1977-03-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising from comments of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) made outside this House that, and I quote:
. . . there is a real desire growing and permeating through labour that it will exercise proper restraint in the post-control period .. . union leaders can persuade workers to exercise restraint.
Governor Bouey of the Bank of Canada said he would not lift controls before the end of 1978 because, and I quote:
To the extent that groups in the economy are in fact looking to the ending of controls as the moment for a substantial upward push in their money incomes and prices . ..
Because there are open rumours that no agreement on restraint was made between business and labour at the meeting a week ago, which fact is reflected in recent editorials, and yet today's press quotes of the Minister of Labour would lead to the conclusion that labour is in fact committed to restraint, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House direct the Minister of Labour to make a statement forthwith in this House advising all hon. members and the public of Canada just exactly what was agreed to at the business-labour meeting and specifically whether the statements of the Minister of Labour that labour has a real desire to exercise proper restraint is an accurate reflection of any agreement made at the meeting or accurately reflects any commitment made directly to the government by the Canadian Labour Congress Leaders.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation for debate of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion of pressing necessity.
Considering that, except for some allowances, the Income Tax Act does not entitle most wage earners to ask for a reduction of more than 3 per cent of employment income, up to a maximum of $150, while they have to pay from $300 to $600 yearly to travel to and from their place of employment; considering that there would be great opportunities to save a considerable amount of energy if most wage earners or workers generally were prompted to use public transport to go to work and that anyhow the various levels of government must pay subsidies worth several million dollars, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the House instruct the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) to bring in as soon as possible an amendment to section 8(I)(a) to the Income Tax Act to the effect that travelling expenses to and from the place of employment made by wage earners using public transportation be deductible from their income for income tax purposes upon the filing of receipts and records.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The salmon fishing season off the west coast opens in about two weeks, and because the minister plans between now and then to impose a double licensing system to cover areas fished-inside and outside Vancouver Island-which would impose economic hardship on many fishermen, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):

March 28, 1977
Finance
That this House direct the minister to suspend the double licensing system this year and to refrain from bringing it into force until such time as the views of all members of the west coast fishing industry have been given more careful consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such motion pursuant to the Standing Order requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.	.
As, to date, we have been denied in this House of Commons the financial statistics on federalism, and as the Quebec government published a major part of it on the day following my last request in this regard, may I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to present again my motion of March 24 last.
In view of the inalienable right of all Canadian taxpayers to know exactly what is done with the money they pay in taxes of all sorts, in view of the responsibility all hon. members have to give an account to their electors of the use that is made of their contributions to the federal government, and in view of the fact that the government is duty-bound to be responsible for the expenditures incurred in each of the Canadian provinces, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That this House order the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) to draw up a statement of receipts and expenditures, both direct and indirect, for each of the provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the President of the Privy Council arises out of the continued breaching of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Election Expenses Act by the elite of the Liberal party in Toronto this weekend. I should like to know whether this public statute was used to pay personal convention expenses in view of the complaint by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that not all of the Canadian people were represented at the convention for which Canadians footed the bill. Would the minister undertake to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to review this use of the Election Expenses Act which quite frankly borders on the tainted?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the use of the Election Expenses Act in these circumstances is quite in accordance with the law that was carefully studied by a standing committee of the House of Commons and later approved in the House of Commons after a number of amendments were introduced. This particular way of contributing to political parties is not different in substance from use that has been made by other political parties.


Walter David Baker: Oh, yes it is.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: When the law was enacted it had been the intention that it would be possible to support legitimate political activities-


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Legitimate?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and certainly the meeting that was held in Toronto at the weekend was of great national interest and will have profound effect on the future of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister knows quite well that there is a considerable difference between paying personal expenses on the one hand and not paying personal expenses on the other but using the Election Expenses Act. In any event, I am sure the minister would not find himself in the position of taking the opportunity to breach the law. Would the minister tell the House whether he has or intends to consult with the Chief Electoral Officer to see whether the act could be amended to bring it into line with the intention of parliament at the time it was passed? It was certainly not the intention for which it was used last weekend.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is a disagreement between the hon. member and myself. It is my view that the use made of the Election Expenses Act was forecast and capable of being forecast when the law was passed. In replying
March 28, 1977

directly to the hon. member, however, may I say that it is likely we will be bringing forward amendments this session to the Elections Act and to the Election Expenses Act. There have been discussions, as the hon. member knows, among representatives of the parties and I believe there is a desire that, in certain ways, both the Elections Act and the Election Expenses Act should be amended. That will be attempted this session.


Mr. Hees:: Allan, you never sounded less convincing.


