to meet the administrative problems and the problems that will arise as a result of the financial situation, keeping in mind that control should be in the hands of parliament. We know that under section 133 the money comes from the premiums paid by the employer and the employee as well as from the appropriations. The minister can get more money at any time with the approval of parliament. Even though there is a ceiling under section 133(b), it is not as if there was no possibility of obtaining more money. Although you needed more money, you did not have to do anything as devious as asking for governor general's warrants rather than come to parliament. All the government had to do was to look at section 133(b) which reads:
any other amounts provided out of the consolidated revenue fund for any purpose related to unemployment insurance that is authorized by an appropriation by parliament and the administration of which falls to the commission.
There is a ceiling, and if the government needs more money they can get it from parliament. If parliament is not sitting, they can apply for governor general's warrants

February 5, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act so long as they do not make projections and resort to a devious scheme such as the government did and then attempt to have clause 2 of the bill passed. I see that the President of the Treasury Board has a perplexed look on his face. We said it before and we say it now; the government knew on August 15 that this fund was in trouble. If you didn't know, you should have known; and if you did know and did not attempt to pursue it further, then once again I say you were incompetent and irresponsible, because legal counsel for the Unemployment Insurance Commission had a meeting with the minister's officials shortly thereafter and met with a number of legal counsel for several departments, the names of which have not been revealed. I suspect that meeting was to determine how you were going to face that problem without telling parliament. That was the devious scheme; and finally someone said, "Let us grab them by governor general's warrants."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: They are oh-ing and ah-ing over there. This was your devious scheme to bypass parliament. And you expect us to stand here quiet, shackled and helpless. There is a parliamentary secretary laughing now.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Your own fellows are laughing too.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There are four reasons why we need a ceiling. First, we need a ceiling because then the government will be so involved with the scheme, in terms of unemployment, that its whole fiscal and monetary policies will have to be directed to the development of the nation in order to reduce unemployment. A ceiling would give the government some impetus to work toward reducing the unemployment rate. I do not hear anybody questioning that so I suppose it is accepted.


Stanley Ronald Basford: If we interject, you criticize. If we don't interject, you still criticize.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The second reason for a ceiling is to give some impetus to the Unemployment Insurance Commission in terms of administration. If you don't have a ceiling, who will care? There can be haphazard administration or no administration at all. As long as officials know there is a ceiling and they cannot grab a buck every time they turn around, this will make the commission think of what it should be doing to tighten up the administration, to eliminate abuses and to make the scheme work at the cheapest cost to the Canadian taxpayer. The Canadian taxpayer does not mind paying money when he sees it going for a good cause. But when he sees it going down the drain and is told it is only a drop in the bucket, then he becomes worried.
The third reason for having a ceiling-I think this is also of some importance-is that we must maintain parliamentary control, no matter who sits on the government benches. I would speak the same way if I were sitting on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker; and that is something we in this party will be doing in the very near future. We must give some semblance of strength to the House of Commons. Without that we might as well all go home

right now. We might as well give up if we are simply going to spend money at the whim and fancy of cabinet without the consent of parliament.
I cannot understand how members of the government had the nerve to bring in this bill. The fourth and most important reason for having a ceiling is that the government has not given us any indication of what the cost of this scheme will be.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The money isn't for the government; it is for the unemployed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You say the money isn't for the government? I beg your pardon. You won't tell us how much the scheme is going to cost. We have a right to know. All of us were out on the hustings recently. We promised we were going to find out what was going on here. But I do not think many hon. members on the government side promised that. They don't give a damn. As a result, they are displaying the same old arrogant attitude. I thought they had learned a lesson.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniei):: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Saltsman:: Would the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hamilton) permit a question?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, not on your life. The hon. member can get up in debate and do all the questioning and answering that he wants. I have given four reasons why I think it is necessary to have a ceiling in this bill. I have never been more serious in my life than when I stand here now and try to convince hon. members, both in front of me and to my left, that it is necessary to have a ceiling in the bill.
Clause 2 also bothers me. I know other hon. members will become involved in this argument. I listened to the Minister of Justice explain it in terms that he believed would be acceptable to the House and to the nation. Once again he did not leave us with anything we could grab on to, and all I can say is that clause 2 came about as a result of section 23 of the Financial Administration Act.
The government went to the Minister of Finance and to the President of the Treasury Board and said, "Let us get an appropriation." It was an appropriation then, and in my respectful submission this meant it was a grant coming from the consolidated revenue fund. But now the government says, "Oh, no. Even though we took it under section 23 and the following section, we don't mean that to be a grant. Even though most of it is our fault because of high unemployment, we are going to call it an advance so that it can come within the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act and be paid back from premiums contributed by employees and employers."
I do not know what is wrong, but any time I see the words "deemed to be an advance" under section 137 of that act, something smells. Something smells when it says it shall be deemed to be this and not the other. It leaves me with the impression that in the first instance it was an appropriation. In order to clear up that ambiguity the government now introduces this bill, asking us to approve this type of nonsense that it has been projecting ever since
February 5, 1973

October 5 last. If we pass clause 2, then we approve what the government has done in terms of governor general's warrants even though we argued for two days about the illegality of that. As a matter of fact, someone said it was one of the most unique situations, right on the border of illegality. We are being asked to give overt approval to something that we believe was definitely and drastically wrong.
If we approve this, it is also putting an added burden on those who contribute to the scheme, the employees and employers. The minister shakes his head.


