1974-12-18

PRIVILEGE


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting a number of members in this House. At approximately 5:30 last evening, it was brought to the attention of the Chair that a quorum was not present in the House. The House, therefore, closed for the remainder of the day. Those members present were asked to come to the Table and sign the register to prove that they and no other were in attendance.
I think this situation reflects a little on the diligence and respect one has for his job as a member of parliament, in light of the fact the House had to close because there was not a quorum.
I wish to inform Your Honour and other members that at that time the Standing Committee on Agriculture was sitting. At precisely the same moment, about 29 minutes to six o'clock, a roll call vote was taken in the agriculture committee, which is really an arm of this House of Commons and under the jurisdiction of Your Honour. The roll call indicated 20 members present. The chairman, although he did not vote, was present. The witness was a member of parliament. This makes a total of 22 members who did not have the opportunity to sign the register, although they were on duty at 5:30 last evening. It should be made perfectly clear to you, Mr. Speaker, that far more than 17 members of parliament were serving their constituents at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. By coincidence, there was a recorded vote in the finance committee at approximately the same time yesterday afternoon. There were 18 members of the House present. Even though the House was not sitting, the justice committee sat until approximately 10:30. I should point out to Your Honour that no NDP members were present at either of those committee meetings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I raise the same question of privilege because, when the clerk was asked to count the House, we were dealing with Bill C-216, a bill which was put on the order paper under my name
and which is of paramount importance to my colleagues and myself.
The Social Credit Party was represented here by 20 per cent of its manpower, the majority of the others serving on committees, while the remaining two were held up on board busses by snow storms in Quebec. These two are the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) and the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise). It took them 16*/2 hours to return to Ottawa, while NDP members were preventing the House from carrying out its duties, while killing a private member's bill. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I take the opportunity of this question of privilege to emphasize the regular presence and unceasing work of Social Crediters in the House, in the hope that NDP members may realize that they are not carrying the load, and that they would do well to follow the example set by Social Crediters.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: On the same question, Mr. Speaker. The employee-employer relations committee was also sitting at the same time yesterday and there were no members of the New Democratic Party present at that meeting.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Peters:: On the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot, I should like to draw the attention of Your Honour to the fact that I did not have the opportunity to record my vote in the Standing Committee on Agriculture, to which reference has been made, as I was in the House.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to correct the impression given by an hon. member on the other side who said there was no NDP member present at the meeting of the committee on employee-employer relations. I was at that meeting, taking the place of my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and remained throughout that meeting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of contributions have already been made respecting the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot, who gave me notice of his intention to bring the matter before the House. The point is a serious one and the representations which have been made have been taken seriously.
However, as hon. members know, before a question of privilege can be sustained there would have to be some kind of interference with the right of hon. members to function as members of the House. The fact of the matter is that whatever took place yesterday at twenty-nine minutes to six, or whenever it was precisely, the rules of the House, according to precedents, and according to the interpretation placed upon the Standing Order with respect to a quorum, were strictly enforced. It is therefore

December 18, 1974
Privilege-Mr. Horner
not possible for the Chair to find there was any contravention of the rules or breach of conduct related to the performance of the House.
In considering this matter I re-examined the precedents in this respect and it is evident that two questions arise. It would be possible, I suppose, to hear every member rise on a question of privilege and explain what aspect of his functions as a member of parliament he was carrying out or adhering to yesterday afternoon. But that is obviously not practicable. It does appear that the rule relating to a quorum in the House goes back to a precedent in the United Kingdom parliament that is over 100 years old and which has long since been discarded by that House.
In addition, I am aware from representations that have been made that there are serious questions regarding this rule in the minds of hon. members. If there is to be a rule respecting a quorum, since members have agreed that it is in the interests of the backbench member of parliament to have a private members' hour, during which time it is not the responsibility of the government, as it is during the rest of the orders of the day, to carry on the business of the House, it has been seriously questioned whether the quorum rule, if it applies at all, should apply during that particular hour.
In any event, as with previous questions that may come close to being a question of privilege but which are not and which the procedure committee has undertaken to examine and review, the committee might also take into consideration matters of this sort. Certainly, I express the hope on behalf of all hon. members that that august and capable committee will take a look at this particular rule to see whether or not it does have any continuing usefulness.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in the two official languages.-Mr. Trudel.

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Poulin.
[Editors Note: For text of reports referred to above see todays Votes and Proceedings]

Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Orders to table four copies, two in each official language, of the Desjardins report.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain the order of business for today. I would suggest that we begin with calling the bill in the name of the Prime Minister, Bill C-38. Perhaps I should explain why we are not calling Bill C-44 this afternoon. I should report to the House that some conversations have been going on amongst the parties and members. This is a matter of very great concern not only to the parties but to members generally, and there is some possibility that we can make progress. I have had some suggestions from the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the New Democratic Party has some ideas which he has expressed, we have some, and it does look as though out of this might come a solution that would command an even greater proportion of support in the House and which might be more understandable to the public at large.


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to confirm what the government House leader has said. There have been conversations. I think it is quite clear that the presentation of the increase in terms of eight or nine years has not been accepted by the public. We in this party have no desire at all-I think the same is probably true of the government, I give them credit for that-to do something which would be interpreted as inflationary. We do not wish to be a party to something that would be so interpreted, and it is along these lines-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My hon. friends to my left can speak for themselves. I must say that I have always approached these questions, both in this legislature and other legislatures, on the basis of trying to reach an agreement that is consistent with the interests of members of the House and also the public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have always been prepared, as I still am, to take a certain amount of flak in the process as long as I am satisfied that what is proposed or submitted is really in the public interest. I think there is some misunderstanding here and that it is important to correct it, so I am anxious to pursue these conversations.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to confirm also what the government House leader has said, that for the first time official discussions have taken place involving all parties in this House, and on the basis of that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 18, 1974


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, for the first time official discussions have taken place, and on the basis of those discussions so far there is at least some possibility, and I can say no more than that, that some agreement might be reached on this very important matter, important not only to members of parliament but to the people of Canada.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, I want to confirm the fact that consultations are presently going on between the four officially recognized parties in the House. After a serious discussion with my colleagues of the Social Credit Party of Canada, we have reached the conclusion that, first of all, the debate on Bill C-44 has been very badly launched and, second, that the proceedings and the propositions relating to Bill C-44 have been ill-reported to the public. I have heard on a CBC program some night this week that the salary of federal members of Parliament would be raised $47,000, according to the reporter, which is entirely false and constitute demagogy of the worst kind.
Mr. Speaker, I heard last night someone from the Public Service Alliance of Canada accusing members of Parliament of wanting to grant themselves absurd salary increases. A member of Parliament who knows the facts, who is conscientious, who wants to get down to rock bottom and not just act superficially, must reject such allegations.
I had inquiries made in 11 departments. I found that 3,364 civil servants earn more than $20,000 a year; 557 earn more than $30,000 a year and 45, more than $40,000. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that it is time for the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) to continue current discussions, to prove to the people that the members of the House of Commons are working, not according to some puritan principles or vote-catching manoeuvres, but rather very seriously to defend the public opinion and interests whom they are serving. I am not saying that our party completely agrees with Bill C-44. That is why we are taking an active part in the debate with a view to improving it so that it will serve both the people's interests who suffer from inflation and those of hon. members of this House. Something should be done to stop discrediting members of Parliament before the public, put newspapermen in their place and respect what should be respected.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before leaving motions I should inform hon. members that there are two outstanding matters that have been put to the Chair for rulings. Both matters are extremely important, have caused me considerable concern and have involved me in a considerable amount of research and study. The first matter relates to a point of order raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) concerning the provisions of the excise tax bill as they relate to the ways and means motion. I should like to inform the House that I propose to return to the chair at 5.45 this afternoon to deliver a ruling on that very interesting point of order.
The second point relates to the question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) concerning remarks made some days ago by the
Industry, Trade and Commerce Act hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). In respect of those, if I understand correctly, and I would like to make this perfectly clear, I will make the ruling on that tomorrow, on the understanding that the matter about which the hon. member for Joliette has complained is that he has been falsely accused by the hon. member for Temiscamingue of having engaged in the practice which was described by the hon. member for Temiscamingue. If I understand that correctly and clearly as the nature of his question of privilege, I propose to deliver judgment on that tomorrow just before orders of the day.


PUBLISHING
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of figures released yesterday by the Independent Publishers Association showing that foreign ownership in English language book publishing has now risen to 84 per cent and that many of the Canadian owned companies are experiencing serious financial difficulty, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That this House instruct the Secretary of State to introduce new programs designed to expand and strengthen the retail bookstore system, to increase library and school purchases of Canadian titles and to strengthen Canadian copyright laws so that the trend toward increased foreign ownership and dependence on foreign publications may be reversed.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion under Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent, it cannot be debated.


DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE ACT AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR DISCLOSURE OF CUSTOMS DOCUMENTS TO MINISTER
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: the first reading of Bill S-15 (from the Senate), to amend the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

December 18, 1974
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 22, 96, 116, 236, 255, 327, 376, 377, 445, 446, 511, 574, 671, 690, 695, 701, 723, 729, 762, 773, 863, 895, 916, 981 and 982.
Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 17, 23, 34, 43, 50, 242, 394 and 959 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) How many Canada Customs Officers are there at the Port of Brockville, Ontario (b) what specific positions in this regard have been designated or declared as bilingual and, in each case, for what reason?
2.	(a) How many Canada Customs Officers are there at the Port of Lansdowne, Ontario (b) what specific positions in this regard have been designated or declared as bilingual and, in each case, for what reason?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: In
so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned: 1. (a) There are 9 positions of various classifications at this Port, (b) 2 PM-1A (seasonal positions) were identified as bilingual in order to provide service in the two official languages to the travelling public and were designated over a period ending in 1976.
2.	(a) There are 53 positions of various classifications at this Port, (b) To provide service in the two official languages at all times to the travelling public, the following positions were identified as bilingual and were designated over a period ending in 1978: 1 PM-4, 1 PM-2, 5 PM-1, 12 PM-1A, 6 PM-1A (seasonal).


Mr. Allard: Does the government subsidize the Canadian Judicial Council and, if so (a) for how many years (b) through what department (c) what amounts were granted in 1971, 1972 and 1973 (d) did the government make a grant as capital.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: The Canadian Judicial Council was established in December, 1971 pursuant to section 30(1) of the Judges Act, as amended by R.S., (2nd Supp.) c. 16, and funds have been appropriated by parliament in each fiscal year for the use of the council to provide for a small permanent staff, operating expenditures and the acquisition of necessary capital assets, (a) Since its creation in December 1971; (b) through the Department of Justice and; (c) the funds expended by or on behalf of the council to the end of the fiscal year 1973-74 are as follows: 1971-72: Operating expenditures, $9,377.53; Capital, $500.00; Services provided by other departments, including accommodation, $1,375.00; Total $11,252.53; 1972-73: Operating expenditures, $179,000.00;

Capital, $12,000.00; Services provided by other departments, including accommodation, $10,053.00; Total $201,053.00; 1973-74: Operating expenditures, $166,000.00; Capital, $2,000.00; Services provided by other departments, including accommodation, $18,793.00; Total $186,793.00; (d) See under (c) above.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Prime Minister personally authorize the statement made to members of the Press on Wednesday, September 25, 1974 by Mr. Ivan Head to the effect that Canada will pursue an activist left wing role in foreign affairs and does the statement now represent foreign policy of the government?
2.	What are all the details of the Prime Minister's new activist left wing foreign policy, specifically, what countries with left wing governments will it be associated with?
3.	Will Canada's foreign policy now be directed from the Prime Minister's Office and has the Prime Minister instructed Mr. Ivan Head to perform the duties of the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
4.	Will the Prime Minister in due course appoint Mr. Ivan Head Secretary of State for External Affairs and, at the same time, will the Prime Minister appoint the present Secretary of State for External Affairs to the Senate?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	No.
4.	No answer required.


Mr. Reynolds: Did the Government of British Columbia present a paper to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on a train route to bring oil and gas from the north to the south which would replace tankers from coming down our coast line and, if so, would the government advise for what reason they have not answered, or even acknowledged, receipt of this paper from the Premier of British Columbia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In March, 1973 the government of British Columbia sent a paper to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources proposing a train route to bring oil and gas from the north to the south which would replace tankers from coming down the British Columbia coastline. This paper was acknowledged by the Prime Minister and referred to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for action. The minister met with Premier Barrett on April 17 to discuss the proposal in detail. The British Columbia proposal was also presented publicly to the Prime Minister at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference on July 26, 1973. The British Columbia proposal was subsequently considered as part of a 1.5 million dollar Arctic railway study carried out by the CNR and CPR for the Ministry of Transport. In this context the Minister of Transport has had several direct communications with Premier Barrett on the status of this study.
December 18, 1974


Mr. Herbert: Will the government give consideration to changing the eligibility requirements for the Old Age Pension so that a sister of a religious order, born in Canada and now aged 72, who has devoted the last 33 years of her life to the care of the sick and needy in foreign lands, can receive from her own country recognition of her life of service?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Eligibility for an Old Age Security pension is based solely on age and residence in Canada. The eligible age is 65 years. An applicant may fulfill the residence requirements in one of three ways as follows: (1) by having resided in Canada, after attaining the age of eighteen, for periods that total at least forty years; (2) by having resided in Canada for the ten years immediately preceding the approval of his application; or; (3) by having been present in Canada, after reaching age eighteen and prior to the ten years mentioned above, for periods that equal, when totalled, at least three times the length of his absences during the ten-year period, and by having resided in Canada for at least one year immediately preceding the approval of his application. Some absences of a resident of Canada do not interrupt residence in Canada if certain conditions are met. The absence of a resident of Canada while engaged as a missionary with any religious group or organization does not interrupt his residence in Canada if he returned to Canada at the end of such period of engagement or he reached pensionable age while so engaged outside Canada. Persons who can fulfill these conditions may now qualify for an Old Age Security pension.


Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the purpose of government form 7540-21-645-2461, personal history form, which many Public Service employees are being required to complete, with the warning that false statements or omissions may be considered an offence under section 5 of the Official Secrets Act?
2.	To whom is this information given?
3.	Is this information confidential?
4.	Is any attempt made to verify statements made in connection with this form by questioning neighbours, relatives, friends or acquaintances of the employee concerned?
Order Paper Questions
5.	With regard to question number 16 on the said form, precisely what areas does the government regard as "communist-dominated"?
6.	At what level of their employment are Public Service employees required to fill out the said form?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. For use
in connection with the security screening arrangements outlined in the House of Commons by the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Chevrier, on October 25, 1963. (Hansard pp 4045-4048).
2.	Completed personal history forms are forwarded to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as outlined in Hansard, October 25, 1963, page 4047.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes, in some cases, as stated in Hansard, October 25, 1963, page 4047.
5.	The purpose of question 16 is to establish the reasons for unofficial travel to communist-dominated countries or areas. As the countries and areas are well known to the public, it is not considered necessary to specify. The present personal history form came into use in 1963, and its contents are under review in the light of changing conditions.
6.	At any level, if an employee is required to have access to classified information.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What position, if any, and at what salary did Mr. Michael Pitfield hold in the Public Service as of April 20, 1968?
2.	What are all positions, dates of same and annual salaries held by Mr. Michael Pitfield from April 20, 1968 to date?
3.	What were all the specific qualifications, in detail, that were involved in the recent appointment of Mr. Michael Pitfield to Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to Cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Plans), $17,000, $22,500.
2.	Date
May 1959-February 1960
March 1960-June 1960
September 1960-June 1961
September 1962-January 1963
February 1962-August 1962 February 1963-March 1964
Position	Salary
t
Head Clerk, Office of the Minister of Justice	5,430
Associate Private Secretary, Office of Minister of Justice	6,840
Secretary, Royal Commission on Publications	9,000
Secretary pro tem, Royal Commission on Taxation	16,500
Attache, Government House	200 per month
April 1964-April 1965	Government House Officer 2
May 1965	Privy Council Officer 6 (P.M.7)*
7,860
14,751-17,766

December 18, 1974
Order Paper Questions
2.	Date
December 1, 1966
July 1, 1968 August 1, 1969 January 1,1971 March 1, 1973
Position
P.M.8 (S.X.l)*
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet
Salary

17.000-	22,600
19.000-	24,750
23.000-	29,000
S.X.2-Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Plans)
S.X.3-Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Plans)
S.X.4-Senior Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Plans) 31,500-37,500 Deputy Minister, Consumer and Corporate Affairs	44,000-54,000
'General Public Service conversion.
3. Overall suitability of the individual's professional, academic and personal qualifications in relation to the job requirement.


Mr. Cossitt: Subsequent to the recent appointment of Mr. Michael Pitfield to the position of Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, will the Prime Minister be announcing additional appointments to high positions in the Public Service from among his friends, associates or relatives and (a) if so, what positions are involved and on what date will such appointments be announced (b) if not, does this mean that the Prime Minister will strictly adhere to the merit system in making all future appointments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question as postulated requires no answer. See reply to Question 513, Hansard No. 31, page 1282, dated November 13, 1974.