Walter David Baker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I hope this matter will be looked at, because with respect, it borders on the tainted. In view of the complaints at what I would term a publicly financed party conference which the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said did not represent the native peoples of Canada, is the ministry considering any alternative which would allow the native people to discuss the future of the country and problems facing all Canadians. I ask this since they were ignored by this conference which was paid for by all Canadians and which, except for its views on the performance of this government, was unrepresentative of Canadians.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUEST FOR BALANCE-SHEET SHOWING FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP OF QUEBEC AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question, directed to the Acting Prime Minister, has to do with the way in which Liberal ministers at this publicly financed conference ignored, in their discussions, an urgent aspect of confederation. My question is this: While it is generally agreed that the arguments in favour of confederation cannot be based solely on a financial balance sheet, nevertheless, now that the government of Quebec has released a report claiming that Quebec has been fiscally handicapped by confederation and as, at the same time, figures to the contrary have appeared in Maclean's magazine, will the Acting Prime Minister say when the government will release concise data giving the federal side of the argument. I ask this because I understand that Mr. Tellier has been working on this for some weeks.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may respond to the question. I think I must make the observation with regard to the analysis tabled last Friday by the Quebec ministers that it involved conclusions which are hardly supported by the study which was tabled at the same time. For example, it was clear that the general costs of overhead of the government of Canada which include, of course, the benefits received by the people of Quebec were not included in the balance sheet which the Quebec ministers drew up. With regard to the figures of fiscal transfers, the revenue figures of the government of Canada from various elements of taxation and also with regard to their expenditures, let me say
Oral Questions
that these are now in the public accounts of Canada and can be examined by the Quebec members and indeed by other interested persons.
A far more difficult question and the one requiring far more analysis is the extent to which one can take, for example, the distribution of interest, of dividends, of public expenditures and facilities, and the various other distribution effects of the government of Canada and break them down on a province by province basis. These are expenditures and costs which are not normally kept on this basis and require very considerable judgment. Some attention is being given to that question, but it is not a question, as I think will become increasingly clear from a close analysis of taxation, with respect to which one could rush in and make hasty conclusions without careful analysis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss MacDonald:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has chosen to ignore my question, as ministers meeting at the weekend chose to ignore other questions. He chose to ignore the question I addressed to him about the study being done by Mr. Tellier, a study which Mr. Tellier, according to press reports of Saturday, said he would be prepared to release when the government sees fit to do so. May I ask the Minister of Finance this question: Since the Prime Minister has asked Canadians to go out and sell confederation, is the minister telling the House that the material being prepared in the federal-provincial relations office, which will be or should be available to Canadians, will only be made available when and as the government sees fit to do so, and that, in the meantime, the figures released by the government of Quebec and widely circulated are to be allowed to go unchallenged by the government of Canada?


Walter David Baker: Right on.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. lady may have noticed in the course of this morning's press, they have already been substantially challenged by the press both in Ontario and Quebec.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: I hope the questions improve.


John Edward Broadbent: I hope the answers improve, too. I have a question for the well-informed Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In what the Acting Prime Minister quaintly described as a cordial provocation, the Prime Minister callously suggested last week to a group of university students that

March 28, 1977
Oral Questions
they ought to leave the country if they cannot find jobs. Is the minister aware that, unlike the Prime Minister, most students today do not come from families who are millionaires. In fact, most students entering the job market this summer are not likely to find employment. Will the government assure these students that it will take steps to substantially reduce the new debts the students are going to incur in their studies next year as a result of not being able to find jobs this summer?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the leader of the NDP that he read the transcript of the exchange that took place at that particular time when the Prime Minister indicated several options that were available and that was the penultimate, if that was the route they felt they wanted to take.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: There are talents and abilities that are available both to Canada and the world that we are making available throughout Canada and throughout the north where we have had several requests. They commend the Prime Minister for indicating that the talent should not only be used in the urban centres in Canada but throughout the country to the betterment of Canada. To the extent that we are able through CIDA and other agencies of government, these talents are being made available throughout the world. I know that is foreign to the NDP and the Conservatives who want to spoonfeed our young people, but I do not think that is what they want.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will answer the question I asked him. I repeat it. Is the government prepared to put up money for those students who are in need and require jobs in the coming months in order to finance the continuation of their education at university and other postsecondary institutions in the fall? Is the government prepared to take some action to help these people reduce their debts? When answering the first question, I would like the minister to consider the second one. The Prime Minister unbelievably suggested that his real concern is with those women in Newfoundland who have difficulty obtaining the minimum eight-week work period requirement under existing legislation in order to entitle them to unemployment insurance. That is what he told the students. Will the government put its action where its mouth is and withdraw the legislation now going through parliament which will deny the possibility of claims to precisely that group of women the Prime Minister was talking about?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Here again we have the NDP satisfied with a status quo that does a disservice to people in that particular category. Frankly, I cannot condone that type of approach. In so far as the approach is concerned, the hon. member is perpetrating a small fiction, indicating that the federal government is not doing anything to help post-secondary students. I invite him to look at the estimates and note the millions of dollars which are being spent on post-secondary education alone, aside from the Manpower Training Program, the Canada Works Program and a whole series of programs which are in place and available to young people.


John Edward Broadbent: I come back for the third time to repeat the first question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Edward Broadbent: It pertains to the debts of all those who have to work their way through university; it pertains to the debts of the students, not the universities. Will the minister take steps to ensure that all Canadians who are working their way through university and who will not be able to find jobs this summer will receive direct financial assistance from the federal government for the payment of their fees or contributions toward the cost of accommodation and food during next year's course of study?


An hon. Member:: No answer!



HOUSING


Mr. Girard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Could the minister find out the reasons for the extensive delays in the inspection of private homes belonging to the people who have applied for grants under the RRAP program in the area under the control of the CMHC Val-d'Or district office and advise us of these reasons?


Hon. Andrl Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I shall inquire and report my findings to the hon. member.


Gérard Laprise: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
While inquiring about these delays, could the minister find out also why the people who apply for guaranteed loans to build or purchase new homes must face delays, when there are approved lenders with several hundred thousands and even millions of dollars?