Robert Knight Andras: You just don't understand.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If it is going in as an advance, it has to be paid back on such terms and conditions and in such a manner as the Minister of Finance may prescribe. That is quite obvious. Whereas, Mr. Speaker, if this matter is left as a grant it takes on a different complexion entirely, because then it is out of the consolidated revenue fund; that is where it stays and the whole program is shared by the taxpayers, generally speaking.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am most surprised that a bill which I had thought would be meaningful and would solve the ills of the unemployed has led us into one of the most elite debates that I have encountered in my four and a half years in this House. It is a debate that I think we should all be very much aware of; we should all be cognizant of what this government is attempting to do in two areas. First of all, they are trying to remove the control of parliament on government spending and, secondly, they are trying to make us accessories after the fact. We do not appreciate either of these gestures, Mr. Speaker, and we do not endorse them. Accordingly, as on second reading, we take a very dim view of this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) was condemning the government for its failure to solve the problem of unemployment, and indeed for its deliberate policy of creating unemployment as its answer to inflation, I was with him 100 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: In fact, Mr. Speaker, I wish he had spent more time dwelling on the way in which this government has let Canada down these last few years by its failure to come forward with policies that would produce full employment.


Mr. Woolliams:: Well, you are supporting them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) has pointed out on a number of occasions, the real scandal of this government is not with respect to its administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act; the real scandal of this government is unemployment itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Unemployment Insurance Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: If there is anything that we should be doing in this session of this parliament, we should be bringing home to the government the urgent necessity of dealing with the problem of unemployment. I wish my hon. friend from Hamilton West would use his debating skill and his loud voice not to flog a dead horse but to try to get the government to face up to what is the real scandal.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If I ever saw a dead horse, we have one now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I join with the hon. member for Hamilton West in his assertion that there are a number of weaknesses in the Unemployment Insurance Act. It may be that we would disagree about those weaknesses, however. I suggest that there are places where he would like to tighten the administration of the act, whereas some of us are more concerned that the people it covers really get the rights to which they are entitled.
The hon. member says that his party supported the Unemployment Insurance Act on division. Mr. Speaker, that statement shows that they are trying to have it two ways. When someone in this House, in response to a motion, says "On division" it does not mean that he is half for it and half against it; it means that he is against it but is not forcing a recorded vote.
Mr. Speaker, we found fault with the Unemployment Insurance Act, but on balance we felt it was an improvement over the previous act; that it was worth a try and that having tried our best in committee to get it improved, we should give it a chance. The trouble is that this Unemployment Insurance Act was put to a test by a level of unemployment far beyond anything that the government had contemplated and far beyond anything that we had considered when we had the bill before the committee. Let me say, at the risk of repeating myself over and over again, Mr. Speaker, that the scandal which erupted during the election campaign, and the scandal that is still with us, is not a monetary scandal, is not a case of misappropriating or over spending money; the scandal is unemployment itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Let's turn them out, then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The entire opposition of this House, including my friends of the Progressive Conservative party, should be insisting on policies that will do something about unemployment itself.
Mr. Speaker, even after we have isolated the real issue, namely the scandal of unemployment, and even after we have pointed to some of the weaknesses in the present Unemployment Insurance Act, the fact is that Bill C-124 is here for one reason only. I suggest that it is the responsibility of the grown up members who sit in this House of Commons to acquaint themselves with what this bill is all about. This bill has nothing to do with the terms and conditions under which unemployment insurance benefits are paid; this bill has nothing to do with paying a deficit on the unemployment insurance account; the purpose of this bill is simply to cope with the fact that as the bill was

Unemployment Insurance Act set up certain working advances were required because unemployment got out of hand. The amount of working advances so required was greater than the $800 million ceiling that was put in the act. We are not talking about paying a debt of $800 million or a debt of $1,250 million, which is what the figure has grown to as a result of the governor general's warrants; we are talking about advances that had to be made so that the Unemployment Insurance Commission, as it was required to do, could carry out the law imposed upon that commission by this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend keeps saying that he is for the poor, that he is not anxious to interfere with the payment of unemployment insurance benefits; but, Mr. Speaker, if this bill is defeated or is not passed within the next two or three days, the payment of unemployment insurance benefits will halt.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr.   Andros@: Twenty-four hours.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The responsibility will be on my friends to the right.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   Andros@: By Wednesday!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of sounding like a school teacher, which I am not-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Take a chance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In any case, after the demagogic display we have had from my hon. friend from Hamilton West-