Mr. Cossitt: Since what date has Mr. Michael Pitfield been absent from his post as Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and (a) what is the purpose of such absence (b) until what exact date will it last (c) who are absolutely all those who authorized or recommended such absence and for what reason (d) what is Mr. Pitfield's exact annual salary in dollars (e) what exact amount in dollars is being deducted from his salary because of absence, on what exact date did such deduction commence and, if nothing is being deducted, for what reason?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. August 10, 1974. (a) Executive Development Leave Plan; (b) January 10, 1975; (c) The Executive Development Leave Plan established in December, 1972, permits executives, whether appointed by the Public Service Commission or by the Governor in Council, leave for the purpose of providing an opportunity for updating professional knowledge and skills. Among the approved uses of such leave periods is studying and/or teaching at an educational institution inside or outside Canada. Approval of such leave is on the authority of the deputy minister for executives appointed by the Public Service Commission and on the authority of the Prime Minister on the recommendation of the Secretary to the Cabinet and Clerk of the Privy Council for executives appointed by the Governor in Council, (d) DM-2, $44,000 to $54,000; (e) None, in accordance with the Executive Development Leave Plan.


Mr. Cossitt: What is the complete list of any expenses paid by the government on
[Mr. Trudeau.)
behalf of Mr. Michael Pitfield since April 20, 1968, including the nature and cost of each item and the total cost of all items?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In so far
as the Privy Council office is concerned for the period April 20, 1968 to March 1, 1973; Official Hospitality, $1,885.58; Travel Expenses, $14,754.14. In so far as Consumer and Corporate Affairs is concerned for the period March 1, 1973 to October 24, 1974; Official Hospitality, $2,302.03; Travel Expenses, $6,037.14; Executive Development Leave, $2,163.63. Total for the period April 20, 1968 to October 24, 1974, $27,142.52.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is the government concerned that provincial legislation in the field of drugs could have a harmful effect on the Canadian pharmaceutical industry and has this problem been discussed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare with provincial health ministers?
2.	What assurances can be given to the management of pharmaceutical companies that will encourage the high research investments that can be so beneficial to the Canadian economy?


Marc Lalonde: 1. The government is concerned that a continuing supply of safe and effective drugs be available to Canadians. The field of drugs and provincial requirements was discussed at a Federal-Provincial Deputy Ministers of Health Conference on November 13 and 14, 1974.
2. The Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned about the impact of its programs on industry and the Canadian economy. For this reason, the Department maintains good contact with the pharmaceutical industry via their various associations and individual companies. Through such working contacts, the Department may obtain early assessments of the impact its programs will have and at the same time, give the best possible assurances to the pharmaceutical industry.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Is the Minister of State for Urban Affairs considering the possibility of increasing the staff of the CMHC office in Corner Brook, Newfoundland and, if not, for what reason?
2.	With regard to the population explosion in Stephenville, Newfoundland and the District of Port au Port, Newfoundland, is the Minister giving any consideration to establishing a CMHC office in the Port au Port area and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1. The numbers of staff in CMHC offices are kept
December 18, 1974

under continuing review, and the staff in the Corner Brook office is being increased.
2. It is considered that the staff increase in the Corner Brook office will provide resources adequate to service the Port au Port area, and that it will not be necessary to open an office there.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For what reason are consumer help offices established mainly in low income and immigrant areas?
2.	Are consumer complaints and enquiries from other areas a valuable contribution in the fight against inflation?
3.	What are the Department's plans for offices of this kind in the Montreal area?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. The primary purpose of the consumer help office program is to make the department's consumer services more readily accessible to people through a series of community-based and community-oriented consumer help offices. In particular, the emphasis is on reaching socially and economically disadvantaged consumers such as low-income families, recent immigrants, the elderly and native peoples who are unlikely to be aware of or to use the department's central complaint and enquiry service (Box 99) or the regional offices. According to the results of a study carried out by the University of Guelph in 1973, consumers at the lower end of the income, education and occupation scales do not readily avail themselves of the service offered by Box 99. The consumer help program is therefore aimed at reaching people in these groups.
2.	The analysis of complaints and enquiries received from consumers enables the department to identify major problem areas. From analysis of trends of consumer problems, the department is able to determine the direction of new consumer programs and possible future legislation.
3.	According to the schedule set for the opening of consumer help offices, the department will establish two offices in the Montreal area.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Does the government have statistical data relating to the legal abortions performed in Canada and therapeutic abortion committees governed by section 251(6) of the Criminal Code and, if so (a) how many approved hospitals in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia have exercised this right (b) what is their name (c) what is the name of each medical practitioner on such committees?
2.	Since the coming into force of the Act (a) how many times have such committees been consulted (b) how many requests for therapeutic abortion have been (i) accepted (ii) refused?
3.	Do the collected statistical data show that the nature of the law was respected and does the government consider it appropriate (a) to extend the experiment (b) to amend the law to comply more fully with the intent of the legislators?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Statistics Canada has statistical data relating to legal abortions performed in Canada (since August 26, 1969). The information regarding hospitals with therapeutic abortion committees is also available, (a) The number of approved
Order Paper Questions
hospitals as at January 1, 1974 are: Quebec-3, Ontario-8 and British Columbia-8. The following lists provide the names of approved hospitals in these provinces which have therapeutic abortion committees.
Note: Approved hospitals do not include accredited hospitals with therapeutic abortion committees.
(b) Province of Quebec: 1, Hopital General de Baie-Comeau, Baie Comeau; 2, Huntingdon County Hospital, Huntingdon; 3, Hopital de Sept-iles, Sept-iles. Province of Ontario: 1, Cobourg District General Hospital, Cobourg; 2, Englehart and District Hospital, Englehart; 3, Georgetown and District Memorial Hospital, Georgetown; 4, McMaster University Medical Centre, Hamilton; 5, Meaford General Hospital, Meaford; 6, Community Memorial Hospital, Port Perry; 7, Smith Falls Public Hospital, Smith Falls; 8, Cottage Hospital, Uxbridge. Province of British Columbia: 1, Cumberland General Hospital, Cumberland; 2, Landy Minto Gulf General Hospital, Ganges; 3, Boundary Hospital, Grand Forks; 4, Fraser Canyon Hospital, Hope; 5, 100 Mile District General Hospital, 100 Mile House; 6, Rest Haven General Hospital, Sidney; 7, Bulkley Valley District Hospital, Smithers; 8, Riverview Hospital, Vancouver (Essondale). The above information is as per reports from the concerned provinces, (c) This information is not available from Statistics Canada.
2 and 3. Information on these items is not available from Statistics Canada.


Mr. Firth: 1.	For what reason was the community of Tuktoyaktuk, after being told they were part of CBC's accelerated coverage package for 1975-76, removed from this list?
2.	Was CBC northern broadcasting policy designed to provide service in the North which had been produced in the North and, if so, for what reason has this not been evidenced to date?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: 1.
Tuktoyaktuk has a high priority in the implementation of the CBC's accelerated coverage plan and it is expected an application for a television transmitter for that location will be submitted to the CRTC during 1975.
2. The CBC northern broadcasting plan has been developed in co-operation with the Secretary of State, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, the Department of Communications, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the government of the Northwest Territories and the Treasury Board, to provide for the extention and improvement of radio and television broadcasting service in the north. The plan is now under consideration by the government. It provides, among other things, for greater production of programs about the north by northerners in the north, in both radio and television.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Prime Minister aware that the Westport Mirror, a weekly newspaper in Westport, Ontario has refused to print any more columns

December 18, 1974
Order Paper Questions
in the current series bearing by-lines of the Prime Minister and other Members of the Cabinet?
2.	Is the Prime Minister aware that the editor of the Westport Mirror stated in a press interview that he is in agreement with a Calgary editor who he quotes as saying: "any weekly newspaper editor who would run that dribble should be run over by his own presses"?
3.	Has the Prime Minister issued orders that this column should be discontinued by all Members of the Cabinet and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, on what date will the Prime Minister take steps to put an end to this column?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	No. (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Marshall: Did the Department of the Secretary of State receive a report of a student community survey, funded by the Student Community Service Program and sponsored by the Bonne Bay Development Committee and, if so, what action is being taken as a result of its findings?


James Hugh Faulkner: At
the end of May 1974, the "Survey of Communal Development in the Bonne Bay Area" project sponsored by the Bonne Bay Development Association was funded under the Student Community Service Program. The organization received a grant of $2,400. A report was produced by the organization and received by the Department of the Secretary of State at the end of October. It appears that the Bonne Bay Development Association has already taken action by informing provincial and federal authorities of the needs expressed in the survey i.e. transportation, recreational facilities, health services, job creation, tourism etc. As for the Department of the Secretary of State, a follow-up of the project will be done in the context of the evaluation process of the program.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	When a unilingual person wins a competition for a designated position in the Public Service, must that person attend language school full-time for one year?
2.	During that period, does that person receive regular increments based on the salary scale for the new position?
3.	Does the individual who is starting as a temporary employee or does the person in the new position who has not already completed six months as a temporary employee complete the temporary period during the language training course and, if not, what will be the status of the individual (a) near the conclusion of the one year course (b) during the eighteenth month of employment?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
The unilingual person who wins a competition for a bilingual position will be required to undertake immediate continuous language training for a period of up to twelve months in order to meet the language requirements of the position.
2. Employees subject to incremental pay plans will receive their regular increments while on continuous language training. These increments will be based on the salary scale for the new position.

3. The official languages policy whereby unilingual persons may apply for bilingual positions and be given a conditional appointment pending their successful completion of language training, applies only to indeterminate appointments. Therefore, employees who are to be appointed for a specified period to a bilingual term position must meet the language requirements of that term position at the time of selection.


Mr. Reid: 1.	Has the Board of Directors of CBC considered the question of community access to CBC transmitters and, if so, on what date and in what locations?
2.	Did the Board make a decision on this question?
3.	Has the Board or CBC management announced the results of its deliberations to the public and/or to those groups interested in community radio and, if not (a) for what reason (b) on what date do they propose to do so?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
Yes. June 25, 1974. Community access to CBC transmitters was considered for remote or isolated northern communities.
2.	Yes.
3.	While no public announcement has been made, those groups which have expressed interest in community access to CBC transmitters have been sent a copy of the CBC policy, as approved by the board of directors.


Mr. McKinnon: In 1973, how many CMHC mortgages were drawn by each firm listed in the answer to Question No. 3,421 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that the following lawyers were retained by CMHC to process the mortgage documentation for loans approved by CMHC in 1973 in the Metropolitan Victoria area. (1) A. L. Cox, Victoria, Number of Loans, 1; (2) Ian Stewart, Victoria, Number of Loans, 2.


PUBLIC SERVICE-COMPETITIONS FOR TRANSLATORS AND FRENCH TEACHERS
Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many positions as translators were to be filled in the Public Service when Competition No. 75-SEC-CCID-l was first advertised?
2.	How many positions as French teachers as a second language were to be filled in the Public Service when Competition No. 75-CFF-PER-OC-1 was first advertised?
3.	Are any measures being taken to attract and/or train the personnel required to fill these positions?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
When competition No. 75-SEC-CCID-l was first advertised, 227 translator positions were vacant.
2. Competition No. 75-CFP-PER-OC-l was introduced in order to build up a candidate inventory to fill vacancies
December 18, 1974

expected during the 1975-1976 fiscal year. Vacancies existing at the time of the above advertisement and at this time are filled through and eligible list established as a result of a similar process last year.
3. Simultaneous internal and open competitions are held throughout the year to fill translator positions by means of posters and newspaper advertisements. There is also a bursary program sponsored by the Department of the Secretary of State in order to attract new graduates in the field of translation. Last year, 60 new graduates were hired through this program. As many as 75 graduates will be available in May, 1975. French language teachers are attracted by means of posters distributed throughout the federal government and the public sector, and by means of newspaper advertisements. There is a minimum training period of four weeks before teachers start teaching.


Mr. Lachance: Was competion number 4-A-P-010 of the Public Service Property Assessment Officers held as announced for the Department of Finance and, if not (a) for what reason (b) were some individuals called upon to fill the vacant positions without going through the usual selection procedures and, if so (i) how many persons were so appointed (ii) at what salary?


James Hugh Faulkner: Competition 4-A-P-010 for Property Assessment Officers (PM 3) Department of Finance, was held as announced. Six persons were interviewed and three candidates were thereafter offered a position. They are to report for duty during the month of December. No other appointment has been made at the PM 3 level in the division concerned. The salary range for PM 3 is $14,054-$15,930.


Mr. Forrestall: Does the government view the use of United States Coast Guard icebreakers, such as the MAGB-10 and the MAGB-11, to assist commercial operations extractive and otherwise in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago as being in the best interests of Canadian sovereignty?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: No.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what date will the Prime Minister announce the name of Michael Pitfield's successor as Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
2.	(a) During Mr. Pitfield's frequent absences from his post, what is the name and job designation of the individual who has been performing the duties of Deputy Minister (b) will this person be promoted to succeed Mr. Pitfield in accordance with seniority and the merit principle or will the Prime Minister fill the position with a close personal friend, a relative or a former or present member of his staff?
Order Paper Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. In due
course.
2. Requires no answer as premise is not accepted.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what date will Michael Pitfield commence his duties as Secretary to the Cabinet and Clerk of the Privy Council?
2.	Since January 1, 1974, on how many days, on what exact dates, and for how long a period of time, in each case, has Mr. Pitfield shown up in his office in his capacity as Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
3.	How many times, on what dates, where and for what purposes has the Prime Minister met with Mr. Pitfield since his appointment as Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. In due
course.
2.	Mr. Pitfield was not absent from duty except as provided by public service regulations.
3.	The arrangements made for meetings and purposes thereof, between government officials and members of the cabinet for the discharge of government business are not customarily disclosed.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	During the period from January 1, 1880 until either December 31, 1972 or March 31, 1973, how much was paid from the federal treasury to the Canadian Pacific Railway or Canadian Pacific Limited, in grants, subsidies or other payments?
2.	During the period from January 1, 1880 until either December 31, 1972 or March 31, 1973, what was the nunber of acres of land granted by the government to the Canadian Pacific Railway or Canadian Pacific Limited and what was the total dollar value of such land grants?
3.	During the calendar year ending December 31, 1973 or the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974, how much was paid from the federal treasury to the Canadian Pacific Railway or Canadian Pacific Limited, in grants, subsidies or other payments?
4.	During the calendar year ending December 31, 1973 or the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974, were any land or other grants, not included in the answer to Part (3), made by the government to the Canadian Pacific Railway or Canadian Pacific Limited and, if so, to what extent and what was the total dollar value thereof?
Return tabled.



PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE PERSONNEL

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names of all persons employed by, attached to, on loan to or in any way associated with the Prime Minister's Office as of the date that the answer to this question is prepared and what is this specific date?
2.	In each case, what is their specific function, on what date were they hired, what is their specific annual salary and what previous positions, if any, did they hold in government service?
3.	Are there any plans to enlarge the size of the staff of the Prime Minister's Office during the next year and, if so, in the opinion of the government, what are the reasons that make such a step necessary?

December 18, 1974
Order Paper Questions
4.	What are the names of all persons not mentioned in the answer to Part 1 who were employed by, attached to, on loan to or in any way associated with the Prime Minister's Office since October 29, 1973 and, in each case, what was their specific function, the date they were hired, the date they terminated employment and their annual salary?
Return tabled.



EMPLOYMENT OF DEFEATED LIBERAL CANDIDATES

Mr. Crouse: Have any defeated federal Liberal candidates been employed by the government in any capacity since the July 8, 1974 federal election and, if so (a) how many (b) what are their names (c) what positions do they hold (d) what are their salaries (e) what is the tenure of their appointments?
Return tabled.



PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE PERSONNEL

Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the present staff of the Prime Minister's Office, excluding those employed with the Privy Council Office and what is the name, position, salary and date of appointment in each instance?
2.	What is the present staff of the President of the Privy Council and what is the name, position salary and date of appointment of each individual?
3.	What is the total cost of operation of the Office of the Prime Minister and the Office of the President of the Privy Council?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS WITH HOTELS FOR SPACE

Mr. Coates: 1.	Does the government or any of its agencies contract for space on a yearly basis with hotels, inns or lodges either in or outside of Canada and, if so, what are the names of the establishments, the amount each receives and the space made available by the hotels, inns and lodges in question?
2.	What specific individuals within the government have access to the hotels, inns and lodges and who makes the determination as to such access?
3.	Are the individuals, who use such space, required to reimburse the federal treasury for the use of such space?
Return tabled.



JOB DESCRIPTION OF MR. IVAN HEAD

Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is (a) the salary (b) the precise job description of Mr. Ivan Head?
2.	On how many occasions in (a) 1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974 to date did Mr. Ivan Head travel on official business (i) within Canada (ii) outside Canada and, in each case, to what point or points, for what purpose or purposes and at what costs?
3.	Do any officials, committees, agencies or other organizations within any or several departments or Crown agencies or corporations report regularly to Mr. Ivan Head, or involve him regularly in their deliberations and, if so, which officials, committees, agencies or other organizations and, in each case, with what purpose?
4.	What are the qualifications of Mr. Ivan Head for the responsibilities he now exercises?
5.	To what individual or office does Mr. Ivan Head report and what individuals or offices report to him?
6.	To what agency of Parliament does Mr. Ivan Head regularly report?
(Mr. Cossitt.]
7.	On what date did Mr. Ivan Head commence his (a) association with the government (b) present responsibilities and has he been authorized to appear in an official capacity before any Parliamentary committees and, if so, on what occasions and for what specific purposes?
Return tabled.