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



OIL-POSSIBILITY CANADIAN PRICE WILL EXCEED UNITED STATES PRICE-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, on March 23, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in answer to a question I put to him, stated that the government had been "very careful in approaching higher prices" consistent with a policy of keeping domestic oil prices at or below world level. He went on to say, as reported in Hansard at page 4253:

March 28, 1977

At the present time, my estimate is that there would be room for better than a two dollar increase in the price of a barrel of oil effective July 1 while still keeping Canadian oil prices below U.S. oil prices.
In fact, a two dollar price increase would put Canadian domestic prices 53 cents a barrel higher than the equivalent U.S. price. In our case, the reference average-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question, will he put it now?


Stan Darling: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister prepared to retract his statement that he could increase oil prices by "better than two dollars" or is it the intention of the government to increase Canadian oil prices to a point at which they will exceed the U.S. equivalent?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I am not prepared to retract my statement nor does my statement in any way mean that we are prepared to increase our price ahead of the United States average price.


Stan Darling: Is the government aware of the negative impact this action would have on our already disastrous competitive position?


Alastair William Gillespie: I should like to answer that question by saying to the hon. member that I do not think he is familiar with the relative prices of United States oil delivered in Chicago and Canadian oil delivered in Toronto. If he would look at those figures as at July 1 of this year and look at the built-in price escalation of the U.S. system, recognizing as well the difference in the exchange value of the Canadian dollar, he would find that as of July 1 this year the United States price will be more than two dollars more than the Canadian price and that in the months ahead it is likely that this margin will increase.


Stan Darling: Will the minister give us an absolute assurance that Canadian oil prices will remain below their U.S. equivalent for the forseeable future?


Alastair William Gillespie: That is one of the questions I want to discuss with the provincial ministers next week.



TAR SANDS-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON ALBERTA CONDITIONS FOR SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT

Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Globe and Mail of March 19 reported an interview with the minister of energy of Alberta in which the minister stated the conditions under which Alberta would support further tar sands development. There were three conditions-the partial upgrading of heavy oil in Alberta, the elimination as soon as possible of the differential between Canadian and world oil prices and the complete deductibility of provincial royalties from federal income tax. Would the minister advise the House what the response of the government of Canada is to these conditions of Alberta, whether they are acceptable to the government of Canada to ensure further tar sands develop-
Oral Questions
ment, or if any are not acceptable, which of these three conditions are not acceptable?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think it would be appropriate for me at this time to put myself in a position where I was conducting a negotiation in public between the federal government and the province of Alberta, on the one hand, and approaching the kinds of negotiations and discussions that I will be having with provincial ministers on April 6 in Ottawa.


John Carnell Crosbie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister tell the House what stage federal-provincial discussions have reached on possible tar sands development? There is a federal-provincial committee of officials; have they reported, has the minister received any recommendation in this important area, and when might some progress be announced?


Alastair William Gillespie: I can just report progress, Mr. Speaker. I think the discussions have been progressing well. I am not in a position at the present time to indicate that a specific result will come from them, but I am encouraged by the way the discussions are going.



INCOME TAX


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As increased dialogue between French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians is necessary if mutual understanding is to be improved and this country held together, is the government considering allowing the cost to individuals of learning a second language to be written off as a tax deduction, as an incentive to help promote this very desirable process? If not, will the government do so?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to ask the question. I can tell him that this has been one of the questions which has been submitted for consideration by the government in the context of the budget and has been considered.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister clarify or expand on his reply to me last week about the tabling of the economic reviews which the government makes

March 28, 1977
Oral Questions
at about this time? Now that the dates of the budget debate have been set, will it be possible during the course of the budget debate to table these economic reviews?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, following the hon. gentleman's question last week I asked about the expected date of availability of the economic review and I regret to say that it will not be available till about the end of April, or after the time when the budget will be debated.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Communications or the Acting Prime Minister. Does the government plan to decentralize or is the government in the process of considering decentralizing the telecommunications regulatory service group from Ottawa to a location east of Quebec City, and also considering placing the regulatory offices located in large cities across the country, such as in Vancouver, Winnipeg and so on, in smaller centres?


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, that matter is under consideration by the government at the present time but we would want to consider it further before making any statement. We would be pleased to do so when we come to a final answer.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. gentleman for his answer and I would ask him whether he has any reasonable estimate when a decision in this regard might be announced?


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, I would hope it would be fairly soon.



POSSIBILITY OF STUDY OF EFFECT OF PROFESSIONAL SPORT ON HEALTH OF CITIZENS

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport. On Friday last the minister told the House that professional sport serves as an example to many of us sitting in the spectator position. In view of the probability that one of the greatest contributors to obesity in Canadians is the habitual practice of sitting and watching professional sport on television or at a stadium while heavily smoking or consuming large quantities of high calorie junk foods and alcoholic beverages, would the minister say whether she has initiated any study into
(Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).]
the ways in which professional sport is beneficial or harmful to the general health of Canadians?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I have not initiated any such studies.



JUSTIFICATION FOR EXPENDITURES ON INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIONS AT EXPENSE OF LOCAL AMATEUR SPORTS

['Mr. Speaker, just a moment ago I indicated that my colleagues and I are considering Bill S-19 and what if any changes should be made to those proposals. I am unable to say at what point any\nManpower\nlegislation may be introduced. You are aware of course, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister indicated the other day that he was not able to predict at what time and in what form any legislation would be introduced.']
Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that professional sport is almost exclusively the preserve of males, and in view of the fact that up to 78 per cent of Canadian girls may be obese by the time they reach grade 12 precisely because the exercise programs they are exposed to are geared to developing a few elite athletes, especially males athletes, rather than to teaching enjoyable means of keeping fit in adulthood, how can the minister justify the comparatively large sums of money which her subdepartment is spending on elite international sport competitions and elaborate coach training schemes at the expense of amateur sports of an outdoor nature in which a large segment of the public can participate?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the premise of the hon. member's question, I would invite him to join me in an anti-obesity campaign at some time in the future. Furthermore, I will say that in the realm of amateur sport assistance in this country we have provided equal assistance both in sport and in recreation. While my department is limited in the supply of assistance to physical recreation, there are no less than 25 departments here ranged before you which have some input and some moneys devoted to fitness in this nation.



Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the 12 per cent federal sales tax will yield the government this year $200 million more than it netted in 1973 due to the increase in the price of crude oil, which on a gallonage basis means an increase from two cents per gallon in 1973 to 4.9 cents per gallon this year, and if the minister's forecast of an increase in price on July 1 goes through, 5.3 cents per gallon in fiscal year 1977-78, is the minister prepared to recommend to his colleague a fixed amount per gallon in the sales tax or the apportioning of this additional revenue which the federal government is receiving for the purpose of carrying on a program of home insulation for all Canadians, rather than just for the two Liberal provinces across Canada?
March 28, 1977


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, a somewhat similar question was put to me last week by the hon. member's colleague. At that time I answered the question and if he has any further representations that he would like to make to the Minister of Finance perhaps this is the time to do it.


FINANCE
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question. I was not referring to the matter which my colleague raised; however, I will direct my supplementary to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the revenue from the export tax levy and the 10 cents per gallon excise tax exceeds the compensation payment by $300 million and the additional revenue from the 12 per cent sales tax on gasoline another $200 million, making a $500 million windfall, can the Minister of Finance tell the House whether it is correct that some three years ago when he was minister of energy, mines and resources he recommended to the then minister of finance changing the 12 per cent sales tax on gasoline to a fixed amount per gallon; and if that is true, is the minister prepared, now that he is in a position to do so, to implement his own recommendation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's first point, it has never been the policy of the government of Canada to earmark receipts from any federal tax for a fund for any specific purpose. 1 would just remark to the hon. gentleman that while it is true that funds have been received from the special excise tax for a particular purpose-that is to say, compensation- there has also been an expansion in the government of Canada's liabilities for further energy assistance to the provinces of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2 billion. So there are additional claims upon this source of revenue.
With regard to the second point, I can confirm that indeed it has been considered. With regard to the answer to the question, I would ask the hon. member to wait until the budget is presented.


SUGGESTION REVENUE FROM OIL AND GAS BE USED FOR HOME INSULATION PROGRAM
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister and his colleagues over the last four years have been seeking to justify the raising of the price of oil gradually toward the international level on the ground that this money was needed for the development of oil and gas resources, can the minister now justify taking an additional revenue of $500 million unless it is going to go toward meeting the energy crisis, and has consider-
Oral Questions
ation been given to using this money for oil and gas conservation programs, such as the insulation of Canadian homes?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1 would point out to the hon. member, as 1 just did, that the money is being used for meeting the energy crisis, for example, for expanding the electricity potential in several different provinces in Canada, and for expanding the exploration for oil and natural gas in the frontier areas by Petro Canada and Pan Arctic. Under the circumstances, with an additional $2 billion being put into place by the government of Canada for the purpose of expanding energy supply, this is very obviously a response to the energy crisis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. It is with regard to the Prime Minister's views on marijuana. Last week the Prime Minister stated that if you have a joint and if you are smoking it for your private pleasure, you should not be hassled. Since under the Criminal Code of Canada possession of marijuana is an offence, can the minister say whether the government intends to legalize the possession of marijuana?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: Does it intend to enforce the law?


A. Daniel McKenzie: Also the Prime Minister is quoted as saying that mere possession of marijuana would no longer be a criminal offence and that it would be placed under the Food and Drugs Act. I should like to ask the minister, now that he has appointed a federal-provincial committee to study the illicit use of drugs, whether he will await this committee's report, or will the government act on its own before the committee completes its study?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Parliament dealt some time ago with Bill S-19, which, among other things-


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: It did not come to the House of Commons.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The parliament of Canada includes the Senate, whether or not the hon. member agrees.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Of course it does, but why did you not bring it here?


Walter David Baker: That was some thinkers conference, wasn't it Ron?


Stanley Ronald Basford: If only the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the House leader of the opposition would remain

March 28, 1977
Oral Questions
quiet for a moment, they would get the answer they are looking for.
Some time ago one of the Elouses of this parliament dealt with Bill S-19 which recommended the transfer of the offence of possession of marijuana from the Narcotics Control Act to the Food and Drugs Act. As I indicated in the Elouse some time ago, my colleagues, the Minister of National Elealth and Welfare, the Solicitor General and I have been considering in what form Bill S-19 should be reintroduced into the House and what changes in the bill should be made. We are actively pursuing that. The task force to which the hon. member referred that my three colleagues and two ministers from British Columbia established last week is concerned with recommending to both governments policy initiatives that might be taken with regard to both the supply and demand side of illicit drugs, but its emphasis, at the moment at least, is clearly on heroin and hard drugs.


An hon. Member:: And saccharin.