Some hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -I think it is necessary dnce again to do a bit of what the hon. member for Verdun did when we were on second reading. May I therefore explain how the Unemployment Insurance Act now operates. There are paid into the unemployment insurance account premiums by employers and employees and, provided unemployment is under 4 per cent, something the Liberals know nothing about, that is all that goes into the account. But, if unemployment exceeds 4 per cent, and it has been away above that for a long time, when the calendar year is over and the computation can be made there must be credited to the unemployment insurance account an amount equal to the total amount of the unemployment insurance paid out because unemployment was above a 4 per cent national average. We do not yet know what that amount will be that the federal government must put into the unemployment insurance account for the calendar year 1972.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That, really, is an irrelevant question. The fact is we do not know the total of the payments that will reach the unemployment insurance account from the Department of National Revenue and reflect the premiums that have come in from employers and employees.
It is in that interim period, when it has not been possible to credit the government's contribution that is required because unemployment is above 4 per cent, when it has not been possible to compute what the total premiums are for employers and employees, that the Unemployment Insurance Commission requires a working advance so that it can do that which it absolutely must do, pay benefits to the unemployed people of this country as required by the law of this parliament. We provided for that in the act, so that in this interim period when the books are not completed, when the moneys are not all in, the unemployed will not have to wait for their payments. The working advance is used for that purpose.
That is what the $800 million fund was for. That is why the government, when parliament was not in session, had to obtain money through governor general's warrants. It required a total of $1,250 million to finance the payments. But that does not mean, as my hon. friends on my right have tried to make out, that there is a deficit of $800 million or $450 million or $1,250 million in the fund. We will not know what the deficit is until the bookkeeping for the whole year has been completed. I understand that it may not be completed for some weeks or even months. So we are talking about a period in which all we are concerned about is working advances.
Conceivably, and I put it that way because I know that it will not work out that way, once the money and the accounts are all in there might be enough money to pay back the full $1,250 million, but I do not think there will be enough to pay it all back.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly, the amount of deficit at that point will be a lot less than $1,250 million.
If I may continue for a few moments longer in a school teacher's vein, what happens if after the bookkeeping is done for the calendar year it is determined that there is a deficit? Is the treasury called upon at that point to make an appropriation? No. In the meantime the Unemployment Insurance Commission has had the obligation to adjust the rates that it charges to employers and employees, in the hope that in the succeeding year or succeeding two or three years that situation will be overcome.
It is quite conceivable that in a run of two, three or four years the unemployment insurance account, as now established, could come out even steven. There is no guarantee of that, but that is the way it works. To talk of there being a deficit at this point, of there being a charge against the treasury or about the necessity for an appropriation, is to fail completely to understand how this act works. How could my hon. friends who have talked about the hours that they sat on the various committees still display such ignorance as to how this fund works. That really amazes me. We are not talking about a deficit; we are not talking


February 5, 1973

about something that has to be charged to the consolidated revenue fund; we are not talking about something that needs to be paid for by the taxpayers of Canada.


Erik Nielsen: Oh, come on!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are talking about a working advance that is needed because the money is not all in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: And about short falls.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are talking of a scheme that runs in terms of a three or four-year cycle.


Erik Nielsen: We are talking about short falls as well; the minister said so himself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is a short fall of revenue at the moment.


An hon. Member:: And who is going to pay it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, do I have to go over all this again?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This afternoon I was invited to take the floor, whether I wanted to or not. Now I am getting the opposite advice.


An hon. Member:: Some cannot understand the law, or will not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is a simple operation and is easy to understand if anybody really wants to understand it. I suggest that my friends of the Progressive Conservative opposition who continue to talk about this as if somebody was defrauding the treasury, or as if somebody was imposing an extra burden on the taxpayer, are misunderstanding completely or failing to understand how the present Unemployment Insurance Act works.
There are some other remarks I wish to make. I was not too happy-


An hon. Member:: But you are happy now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -over the arrangement whereby employers and employees were required to pay the whole shot up to the 4 per cent rate of unemployment. I wanted the government to come in from the first dollar, as was the case under the old scheme where the formula provided for a sharing on a basis of 50-50-20; but that was overruled and the present act was put on the statute books.
I think we are under the obligation to give the Unemployment Insurance Act in its present form a fair trial. I do not think my hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party want to give it a fair trial.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Gilbert:: Right on.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: They say they are concerned about the poor. I say they are yielding to the backlash against welfare and the backlash against the Unemployment Insurance Act. I can read editorials in the newspapers, too, but I hold that the idea of unemployment insurance for covering people who are without income because they are out of work is a social principle of the highest order. This parliament has supported it since 1940 and it was advocated for 20 or 30 years before that. I submit that any individual or party that stands in this House and tries to downgrade the principle of the unemployment insurance scheme does not deserve to be listened to at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let me say a few
more words about this.