RESTRICTION OF VIOLENT SCENES ON TELEVISION

Mr. Herbert: 1.	Does the government intend to restrict the number of violent scenes on television prior to 8.00 p.m.?
2.	Is there evidence that scenes of violence on television (a) have a great influence on the development of our children's personality (b) have repercussions on their behaviour (c) may destroy their emotional balance?
Return tabled.



IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSUMER PACKAGING AND LABELLING ACT, HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT AND TEXTILE LABELLING ACT

Mr. Jones: 1.	What are, and will be, the estimated total additional costs to consumers as a result of the implementation of (a) the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act (b) the Hazardous Products Act (c) the Textile Labelling Act and regulations thereunder, requiring articles to be labelled and identified in French and English?
2.	What will be the estimated total additional cost to the taxpayer to administer, check and enforce (a) packaging under the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act (b) the Hazardous Products Act (c) the Textile Labelling Act and regulations requiring bilingual labels and identification?
3.	In what manner and by whom are, or will, these Acts and regulations be enforced?
4.	How many additional employees have been, or will be, hired or employed to administer, check and enforce these Acts and regulations?
5.	Have any prosecutions been undertaken under these Acts and regulations and, if so, what were the results and particulars of such prosecutions?
6.	What are the effective dates of these Acts and regulations?
7.	What notices have been given (a) to retail establishments, wholesalers and manufacturers in and outside of Canada (b) to the public with respect to these Acts and regulations?
8.	What effect will the enforcement of these Acts and regulations have on importers and exporters and business generally?
Return tabled.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to question No. 534 which was placed on the order paper 58 days ago and which asks for details of LIP projects known as research anti-poverty and project Aldergrove, and more specifically for details of investigations conducted by the RCMP. I understand that the results of such investigations have been on the minister's desk for some weeks, and I believe therefore that this question could be answered, including the involvement in these projects of a certain Michael Carson and also certain alleged unaccounted for expenditures of public funds with regard to these projects. I would like to know if the parliamentary secretary could undertake to assure me that this question will be answered as soon as possible.
December 18, 1974



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of Monday's statement by the minister that he would be in a better position to answer queries regarding discussions which occurred between federal government officials and representatives of Syncrude by Tuesday, is the minister able to give us any report on the results of those discussions and steps the government may take to finance this important project?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the federal officials received a very full briefing, which incidentally representatives of the government of Alberta attended, from the Syncrude officials who gave both the engineering and cost figures involved in this particular project. These are now being evaluated within my department. Naturally, as any equity investor, we want to have a good idea of the kind of equity we would be purchasing. We hope to be in a position to make some judgment on this before very long. In the meantime we are waiting for a definitive indication from the government of Alberta that it is prepared to welcome equity participation of the federal government in this project.


SUGGESTION OPEC COUNTRIES DISCOURAGING CENTRAL
James McPhail Gillies: In view of rumours that have been circulating to the effect that OPEC nations are visiting central banks and bankers around the world in an attempt to discourage investment by these banks and companies in the development of synthetic crude, has the government heard anything of this report and are they considering this very serious situation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will have to follow that up with my colleague and with the central banks.
Oral Questions


SYNCRUDE-REACTION OF PROJECT OFFICIALS TO DISCUSSION OF TAXATION
Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the uncertainty surrounding the tax treatment of the tar sands projects generally, did the government discuss the matter of taxation with the Syncrude representatives? If so, what was the effect?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the question of tax was discussed. My recollection from that discussion is there was no feeling of uncertainty about taxation.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the government developed what might be called a program of restraint which it intends to embark upon in the new year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I and indeed other ministers have had occasion to say earlier that we are periodically reviewing government expenditures and periodically trying to find areas where expenditures can be cut or restrained.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that something more specific has recently been decided upon by the government. I mean this as a question in a genuine sense. This is not a question to get information. The program I refer to is not only the federal government's expenditure program but a more comprehensive program for the economy as a whole; the private and public sector at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. Has the cabinet been discussing such a program with the intention of announcing it early in the new year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. Of course, the general state of the economy has been discussed specifically by cabinet. They are part of the strategy the Minister of Finance has been speaking about before, during and since the budget. There is nothing specific we will be announcing early in the new year along the general line mentioned by the hon. member, but there has been specific talk about government expenditures. This is part of the expenditure cycle. As the hon. member knows, the blue book is tabled in February which means at this particular time we are very much looking at the content of that blue book which has to go to print within days. This calls for specific actions by the government, some of them hopefully showing restraint.

December 18, 1974
Oral Questions


INFLATION-DEADLINE FOR DISCUSSIONS WITH VARIOUS GROUPS SEEKING CONSENSUS
John Edward Broadbent: Can the
Prime Minister inform the House whether a deadline has been set on the consultative process with the Minister of Finance to be embarked upon sometime in the new year? He has informed the House that formal and informal discussions with a variety of groups are taking place and will continue in the new year. Has a deadline been set for those consultations in order that some final program may emerge from them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have a time frame, which I think is a more correct description than a deadline. The time frame will have to accommodate itself to the consultation process and to the exploratory phase of that consultation process. It will depend on the timing with which the various groups are prepared to meet with the various ministers. It will also depend on the diagnosis that cabinet will make as the consultations go on. It may be felt important to either prolong or shorten them.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since there is a temporary increase in unemployment in many regions of Quebec because of manpower retraining and inflation, since also the Unemployment Insurance Commission regional offices do not have sufficient staff, and in view of the coming Christmas and New Year holidays, can the Minister of Manpower and Immigration firmly assure the House that the appropriate services and sufficient personnel will be available so that everyone entitled to unemployment benefits might receive his cheques regularly and promptly during this difficult period?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will of course assure the hon. member without ambiguity that that is the objective. If the hon. member without ambiguity will give me precise details and the locations in which he finds the circumstances, it may assist me in directing further effort toward solving any such problem.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I therefore submit the particular problem of my constituency, in Victoriaville, where there is a flagrant lack of personnel and where the problem is made critical by the increase in the unemployment rate. Can the minister assure me that now that he is aware of this particular case, he will take the necessary measures, first to increase the funds provided for the Local Initiatives Program in our region and second, to provide

personnel in sufficient number for the recipients to receive their cheques as soon as possible?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, local initiatives was not mentioned in the first question. I will guarantee to look at the situation of staff availability to assist my hon. friend's constituents. If action is necessary, I will do my best to provide it.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister aware that a three-year study on the best design for an air traffic control tower, which took into account the need to eliminate stress and create a healthful environment, good temperature and humidity, low noise level and good visibility, was undertaken by the Air Element of the Canadian Armed Forces and that a mock-up of this theoretically perfect tower was built at Downsview? If so, is it the intention of the minister and his officials to make this knowledge available to officials of the Department of Transport before this mock-up is dismantled and the design factors so carefully prepared by officers of DND are lost?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, our department works very closely with the Department of Transport. If there is valuable information to be passed on, it will certainly be relayed to that department.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As there are now five deputy ministers who have decided that they prefer to take early retirement rather than continue to work for this government, and knowing the government it is very easy to understand why this is so, when does the Prime Minister expect to announce the names of the palace guards who will be appointed to replace these gentlemen when they retire?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Because of the Prime Minister's reticence and reluctance to answer that very straightforward and sensible question, I would ask him whether he is holding off giving me this information because he is planning to make such an announcement at a family gathering, presided
December 18, 1974

over by the Godfather, when this chummy little group will all be able to celebrate together.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


MONTREAL OLYMPICS, 1976-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DEFICIT
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister in a different vein. As it now appears certain that the Montreal Olympics will incur substantial deficits probably in the millions of dollars owing to unforeseen inflationary pressures, will the Prime Minister reassure the House that the Canadian taxpayer will not have to bear any extra financial burden?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the problem comes under my jurisdiction. The agreement concluded with the City of Montreal and the Quebec government is quite clear. We are helping them collect as much funds as possible through the lottery, stamps and other available means, but we do not intend to make up any deficit.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. As the Minister of Transport has been noticeably absent from this House for the past several days or weeks, may I ask, is the Minister of Transport away on government official business and, if so, what is the nature of the minister's business?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister was going to respond. May I repeat the question. Can he indicate why the Minister of Transport is absent from the House and, if he is away on government business, will he outline the nature of the business?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is any more necessary for me to keep the House informed of the movements of every one of my ministers than it is for the Leader of the Opposition to keep me informed of the movements of every one of his members.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the serious condition of transportation in this country which by the minister's own admission is in a mess, with no policies coming forward, can the Prime
Oral Questions
Minister assure the House and the country that he will appoint a full-time Minister of Transport who will attend in the House to answer questions and bring forward the kind of positive transportation policy which was promised in the election campaign?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire, but it is just possible that the minister is consulting at this moment with the well known westerner, the right hon. member for Prince Albert, on the problems of transportation.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister's answer illustrates the kind of flippancy which we have witnessed from the Minister of Transport. In view of this flippancy, evasiveness, arrogance and incompetence, will the Prime Minister appoint a new Minister of Transport who can answer questions in this House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General and arises from the information conveyed on the CBC program "Ombudsman" by the manager of national security of the Bank of Montreal to the effect that $1.5 million has been lost in thefts in the mails, mainly in the Montreal office. What action has the government taken, and is it taking, to deal with this evidence of continuing malaise in the Post Office Department?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, because of my respect for the hon. gentleman I will send him over a transcript of the program, and if he feels his information is still accurate I will entertain his question a little later in the afternoon.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As security of the mails is essential if we are to restore the confidence of the public in the mails, could the minister make a statement in the House, to give some assurance to the people of Canada?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the program "Ombudsman" which is designed to help the underprivileged went to the rescue of the Bankers' Association of Canada, which badly needed that assistance.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Nonsense!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: They were concerned about the theft of credit cards. I took objection to their inference that these thefts had involved postal workers rather than people outside the post office. The solution is presumably one we will have to enforce by regulation. Between the middle of November and the middle of December 97,000 credit cards were registered through the mails and only four have been lost or stolen of the number registered.

December 18, 1974
Oral Questions


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the charge also included the loss of substantial amounts of government cheques, will the minister comment on this matter and indicate to the House and country that this problem can be dealt with other than by establishing a police state situation in the Post Office Department.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, according to statistics I have been able to uncover, between $1 million and $1.5 million worth of cheques of all types are lost or stolen in Canada, but not necessarily in the postal department. These thefts can occur before the cheques reach the post office, or after they have been delivered. They can be stolen from private mail boxes or lost by recipients. There is no way of ascertaining where these thefts take place, and I do not think that the loss of $1.5 million worth of cheques can be attributed to the 53,000 honest workers in the post office.


PUBLISHING
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. As the Secretary of State some time ago informed the House that the government intended to bring down a new policy relating to foreign publications in Canada before Christmas, does the Secretary of State still intend to announce such new policy relating to foreign publications before Christmas?


James Hugh Faulkner: Not
before Christmas, Mr. Speaker, but possibly in January.


GROUND BEEF-GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO PROTECT CONSUMER FROM CONTAMINATED PRODUCT
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As additional surveys carried out by the minister's department have uncovered substantial numbers of cases of salmonella bacteria contamination, what steps is the minister taking to protect the Canadian people from this particular contaminated meat, in view of the importance of ground beef in these days of high meat prices?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to point out to the hon. member that the percentage of cases where there was contamination represents about 2 per cent of the cases involved, which is excellent compared to other countries where such analyses were made. In other countries, that percentage is 6 per cent and over.

As for the improvements to be made, as the hon. member perhaps knows, we are going to double the number of investigations and special workshops in this connection. Seminars will be held with all meat handlers to make sure that they comply with sanitation regulations and the best practices at all stages of meat handling.


GROUND BEEF-RECOMMEND STIFFER PENALTIES FOR THOSE VIOLATING FOOD REGULATIONS
James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister now prepared to recommend to his colleague, the Minister of Justice, the imposition of much stiffer penalties for people who violate food and drug regulations and other regulations governing food, and will he also recommend to the Minister of Agriculture that the Department of Agriculture step up their inspection capabilities, since it is alleged that a great deal of the contamination in ground beef takes place outside Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Of course, Mr. Speaker, we are going to examine every aspect of this problem, but I sincerely believe that probably the best punishment still is the publication of the names of the companies at fault, rather than incorporating in legislation fines the maximum of which would not necessarily be imposed by our courts.


AGRICULTURE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture if he intends to look into the charges made by one of the supermarkets which was found to be in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, to the effect that the contamination of ground beef takes place at the source, in this case New Zealand, as inspection comes under the minister's responsibility.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think one must keep in mind that once this meat enters Canada, it is handled many times by many different people long before it arrives at the retail outlet. We know that in one case the people handling hamburger meat were also handling raw fish at the same time. These things, of course, should not happen at all. We know that this beef is coming into this country from New Zealand and Australia. It is something I do not approve of, and we do not need it in this country in the first place.
December 18, 1974


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of reports that the United States is considering closing three ports of entry on the St. Clair Biver between Canada and the United States, what action has the government taken to keep these ports open, bearing in mind that a great deal of the transportation from the American and Canadian industrial heartland crosses by way of the ferries over the St. Clair River?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I have no information on that point but I will be happy to inquire and advise the hon. member.


HARBOURS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
In view of the fact that the Gros Cacouna Harbour Development Committee has been waiting a long time for the results of a study made by the government, I should like to ask the hon. Minister whether the study on the possible development of a deep-water harbour has been completed, and whether Gros Cacouna is still the possible site for the carrying out of this project.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Perhaps the hon. member is unaware of this, but two weeks ago or thereabouts the report was tabled here in the House of Commons. I sent copies to the government of Quebec, so there is total freedom as far as they are concerned to distribute it as they see fit. This applies to the other provinces in the Atlantic region. On the second point, the report, as I believe I said in my statement at the time of its release, refers to all five perhaps even six choices, and it will be up to each of the provinces concerned to take the next step and decide what initiatives they wish to undertake.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity of speaking for the first time in the House and I congratulate you for your appointment as Speaker.
Oral Questions

On the basis of many years personal experience and interest in the developing countries, I should like to address this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the light of recent public reports on the difficulties of foreign food aid delivery, including such disturbing problems in the receiving countries as spoilage, misuse and maldistribution of donated food, can the minister advise the House whether satisfactory progress is being made in arranging firm and effective safeguards to minimize this problem and maximize the relief of hunger through deliveries of Canadian food, especially in Bangladesh?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The High Commission has undertaken a revision of its arrangements to ensure that food unloaded in Bangladesh and distributed through various depots in the country reaches the destinations intended. We have assigned an individual in the High Commission to follow the distribution of food aid closely and to determine that it reaches the proper destination.
In addition, Canada has informed the government of Bangladesh that the recent $20 million worth of food pledged is conditional upon that government developing a more effective system of distribution to those parts of the country where the grain is most needed. I may say in conclusion that the most serious form of smuggling which occurs in Bangladesh exists in the border areas. The government of Bangladesh has been informed that the effectiveness of its measures to control this form of smuggling, particularly in locally-grown rice, will determine to some extent, or will certainly be relevant, to the nature and level of further Canadian assistance.


GROUND BEEF-POSSIBLE PROSECUTION OF RETAILERS SELLING CONTAMINATED MEAT
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare; it is related to a question which was asked earlier. In view of a recent report of the presence of salmonella bacteria in ground beef, and since this is not the first time in the last two months that the presence of this kind of contamination has been discovered, can the minister tell us whether he intends to prosecute the offending retailers, and, if not, why not?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we shall follow in these cases the procedure we have usually taken up to now in such instances. Upon detecting similar situations we immediately gave notice to the firm involved and if the offence was repeated we prosecuted them.


John R. Rodriguez: Surely, the law provides for some sort of punishment in these circumstances. Can the minister not

December 18, 1974
Oral Questions
tell us whether the government intends to take action against the offending companies?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, once again the most severe sanction in these cases is surely the one resulting from the publicity among the public indicating the firm concerned. As to specific prosecutions in the cases before us at present, it is very doubtful for example, that we will succeed in a prosecution on the first offence because it is very difficult to establish whether the contamination of the samples seized comes from an action of the industry in question or happened at an earlier stage.