FISHERIES
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment.
Is the minister prepared to make a statement in the House on the situation of fisheries on the Pacific coast, particularly with regard to double licencing for fishing, or prepared to appear before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry to explain to the Canadian public and most of all to west coast fishermen the reason behind this new regulation?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I think that question has been discussed at length during two sittings of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, last Thursday afternoon and Friday morning, if my memory serves me right. The officials who appeared before the committee have explained the reasons which could warrant either position, that is to protect the owners of small trawlers which cannot go in the gulf outside zones and thus depend, for at least 95 per cent of their catches, on the health of stocks inside the gulf. Or to give access to bigger ships which get about 10 per cent of their catches inside the gulf for a few weeks and then go outside the gulf to get the bigger part of their catches for the season. Such is the dilemma we have to face, Mr. Speaker, and I am not yet prepared to tell the House whether we will proceed right away or have once again a discussion and consultation period. However, if I were sure that another consultation period would give considerably different results, I would have no objection.


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON ON PACIFIC FISHERY
Donald W. Munro: 
ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM POSSIBILITY OF AGREEMENT WITH LABOUR AND BUSINESS ON ENDING CONTROLS
John Allen Fraser: My question is for the Minister of Finance. As reported in today's press, the Minister of Labour said that there is a broad measure of agreement among business and labour leaders on what action should be taken about the economy, including the removal of controls. Can the minister advise exactly what that broad measure of agreement is which his colleague spoke about, and whether it includes anything specific as to how and when controls should be ended? Is the government in agreement with labour and business on the timing and method of ending the controls?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Referring back to the discussion of last week, the recommendation of the two groups was that controls should be removed as soon as possible-and the words are theirs-and that we should be content to rely on the forces operating in the market for the purpose of avoiding any renewed spiral of inflation. As 1 mentioned to the House last week, I have some hesitation- and I know that the majority of provincial governments have somewhat more hesitation-about an early withdrawal of controls. 1 think it would obviously be important to bring together the exponents of that particular point of view that is business and labour, with the responsible governments in Canada to discuss the possible further assurances that might be obtained to make certain that the spiral of inflation did not start again once controls are taken off.
March 28, 1977


BASIS FOR LABOUR MINISTER'S STATEMENT LABOUR WILLING TO EXERCISE RESTRAINTS
John Allen Fraser: In view of the fact that Mr. Morris, the president of the CLC, was quoted in the press on Thursday as having said:
No commitments were made and nobody came up with anything approaching a plan for voluntary restraints,
Can the minister advise the House whether the comments of his colleague, the Minister of Labour, as reported today that:
There is a real desire growing and permeating through labour that it will exercise proper restraint in the post-control period.
-is based on any agreement made at the business-labour meeting, or whether it accurately reflects any commitment made directly to the government by the Canadian Labour Congress?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in the latter respect I think the question would have to be directed to the Minister of Labour. As Mr. Morris said, there was no specific agreement with the business community at that meeting but there was a commitment on the part of representatives of the CLC to speak out in favour of restraint as, indeed, Mr. Mahoney, one of the vice-presidents of the CLC, did this past weekend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: For further elaboration of that particular point I think the hon. member might like to direct his question to my colleague.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance whether in the answer I have just been given there was a suggestion that perhaps the Minister of Labour is not speaking for the government.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would be kind enough to repeat his original question. A speech 1 was making ran a little late, and I regret not having been here sooner.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sorry but I did not see the Minister of Labour come in. He was not here when I started to ask my questions.
In view of the fact that Mr. Morris, president of the CLC, was quoted in the press on Thursday as saying that no commitments were made and nobody came up with anything approaching a plan for voluntary restraint, can the minister advise this House whether his comments as reported in the press today that there is a real desire growing and permeating through labour that it will exercise proper restraint in the post-control period were based on any agreement at the business-labour meeting or whether it accurately reflects any commitment made directly to the government by the Canadian Labour Congress?
Oral Questions


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, this was my perception of what was evolving as a result of discussions based on comments, I believe-as my colleague the Minister of Finance indicated as I came in-by Mr. Mahoney and by others. As to what specific commitments were made by Joe Morris, I think the appropriate person to inquire of would be Joe Morris himself.


FINANCE
Charles Edward Rea: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Last Thursday, in answering a question concerning a balance sheet of incomes and expenditures of the federal government within each province, the minister put me off by saying that such a balance sheet was possible but he did not indicate if it had been undertaken within his department. Therefore, I would like to ask him first if he knew that a federal-provincial study had been conducted under Mr. Bourassa's government before 1973 and that even the federal government had accepted to participate in such a study as we have been told last Friday, and, secondly, why do the government and his department hesitate so much to lay before the House or to release those figures so we could have a better idea of the Canadian situation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, such a study has been prepared by federal and provincial governments and it does not support the conclusions stated by Mr. Tremblay last Friday.


Mr. Matte:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Is the minister saying that it would be even worse than the facts disclosed last Friday? Secondly, when does he intend to give a precise answer to the questions repeatedly asked to him in this House about the amount of money the federal government gets from each province and the amount spent in the same provinces by the government? When is he going to give us this information?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have just answered such a question by pointing out that it is presently impossible to give an exact evaluation of the payments which are being made. Such an analysis is now in process but I must say that it presents serious difficulties. As 1 already said, the Baribeau report tabled last Friday was not meant to be a federal-provincial or inter-provincial balance sheet, but for other reasons, and the conclusions the Quebec minister has drawn from this report are unjustified.