An hon. Member:: I think the government had better listen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to talk about this extra money that is supposed to be available as a working advance. I think the government was stupid for putting the ceiling in there in the first place. There is no reason why it was put there, and I think it is to be commended for admitting that was a mistake. Actually, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), speaking for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), before the standing committee used the term flip-flop. He said, "Yes, we made a flip-flop", and I commend him for his admission. As I say, the ceiling should never have been put there in the first place.
We have old age security in this country. We have an act which says how much our senior citizens are to be paid.


An hon. Member:: It is not as good as it ought to be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend says it is not as good as it ought to be. That is correct; and it had better be a lot better soon, or else.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: But there is nothing in the Old Age Security Act which says-


An hon. Member:: But there soon will be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -that if a certain level of money has been paid out, no more may be paid.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The Tories will put that in, if they can.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That legislation happens to be comparable to the act we are considering because there is an old are security account to which certain moneys are credited. If that fund is in the red, do old age security payments stop? No. The Minister of Finance makes the necessary advances. Similarly, we have a Family Allowances Act in this country: it states that children up to certain ages get a certain amount of money. We have a Youth Allowances Act as well. Do we have anywhere any provision that if the number of chil-

February 5, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act
dren gets so large that the total cost exceeds a certain amount, that it be stopped? There is no such thing at all. Why, then, do my friends to my right want to impose a ceiling on the amount that is available to unemployed people as long as they are getting their benefits under the provisions laid down under the act?
We have veterans pensions and veterans allowances. .When veterans meet the conditions and pass the tests of the Canadian Pension Commission, they get the pension that is in the schedule. Nobody says, "Oh, but there must be parliamentary control. There must be a limit to how much we can pay out". We have war veterans allowances. If veterans meet the conditions of the War Veterans Allowance Act, they get their money. There is no Tory saying, "We must have parliamentary control. We must have a limit." Not at all.
The Canada Assistance Plan works much the same way. In that case the federal government even underwrites what the provinces do. As long as the provinces meet certain conditions laid down in the Canada Assistance Plan, they can pay supplements to their pensioners, get various programs under way in the social welfare field and collect 50 per cent of the cost from Ottawa. Nowhere is there any ceiling or provision that says they cannot get this when they exceed a certain amount of money. What is it that is wrong with unemployed people, in the minds of my friends to the right, that they must be pilloried in the way they are being pilloried in this House tonight and being told that they cannot get their money?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friends to my right do not like the reference to their not getting their money. They know that if this bill is not passed in the next two or three days, the money which the Unemployment Insurance Commission now has for the payment of unemployment insurance benefits will run out and there will be a cessation or a hiatus in the paying of unemployment insurance benefits.
A few years back there was a crisis with regard to unemployment insurance. Our friends in the other place held up a bill that had some extra money for the unemployment insurance fund of those days. They held it up for the weekend, that is all. The result was that some payments were delayed for a day or two. At that time I was able, as I have seldom been able in all the years that I have been in this House, to get unanimous consent to a motion to debate my bill to abolish the Senate. Why? Because this House was furious that the Senators took action that delayed the bill over a weekend which held up for a day or two the payment of unemployment insurance benefits.
The members of the official opposition are now taking a stand the result of which can be the cessation of the payment of benefits on Wednesday or Thursday of this week certainly until February. 15, if not longer. I suggest this is an irresponsible position to take. It puts this House in the position where we ought as soon as possible to say