GROUND BEEF-REQUEST FOR NAMES OF RETAILERS SELLING CONTAMINATED MEAT
John R. Rodriguez: The minister has indicated that publicity is the best way of stopping these incidents. Would he, then, tell us the names of the companies involved?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.
Can the minister tell this House whether studies aimed at replacing main armament items, like the Argus aircraft for instance, have been completed?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Studies are under way. We are in the contract definition phase. We have selected two manufacturers, the Boeing Company and the Lockheed Company, but we do not expect to make a final decision for several months.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
The minister said that a final decision has not been taken yet, but could he tell the relation between current advertising by Lockheed in some newspapers for the Orion aircraft, apparently to have it accepted by the Canadian public, since it is a model designed neither for tourists nor for sports amateurs? Could he also tell us whether pressures are made by the company to have the aircraft accepted by the department?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, we have received
representations concerning the Orion, which is a British plane, but it was ruled out in the competition some time ago.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Typical of the stonewalling and roadblocks we encounter when we seek legitimate information from the government about the relationship between this government and this minister with respect to the SIU-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: One week ago I asked the minister to tell us the instructions given to the National Archives relating to the requirements of the deputy minister of labour for people who wanted to get access to the documents, material and transcripts of the Norris Commission. In the light of the public pronouncements of the Commissioner, may I ask the minister what those instructions are, who gave them and why they are being continued today?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, without in any way condoning or discussing the innuendo or implication behind the hon. member's question, there is no stonewalling. There is no attempt to hide any information. We have said in this House on many occasions that we have been waiting for the information to come from the province upon which to base an assessment, and this process has been continuing all these weeks. At the moment it is not indicative of very much new, as I previously indicated in this House.
With reference to the particular question asked by the hon. member, the situation is that we cannot divulge information that comes to the attention of commissions if it is against the law. Certainly, this would include material that would embarrass Canada in its relations with any other government, material that would be considered by any government to be a breach of faith on the part of the government of Canada, or material that would violate the right of privacy of any individual. I am sure that the hon. member would agree with that statement.
The position regarding the national archivist is that senior officials of my department, in co-operation with him, will be carrying on consultations and will go through this material to see whether or not it does contravene the law with respect to the revelation of the material. When that task is completed I will be pleased to inform the hon. member further as to what the situation is.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am sure the minister of defence would not wish to mislead the House, even inadvertently. Did I understand him correctly to say that the Orion was a British plane and was no longer under consideration?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Victoria for drawing this to the attention of the House. My translation was not coming through clearly and I thought the hon. member was referring to the Nimrod, which is a British plane and which was ruled out. I appreciate this opportunity of making this correction.
December 18, 1974


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question to the Minister of Labour concerning the material that is at least ten years old in the National Archives. The minister said that he would not want anyone in this House to break the law. Would he tell me what law he is speaking about, please?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, this is set out generally in an order in council with reference to the 30 year rule. It applies to records of this particular kind.


HOUSING
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs in charge of housing. In view of the fact that the minister has made the statement both inside and outside the House that he is bringing in new housing legislation to relieve the housing situation in Canada, since there are only a few days left in this part of the session would the minister indicate whether, as a result of consultations with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the legislation will include, in addition to the various programs the minister mentioned, measures regarding veterans' housing?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that notice was given yesterday that the new housing legislation will be tabled tomorrow afternoon in the House. In addition to that, the legislation will, of course, apply to all Canadians, including veterans; it is not specifically designed for veterans. My colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs will be prepared to comment on it at a later time.


SARNIA-MONTREAL PIPELINE-DATE OF CONSTRUCTION AND COMPANY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the proposed Sarnia-Mont-real pipeline. Every two or three days the minister is asked about this matter, but he always says that he hopes he will have something definite to say in the course of the next few days. Is there anything definite the minister can tell us now regarding when the pipeline will be built and who is going to build it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are still underway with Interprovincial Pipe Lines.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. It seems negotiations are always underway. The minister is always saying he is going to give us a statement. Does the minister think he will be able to give us a statement before we leave for the Christmas recess? How long is the minister
Oral Questions
going to keep us on a string, or how long does he think he can keep us on a string?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I often wonder how long hon. gentlemen opposite want to keep him a string.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Cheap.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to understand why the minister does not know his department better; he is worrying too much about things that do not concern him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Labour is supplementary to the previous questions. If I understood the minister correctly, in answer to the questions posed by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham he indicated that there was going to be a review of the evidence and other information submitted to the Norris commission to see what would be in the national interest to release. In light of the unusual interest in this question and of the natural concern that the government is stonewalling on the SIU question, would the minister agree to allow members of parliament from this side of the House to participate in the decision as to what would be in the national interest to release and what would not be in the national interest to release?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, surely the government of the day has to take the responsibility for interpreting the law correctly.


HOUSING
Mr. Art Lee (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a question to the minister of state responsible for housing, and it is with regard to the $50 million federal program of limited dividend housing. Would the minister please inform the House why no projects were approved for Vancouver?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, although bids were asked for from Vancouver, none was provided. I met with the building industry in Vancouver and with the mayor and provincial officials. A very unusual situation has developed there, but following my discussions, when funds become available on a much expanded scale in the new year I fully
2362

December 18, 1974
Oral Questions
expect Vancouver to take advantage of these programs and that this beautiful city will flourish with good housing.


DEDUCTIBILITY OF ROYALTIES FOR TAX PURPOSES- REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF FEDERAL POSITION
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I am sure the Prime Minister is aware of the serious energy shortage that is facing Canadians in the near future and that activity in the exploration field is not in high gear, despite the progressive steps taken by the premier of Alberta last week. I am sure the Prime Minister is also aware of the statement in committee a year ago by the minister of energy that he was glad a higher royalty was proposed by the province of Alberta. In view of the Prime Minister's indication to me in the House two weeks ago that deductibility for tax purposes of a reasonable amount of royalty was an interesting suggestion, would the Prime Minister be prepared to consider resource taxation that would permit deductibility at least up to the level that the minister considered to be too low a royalty just one year ago?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member is simply repeating a suggestion, in which case I thank him for it. If he is negotiating on behalf of the premier of Alberta, I find the avenue rather strange indeed. The fact is that the premier of Alberta made it very clear, as far as I understood him, that he did not accept our position on royalties at all. It was not a question of saying that you can disallow some and allow the rest.
The hon. member is now making a completely new type of proposal, saying it is okay to disallow some provincial royalties, as I understand him, providing you do not disallow them all. I repeat, this is not the position the Alberta government has taken. Therefore, I cannot think the hon. member is speaking on anybody's behalf but his own.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister is well aware that steps have been taken by the province of Alberta. The question I am asking the Prime Minister is whether the door is closed, is he not prepared to open this, and is he not prepared to take some initiative as the chief executive of this country to enable the energy objectives of this country to be met? I think it behooves him to tell the House and the country what is the position. He said he would be reasonable. Is there a position of compromise which he would offer now to get this whole important matter of energy search going again in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in the government's view a great step toward compromise was taken by the federal government in its budget. A great step toward compromise was taken by the Alberta government in its recent announcement. Our position is that, subject to further analysis of the figures and discussions with the industry, the industry is in a pretty good position to continue its

explorations. Therefore, I take it that the representations made by the hon. member must be on behalf of the industry. They are not on behalf of the Alberta government.


PUBLISHING
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, in view of the alarming growth of foreign ownership in the Canadian book publishing industry and the Secretary of State's own statement that he believes Canadian ownership of the industry is vital, does the minister intend to introduce legislation which would designate book publishing a key sector and force foreign subsidiaries either to sell to Canadians, return to operating through Canadian agents, or withdraw and sell into Canada directly from the United States?


James Hugh Faulkner: No, Mr. Speaker. As I have indicated before, and did so during the campaign, the approach we will be taking is through the Foreign Investments Review Act. We feel that the screening agency can effectively perform this role, and this legislation is already in place. We feel that is the proper vehicle, and that position has been supported by the I.P.A. and the Canadian Book Publishing Council as well. I would also point out to the hon. member that there are approximately 132 publishers in Canada, 80 per cent of which are Canadian owned.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Veterans Affairs advise the House of his intentions regarding the Ste. Anne de Bellevue veterans' hospital? Does the cessation of renovations which were being carried on mean that the whole plan for the hospital is to be scrapped; is it to be turned over? Why is there limited occupation and what is the situation with regard to staff?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member I would point out that negotiations are presently being carried on between the province and the federal government. My understanding in respect of negotiations is that no decision has been reached as yet. The reason it is not fully occupied is that there are some renovations taking place so we are not filling the place up with patients only to have to move them out at a later date.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, is it the government's intention to turn the hospital over to the Quebec Hospital Commission for administration for veter-

December 18, 1974

ans, or just what is the intention in respect of this hospital?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this hospital comes under the same policy we have had since 1964. Upon completion of negotiations satisfactory to us, and of course they must be satisfactory to the province, there is a plan that there will be so many priority beds. In all cases to date, the administration of veterans' hospitals is carried out by the province, a university or a municipality, whichever accepts the responsibility. I think all these things are clear and settled, but we are at the negotiation stage and no decision can be made until they are completed.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Benno Friesert (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the government has been for some time considering changing the Juvenile Delinquents Act to a young offenders act and introducing other relevant changes, would the Minister of Justice give an indication as to the progress of this bill and when the House can expect to be dealing with it?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, we are preparing legislation for young offenders in conjunction with the provinces. We hope to have a draft bill and a white paper prepared for the early spring.


MANPOWER
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, several of my colleagues as well as myself have been receiving inquiries regarding a new program under the ministry of manpower and immigration. It is my understanding that offices have been set up in various areas of the country, but I have been unable through the usual channels to find out more about this program which I think is called the "entrepreneur program". Is the minister in a position today to inform the House of the purpose of this program, for what areas of Canada it is intended and, more importantly, how is it to be funded?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I believe I did make it clear, perhaps during a previous parliament, that this is a very small component of the Local Initiatives Program. I will check back in the record to find out when I said this, but I cannot give details now. We are examining projects in a few areas across Canada which may or may not be approved, depending on their quality. I will undertake to make a statement in a month or so, or to communicate with specific hon. members who have a particular interest in this.
Federal-Provincial Relations


Jack Marshall: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to impose on the House, but in the minister's answer he seemed to suggest that I would get further elaboration on veterans' housing from the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It appeared to me that the minister was ready to get up and announce a program in respect of veterans' housing. I wonder if he is prepared to do that now.


Barnett Jerome Danson: I did say at a later date.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The reason I did not allow the hon. member to follow up with a supplementary was that the implication by the minister in his answer to the question was that legislation in respect of which the hon. member expressed an interest would be tabled in the House tomorrow, at which time, depending on the content of the legislation, the hon. member could follow up his question.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: that Bill C-38, respecting the office of the Secretary to the Cabinet for Federal-Provincial Relations and respecting the Clerk of the Privy Council, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a short and straightforward bill of importance to the continuing conduct of federal-provincial relations at the federal level. I should think it requires a relatively brief explanation.
The legislative amendments proposed would, in essence, create the position of a secretary to the cabinet for federal-provincial relations and establish a federal-provincial relations office. They are proposed at this time because the government recognizes the need to respond more effectively than ever to changes and challenges in our federal system of government.
Federal-provincial relations have always been important in Canada. However, the range and complexity of subject areas has evolved over the past ten years. The changes and challenges referred to, Mr. Speaker, concern the growing inter-relationship of the two orders of government which, in turn, reflects the increasing interdependence of our society.
As indicated in the speech from the Throne, there are few actions that can be taken today by one order of government without regard for the actions of the other.
28626-1 S'/i

December 18, 1974
Federal-Provincial Relations
The problems of today encompass a broad range of government activity and demand greater and more effective consultation between federal and provincial governments. In this context I hardly need to refer to such important joint undertakings as the federal-provincial review of the Canadian social security system which should, we trust, result in a beneficial rationalization of federal and provincial programs in the area of income support. I would mention also tri-level consultation at the federal, provincial and municipal levels, in order to coordinate the over-all public sector impact on our burgeoning cities. This provides another example of important and fruitful federal-provincial contact.
Furthermore, governments are at present grappling with questions which abound both in technical difficulties and practical constraints. They are faced with the complex issue of the sharing of fiscal revenue; they are attempting to adjust equalization payments structures in a climate of changing realities and external pressures; and in the resources sector the federal and provincial governments are determined to find solutions to the arduous question of the appropriate revenue split among both orders of government and industry. This very day several questions were addressed to me on that very subject by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden).
So, as I indicated on October 2, there remains the major challenge of patriating the constitution to provide Canadians with a constitutional framework which is truly their own. It will be recalled that in 1968 the government took the important step of establishing a special federal-provincial relations division within the Privy Council office to assist in the co-ordination of the government's approaches to federal-provincial affairs. This division of the Privy Council office has, over the years, provided the government with increasingly effective and wide-ranging support in the area of federal-provincial relations.
What is now proposed, in view of the growing complexity of the federal-provincial system, is a further step in the same direction. In this sense no major organizational change is envisaged because I do not believe the interests of the federal government would be served by a radical administrative innovation in this regard. I know some provincial governments have established a minister in a specific department for federal-provincial relations. This is not the course I am proposing, nor the course which is proposed by this bill.
What parliament is being asked to approve in this bill would, however, enable the government to raise the level of its capabilities as regards federal-provincial co-ordination without actually creating a new department. The office would continue answering to the Prime Minister as the cabinet secretary does.
I envisage a number of objectives for the federal-provincial relations office. First, it would assist in developing federal-provincial consultation on an increasing range of fronts; second, it would provide cabinet with greater assistance in examining federal-provincial issues of current and long-term concern; third, it would assist me as Prime Minister in my over-all responsibility for federal-

provincial relations. Finally, it would provide assistance to federal departments whenever they deal with provincial ministers and their agencies.
I already announced, I believe two months ago, who would be the new occupant of the post of secretary to the cabinet for federal-provincial relations. The designation of Mr. Gordon Robertson as the government's choice to fill the new position has given the strongest possible indication of the importance we attach to the new position and to the work of the office which he will lead. Gordon Robertson has had a remarkable career in the public service up to now. His sensitive leadership as Deputy Minister of Northern Affairs in the formative years of that department is well known to hon. members in all parts of the House. His service as Clerk to the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet over the past more than 11 years, which is longer than any other person has served in that function, has earned him the justified reputation of being the outstanding public servant of them all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: His assignment to this new post will give the country a new benefit from his exceptional talents and great personal integrity. He will be able to devote his energy particularly to developing our Canadian federalism and to the unity of our nation. As Prime Minister I will continue to have the advantage of having him close to me as a wise adviser of whom all the nation may be proud.
In support of the over-all cabinet system of government, my officials in the Privy Council office and the federal-provincial relations office will continue to provide services to ministers in an effective, efficient and co-operative manner. In carrying out their functions I have no doubt the two offices will be fully cognizant of their mutual interdependence.
Technically, it has been observed that the government could have achieved the establishment of this new body through the means of a legislative item in the Privy Council estimates. The House Leader (Mr. Sharp) and myself did consult and ask for views on this. However, we chose the present course of a bill, because there is every intention that the federal-provincial relations office should be a continuing and permanent structure. The government considers it more in accord with desirable parliamentary practice to have a bill directly amending section 38 of the Public Service Employment Act. [Translation]
Since the Bill relates to the public service employment act, Madam Speaker, it seemed desirable to bring the reference to the "clerk of the Privy Council" up-to-date.
Since 1940, the incumbents of this position have had the title of "Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet", in fact if not in law. That is why, since we were considering amending the act, we though it would be appropriate to introduce at the same time an amendment aimed at giving the incumbent of this position the title he as in fact and should have in law.
I would hope, Madam Speaker, that this bill would receive full and rapid consideration so the administrative change it embodies could come into effect as soon as possible.
December 18, 1974


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, may I say to the House, and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in particular, that we in the official opposition view this bill with some suspicion and some approval. I may say that I think in the long run our goodwill and our good wishes have won out because, unless more information comes out in the debate, it certainly is not our intention to vote against the bill on second reading. However, I must be frank with the Prime Minister and the House.
I say to the Prime Minister that we view the bill with some suspicion for a number of reasons. First, if this is merely to create another $60,000 deputy minister post, into which the Prime Minister is pushing a valued and experienced civil servant of this country in order to make way for an untried administrative friend of the Prime Minister in another position, then we do not like it.
One of the reasons why we feel we may have some grounds for that is the terminology used in the cabinet and by cabinet ministers when they speak of this bill. Do they refer to this bill as the dominion-provincial relations bill? No. Do they refer to this bill as the Robertson bill? No. It is referred to by the cabinet ministers themselves when they talk about it as the Pitfield bill. That cannot help but raise some suspicion in our minds that perhaps this is merely a vehicle to create a vacancy where a vacancy does not now exist, so that that vacancy can be filled by someone else. May I merely say to the Prime Minister that previous administrations have had a far better record than his administration has had in the dominion-provincial relations field without the need for such a post.
May I just indicate that back in the days when I firmly believed that co-operative federalism was working, some of the following achievements took place. For instance, the Roads to Resources program was set up without this post; a forestry agreement was reached with full consultation between the government of the day and eight provinces; the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act was achieved with full consultation with the provinces concerned; the Columbia River Agreement was achieved with consultation; a winter works program was achieved with full, meaningful and viable consultation between the municipalities and the provinces and the then federal government; a worthwhile educational capital building program was achieved with full consultation with the provinces; the Prairie Provinces Water Agreement was achieved; the Canadian Council of Resources Ministers was set up, and ARDA was set up.
These are examples of a government that not only talked about co-operative federalism but actually put it into practice. Those days were very fruitful. The Diefen-baker government went-and some, I know, will say "Hear, hear!"-and it was replaced by a Liberal government under the late Right hon. Mr. Pearson. The whole atmosphere, so far as consultation with the provinces is concerned, changed.
We have just heard now from the lips of the present Right hon. Prime Minister of the problem that exists with
Fediral-Provincial Relations
health insurance. May I say to the Prime Minister that with the best of intentions in the world, with the goodwill that then existed in this country in respect of such a far reaching measure, the Pearson Liberal administration blundered badly in respect of the procedure and the mechanics in setting up health insurance in this country. There were scars and schisms initiated at that time by a Liberal administration that even today have not been healed.
Even today we hear the words of the Prime Minister that we need still greater consultation in respect of improvements to the health insurance plan. He is right, of course, and we all hope and pray that these things will come about, but I am sure that the Prime Minister would not deny that some of us are skeptical and some of us are suspicious, because in those days that was a massive, unnecessary confrontation, not consultation, with the provinces.
Exactly the same situation happened with the Canada Pension Plan, a good, far reaching, necessary and needed concept in this country. But again the method of going about it by the then Liberal administration of Mr. Pearson was simply wrong.
I would say to you that in those days of the Pearson Liberal government, the old fabric of consultative federalism in this country fell apart. What is needed today? The Prime Minister told us today that a federal-provincial relations office is needed by his administration because he recognized the importance of the challenge of such an office. I could not agree with him more. There is certainly a need for the recognition by the government of the importance of the challenge of dominion-provincial relations.
Let me just go through some of the blustering and blundering history of dominion-provincial relations of the Prime Minister and this administration. They are not in any order of priority, they have just been picked at random in the few minutes I have had since I heard that this bill was coming before the House today. First is the milk subsidy. Without consulting the provinces in any way the government decided to phase out the 5 cents a quart milk subsidy which now has driven up the retail and consumer price of milk. There has been no consultation worthy of the name whatsoever.
Do we need something to improve these relations? We most certainly do. How about the LIP and OFY programs? Millions of dollars in LIP grants alone have been poured into communities, most of them, by the way, where Liberal members have been elected, without proper regard for community or provincial priorities. In some instances grants were provided for activities within a community where the majority of the people in that community did not want them. There was no consultation with provincial or municipal officials whatsoever.
How about the DREE grant program? Again, millions of dollars have been spent on regional development programs with little or no regard for the priorities of the provinces involved. This is not the way to run a federal system. There have to be consultative programs undertaken with these jurisdictions, which have just as much importance, if not more, than the federal government. As my leader said last June during the election campaign:

December 18, 1974
Federal-Provincial Relations
The federal government has intruded itself into provincial economics and invaded the areas of provincial development not as a partner but as a bully.
That is echoed in every provincial capital across this land, and if this new appointee of the Prime Minister will rectify that, then all we can say is, hallelujah!
How about natural resources? In the budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) announced that he would no longer permit the non renewable resource industries to receive income tax deductions on their royalty payments. I feel that the Prime Minister has heard this complaint before. It is an unnecessary complaint, one that should not now be before the House. It is a complaint that should not be voiced by provincial ministers, by provincial governments, by resource industry people, and by members of the House. But it has to be voiced because of the stupid, blundering of this government and the fact that it will simply not consult its partners in the federal system.
Then there is the two price system for domestic oil established by the government on September 13, 1973. There had been no prior consultation. This was the first federal tax on a nonrenewable provincial resource, and an unnecessary federal precedent was thereby established.
Then there is the oil export charge act. Canadian wellhead prices were frozen on September 4, 1973. Again there was no advance, meaningful, realistic consultation with those most directly concerned, and there should have been. This is a divisive policy, pitting the producing provinces of the country against the consuming provinces. If you do not believe me, consider what the Prime Minister said in Regina, on June 6 last:
No provincial premier will be allowed to crowd Ottawa out of its right to tax resource industries.
Those are the Prime Minister's words. But is that the language of an amiable individual who is in charge of a federal administration which wants to co-operate with the provinces on programs affecting provincial resources?
Consider the question of off-shore minerals. This has been perplexing provincial resource ministers since the 1960s, simply because of the dogmas handed down from the Olympian heights of Ottawa. These dogmas bear no relation to the needs of provincial administrations.
Let me refer to what has taken place in communications. The western communications ministers ended a two-day conference in Saskatoon in August, 1973, not 1974, in which they pleaded with Ottawa to stay out of provincial areas of jurisdiction. A federal green paper on communications on March 27, 1974, called for federal-provincial regulation of telephone rates. The provinces feel that these matters are solely within their jurisdiction. Be that as it may, there was no consultation, no advance warning.
We see great ministerial policies handed down, and then the Prime Minister wonders why his word is not trusted in certain provincial capitals. Quebec and Ontario have challenged federal jurisdiction over telecommunications. In November, 1972, for instance, at the provincial ministers conference in Quebec city the federal government was criticized for duplicating provincial telecommunication

systems and for its licensing of the CN-CP telecommunications network.
These complaints are not being made by government officials who are whining about lack of jurisdiction. They are made by well meaning elected officials who feel that there is a constitution governing this country, outdated and antique though it may be, and that their jurisdictions as well as rights in many areas are being infringed on, as there are existing provincial administrations for dealing with some of the problems in which the federal government has become involved. In many areas, ranging from off-shore mineral rights to telecommunications, the federal government has appointed its own administrative officials and set up its own administrative procedures, to the detriment of those whom we serve, whether at the provincial or federal level, the poor, overburdened taxpayers of Canada.
Shared cost programs have been a thorn in the sides of provincial governments and ministers simply because of federal strings attached to those grants and programs over the years.
Let me refer to the competition bill of the last session. That measure was also introduced in the session before that, and the session before that again. It is another example illustrating the government's failure in the field of dominion-provincial relations. That bill dealt with services which would obviously lead to conflicts involving provincial and municipal administrations. Such conflict is all the more probable because the provinces were not consulted adequately about these matters before the drafting and introduction of the bill.
The profiteering bill, which was to enable the government to freeze or roll back prices, is another example of lack of consultation. Before the introduction of that bill there had been no prior consultation with the provinces on a measure which could not help but affect the finances and economies of individual provinces.
Let me also refer to transportation. Since the Western Economic Opportunities Conference of July, 1973, there has been virtually no meaningful consultation with western provinces about the removal of freight rate inequites or the modernization of grain handling facilities, even though these subjects have been discussed inside and outside the House, sometimes by ministers of the Crown. Really, that is not the way to consult partners involved in a federal-provincial relationship as envisaged by the constitution.
There has been little or no consultation with the provinces on trade, or on the effects of unilaterally lowering protective tariffs in accordance with GATT provisions. Yet these matters vitally affect the economy of provinces. I can remember when the auto pact was announced, the immediate effect that pact had on the economy of Ontario. I am not criticizing the auto pact; I am not criticizing many of the other measures I mentioned. I am merely saying that, for heaven's sake, before the federal administration makes far-reaching changes which will affect the economies and finances of provinces and municipalities and the way our citizens live, let it consult in advance with the provinces. Consultation should be more meaningful than it has been so far.
December 18, 1974

Consider the question of inflation. When the premiers asked the Prime Minister to meet them in order to discuss the current inflationary spiral, what was the Prime Minister's initial reaction? Right off the top of his head he made an extremely rude retort which was reported by the media people and for which he has ever since bitten his tongue, I am sure. Eventually, after mature consideration, he agreed to the meeting. Yet, that is the type of spontaneous reaction one can expect from the Prime Minister in the field of dominion-provincial relations. It is totally wrong.
And what happened at the Victoria conference on constitutional reform? I was involved with that conference. Weeks of labour went into that conference. It looked like a success. Then one province alone scuttled it. It demanded certain social welfare rights which were vehemently, immediately and adamantly rejected by the government in Ottawa. It did this without thinking and, consequently, the Victoria conference on constitutional reform went by the board. The Prime Minister went into a huff and immediately dismantled most of the dominion-provincial consultative machinery existing in the federal government.
And what happened about those very demands made by the province which had scuttled the conference? Eventually, after thinking about them, the federal government agreed to every one of the demands made by that province. In the meantime the entire dominion-provincial consultative machinery in the federal government had been disbanded.
Why, when it has been demanded for years, has there not been long before now some federal, provincial and municipal co-operative effort in respect of, for example, capital issues and borrowing in this country? Although it has been demanded for years, there is none. Only the federal government can possibly take the initiative and give the leadership in many of these fields which would lead to a much smoother relationship and better working conditions for the common man in this very much overgoverned country. There has to be improvement in many, many areas.
We in the official opposition look upon this bill with a measure of suspicion, and I think rightly so, but with a measure of approval as well. We are willing to let the approval side of our argument take control over the matter because there is so much to be done and there is such a sorry, shabby record on the part of the government in respect of dominion-provincial relations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, as I understand the provisions of this bill, it will increase the number of senior civil servants now employed by the federal government by one. Our party is not among those who still believe that the best government is that government which does the least. We believe that governments have a responsibility and duty to do for the people of Canada that which they, as individuals, cannot do. Therefore, when discussing the important contribution which Mr. Gordon Robertson and Mr. Pitfield have made in the past, and will undoubtedly make in the future, we in this
Federal-Provincial Relations
party are not prepared, before discussing the matter in committee, to say that we are opposed to the basic principle included in this bill. In committee we will, of course, want a good deal more information than we have at present.
I do not question the right of this or any government to appoint to a senior policy making position a person in whom it has confidence. We expect any government to do that, regardless of which party happens to be the government at the time the appointment is made.
Having said that, I must say that I listened with some skepticism to the argument of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that this position is required because of the increasingly complex problems existing between the federal and provincial governments. The problems which the federal government must discuss with the provinces are indeed very important and very complex. They affect the lives of every citizen in Canada. This is so because we live in a federal state in which the jurisdictional responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments are not clearly defined.
A great deal of change has taken place over the years. Important changes will take place in the future. I am not convinced that the problems which arise between the federal government and the provinces are caused by insufficient technical or knowledgeable advice.
There is ample evidence that the Prime Minister, both in the Prime Minister's office and in the Privy Council, has had and will continue to have expert advice from knowledgeable technical advisers. The differences which have arisen and will continue to arise between the federal and provincial governments have been, and will continue to be, matters which cannot be solved at the technical level, although the technicians, bureaucrats and civil servants must provide the detailed information which is required to make decisions. They are differences which are of a political, social and economic nature. With our democratic system of government these will have to be solved by the federal and provincial political leaders.
I am not going to go over the whole range of differences which have existed in recent years. I will just mention two which come to mind. First is the price paid for wheat. The minister in charge of the wheat board has developed a policy which is opposed by two of the three major wheat producing provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. There is no reason for me to discuss the correctness of the position of the federal and provincial governments on this issue at this time. I merely use this as an illustration to show that the differences are not of a technical but a political nature.
Similarly, but on a much larger scale, there is the question of taxation of the resource industry. I refer to the gas and oil industries as well as industries which extract those minerals of which this country has a large reserve, copper, iron, zinc and nickel. Here there are fundamental differences between the points of view of the federal and provincial governments. There is the question of the rate at which the companies extracting the minerals, oil and gas should be taxed. Second, who do the taxation revenues belong to, the federal or provincial governments?

December 18, 1974
Federal-Provincial Relations
What I am trying to say is that these matters have to be decided on the basis of political discussion between the federal and provincial governments. I do not believe an office in Ottawa for federal-provincial relations will either solve or hinder a solution to the problems. If the federal government would try to co-operate with the provinces, rather than trying to follow what can only be described as a system of confrontation, we would be much further ahead in reaching an agreement acceptable to both the federal and provincial governments. I am not as convinced as the Prime Minister that we need this position.
Before resuming my seat, I wish to raise a matter which I think is important. This proposal is simply one small illustration of it. I refer to the tremendous proliferation which has taken place in the number of senior civil servants employed by the federal government. On December 9 a reply was tabled, in response to a question I placed on the order paper almost on the day this parliament met. My question asked:
By department, what was the increase in the number of senior officers, SX 1, SX 2, SX 3, SX 4, for each year from 1968 to 1973, or in the case of new departments, commissions, agencies, etc. from their inception to 1973?
Although I have some idea of what has taken place, I can only say that the answer shocked me. I quote:
The increase in the number of senior SX officers for each year from 1968 to 1973 for all departments and agencies of the public service was as follows: in 1968 there were 381 senior SX officers. This total rose ... to 895 in 1973.
That represents an increase of almost 150 per cent in just five years. In the last half hour I tried to obtain information about the salary ranges, but without success. However, one of the hon. members from the Toronto area asked a question which was answered a few days ago. It was question 718, and hon. members can find the answer at page 2048 of Hansard. He asked:
In 1973, how many public servants earned gross remuneration in excess of $30,000, $36,000 and $40,000, and in each case what was the aggregate amount paid to them?
The answer was as follows:
In 1973, 873 public servants received salaries in the range $30,000 to $35,999 for an aggregate of $27,981,071; 308 public servants received salaries in the range $36,000 to $39,999 for an aggregate of $11,667,894, and 86 received salaries of $40,000 and over for an aggregate of $3,776,364.
I am not one who believes that any employer, certainly not the federal government, should underpay any of its employees, but I want to say, speaking for myself and, I believe, for all members of our party, that we are of the opinion that a very hard look needs to be given to this increase, amounting to almost 150 per cent in the last five years, in the number of senior civil servants in the executive class, people who, I am sure, are getting more than $25,000 a year.
We believe the government needs to provide people with the services they require. We believe in having an efficient public service and in paying public servants adequate salaries. But we do not believe it was really necessary to expand the ranks of the senior civil service from 381 to 895 in five years.

I want to say, too, to the Prime Minister and to members of the government that, while we have never preached restraint as a solution to Canada's economic problems, it is long past the time when the government ought to show restraint in the appointment of senior civil servants at what we consider to be salaries which are very high and, in some cases, too high. Having said this, I must add that we do not intend to vote against the bill or to hold up this debate at any great length. We shall reserve our final decision until the committee has had an opportunity to discuss this question in detail.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on Bill C-38. The purpose of the bill is merely to create the position of secretary to the Prime Minister's office.
Madam Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by that bill and I wonder if its main purpose is not to create another position at the Prime Minister's office who has increased the positions from the start while he said at the beginning of his term that he would try to reduce bureaucracy in Parliament. I think that we cannot congratulate him in that respect. Most people would say that there are too many public servants in Ottawa. I do not object to efficient public servants nor to a certain number of them, but when they are too many, Madam Speaker, one has to protest. It is like a merchant looking after his business. If he needs twenty employees, but hires forty, he will be told that there is something wrong. We also need 500,000 public servants. We have 800,000. There is something wrong which some have pointed out before me: it is the duplication of positions throughout the country as a result of that so-called profitable federalism which has been praised for many years.

The taxation powers the federal government acquired with the consent of the provinces allowed it to do what it is doing now, creating this government that I call a government of technocrats. That is the kind of federalism we have now.
With its tremendous taxation power the government interferes in all areas of exclusively provincial jurisdiction and while all this is taking place the provinces are crying that they want their taxation powers back. And here we are keeping still with all the money that can be collected in the form of taxes saying, we are keeping our taxation power to make a more equitable redistribution across the country, to help the underdeveloped areas and give all Canadians a chance to share in the wealth of this country.
I do not suggest that the intentions are bad, because they are very good, but the actions in general are bad because there is a realization that the government starts by paying itself well off before thinking about poorer provinces. Before thinking about redistributing we kept everything we needed here, then we used our spending powers before letting the provinces have the crumbs. The provinces are crying, and rightly so, although they too have their faults.
December 18, 1974

I will not have time to go into the faults of the provinces because often they cry for help when they actually put themselves in the hole by their own consent. They are crying for help because the federal government has become too powerful. That federal system of technocrats who control everything in this country has become very powerful. I listened earlier to the right hon. Prime Minister say that it was to have that secretary, to have more consultations, for example, about medicare.
Madam Speaker, health is an exclusively provincial area and after all the changes that were made there is still an attempt through our taxation power to interfere in the old age security plan, the family allowances plan, or we give 30, 40 or 50 per cent to the medical sector. The provinces must try and find a few comforting words in the discussions, while health comes specifically under their jurisdiction.
We claim that our purpose is to establish better contacts with the provinces, to obtain their advise on health matters and, to provide better assistance to the sick, the old and the young. As far as I am concerned, I repeat what I said ten years ago: the federal government should give back to the provinces their taxation rights, and we will do away with this duplication of offices in the ten provinces, in addition to the federal ones, which are trying to distribute the federal taxes to those in need of medical care or other assistance. Instead of allocating 50 per cent of the funds levied throughout Canada and on every level of government to administer the health department, let us go and find out what is going on in our hospitals. In the province of Quebec, our hospital system is worse than ever. I do not speak about other provinces but about mine which has the most expensive system; it costs $88 a day to have the right to sleep in a bed and with none of the services we had 15 or 20 years ago. If at least we had them! Today, let us see what happens. There is too much red tape. Almost 50 per cent of the hospitals are occupied by offices. This is red tape. But as far as beds for patients are concerned, you will not find them!
This is why it is said that there was a transfer of responsibilities. We should leave to provinces their responsibilities but give them the taxation power needed to meet those responsibilities and let the federal government meet its own responsibilities and let us meet ours. We should stop interfering like this in provincial jurisdiction. Thus, Madam Speaker, I think that we should be able to reduce the staff of Prime Minister's office by 50 per cent and to do the same in other departments, in order to retain only good civil servants and dismiss those who are paid $25,000, $30,000, $40,000 a year for doing nothing. Talk about salaries! But we should not forget that their expenses are paid by the government. This is something that people often forget.
Madam Speaker, I understand that we are going to send Bill C-38 to a standing committee of this House where it will be discussed because it demands some discussion and thought but, once more, let us forget about joint plans and projects and such nonsense. I remember the joint plans. The former Prime Minister, theRight Hon. Lester B. Pearson, had sworn to do away with all joint plans, but when he abandoned politics, there were still some left. Today, we have multiplied by six, these famous joint plans which
Federal-Provincial Relations
are nothing more than federal government tentacles to strangle the provinces.
I consider that joint plans did not achieve a fair distribution. When I hear about fair distribution, I always think of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I was a member of that committee, which was supposed to help underdeveloped areas. What nonsense! I know that at the time of the old department, the government gave assistance on a political basis not to underdeveloped areas, but to those which could bring in votes.
We are opposed to such joint departments, plans, projects, or programs. We are in favour of the principle that the provinces should have access to more information, should be consulted more often, not after the fact, but before a joint program is discussed. For many years, programs have been developed before the provinces were consulted. Just imagine the situation, when everything had been done! We want the consultations to take place before in the areas which are strictly within the jurisdiction of the federal government. The provinces should be able to maintain their own fields of jurisdiction. This will eliminate a lot of the problems in Ottawa. This is what often causes problems in departments. People are always wondering, does this come under provincial or federal jurisdiction? This is so confused that, in the end, it is the federal government who has the right of veto.
In conclusion, I simply want to say that the best federal-provincial relations are those which take place among elected officials rather than public servants, among people who are truly responsible, who have been elected by the people, that is, the federal members of Parliament and the elected members from Quebec or Ontario. We must discuss these problems amongst ourselves. The discussion must not take place at a bureaucratic level. Bureaucracy has its place, but those who are truly responsible for the provinces and the country are the representatives elected by the people. All others are irresponsible . . .