March 28, 1977
Oral Questions


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I wonder if the minister can indicate to the House if negotiations with the province of Quebec with regard to the transfer of Queen Mary Hospital and Ste. Anne's Hospital have been concluded.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, negotiations with regard to Queen Mary Hospital are being carried on at the present time. There are no negotiations going on with regard to Ste. Anne's Hospital.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in order to prevent repercussions like those which have occurred in the past as a result of transfers of hospitals, before any agreements are signed and in order to ensure care of veterans will the minister assure the House that all veterans organizations will be consulted and also that a statement on motions will be made in the House listing the details of the negotiations?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard to negotiations which are going on in the province of Quebec and in other provinces, they take place according to government policy. As negotiations proceed there is always contact with veterans organizations throughout Canada. When transfers take place we try to make sure that certain things are adhered to. One of those things is that veterans are cared for and that employees now employed by the federal government are protected.


CAMP HILL HOSPITAL, HALIFAX-CONSULTATION WITH LEGION ON PLANS FOR EXPANSION
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs arises out of the negotiations dealing with Camp Hill Hospital in Halifax. Apparently plans for expansion have been changed. Has the minister or his department had negotiations or consultations with the provincial command of the Royal Canadian Legion in my province.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have had consultations and discussions with the Royal Canadian Legion in the hon. member's province.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Prime Minister. It arises out of questions raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South regarding

increased consultation with labour, which the government desires. I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether Mr. Mahoney has been appointed to the Senate and whether he has accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton.


SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Small Businesses). Right now small businesses are suffering as a result of our slack economy. What plans does the minister have to upgrade the role of small business throughout Canada?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, the Small Businesses Loans Act has to be amended by the end of June. After consideration and considerable consultation with the small business community across the country I am proposing what I think are very substantial amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act. I think those amendments will make that Act a much more effective piece of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that youth unemployment is at its highest level since we have been keeping records on youth unemployment, in view of the government's announced intention in the Speech from the Throne of October 12 to assist youth in this country, and in view of the fact that the government has now announced the youth exchange program and the youth corps and that it appears that both those programs will not be in operation by summer when youth unemployment will be its highest ever, can the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether he and his colleagues will take steps to bring those two programs forward so that they can be implemented this summer? In addition, is the government bringing forward any other programs which will be urgently needed to help reduce the youth unemployment rate this summer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion made by the hon. member is a good one. We will certainly do everything possible to bring forward these programs as soon as possible in order to augment the
March 28, 1977

other programs which will be in play this summer to assist youth. The Minister of Finance will obviously be covering the general group of employment in his speech so naturally we must wait till next Thursday for any further details.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Acting Prime Minister agrees that this would be a better move than shipping young people out of the country to find jobs.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that the minister promised in February that he would be making an announcement within two weeks on the youth corps-and that is registered in Hansard-and the fact that in the first week of March he said he would be making an announcement on the youth corps at the end of March, may I ask if he intends to make the announcement regarding the youth corps by the end of March this year and will he be able to make an announcement that
10,000	young people will be involved in July and August of this year?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am still hoping to meet that deadline, plus or minus a day but to make a guarantee about 10,000 youth-we will have to wait for the announcement.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Justice relates to the other questions concerning canabis. In view of the strong views of the Prime Minister on the question of possession of marijuana, has the minister prepared the legislation transferring cannabis from the Criminal Code to the Food and Drugs Act? Has he had cabinet approval and will the legislation be introduced before the summer recess? More important, would the minister be prepared to recommend to provincial Attorneys General that pending charges of possession of marijuana be delayed until the proposed changes are introduced and the legislation passed?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, just a moment ago I indicated that my colleagues and I are considering Bill S-19 and what if any changes should be made to those proposals. I am unable to say at what point any
Manpower
legislation may be introduced. You are aware of course, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister indicated the other day that he was not able to predict at what time and in what form any legislation would be introduced.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table, in both official languages, "Job Vacancies Registered at end of month, Canada, February, 1955-January, 1977".


BILL C-27-NOTICE OF MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 75C
Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that it has not been possible to reach agreement under the provisions of Standing Orders 75A and 75B in respect of the proceedings at second reading stage of Bill C-27, an act to establish the department of employment and immigration, the Canada employment and immigration commission and the Canada employment and immigration advisory council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof. I, therefore, give notice of my intention to propose at the next sitting of the House a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 75C, for the purpose of allocating five further hours for the consideration and disposal of the proceedings of that stage of this bill.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister or government House leader will make sure that the plans are known for certain recorded votes today. They were postponed until Monday, but I do not think we publicly fixed the hour.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity given by the hon. member to establish, for the benefit of hon. members, the hour for the divisions, which I propose should take place at 9.30 p.m. today.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I might mention that, as we know, we are dealing today with the motion for concurrence in the name of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, and tomorrow we will deal with the motion which will be put forward by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. That will be followed by second reading of the bill respecting which the motion is to be made.


Mr. Speaker:: The House having understood and agreed that the votes would be deferred until today, is it agreed and
4378

March 28, 1977
Order Paper Questions
ordered that those deferred divisions will take place at 9.30 this evening?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the Standing Order, the bell will ring for 15 minutes.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 728, 910, 1,367, 1,505, 1,799, 1,814, 1,894, 1,895, 1,896, 1,900, 1,995 and 2,193.


Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the estimated total number of employees that would be involved in the operations of the Anti-Inflation Board at the time the Prime Minister announced the establishment of the Board?
2.	What is the actual number of employees now associated with the AIB as either salaried employees or under contract by the Board as of this date?
3.	What was the total cost of operations for the Board for September 1976, and what is the estimated cost of the total operation of the Board for the fiscal year 1976-77?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1 and 2. Supplementary Estimates for the period from October, 1975 to March 31, 1976 estimated 200 man-years. The 1976-1977 Main Estimates showed 396 man-years. Supplementary Estimates "B" for 1976-1977 shows 680 man-years. As of October 1, 1976 the total number of personnel with the Board was 856. The difference between this number and the 680 man-years is 176 persons who are under contract; on secondment from government departments and agencies; executive interchange.
3. Total cost of the operation of the Board for September, 1976 was $1,734,000. The estimated cost for the fiscal year 1976-1977 is $22,187,000.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many persons are currently employed by the new Financial Administration Branch of the Treasury Board?
2.	How many are expected to be hired within the next year?
3.	What are the job classifications in the Branch and how many employees are in each classification?
4.	What are the terms of reference for the duties of the Branch?
5.	Are all Branch reports, studies, observations and recommendations made available to the public?
6.	Does the government plan to raise the status of the Deputy Secretary in charge of the Branch to that of Secretary as recommended by the Auditor General and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.	Thirty employees as at January 1, 1977.
2.	Thirty-eight.
3.
January 1,	Numbers of Employees To be hired	PlannedClassifications	1977	1977	end of 1977SX 3	1	-	1SX 2	2	-	2SX 1	4	3	7FI 7	13	19	32FI 5	7	10	17Administration Support	3	6	9Total	30	38	684.	The duties and responsibilities of the Financial Administration Branch of the Treasury Board Secretariat are, in summarized form: "To develop and ensure the effective application of financial administration legislation, policies, standards, systems and procedures in order to provide public assurance that the financial resources of the Government of Canada are properly managed, controlled and accounted for."5.	Reports, studies, observations and recommendations made by the Branch concerning government-wide financial administrative issues are made available to the public. (Study of the Accounts of Canada, Guide on Financial Administration.) Study reports and recommendations on specific issues are provided on request to both interested members of the public and counterparts of the Branch in other governments, both provincial and international. The Branch makes annual evaluations of selected financial administrative practices in government departments and agencies. The evaluation reports are made to the deputy heads of these departments and agencies and copies are supplied to the Auditor General of Canada.6.	The government is giving due and serious consideration to the Auditor General's recommendation to raise the status of the Deputy Secretary in charge of the Financial Administration Branch and the associated issues in the recommendation whose implementation would require a "fundamental restructuring of the Treasury Board Secretariat". The Auditor General has been extensively consulted in the government's detailed consideration of this recommendation. In view of the significance of the Treasury Board Secretariat's position in the machinery of government, no decision will be taken until the government is satisfied that it has carefully reviewed all the potential ramifications of such a radical organizational change.


Mr. Jones: 1.	(a) On what date is the Department of Supply and Services going to move a large section of its operations to the Greater Moncton area (b) what are the plans and schedule for the movement (c) how many persons will be employed (d) how many will be employed from the Moncton area (e) what is the estimated annual (i) payroll (ii) operating costs less payroll (iii) capital costs?

March 28, 1977

2.	Have training programmes been provided for residents of the Greater Moncton area who wish to obtain employment with the Department of Supply and Services and, if so, what are they?
3.	Does the government plan to decentralize other departments to Moncton, New Brunswick?
4.	What regional offices does the government plan to centralize in Moncton, New Brunswick?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1.	Supply and Services Canada is in the process of finalizing the proposed plans, schedules and budgets for the relocation of the Superannuation Division to the Moncton area. Further information will be made available following completion of this process, (a) In general, it is proposed that the relocation will be effected gradually over a period of three to five years as the availability of trained staff permits. In this respect, there is no specific date on which a large section of our operations will be relocated to the Moncton area, (b) Details of the relocation plans and schedules will be available shortly. Announcement of related details at this time would be premature, (c) The Superannuation Division currently has approximately 400 employees; this staff level will be maintained in the Moncton area, (d) Although some of the 400 Superannuation Division employees in the National Capital Region may wish to relocate, it is expected that most of the staff will be recruited in the Moncton area, (e) (i) The annual payroll of the Division currently totals approximately $4.5 million, (ii) The annual operating costs less payroll currently total approximately $0.4 million, (iii) A statement of Supply and Services, Canada accommodation requirements is being prepared for Public Works, Canada. This will provide the basis for the development of final facilities requirements and costs.
2.	Training programs have not been provided to date as this area is still in the planning phase.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What was the total cost to the government of the Supreme Court trial on the constitutionality of the Anti-Inflation Board?
2.	What process was used to select a legal counsel to act on behalf of the government in this trial?
3.	What was the fee paid to Mr. Robinette for representing the government?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. Salaried legal officers of the Department of Justice and officials of other departments of Government were involved in the preparation of the Government's case and its presentation without a dollar value being assigned to this contribution. Apart from that, travel and printing expenses incurred in connection with the preparation were $914.11. Disbursements of the agent of the Minister of Justice were $719.04.
2. Counsel was selected to act on behalf of the Government in this case based on the usual criteria of the competence and
Order Paper Questions
experience required to meet the nature and importance of the litigation.
3. The fee paid to Mr. John Robinette who acted as agent of the Minister of Justice of Canada, was $22,500.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	How many veterinarians are employed by the Health of Animals Branch in the Department of Agriculture?
2.	How many veterinarians with the Health of Animals Branch are employed in the (a) Meat Inspection Section (b) Contagious Disease Section?
3.	How many primary products inspectors with the Health of Animals Branch are employed in the (a) Meat Inspection Section (b) Contagious Disease Section
4.	(a) What is the rate per hour paid for overtime to veterinarians with the Health of Animals Branch employed in the Meat Inspection Section (b) what was the total amount paid in overtime to this group in the Fiscal year 1975-76?
5.	What is the salary schedule now in effect for (a) veterinarians (b) primary products inspectors employed by the Health of Animals Branch and, in each case, how many are there in each salary category?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Five hundred and thirty seven.
2.	(a) 265; (b) 233.
3.	(a) 1,099; (b) 266.
4.	(a) See Article 18 of the collective agreement for the Veterinary Science Group, (b) Financial expenditure records are not maintained in a manner to readily identify the total amount paid in overtime to veterinarians employed in the meat
inspection division.	
5. (a) Salary ranges are contained	in the collective agreement for the Veterinary Science Group.	
	Number
Category	by Level
Veterinary Science	1-177
Veterinary Science	2-279
Veterinary Science	3- 65
Veterinary Science	4- 16
(b) Salary ranges are contained in the Collective Agreement for the Primary Products Inspection Group.	
	Number
Category	by Level
Primary Products Inspector	1- 33
Primary Products Inspector	2- 23
Primary Products Inspector	3-1086
Primary Products Inspector	4- 196
Primary Products Inspector	5- 22
Primary Products Inspector	6- 5