that this bill is justified, it ought to be passed and the same principles that we apply to the payment of old age pensions, family allowances, veterans benefits, and so on, should apply here.
We are not giving the unemployed a chance to dip their fingers into any till. We are just saying that this sovereign parliament of Canada passed an Unemployment Insurance Act that states when unemployed people meet certain conditions, they shall get their benefits.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: No responsible Member of Parliament has the right to take a stand which interferes with those benefits. For these reasons we feel that this bill should be passed at this time. We will not lose parliamentary control. Parliamentary control was written into the Unemployment Insurance Act itself. Although my hon. friends may not know it, the Department of Finance has to report on these matters all the time. It reports appear in the Canada Gazette, part I, every month. These reports include the state of loans and advances that are made. These things are not done in secret. We know the state of the loans. We know the state of the old age security account. These things are all public. At budget time, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has to give a full accounting. We have control over supply. We have control over the government. We have far better control if it is done this way than the sort of blind and secret $800 million that the minister was able to use. I think that was a mistake and it is time for it to be put out.
In view of what happened this afterooon I thought my hon. friend was going to move an amendment to state their opposition to clause 2 of the bill. I even drafted it for him when I was speaking on a point of order earlier today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: He did not move the amendment but he called upon the House to reject clause 2. I really become astounded at the way these people can go both ways. They talk about this whole business as though it is a monetary financial scandal. They say, "We don't know the cost. The people of Canada are having to pay for it." Yet when the government comes in with a proposal that the working capital necessary to keep the fund in balance should be an advance only, they say, "Oh, no; make it an appropriation." That would put it back on the taxpayers of Canada. I do not know what the Globe and Mail and some of the other papers would say then. They would probably wonder what happened to their Tory friends.
Let us give this new piece of legislation a decent trial. To take the Tory line would be not only to interfere with the unemployed getting their benefits but would bring an end to this fair trial. I think the position my friends to the right are taking is completely irresponsible.
I am as much for parliamentary control over the public purse in a real way as anybody in this House. I am for an Unemployment Insurance Act that is better than this one, but we have a particular and immediate situation. We have an act that is in trouble because unemployment got
February 5, 1973

too high. All that is needed is that there be sufficient working advances so that the government can carry it. For the members to my right to block it is utterly irresponsible. It is not worthy of them. For our part, we believe in unemployment insurance. We believe the unemployed people of this country have their rights and that is why we are supporting this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to get sidetracked too much by the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) who is using the word flip-flop as part of his vocabulary now. I do not think anyone in the House of Commons has done as many flip-flops as that hon. member has in the debate in recent weeks on unemployment insurance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am more interested in getting on to the impression that the hon. member and other hon. members of this House have left, namely, that the worker of this country is lazy, that the plan has been abused and that there is some type of stigma about unemployment insurance. I think that the following facts, hopefully to be reported by the press and arising out of the evidence before the miscellaneous estimates committee and given to me by the present minister, will put to an end once and for all the concept that Canadians have abused this plan flagrantly.
In 1972, the year just completed-that is the first year under the new act-we had the concept of universality, which meant that over 7,150,000 workers out of close to nine million members of the work force paid into the unemployment insurance fund and were therefore eligible for benefit under certain conditions. In 1970, the last full year under the old plan, when we did not have universality, when coverage was restricted-as hon. members know, there were no school teachers, hospital workers or casual workers contributing-there were only 4,900,000 covered by the unemployment insurance plan. In 1972, 7,150,000 people were paying into the unemployment insurance scheme, and despite the high rate of unemployment there were 2,099,000 claimants.
In 1971, there were 2,092,000 claimants and in 1970, out of a work force of about 5 million, there were 2,049,000 claimants, a drop of only 50,000 compared with those drawing unemployment insurance this year despite the fact that the plan of two years ago required 30 contributions for eligibility and this year only eight were required. Where are the abuses that the people across the way are so prone to talk about?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said it much more eloquently than I can. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) knows as much about the Unemployment Insurance Act as the present minister or the former minister. Yet he has found it convenient to disown the very act
Unemployment Insurance Act
he was so proud of-convenient to disown the steel workers of Hamilton.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -and play up to the reactionary forces in this country in the most flagrant manner I have ever heard in debates in this House in recent years. He is responsible, intentionally or otherwise, for the distortion which has gone on in this debate about the $800 million.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has drawn attention to the fact, the minister has drawn attention to the fact and it has been stated ad nauseam before the various committees, that the $800 million is nothing more than a method by which the government lends money to the commission for day to day financing. And when it is accounted for in April, hon. members will find that the government owes all but $159 million. The rest is owed by employers and employees, and the act provides that the backlog must be picked up through increased contributions. And they will be picked up. There is no mystery about this. The hon. member for Hamilton West understands it. You see, he loves to walk along a tightrope, appearing to be a friend of the steelworkers on the one hand and passing as a great lawyer on the other. But he cannot have it both ways all the time and constantly be on both sides of the fence in Hamilton.
I know something about that city, as the hon. gentleman is aware. I can remember walking through Gage Park in the thirties. The unemployed were lined up in rows, passing a single newspaper from one to the other. We in this party don't want to get back to those days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Only once did the hon. member get on the right track. That was when he said the government had the responsibility to bring unemployment down to an acceptable level. In the interval, those who were unemployed through no fault of their own should not be forced, by the reactionary tendencies of the party opposite, to forgo benefits which are properly theirs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The defeat of this bill, as the hon. member who is a prominent lawyer knows, would make it impossible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission to pay to the innocent victims of unemployment their benefits next week, or the week after, or very soon. How it is wrong to have a ceiling of $800 million, and then propose an amendment that it should be $900 million when he says that $800 million is much too high-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -is a technique I cannot possibly follow. He comes in with an amendment that it should be $900 million. That is a piece of logic I cannot understand.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I do not mind the ravings and rantings of the former minister, but I do not want him to put words into my mouth which have not been uttered by me.