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: . . . when programs, and projects are developed through consultations with the members of parliament, we will agree, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, the first question that I ask myself as this bill comes before us is, why it has been brought into the House. Let me read the explanatory note to the bill:
The purpose of this Bill is to make provision for the appointment and remuneration of the Secretary to the Cabinet for Federal-Provincial Relations and to make the statutory designation of the office of the Clerk of the Privy Council conform to present practice.
It is obviously an important bill because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself is taking the responsibility of bringing it before the House. But the explanatory note, or even the presence of the Prime Minister this afternoon is not sufficient to assist one in finding the real reason for this bill. I do not think it is necessarily a vehicle for the employment of specific civil servants.
The Prime Minister made reference to Mr. Gordon Robertson. I shall be making some comments about Mr. Robertson, but I do not think that the bill has to do with Mr. 2370

December 18, 1974
Federal-Provincial Relations
Robertson. I think this bill is the first in a series of steps that the Prime Minister is going to take in constitutional reform in this country.
The Prime Minister said in his speech on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne that he considered constitutional reform to be a very high priority of this new administration. The step he is taking today in bringing this bill before us will, in my view, set the stage for building blocks leading to constitutional reform.
I am not opposed to constitutional reform. In fact you will see from my remarks this afternoon how very much I am in favour of it. It is precisely because constitutional reform is so important that it must be done in the right way. I think the person who will be in an instrumental position as a result of this bill, namely Mr. Gordon Robertson, or whoever is the incumbent of the secretaryship, should be a minister of the Crown. I therefore oppose the bill for that reason, and not because I do not want to see an improvement in federal-provincial relations or steps to improve them. I oppose the bill because I do not want this delicate and powerful structure to be in the hands of a person who cannot come into this House and be questioned by members of parliament.
In my brief time in the House of Commons I have seen the manner in which the senior civil servants of the government, particularly that handful who are in a very influential position to affect policy, approach premiers of the provinces. This bill will bolster this powerful structure and style of the government which is, in fact, an end run around the House of Commons.
These senior civil servants have adopted this approach with the blessing of the Prime Minister and his government who are in favour of excessive centralization of power in this country to the exclusion of members of the House of Commons. After this bill goes through, and surely it will pass, we will be in the position of having the incumbent in that office conducting very delicate negotiations on such subjects as energy and the implementation of social policy around the country. The secretary will be conducting these negotiations with the premiers in such a way that we will not be privy to those negotiations. I object to this very seriously. I have a number of objections I wish to present to the House this afternoon because I consider this subject very important.
I would like the Prime Minister to understand that I am presenting my arguments in a constructive way. I repeat that what the Prime Minister is setting out on, or moving toward, is constitutional reform. I only want this done in a manner in which I, as a member of parliament, can participate. In a moment or two I will make some rather substantial references to why it is so important that members of parliament should participate.
Before we leave the matter of the secretaryship of Mr. Gordon Robertson I wish to have it clearly understood that I regard him as a man of high principles, of great experience, and an asset to our country. However, I am very interested in knowing what Mr. Gordon Robertson believes about this whole area of federal-provincial relations and the implementation of the report on the constitution brought down during a previous parliament by a

joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons. I want to know what he thinks, since his name has been raised more than once by the Prime Minister. I want to know what he stands for in this whole area of social policy, energy, and the other very real matters in respect of which he will be negotiating.
It is not good enough to have the incumbent of that office report to the Prime Minister, precisely because of the power he will wield in the negotiations with the premiers of the provinces. I want that incumbent to be here in the House, and I would repeat the thrust of my message this afternoon, that the incumbent of such an office should be a minister of the Crown.
I do not want it understood that this will require more bureaucracy. This could be a very small office. I would remind hon. members on this point that the minister of governmental affairs for the province of Alberta runs the smallest office of that entire government, at a minimal expense. Because he is a minister he is able to conduct the kind of consultations in the proper relationship that are so absolutely essential. His is a style I wish we could have emulated here as we move forward in federal intergovernmental relations.
This matter is important because it involv.es not only the setting up of an office which will handle federal-provincial relations, but because it begins to touch on the central area of constitutional division of power. This is why the Prime Minister is taking such care to get this done in the way he wants it done. This is certainly not the way I want it done. This matter touches on the whole question of decentralization of federal government departments.
I am glad the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) is here, as I intend to make reference to his department in a moment.
This matter also touches on the whole area of intergovernmental relations and the manner in which they should be conducted, and in that respect I would refer particularly to tri-level conferences. When I think of federal-provincial relations, or intergovernmental relations, I try to see where this bill is taking us, and I must put it in the framework of where we are today in this country.
When we think of the characteristics of this country we can see why this matter is so vital to the wellbeing of the country, and why it is so important that federal-provincial relations be formalized in a manner that takes into account the ability of members of parliament to participate.
Let me refer to the two important characteristics of this country today in terms of intergovernmental relationships. First, whether we like it or not, we are becoming a nation run by the government, and I say that with reference to the three levels of government, not just to the federal government. The second important characteristic of this country today can be related to our urbanization, and that is why this whole question is so important. We must consider how dependent upon the government this country is becoming. The facts and figures in this regard are quite familiar to us all.
We know that governments at all levels are growing faster than the economy, and the Economic Council of
December 18, 1974

Canada has warned us about this escalation. The figures show that before the end of this decade 50 per cent of the gross national product will be occupied by government. It is only fair to point out that provincial expenditures are increasing the fastest. This is because provincial delivery programs in the area of social security, which are direct offshoots of the state of the economy and of the federal government's economic and social policies, are vitally affected by the decisions of the federal government. Therefore, when we consider the growth in government spending we realize there is an increasing tax burden on private activity. This growth will eventually lead to the elimination of that activity.
Certainly we can see the increasing dependency of people on government programs. This will result in diminished initiative in the much needed further development of Canada. We recognize that government is growing and becoming more poweful. It is for this reason we need better governmental relations.
The next characteristic of our country as a background of this bill is the subject of urbanization. The rate of urbanization in this country is nothing short of a phenomenon. Before the end of this century 94 per cent of Canadians will be urbanized and three-quarters of them will live in 12 major centres. Urbanization is caused by an interlocking set of developments spawned by exploding technology. Government efforts must be directed toward managing this process of urbanization. There are special problems of urbanization such as in public assistance, transportation, environmental management, leisure, recreation and housing, which all interact on one another, demanding more money which municipalities have no way to raise, thus exacerbating their dependence on federal and provincial government grants.
Right away, just this brief touching on urbanization, we see how important it is to have intergovernmental relations not only between the federal government and the provinces but between the provinces and municipalities to the benefit of people who are today being over-governed by this multiplicity of governmental structures and programs, many of which overlap one another, and all of which add to the great expense. That is the background that we face as we look at this bill.
The joint committee on the constitution that reported to a previous parliament took the position that a new philosophy, a new concept, is needed to meet the over-all problems of progressive government and urbanization, because only a new philosophy can counter the mounting evidence that government is big rather than strong, flabby rather than powerful, that it costs a great deal and does not achieve very much. More tinkering with government may not be enough. This bill is a tinkering in that it sets up a new bureau or secretaryship, without going all the way, as I said earlier. The present policies of the federal government with regard to this bill, as indeed with its policy on decentralization which we have seen focussed in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, are inadequate.
It appears that government is too narrow. I would rather have a comprehensive plan based on a streamlining rather
Federal-Provincial Relations
than a piecemeal solution. I feel the Prime Minister is moving in this direction. This again reinforces my view that, because we are going into an area where important decisions must be made relative to government structure in this country, it is all the more important that the one in the sensitive position to create that policy be answerable to this House. i
Now I want to talk about the constitutional division of powers. The constitutional division of powers is another item at issue between the federal government and the provinces as well as the municipalities. We notice that decentralization is a theme running through the report on the constitution of Canada produced by the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which reported in 1972. After recommending a new constitution, the committee's second recommendation is:
A new Canadian Constitution should be based on functional considerations, which would lead to greater decentralization of government powers in areas touching cultural and social policy and to greater centralization of powers which have important economic effects at the national level. Functional considerations also require greater decentralization in many areas of government administration.
The principal way in which constitutional decentralization can be brought about is contained in Recommendation No. 50 which sets the division of powers in a more modern context:
Concurrent powers which predominantly affect the national interest should grant paramountcy to the Federal Parliament and those which predominantly affect Provincial or local interests should grant paramountcy to the Provincial legislature.
We see then that the new policy on decentralization begins with full support of the constitutional committee's recommendations on decentralization and a commitment to implement them. A more functional allocation of governmental powers will benefit all regions, not just Quebec which presented a special and critical challenge to Confederation at the Victoria Conference referred to by my colleague from Northumberland.
In every area of Canada people feel that the constitution is preventing their governments from doing what they would like to see them do. The committee proposes an expansion of provincial powers in such areas as income support, criminal law, marriage and divorce, educational television, taxing powers and international arrangements. The committee supports limitation of federal powers with respect to appointments to the Senate and Supreme Court, and with respect to federal spending in fields of provincial jurisdiction. Of course greater centralization is necessary in the regulation of the economy. Hence there should be a transfer of some existing provincial powers to the federal parliament. For example, there should be an increase in federal jurisdiction over air and water pollution, international and interprovincial trade and commerce, incomes, securities regulation, financial institutions, unfair competition and foreign ownership.
The constitutional committee made a major recommendation concerning decentralization in the field of social security-the federal government would determine overall spending in such programs as old age pensions, supplements and family allowances, and the provinces would determine how this total was to be distributed within limits to preserve national standards and maintain the principle of redistributing income.
28626-161/2

December 18, 1974
Federal-Provincial Relations
We have seen the beginning of this in the enlargement of the family allowance program. Consultation is now going on in the area of health and welfare to work out an approach to social policies that would be handled by the federal government and delivered by the provincial governments in ways in which they want to deliver them. However, there is still confusion over jurisdiction, and increasing political rivalry in promoting larger social benefits. We have seen this as one of the characteristics of the governmental jungle in which we live. That is why integrated economic-social planning between the federal and provincial governments is imperative to prevent the escalation of universal benefits into a welfare state. In the process of promoting flexibility via decentralization, I insist on a basic principle of social justice, namely, maximum benefits for the unemployable and maximum opportunity for the employable.
In considering ways to decentralize, it should be reaffirmed that the federal parliament must retain the primary responsibility for general economic policy in the country. Thus decentralization does not rule out centralization in primary areas. The federal parliament must have sufficient economic powers to regulate and influence the economy.
However, in fulfilling this constitutional responsibility of centralization, the federal government should explore more ways of decentralizing its operation so that federal policies can be regionally adapted. I have just given these brief references to constitutional division of power because that is the area that was opened up this afternoon by the Prime Minister in presenting a bill which provides a structure for a new set of relations between Ottawa and the provinces. Again I say that I cannot underline strongly enough how important it is that those negotiations that will lead to constitutional reform, and the whole approach to relations between the federal and provincial governments, be carried on in an open way and in a way in which Members of Parliament have access to them.
I come now to the question of decentralizating federal government departments. Surely this is tied to the question of how to have better federal-provincial relationships. We know that a certain amount of decentralizing of federal government departments is going on now. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion referred the other day to the successful implementation of the 30-70 plan, by which the proportion of officials in his department who are located in Ottawa and those located in the field had been reversed from the previous proportion of 70 in Ottawa and 30 in the field, to 30 in Ottawa and 70 in the field.
I hope some time later to enter into the debate on this specific point. I will not speak more on it except to point out that when we look at the small number of civil servants who were affected by that move, when we look at the matter of decentralization in terms of relocating certain individuals from Ottawa to the provinces, we find that that is not the answer in the sense that the constitutional committee viewed it. The sense in which they viewed it was to decentralize not just some officials or bureaucrats but to decentralize the decision making process in the areas to which I have referred.

That is the direction in which we should move, and if indeed this bill creates the vehicle to move us in that direction, then I should like to get the views of the man who will occupy that sensitive position. Decentralizing is far more than redistributing a handful of civil servants. The Joint Committee on the Constitution said:
Most Crown corporations could have their headquarters outside Ottawa, as many already have. Federal departments like Agriculture, Energy, Mines and Resources, Environment, National Defence and Transport could have their principal offices elsewhere, and many other departments could give their regional offices more authority. Even when Ottawa must remain the effective centre of administration, a greater effort can be made to encourage regional input.
Certainly special attention should be given in this case to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, as I mentioned, and also to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce through which there can be expressed joint federal-provincial identification of development opportunities in each province.
Now we come to the question of the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, which was itself a vehicle of federal-provincial relations that bypassed members of parliament. The development strategy of each province, particularly the kind of strategies that were highlighted at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, should be reinforced by federal programs, which means federal officials in regions empowered to make decisions.
The western premiers at that conference called for the establishment of industrial centres of excellence throughout the various regions of Canada. These centres would be based on natural and human resources, supported by research and marketing assistance, to develop a vital economic unit capable of serving national and international markets. They said:
Such a program concept suggests clear initiative on the part of the federal government in the establishment of new centres of industrial activity in Canada. It would involve decentralization of the technical expertise of Industry, Trade and Commerce to plan and support the development of such centres, and the major funding of research activities and new industrial enterprise in co-operation with other departments of the federal government.
Again we see the importance of the federal government permitting the provincial governments and various local organizations to participate in the planning of broad economic development policies, in establishing regional industrial priorities, and in the development and implementation of programs. There should be, in short, decentralization of planning and technical skills, decentralization of decision making power on assistance programs, and strengthening of regional offices.
I have dealt with two of the three areas that I want to touch upon, first, the constitutional division of powers, and second, decentralization of federal governments, because they have such a bearing on the bill before us which sets up a secretaryship that will plunge into these questions.
Now I come to the question of intergovernmental relations. Surely if constitutional reform is the long range goal, and cannot be achieved overnight, then decentralizing of the administration, while attainable in the near future, still requires structural changes. What can be accomplished immediately is a new spirit of intergovern-
December 18, 1974

mental co-operation. That is the way in which the Canadian people want us to operate, I am convinced.
I would like to point to the number of places in the country where there are intergovernmental teams. In Edmonton-Strathcona, which I represent, we have had an intergovernmental team of elected persons for some time, elected federally, like myself, elected provincially, within the federal boundaries, and elected representatives of the city council, also from within that area, along with the former mayor of the city.
This team of ten elected officials representing three governments, all of us elected by the same people but at different times, finding ourselves overlapping, began a series of meetings in the same spirit as the national trilevel meetings that have been held. Those meetings convinced me that a breakthrough is possible in this intergovernmental jungle, this growth, this overlapping to which I referred earlier, by a better spirit of relations built on mutual respect, knowledge of one and another's problems, and an ongoing structure for the kind of meetings at which we try to co-operate with one another for the benefit of the people, and not just in abstract terms.
I can point to a couple of specific cases, such as the relocation of tracks in one area, and the building of a complex for handicapped persons, a project that certainly cut across three levels of government. I point to this, my experience, limited as it is, in Edmonton-Strathcona, to underline my conviction that intergovernmental relations at the national level are absolutely essential to cut away a lot of the jungle through which we are manoeuvring.
I think that that is very much the spirit of the bill, that the secretaryship of federal-provincial relations will move forward in the area, I anticipate, and will certainly move forward in the area of tri-level conferences. We have had two such conferences. Now we have not had one for over a year, and already we are feeling the effects of there not having been a tri-level conference because the problems that municipalities are facing are being exacerbated with each passing day. Those are problems which I would summarize by saying that they do not have access to taxation in a manner that they need in order to meet the problems of urbanization.
That is why I began my remarks by stressing urbanization as well as big government, and constitutional reform which we hope is on its way. A way must be found for the municipalities to increase their share of the tax revenue, because municipalities are carrying the brunt of many social problems caused by urbanization and they do not have the ability to raise tax revenues in an elastic way, such as do provincial and federal governments.
The municipalities want to see a restructuring of revenue generating capacity and involvement in the federal and provincial decision-making process. Their demand for greater participation was supported by the joint committee on the constitution. Recommendation 67 says:
In the light of the injustice done municipalities by their having to rely on the property tax for the bulk of their revenue, there should be a sharing of tax fields between governments that would allow municipalities direct access to other sources of revenue.
Federal-Provincial Relations
What this new access will be can be determined come only by consultation and negotiation. It means that willingness by the federal government to find a tax solution to urbanization must be a principal step. At present a public study is examining the finances of the three levels of government. The second national tri-level meeting was held in Edmonton in October, 1973. At that meeting the representatives of 4,500 municipalities, the mayors and the municipalities association, asked the federal government to study the mechanism whereby municipalities would be given access to extra revenue. In other words the municipalities asked the federal government to begin the process of negotiation.
Whether the federal government will agree to give provinces extra tax points which can be transferred, under the constitutional prerogative of the provinces to the municipalities I do not know. However, something must be done. I was present at the meeting and was impressed with the urgency of the situation in which the municipalities find themselves as the result of federal policies. Under those policies the federal government has built up tax revenues which support the federal government; at the same time, however, the level of such taxation is eroding the possibility of other levels of government being able to meet their own legitimate needs. I am referring specifically to the needs of municipalities carrying the burden of urbanization.
What does this add up to? It adds up to the need for structuring intergovernmental relations in a way which meets the needs of the three levels of government, but not in a way which will lead to this process being dominated by the bureaucracy in Ottawa which adheres to the philosophy of centralization and believes it knows all the answers. That is why it is important to make sure that the one who is supposed to be instrumental in making decisions in this area can walk into this House, put forward his proposals, and be questioned on them.
In conclusion I make an urgent plea for the resumption of tri-level meetings, even if the study of public financing is by no means complete. It is important to begin the process of streamlining the way in which the government of this country is being conducted. That process actually began with the report of the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution.
A number of steps have been taken and this bill is a step forward, albeit a small one, as I said previously. This streamlining process to which I referred should include, as well, the federal-provincial committees-at last count there were 175. These committees address themselves to all sorts of problems without co-ordinating their activities with municipalities. The number of these committees could be cut.
Governments may still surprise one another in their negotiations. At least, if the suggestions I have put forward are adopted, there would be a structure to co-ordinate planning, which is something we need most of all. And, while governments would not yield control of their provinces, and they would be acting within their rights under the constitution, this new, suggested structure should produce a climate of persuasion for the common good. Even this goal, limited as it is, would be, in the judgment of the joint constitutional committee, "revolu-

December 18, 1974
Federal-Provincial Relations
tionary enough to impart a new direction to Confederation."
I oppose this bill because it does not go far enough. I plead with the government to take some constructive steps forward, and to implement constitutional reforms which many people of this country want, in a way which members of this House can support.


Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), who has just spoken. He made thoughtful comments on the measure before us. I was sorry to hear he does not think the measure goes far enough. I hope, before this debate ends, that he will revise his position and consider this as a first step to the achievement of an objective which many support, namely, the improvement of intergovernmental relations. The hon. member suggested that a breakthrough is possible in intergovernmental relations. I think he is right. And the measure the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is suggesting will help us make that breakthrough, and here we are speaking about a breakthrough in the area of intergovernmental relations. It will come about as part of the process of consultation and not as a result of any one move made at any one time. This new position and office will facilitate that process of consultation. I hope, therefore, the hon. member will find it possible to support this measure. Later I shall deal with his suggestion about the desirability of a minister being responsible for this process. I detected in the hon. member's remarks a call for the adoption of a new philosophy of government. I hope he does not share the philosophy of government put forward a few weeks ago by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton).
I welcome this measure because it will enable us to strengthen as well as maintain the balance of our federal system, which includes the federal government, provincial governments and through them, the municipalities.
We are living in a time of turbulence among nations, and it is important to remember that Canada will need to cope with ever more complex problems in the world. These complexities will lead to relations between the federal government and the provinces being even more close and complex than they are today. Responses to the complex pressures to which this country will be subjected must be reflected in the mechanisms which we will develop to smooth out difficulties. We shall establish mechanisms which will maintain a strong federalism and a proper balance within our constitution. For that reason I believe this measure is an important, although not a great step forward on that road.
I also welcome this measure because of the appointment to the new office being created of Mr. Gordon Robertson. During the past two years, when heading the Prime Minister's office, I had occasion to work closely with Mr. Robertson, who was Clerk of the Privy Council and head of the Privy Council office as well as secretary of the cabinet. One can rest assured that if any one person can launch successfully this new institution, that person is Mr. Gordon Robertson. I know well his qualities as a public servant, his wisdom in cabinet deliberations, his skill and his diplomacy and, above all, the reasonableness with which he approaches difficult problems. These qualities
[Mr. Roche.)
are particularly called for in an office that has to deal with different levels of government. Federalism will be well served, not only by the office, but by its first incumbent.
If I followed him correctly, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona referred to the desirability of having a minister occupy this office. There is a minister who is responsible for federal-provincial relations. That is the Prime Minister. There is no other minister who can perform that function. In my view, it would be a mistake in the short term, and certainly in the long-term sense, to assign the federal-provincial function to a cabinet minister. To appreciate this we must think of the ways in which the two levels of government interface with each other. For example, there are urban affairs, housing, immigration, social affairs, economic policy and the area of resources. If there were a minister responsible for federal-provincial relations, he would be responsible for everything. There are very few activities of one level of government that do not impinge in some way on the other levels.
There are also those areas in our constitution which are jointly shared. How do you find a minister who would necessarily impinge on another minister's jurisdiction in order to carry the federal-provincial concern in cabinet? That minister is the Prime Minister, and only the Prime Minister. The office will be reporting to the Prime Minister giving him the advice and support with which he can coordinate the activities of the other ministers who have more specialized jurisdictions in this particular area. In reply to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, I say that there is a minister and it can only be the Prime Minister.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask whether the hon. member will accept a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: This can only be done with the consent of the hon. member.


Mr. O'Connell:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this point to ask the hon. member whether he agrees that the argument he is putting forward, namely, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is the minister responsible, diminishes the strength of this office? We know that the Prime Minister is burdened with all sorts of things. The hon. member knows this more than most of us. How does he expect the Prime Minister to give his full attention to the vital matter of intergovernmental relations when he is preoccupied with many other aspects of government? In effect, will that not then make the incumbent of the office all the more powerful? We must bear in mind that he will be a civil servant. That is the crux of my argument. I wish the hon. member would address himself to that because I am very interested in finding out what he thinks about this. I feel he is undermining his own argument.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I could never agree with him that the Prime Minister would diminish anybody's office. He enhances it. He puts himself in the position of better fulfilling his responsibility by creating this office, and by
December 18, 1974

the incumbent he is proposing for it. Certainly the Prime Minister is burdened, but the federal-provincial burden that he carries will be made lighter by reason of this particular appointment. I think I strengthen my argument by insisting that the Prime Minister is preparing to fulfill his function in a more co-ordinated fashion by giving himself the required backup.
The hon. member mentioned that this might be a step toward constitutional reform. I say to him, not necessarily so. It may well facilitate the process of constitutional reform, but it is not being adopted for that purpose. The purpose of the office is to make the existing constitutional balance operate more effectively, not to change the constitution in some particular way. Certainly the patriation of the constitution of Canada is a major objective. It may be facilitated through the operations of this office, but the essential purpose to be served here is to facilitate a better operation of the constitution as it now exists, not to change it.
Reference was made to a new philosophy of government being required. I wish to refer to what appears to be a new philosophy proposed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) as recorded at page 1955 of Hansard. I trust that is not the new philosophy we are seeking, certainly not the philosophy that this office will support. In fact, it is the contrary. Referring to the need for a strong federal system, the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain said, and I quote:
. . . a strong federal system will only work if you undertake it by agreement and consultation.
That is fine. I think we all agree with that. That is one of the purposes of this particular office. However, he then went on to say:
If agreement does not follow consultation, then we are not a mature nation and do not deserve to continue.
I think we have to repudiate that. Surely that is not the philosophy we are seeking. If there are strains in the federation, as indeed there are and always have been, they are likely to intensify because of the nature of the world in which we live. As we move into complex problems, we need an institution, or office or activity that will permit us to search more thoroughly for agreement and to develop consultation to a further point. However, I think we must repudiate his contention that failing to get agreement we deserve to fall apart and do not deserve to exist. I expect the hon. member will want to repudiate that philosophy. It is really a philosophy of despair because the constitution assigns responsibilities to different levels of government.
It may be we cannot agree, but there has to be a government that speaks for all Canadians regardless of the province in which they live, a government that will assure balance and equity across Canada. That has to be the federal government. In this particular measure, it is repudiating the philosophy of giving up. It is saying "Let's try harder. Let's have an institution that will assist the Prime Minister in those of his activities concerned with federal-provincial functions, and do a better job to the extent we can."
I intended to speak very briefly on this particular measure. Once again I welcome it as one that strengthens federalism. I believe that, particularly in the period ahead,
Federal-Provincial Relations
we will be well served by the incumbent who is being proposed.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is a particular pleasure for me to follow in debate the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell), not merely because of the eminent qualities he possesses as a member of parliament but also because of the place whence he has come. This is probably as close as we shall get to a man who has, in effect, been the deputy minister of the Office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), an office responsible to the Prime Minister, which, like the Privy Council Office, is not answerable to this House.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, to say I have not been the deputy minister. I have to reject that assertion at once. My function was a political function, not a staff function of the kind performed by a deputy minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: I appreciate the clarification, but my point stands whatever the description of the office-the closest we get as a parliament to people who serve in the Office of the Prime Minister or in the Office of the Privy Council is when those people leave real power and come to parliament, as the hon. member for Scarborough East has just done.
I think there is a natural temptation for someone from the Province of Alberta, like myself, when addressing a question of the kind before us today to speak about the present unfortunate circumstances in federal-provincial relations between that province and the federal government. I shall not do so today, and I do not intend to take much time in this debate. But I do want to draw attention again to the very serious institutional aspects of the bill which has been brought forward and, more particularly, the very many changes which have occurred in the federal structure in relation to the Office of the Prime Minister in particular, for which there has been no legislation.
I think it can be suspected that the reason we have the bill before us is to provide a post of status for Mr. Gordon Robertson, whose qualities have been attested to by members on both sides of the House. The reason this was necessary, I suspect, has very much to do with the ripples which were caused in the public service by the appointment of Mr. Michael Pitfield to replace Mr. Gordon Robertson.
In my opinion the Pitfield appointment was an unfortunate one in its implications for the public service generally, quite apart from causing or inspiring the legislation we have before us today. But I do not wish to dwell on this point, Mr. Speaker, although other hon. members may wish to do so. The point I wish to make, Sir, is that there have been, over the last several years, a multitude of changes in the de facto structure and nature of the Government of Canada.
We have seen the growth in size and power of the Prime Minister's office. We have witnessed the growth in size and power of the Privy Council office. We have been treated recently to the simultaneous resignation of five senior public servants-and we in this House can only

December 18, 1974
Federal-Provincial Relations
guess, what was the cause of those resignations and what the consequences will be.
We all recognize that in the last few years there have been major changes of the kind to which I have referred in the way the Government of Canada works. We might, on different sides of the House, disagree as to the importance or significance of any particular change, but it is clear that the Privy Council office has grown, that the Prime Minister's office has grown and that the power of the Prime Minister has grown. Yet it is highly significant that today, as we deal with the measure before us, although there have been a multitude of changes, this is the only one which has been brought before the House of Commons. All the other changes, though in effect they have altered the nature of our government, have occurred beyond our reach. We have not been asked to approve them. We have received no legislation in respect to them. We have not had the opportunity which is now given us to debate legislation.


Mr. Darling:: They've been slipped in through the back door.


Charles Joseph Clark: As my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) has said, "They've been slipped in through the back door." And whatever the implication of that, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is agreed by all members of the House that this is not a satisfactory situation for the Parliament of Canada.
The other day I introduced a private member's bill to try to take the very simple, elemental step of establishing a parliamentary committee which would look into the powers and prerogatives of the Prime Minister. Such a committee might have been able to work out ways in which that office, and the offices which have grown up around the Prime Minister, could be made responsible to parliament from which, in theory, all the Prime Minister's powers are supposed to flow. Some sympathetic noises were made on the other side of the House in relation to that bill but, as happens with so many bills which propose changes for which the government is not ready, it was talked out. There is a temptation, Sir, for me to repeat at this time the arguments I made during my eloquent address on that subject during the private members' hour-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I should say to hon. members to my immediate left that the temptation is even greater now because there was not a quorum present in the House of Commons when I spoke on private members' hour, as customarily there is not a quorum present during such periods. However, I will resist the temptation to repeat that argument, except to summarize by saying that not only has the size of the Office of the Prime Minister increased numerically, as we can see from the size of the staff for which the hon. member for Scarborough East was recently responsible, but that its power, too, has grown, simply because the role of government has grown. This applies also, of course, to the Privy Council Office, but bearing in mind the extent to which the media concentrate on the Prime Minister, the accretion of power has been

particularly substantial in relation to the Office of the Prime Minister.
I should say one more thing in this connection. The hon. member for Scarborough East, in response to a thoughtful and important speech by my colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), said there was no need for a special minister of inter-governmental affairs or federal-provincial relations. He said the reason such a need did not exist was that there is already a minister-the Prime Minister. Well, sir, one of the alarming facts about the Office of the Prime Minister and about its responsibilities is that the Prime Minister, alone among ministers, does not appear before a standing committee of this House to answer questions. He is not subject to questions except during the generally unsatisfactory exchange which takes place in the course of the question period, when the possibility of intensive inquiry is seriously limited. He is not directly responsible for answering questions in a standing committee, as are other Ministers of the Crown or as a minister responsible for federal-provincial relations would be.
This relates to the whole question of the growing disproportion between the power of the Prime Minister and his cabinet and the power of this chamber, one which has diminished substantially in recent times. I made the point the other day, and I repeat it now, that in a very real sense this parliament has more control over the president of the CNR or of Air Canada or of any other Crown corporation than it has over the Prime Minister. I say this because the holders of those high positions are expected to appear before standing committees and explain what they are doing, while the Prime Minister is not. This, I suggest, is a serious deficiency. I say, too, speaking personally, that I sympathize with the motive of the Prime Minister in expanding the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council office so as to allow him, as the elected political head of the government, to balance the opinion of an appointed public service.
I think there comes a time in the growth and size of government when that sort of thing is necessary, and we have reached that time here. So I sympathize with the motives. But I do not sympathize at all with the literal irresponsibility of those opposite, and the fact that they are beyond the reach and effective scrutiny of the members of the House. That is not acceptable. Neither, I believe, is it acceptable that we place the highly important question of federal-provincial relations within the ambit of responsibility of the Office of the Prime Minister, who does not appear before standing committees, or is not in the practice of appearing.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Does the hon. member mean by his allegation of irresponsibility on the part of prime ministerial staff that members of the Prime Minister's office, for example, like members of the President's office in the United States, should be called before committees and examined? Is he suggesting that we move to the presiden-
December 18, 1974

tial system? There is a minister responsible for every person in the Prime Minister's office, and that minister can be questioned here-similarly with all other ministers.