Some hon. Members:: Question.

February 5, 1973
Adjournment Debate


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Just a minute.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: How about a little order, Mr. Speaker?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: All I would like to say is that I think the minister is very dishonest.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He is less than honest.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He is less than honest when it comes to interpreting my remarks to suit his own political expediency. My main point is that there should be a ceiling in this act-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It appears to the Chair the hon. member is simply making an argument now. He has made his speech and I do not think a question of privilege arises.


Gerald William Baldwin: With great respect, Your Honour-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would you ask the menagerie to be quiet? I simply say it is permitted under the rules, when an hon. member objects on the ground that another hon. member has attributed to him words he did not use, for the member who feels he has been misrepresented to rise and say so. That is all. It may simply be a misunderstanding. But this is the only opportunity available to my hon. friend from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) to put the record right. He is entitled to make the statement he did.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I do not disagree with the point made by the hon. member, but neither do I think hon. members should take advantage of questions of privilege to make a second speech. The hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey).


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I regret it if my words were offensive to the hon. member, but I do know that an amendment was moved today-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it is ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I have raised this question out of concern for the backlog of applications by Canadian war veterans and their rights under the amendments to the Canada Pension Act to reapply for disability pensions.
On January 9, as reported at page 88 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), who today was referred to as the minister of agriculture, in view of the fact that the number of applications was increasing rather than decreasing, what steps he was taking to control the build-up in the backlog of applications, particularly in view of the fact, as I have said on many occasions, that the expected lifespan of Canadian war veterans is getting shorter and shorter as the years go by. The minister indicated in his reply to me that in a matter of days we would know what steps are being taken to rectify the situation and that pretty soon the trend would be reversed.
Subsequently, under questioning in the miscellaneous estimates committee the chairman of the pension commission said that while he realized these problems are of great concern across the country, he was rather pleased to say that the commission was making fairly good progress. He said that the backlog reached a peak of almost 9,600 cases at the end of September and that the commission were able to reduce that in January to just under 9,400. He said that the thing that was more important than having merely cut off 200 cases was the statistics themselves.
He went on to say that each month for the last seven months they found they had increased their production substantially. For each month of 1972, compared to each month in 1971, they increased their production. The incoming claims continued to go down. The curves on the graphs and the statistics showed a decided decrease, although there were individual months when they did go up. He said that in November and December of 1972 there was an increase but the over-all picture showed a decrease. Then he said that he was fairly confident that within the next two or three months we should be well on the way down.
I have every faith in the words of the chairman of the *pension commission because I know he is as concerned as I am on behalf of the veterans that time is of the essence so far as the World War I and World War II veterans are concerned. I also know that the new minister, who certainly portrays an example by his contributions to the efforts made by veterans, feels that no stone should be left unturned either to increase the number of pension commissioners on an ad hoc basis, be it regionally or nationally, or to amend further the benefit of the doubt clause so that every benefit is directed toward the veteran who deserves, as of right, compensation for the sacrifice that he or she made to our nation in time of war.
We now have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to open up the whole question of the backlog of applications. Therefore I request the minister to deal with the matter. A number of days have past since he indicated to me in this
February 5, 1973

House that in a matter of days this situation would be rectified. Therefore, I ask him at this time what proposals he has to support the answer he gave me in the House on January 9, almost one month ago, and I look to him for that answer at this time.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question may I say that under the Pension Act pensions are paid in respect of members of the forces who have been disabled or died as a result of military service. At the present time the Canadian Pension Commission is paying pensions for disability to over 19,000 World War I veterans and over 12,000 of their widows. They are also paying over 1,000 disability claims to World War II veterans and to some 15,000 widows whose husbands' deaths related to that war. All told, there are over 150,000 persons receiving pensions related directly to injuries or death as a result of military service for this country.
World War II has been over for some 27 years, and World War I for over 54 years, but even now claims are being received at the rate of about 700 a month. The Pension Act was amended in the spring of 1971 and it provided many new extended benefits and has given many veterans or their dependants the opportunity to reapply for pension. The Canadian Pension Commission is dealing with these claims as rapidly and as sympathetically as possible. Members of the House will be interested to know that although the number of claims awaiting adjudication reached a peak of almost 9,600 by the end of 1972, the first reduction in the backlog was made in January so that there are now just under 9,400 on hand. This is the figure I was looking for when I told the hon. member I hoped I would have a more favourable report. So I am glad it has turned out this way.
One area in which there has been a good deal of interest lately is the basic rate of pension. Rates in the past have been set from time to time. Last year the government introduced a cost of living feature so that pension rates increased with the increase in the cost of living. The veterans' organizations were pleased with this but felt that the basic rate itself was too low. As a result, a study group was established jointly by the veterans' organizations and officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Canadian Pension Commission under the chairmanship of Mr. A. O. Solomon. This group has now issued a report which was tabled in the House last week and which, briefly, recommends that the basic rate payable to a single, 100 per cent pensioner be related to the earning power of the single public servant. In doing this they took five categories and worked out an average take-home pay. They also recommended that the married pensioner should receive an additional 25 per cent-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but the time allotted to him has expired.