Charles Joseph Clark: My point here-I apologize if I have not made it-is that with most ministers we have two chances to ask questions. We have the inadequate opportunity here in the House of Commons during the daily question period, but the real opportunity that we have to gather information about the day to day operations of their departments is in the standing committees. Neither the Prime Minister nor the senior staff is in the habit of appearing before standing committees. If my recollection is correct-the hon. member will know because he was in that office at the time-last year the Prime Minister declined an invitation to appear before a standing committee. So we do not have an opportunity to question his officials in the same way that we have an opportunity to question the officials of other ministers.
This opportunity is particularly important in view of the immense power they wield as co-ordinators of the officials in the privy council office and the Prime Minister's office. The hon. member for Scarborough East used the word presidential. That is his word, and is his system. It is my fear that what we are developing is, in effect, a presidential system under which the Prime Minister can operate without any real responsibility to this House, under which he cannot be questioned and his officials cannot be questioned.
The reason one worries about this, and the reason it is of concern now is not simply that the Prime Minister of the day happens to belong to a party other than my own. It might be that as the universe continues to unfold we will move across to that side of the House and we will have a Prime Minister from our party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: So my concern is not about a particular individual or group of individuals, it is about the system that we are establishing, the institutions that we are developing, and the way we are changing the nature of government in Canada.
As I said earlier, I agree with the motives of the Prime Minister in trying to establish around him as political head of the government what has been called, in the words of a former editor of Cite Libre, a countervailing force to the public service. But I make the point that there is in our system another countervailing force to the power of government, and it is this House of Commons. The danger is that a serious imbalance is growing between the power of the Prime Minister and the cabinet and the capacity to countervail that power in this House of Commons.
I raise these matters now because, despite the scope of the change that we have seen in the way we are governed here, this bill is unfortunately the only specific opportunity that we in this House have to discuss this very serious change in the nature of the government of Canada. That is to say, it is unless the Prime Minister, when he brings forward the changes in the rules that he is proposing-or perhaps I should say threatening-also proposes a means by which we, as an institution, can control those new
Federal-Provincial Relations
agencies that have grown up to create the imbalance between the power of the ministry and of this parliament.
I want to speak very briefly about those fellows and the very few women in the public service who earn so much more than do members of the House of Commons, namely, our senior public servants, particularly those who are appointed at the discretion of the Prime Minister and who do not have to go through the Public Service Commission. I repeat, I can understand and approve personally of the Prime Minister's desire, as political head of the government, to try to control and direct his own government and not let the job be done by senior public servants. But I think it would be wrong for us to ignore the fact that there has been in recent days, indeed years, reason for suspicion that appointments to senior positions have been for reasons other than merit. I suggest these reasons have also to do with loyalty, not necessarily loyalty to a party but loyalty to a point of view that might be embodied in a minister.
I think it would be a very real danger, particularly in a country of such diversity, and frankly such fragility, as Canada, if we developed, in effect, a personal public service at the senior level. The appointment of Mr. Pitfield clearly raises the fear, as do the consequent resignations- I use those words deliberately-of other senior deputy ministers in tandem, that we are developing a public service that is chosen not simply because of its competence but also because of its loyalty to the particular point of view that happens to occupy the treasury benches at the present time. That is a serious situation for our system of government to face.
There is one other aspect I want to touch on today and it relates also to parliament and our powers and prerogatives. It is very clear to me, and I think to many members on this side of the House, that the growth in formal relations and conferences between the federal government and the provincial governments, indeed the various levels of government, seriously threatens to undercut the authority and the role of the House of Commons. There is the inexorable danger that these new processes that we are developing will by-pass parliament and will mean that decisions are taken at some place other than this place; and it is this place where, under our system, decisions are supposed to be taken.
Reference was made earlier by my collegue from Edmonton-Strathcona to the discussions that took place at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference in Calgary in the summer of 1973. At that time issues of great importance to western Canada were raised by the premiers, and commitments were given by various ministers. Many of those commitments have not been honoured, but that is not really the point. The point is that the demands made during those few days in Calgary by the premiers were demands that had been made time and time again, year after year after year, by members of the House of Commons. The difference was that in Calgary, in speaking to the premiers the ministers gave commitments; in the House of Commons, speaking to members of parliament, the representatives of those regions, the government was evasive or gave no answers at all.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Contempt of parliament.

December 18, 1974
Federal-Provincial Relations


Charles Joseph Clark: That is a very serious undermining of the power and prerogatives of this place. My colleague for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) calls it a contempt for parliament, and I think that is literally what it is. I do not think it is the purpose of ministers deliberately to tear down parliament, but I think this is what is happening. Over a period of time they have started to pay more attention and to attribute more seriousness to issues raised by premiers, in private or public conferences, than to representations made by the people who are elected to this House from those regions where these issues arise.
There is a danger that, by creating this special office we are speaking of today, we are going to contribute and add to that process of bringing down the authority of parliament, and making it easy for the government to by-pass this place which is, in theory and in fact, the most effective arena and institution to control a government given to excess.
The hon. member for Scarborough East spoke about complexities when he defended the establishment of a special office for federal-provincial relations. As I recall from sitting in the gallery at that time, the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), when he had responsibility as House leader, spoke of the complexities which parliament and the government must face when he proposed the changes to the rules of this House. Whenever there is an attempt to downgrade or by-pass parliament the excuse is complexity, that events are coming on too fast and are too complicated for this Chamber to handle. That bespeaks the assumption that parliament cannot deal with complexity, and that assumption, so long as it is in the saddle, is literally fatal to this system.
That assumption ensures that we will continue to be undermined and that the powers of this institution will continue to go down. As I say, I think that is a danger in the institution we are establishing today, particularly since this new office will be answerable only to a prime minister who is not in any practical way answerable to this House of Commons.
I want to repeat what we all know, that we are not a federal system by accident, we are a federal system because we have to be. This is a highly diverse country which requires a government that is in tune with its diversities. It is certain to all of us, I think, that this parliament is the best representation of diversity, drawing as it does individuals from every locality in the land, and paying attention, as its tradition insists, to the rights of those individuals to speak on behalf of their localities. No other agency of government does this, and it cannot be guaranteed in the public service where people in order to become promoted to levels of effective decision making have to live here so long they forget where they came from, Mr. Speaker. This cannot be done either in private conferences, involving various premiers. It cannot be done with guarantees in any other but this forum.
The strength of parliament is not an academic thing at all. It is important to the very roots of this federal country. Every time we wear it down or by-pass parliament, and every time we set up agencies to deal with problems that

are too complex for parliament, we literally put federalism into danger, as well as damage the parliamentary system of government to which we claim allegiance.
My point in this intervention, which has gone on longer that I intended, is that there has been a range of serious changes in the way in which we have been governed in this country in the last ten years. Since I came here in 1972, and during the longer period when I was watching events from the gallery, this is the only time at which parliament itself has had the chance to pass judgment on the growth of power. The other powers have been developed without recourse to parliament, and without our having the opportunity to debate them and to express whatever concerns we had. What is remarkable about this bill is not that it has come before us, but that so many other bills which should have come before us did not. With so many of the powers of the Prime Minister and the executive being developed in this country without recourse to the House of Commons, this is a very serious situation.
I hope that when this bill reaches the committee we will be able to review not only the powers that will attach to this new official, not only his relation to the Prime Minister, but also we will be able to review the range of powers of people and agencies appointed by the executive, so that we can begin to achieve the balance which was written into this system when it began-a balance between the executive and elected representatives of this very diverse country.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has surely presented this afternoon a most interesting bill which, I hope, will help tremendously in securing more effective relations between the central government and the provinces.
I hope the right hon. Prime Minister, perhaps with tne assistance of the official who will be appointed under the bill before the House this afternoon, will ponder the problems now opposing Ottawa to the provinces, realizing that here in Canada we have what I call and have always called a confederation that creates our provinces as provinces in the real meaning of the word, in a spirit that acknowledges that here in Canada we have two official languages and several provinces.
It is my hope that according to the intent of the bill, the government will in the future take into consideration the problems and relations now existing between Ottawa and the provinces, while realizing that Canada is not a federation in which provinces should be confronted as, for instance, mere municipalities.

It has often been said that Canada is one of the most over-governed and over-taxed countries in the free western world. I hope the legislation presented this afternoon by the right hon. Prime Minister will help somewhat to alleviate this situation. Let us be sure of one thing; no matter what we do to change structures, whether inside or outside this House, vis-a-vis ameliorating federal-provincial relations, no structure will help unless the spirit of goodwill rests within the federal Cabinet.
December 18, 1974

We can talk here until we are blue in the face; we can name a civil servant here, and fool around with structures there; we can have committees, special committees and enlarge upon the bureaucracy, and it will all serve for naught unless there is a spirit of goodwill existing in the federal Cabinet directed by the Prime Minister, all wanting to make the system work.
In the last number of years we have seen various approaches to federal-provincial relations. During the years of the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson this was called the spirit of co-operative federalism. We saw written on the statute books during that time joint federal-provincial programs that, in my view, embodied all the worst possible aspects, and today problems are coming to roost, costing taxpayers many wasted dollars.
Let us consider medicare, which has already been mentioned this afternoon. I imagine that every member of parliament sitting in this House at the time realized the need to adopt the principle of medicare in this country. What happened was that, without consulting the provinces as to whether plans and personnel were ready, the federal government overnight voted billions of dollars for services that simply were not there.
Without consulting the provinces the government forced them into a joint program. Today we see medical and health care services collapsing in many parts of this country. The inflationary aspect in respect of medicare and health care is now 20 per cent, and yet the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) washes his hands, saying to the provinces that they must sink or swim because it is their responsibility now. The federal government has forced the provinces into these medical programs and today tells them that they must sink or swim, that it is their responsibility despite a 20 per cent inflationary rate in respect of these services in many instances. Especially in respect of the low-income people who were intended to be served, the system is collapsing.
What do we have today after the spirit of co-operative federalism of the late Prime Minister has come to an end? Under the present Prime Minister we have a predilection toward confrontation with the provinces that simply treats them as municipalities, not that municipalities are not important in Canada today.
The federal government is wasting billions of Canadian tax dollars in creating an unnatural and unnecessary state of disunity. What is the situation in the province of Alberta today? It is simply a plain old fashioned power play. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) must realize that it is the federal government that is bringing exploration almost to a halt in that province. When I was in high school and first went to Alberta it was a have-not province, and then it hit oil. The Prime Minister has said that oil is a non-renewable resource and that unless there is exploration, aided and abetted by federal-provincial co-operation, we will run out of oil in eight or nine years. What does the government want? Does it want a central government which pretends that Ottawa has all the answers, and does it want to have Alberta in the position of being a have-not province ten years from now, coming to Ottawa for hand-
Federal-Provincial Relations
outs, although its present premier is trying to establish a secondary base in order to put that province on its feet?


An hon. Member:: Don't get mad.


William Heward Grafftey: Well, you say "don't get mad". What will happen when Mr. Bourassa has a natural resources problem on his hands in one or two years? The minions in the backbenches of the Liberal Party from the province of Quebec I am sure will be singing another tune. So, we have gone from co-operative federalism to a state of confrontation with the provinces, to the detriment of this country in terms of unity. There are many people who say we must stand up and be counted in a debate like this, that is, that we must say whether we take the federal position or the provincial position. I say nonsense. One cannot just say he stands for the provincial or for the federal authority in a case like this.
If someone were to ask me what is the real difference between a Liberal and Conservative in terms of Canadian confederation, I would say that one of the reasons for the disunity in this country today is that the Prime Minister involves the provinces in a power play of confrontation. His view of Canada is that it is one uniform monolith where Ottawa has all the answers. Ottawa does not have all the answers.


Mr. Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member wishes to put a question but the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi refuses to accept it.


William Heward Grafftey: We, in the Conservative Party, realize-


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker-


William Heward Grafftey: I will not answer a question at this time. [Translation]


Irénée Pelletier: The hon. member said "yes".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: I will answer a question later. I realize that being a backbencher in that party is a very boring experience. No matter who the Prime Minister of the day is, he must define and defend the federal cause. But underlying a strong federal authority is not inconsistent with the fact that we should have a decentralized federalism which recognizes local agencies and the desirability of having a healthy and strong local government. The Prime Minister can present a thousand bills to this House to improve, at the bureaucratic level, the structures for federal-provincial relations, but unless he changes his attitude he will be wasting our time and the taxpayers' money.
People often say that Sir John A. Macdonald was a strong federalist. Confederation at that time-and I say "Confederation" not "federation"-was a much different

December 18, 1974
Federal-Provincial Relations
thing. The problems of 100 odd years ago are not the same as those of today. I say it is consistent to define and defend a strong federal cause with the proposition of a local self-agency where some people at the local level know what is best for them and how best to govern their own affairs.
I say to the impersonal centralists who look at Canada as one uniform monolith that before you love the world and your country you must love your own community and your own province. That is one of the centrifugal principles of Progressive Conservative thought which differentiates us from the present government. Until you people learn that lesson you will continue to confront the provinces and add to the economic disaster and disunity.


Irénée Pelletier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


William Heward Grafftey: I think I have already said to the hon. member for Sherbrooke that I would answer his question.


Irénée Pelletier: But I have not yet put it.


William Heward Grafftey: But before I would like to express an opinion on-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi has the floor. He has already indicated that he will be glad to entertain questions at the end of his speech. The hon. member who has the floor should not be interrupted until he has completed his remarks.


William Heward Grafftey: We believe that there are many regional differences in this country. By the way hon. members opposite clap and hit their desks and smile, it is obvious that they do not realize the way in which this government has behaved in the last six years by confronting the provinces. One day it is Alberta. Another day it will be Quebec and the next day it might be another province. The government likes to pretend that this is one uniform country in which Ottawa has all the answers and that the cabinet has all the wisdom.
Rather than force this House into a debate concerning whether we should take a federal or provincial stand hon. members opposite should get on the telephone with their provincial counterparts, rather than carry on negotiations with the premier of Alberta as though we were almost a criminal from another country. He should not be insulted in this way and treated with confrontation. There is no use bringing in legislation like this, if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is to continue with his arrogant politics of confrontation.


William Heward Grafftey: We must realize that here in Canada we have a confederation and not a federation. The autonomy and the rights of provinces must be respected and we must work together. I am very glad the Prime Minister intro-

duced such a bill in this House. However, if the government's position does not change, it will be a waste of time.


Irénée Pelletier: The hon. member says what he thinks, but he does not think what he says.


William Heward Grafftey: I am not really a very old veteran of this House. However, I have been here a few years and when I hear such clapping from the other side I realize I have hit a sensitive cord.

I imagine that if I had the opportunity to talk seriously and intimately with my colleagues from the province of Quebec, I should try to find out whether they really agree with the attitude of this government towards the provinces. Come on, let us be realistic.


Irénée Pelletier: This is something else again.


William Heward Grafftey: If this government realized that we have a Confederation in Canada, then we must respect in the true sense of the word the autonomy and rights of the provinces. I am sure that the bill the right hon. Prime Minister introduced this afternoon will be a good thing for Canada and the provinces. But as long as-
-the government continues with its attitude of confrontation and lack of consultation. Again I repeat for the third or fourth time, I know that the present government loves to set down the ground rules in these debates. It is a neither-nor situation. You have to take the federal side or the side of the provinces, and they pretend always to be the only people to stand up for Canada. I say that my conception of Canada is not the same as the Prime Minister's, and as soon as he changes his attitude to the provinces there will be much more real unity in this country, and the economy will fare a whole lot better.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXCISE TAX ACT AND EXCISE ACT
Mr. Speaker:: I indicated earlier in the day that I would return to the chair at 5.45 this afternoon in order to deal with a very important point of order raised previously, I believe first by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker), and second by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
The question that was raised concerns the relationship between the provisions of Bill C-40 and the ways and means motion tabled by the government and concurred in by the House on December 2, 1974. The motion deals with the proposed taxation of boats as follows:
17.11. Boats, other than naval vessels, designed to be propelled primarily by motors exceeding twenty horsepower (including drive assembly for boats ... ten per cent.



December 18, 1974

The bill deals with the proposed taxation of boats as follows:
21(1) (11) Boats, other than boats purchased or imported by Her Majesty in right of Canada for use exclusively by the government of Canada,... for boats other than boats purchased or imported by Her Majesty in right of Canada for use exclusively by the government of Canada . .. ten per cent.
The question is extremely important because it relates to the financial initiative of the Crown and to one of Parliament's most basic processes-Ways and Means. Examples prior to 1969 are of little assistance because they relate to circumstances under which the ways and means process was begun by resolution and continued in committee of ways and means, both of which were eliminated in the 1968 rule changes. Since that time there have been similar questions raised, but none dealt directly with the precise problem before us.
Certain things, however, are quite clear.
First, the ways and means motions which follow the budget presentation are, by virtue of time honoured practice and tradition, the very expression of the financial initiative of the Crown and therefore a most important aspect of our procedure.
Second, Standing Order 60(11) establishes relationship between the ways and means motion and the bills which follow, in the following terms:
The adoption of any Ways and Means motion shall be an order to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of any such motion.
Third, the critical words in that paragraph are "based on". It must be assumed that if it was intended that the bills be required to be identical to the motion, the rule would say so.
Fourth, I am further unable to find any support, either in the minutes of the Procedure Committee of 1968 which recommended the rule changes, the debates on those new rules, or even in analagous precedents that were referred to during the course of the argument, for the proposition that the bills must be identical to the ways and means motions.
On the other hand, it is equally clear that the taxing power of the Crown is limited by the ways and means
Speaker's Ruling
motion, and any bill which sought to extend such power beyond the provisions of the ways and means motion would be out of order.
In the case before us, the bill differs from the ways and means motion in the clause related to the proposed taxation of boats. The specific difference relates to those crafts which would be excepted from the tax. In the motion the exception is for naval vessels. In the bill the exception is for "boats purchased or imported by Her Majesty in the right of Canada for use exclusively by the government of Canada".
By my understanding of the terms involved, the bill therefore widens the class of federal government craft that would be excepted from the tax. The tax remains the same. The rate of tax remains the same. The change relates to one of degree of exclusion, but remains within the general description of government purchases.
Under these circumstances, I cannot see how I could hold that the bill is not "based on the provisions of the ways and means motion". I must therefore find that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary, and subsequently dealt with by the hon. member for Edmonton West, has not been established. I wish to repeat and emphasize, however, that the terms of the ways and means motion are a carefully prepared expression of the financial initiative of the Crown, and frequent departure from them can only invite deterioration of that most important power.
Furthermore, I have considerable sympathy for the argument that once the ways and means motions have been adopted by the House, changes of a nature any more substantial than the one before us now ought to be made by the House.
Finally, the most desirable practice is for the bill to adhere strictly to the provisions of the motion, and departures, if any, ought to be the subject of the strictest interpretation.
It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order, until 2 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, December 19, 1974