HARBOURS-TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATION OF SMALL CRAFT HARBOURS TO DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, on January 16, as recorded at page 333 of Hansard, I
Adjournment Debate
asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) the following question:
Has responsibility for the administration of small craft harbours been transferred from his department? If so, when, and under what authority?
The Minister of Transport was somewhat vague in his reply so I transferred my question to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) who responded as follows:
Yes, Mr. Speaker. Responsibility for the administration of small craft harbours was transferred from the Department of Transport to the Department of the Environment in March of last year.
I was somewhat surprised by this answer, although in fairness I should say I was aware that some such idea was under consideration as a result of having been provided by the office of the Minister of the Environment shortly before the 1972 summer recess and the subsequent general election with a couple of documents. One is entitled "Interdepartmental task force on small craft harbours". In it, the following terms of reference are set out:
By cabinet document, No. 766-71 dated July 12, 1971 the cabinet committee on priorities and planning agreed under section (f) of this decision that a report on small craft harbours be prepared by the Minister of the Environment in consultation with the Privy Council office-
The terms of reference include some principles and guidelines one of which is a definition of small craft harbours as follows:
That small craft harbour be defined ... as any sheltered area of navigable water, natural or artificial, where small craft may be moored or berthed and where the harbour's present primary use is one of or combination of commercial fishing, recreational sport fishing and pleasure craft activities.
Second, I would like to state that a small craft harbour may exist either at a separate dock contained entity or as a part of a larger multipurpose harbour. The second document I have is headed "A listing of the 131 small craft harbours in the Province of British Columbia presently vested with the Ministry of Transport and subject to further transfer considerations under the terms of reference of the inventory review-phase II."
The date of that report is April 17, 1972, and as I understood it the transfer considerations and the fact that the listing of harbours was presently under the ministry of transport made it clear, at least to me, that this was a matter under discussion and consideration within the councils of this government. Certainly my impression was that no such transfer had taken place, yet the minister said on January 16 that this transfer had in fact taken place in March. I find this puzzling to say the least.
The interdepartmental task force had another item under its principles and guidelines to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. It reads:
That small craft harbour component marine facilities be functionally considered in context of an integrated harbour system.
This led me to make an analysis of the harbours in British Columbia with which I am most familiar. Of the 131 harbours listed in this document, 53 are in Comox-Alberni. Because of some knowledge of those establishments I have had a look at them in relation to the criteria that were set forth. Of the 53 locations, I classify only 15 as exclusively fishing and/or pleasure harbours and only

February 5, 1973
Adjournment Debate
three as exclusively transport harbours. All of these in this listing of 15 plus three that I have given are relatively small. In fact, in the earlier report by Dr. Tom How they were classified either as C or D harbours.
This raises the whole question of what value if any there is in dual departmental responsibility respecting relatively small harbours along the coast of British Columbia. I will confine my discussion to that question because I am not familiar with those on the Atlantic coast. In other words, if this transfer has in fact taken place, it seems to me that it has raised more questions than it has answered about the whole question, the long standing dilemma of small harbour administration. This mixed jurisdiction is something that I find very puzzling and I wonder how it will work to improve a situation which Dr. Tom How in his report in 1967 described as a rather disastrous one to say the least.
I must say, in conclusion, that not the least of the considerations that are raised by this transfer is the deep-rooted mistrust which the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) has engendered among commercial fishermen who are still the principal users of most of these small craft harbours and for whom the harbours were primarily built in the first place. The agile and scheming mind of that minister who moves in such a mysterious way his wonders to perform, in the light of all his actions about licencing, buy-back schemes and herring regulations-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to provide an answer to the hon. member's original question. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) is responsible for the administration of federal harbours. The marine administration is established to administer commercial cargo shipping harbours within a network of marine transportation terminal and way facilities. Considerations governing the development and administration of these are based on user charges and cost recovery in so far as practicable in keeping with the national transportation policy as enunciated in the National Transportation Act.
Small craft harbour facilties are provided for the berthing of fishing and recreational craft and are accordingly not of basic interest to the ministry of transport as transportation facilities. There are some 2,700 harbours and facilities in Canada administered by the ministry of transport and of these 2,163 are recommended for transfer to the Department of the Environment. The Minister, in his dual capacity as Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries, is responsible for the fisheries industry in Canada. This transfer of responsibility will enable the minister to deal more effectively with the orderly development of the fishing industry.
The decision on the transfer-I believe this was the hon. member's original question-was made by the cabinet on March 2, 1972. However, the transfer has not yet been completely implemented due to considerations involving implications for other government departments. It is anticipated that the matter will be resolved before April 1, 1973.


COMMUNICATIONS-BELL CANADA RATE INCREASE APPLICATION-INQUIRY AS TO OPPOSITION BY GOVERNMENT
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, on January 18, as reported at page 430 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) the following question:
In light of the increased profit arising from last year's operations by Bell Canada, has the minister decided to make representations to the Canadian Transport Commission concerning their application for increases in rates?
Although the minister started to give me a reply to the question, he was ruled out of order by the Chair because the amount of time required by him to give the answer was longer than allotted. Primarily, my reason for asking for time in this adjournment debate was to give the minister time to explain the government's position on this very important matter. I do not want to take a great deal of time before the minister has an opportunity to do that, but I would like to make a few comments about the government's position on Bell before he speaks.
I think that each member of the House has had several complaints either about the quality of service provided by Bell or about the rates charged by Bell. At the present time the government is being asked to approve some very substantial rate increases for Bell which will directly or indirectly affect every Canadian family. Lord Thompson of Fleet once said that owning a television station is like having a licence to print money. In a very real sense having a monopoly, or quasi-monopoly in the communications industry is also like having a licence to print money because the use of these services is impossible to avoid by the average Canadian.
In a few minutes the minister will explain the government's unwillingness to appear before the Canadian Transport Commission by saying that it is due to the government's ability to overrule a decision by the CTC. In large part I agree with the minister's position. However, for the government to say this it must be prepared to take the extraordinary step of overruling the CTC if the decision it makes is not in the public interest.
There is another factor that must be considered by the minister and the government, and that is the role of the government as a customer of Bell Canada. For example, we are told that the government is the largest customer that Bell has in this country. As a customer whose bills are paid by the taxpayer, those of us who are here today have a responsibility to ensure that the taxpayer does not have to pay any more money than is absolutely necessary for these services. We also, as customers, have a responsibility to recognize the position which other customers are in, to make sure that their interests are also protected. In short, the government has a responsibility to ensure that the customers of Bell Canada do not have their voices go unheard.
What the government should do is make sure that counsel is freely available to customers of Bell so that their case can be put before the CTC. I will not personally take a position on the rate increase application because of lack of expertise and the facilities available to the government to examine Bell's submissions and operations. I would note a couple of things about Bell Canada, however.

February 5, 1973

The government's relationship with Bell is almost familial. It is incorporated by the government; it is federally regulated and the government is Bell's largest customer and as such has a vested interest in the quality of service provided and the rates it charges. Tax rates are determined by the government and the government has the ability to end the system of fast write-offs for capital expenses by Bell which serve to reduce its profits on paper.
Bell is the recipient of massive amounts of government assistance either directly or indirectly through its subsidiaries. For example, we know that the Export Development Corporation has Northern Electric Corporation as number two on its list of beneficiaries. Northern Electric is a subsidiary of Bell and it has received roughly $90 million from the government, which is roughly 10 per cent of the total given by the Export Development Corporation. In due course, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking that the government provide the House with a list of the amounts of money given be the Canadian taxpayer to Bell Canada. I think the public is entitled to have this information.
What I am seeking tonight is assurance from the minister that the government regards its role as regulator and supervisor of Bell seriously, that it will investigate thoroughly the concern I have relayed and that it will not hesitate to overrule the CTC if the award given Bell in the form of a rate increase is contrary to the best interests of the Canadian public.
Adjournment Debate


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the government really cares about the protection of individuals and telephone users.
Indeed, as he mentioned himself, it is because of section 64 of the National Transportation Act and because of the powers that this section gives the cabinet to overrule decisions made by the Commission that I decided not to recommend to the government to intervene because that intervention-in the event of a possible second intervention by the governor in council-would place the government in the position of both judge and jury.
Like the hon. member my department received complaints from individuals and forwarded them diligently to the Commission, insisting that they be given the greatest attention. In conclusion, I should like to say that the idea of a government or department intervention in the business of the Canadian Transport Commission seems to me to be worthy of consideration.
This is why in the paper on a national communications policy-the publication of which was announced in the Speech from the Throne-we express the firm intention of bringing before the House proposals which would bring back some balance in the legislation and would allow the Minister of Communications to make representations to the Transport Commission or any other body responsible for regulations in order to fulfil the mandate of the Minister of Communications which is to protect as directly and immediately as possible the interests of telecommunication users.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
991

Tuesday, February 6. 1973