March 28, 1977
Order Paper Questions AIR CANADA PENSIONS


Mir. McKenzie: What pension, gratuities and fringe benefits were granted by Air Canada to the former (a) Chairman of the Board, Mr. Yves Pratte (b) Vice-President, Mr. P. J. Chartrand?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: Air Canada does not disclose information respecting pensions and other compensations received by executives.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	In the best estimate of the government, what would be a reasonable period over which to amortize icebreaking vessels owned by the government?
2.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,145, will the government immediately implement an assessment of $2.00 per ton on cargo moving to/from ports on the St. Lawrence River during winter months so as to partially cover the cost of icebreaking services provided the exclusive benefit of the St. Lawrence River ports and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Alternatively, will the government pay shipping lines calling at Saint John and Halifax $2.00 per ton during the winter months so as to partly compensate for the icebreaking subsidy to lines serving the St. Lawrence River ports and, if not, for what reason?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Some icebreakers are kept in operation for up to forty years but the economic life of an icebreaker is probably in the order of 20 to 25 years. Beyond that, significant expenses would be required for refitting, repairing or modernizing.
2.	No. Icebreakers in the St. Lawrence River perform various functions such as flood control and many of the same costs would be incurred whether or not commercial ships take advantage of their services during the winter months. Any assessment must consider these other functions. It is also noted that reinforced commercial vessels seldom require icebreaking assistance.
3.	No. The question of the equity of transportation expenditures between regions has to be assessed in a more comprehensive framework and involves much more than icebreaking assistance.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Has any decision been made by the government with respect to the ordering of gantry cranes for the Jacques Cartier Terminal and, if so, what was the decision and on what date was it made?
2.	Are any shipping lines, considered as prospective users of the Terminal, unable to be accommodated by the use of mobile cranes rather than gantry cranes and (a) if so, which shipping lines (b) if not, for what reason are gantry cranes being considered?


Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. No decision has been made at this time.
2. As the terminal is intended to be operated as a public facility, the use of mobile cranes versus gantry cranes is under consideration at the moment, (a) The question of which prospective shipping lines could not be accommodated by the use of mobile cranes has not yet been considered, (b) Gantry cranes are considered for their ability to handle containers on cellular vessels and their capability of loading and unloading vessels more quickly; they are also more costly.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With respect to dredging in the St. Lawrence River Channel between Quebec City and lie D'Orleans (a) what was the (i) initial estimated cost of the project (ii) amount of the low tender (iii) amount actually paid by the government (b) what was the anticipated minimum drafts expected to be created in the Channel (c) what is the minimum draft in the Channel at present?
2.	Is it anticipated that annual dredging in the Channel will be necessary and, if so, what is the government's best estimate of the cost?
3.	What ports and/or port facilities will benefit directly from such dredging?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. (a) (i)
Initial estimated cost of project, $18,928,000; (ii) Amount of the lowest tender; $20,860,000; (iii) Amount actually paid to contractor, $19,330,000. (b) Anticipated minimum depth, 41 feet, (c) Latest known channel depth, based on soundings taken in the fall of 1976, is 38 feet with a limited channel width of 650 feet.
2.	Yes. Cost of annual maintenance dredging is difficult to estimate but probably is in the region of $750,000 per annum, allowing for inflationary trends.
3.	Port of Quebec, and particularly Golden Eagle refinery at St. Romuald.


Mr. Leggatt: What (a) installations (b) services to control tanker traffic along the western coast of Canada (i) exist (ii) are planned?


Otto Emil Lang: (a) (i) Existing installations: The major facility for control of tanker traffic on the west coast of Canada comprises the vessel traffic management centre located in the Capilano 100 building, West Vancouver. This Centre is equipped with radar, closed-circuit television and extensive communications facilities including dedicated communications links for the exchange of information with the United States Coast Guard Centre at Seattle, (b) (i) Existing Services: The Centre previously described manages the Vancouver traffic zone which includes Canadian waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Haro Strait and the area between Vancouver Island and the Canadian mainland. Participation is voluntary at present and operating procedures are fully described for the information of mariners in the "Annual Edition of Notices to Mariners". The zone is divided into four sectors, operated as follows: Sector One (Strait of Juan de Fuca): Ship shore communication facilities enable participating ships to communicate with Vancouver traffic centre, advising the centre of their locations and intended movements and receiving information concerning other traffic in the vicinity as well as weather and navigational hazards. A voluntary communications service, operated by the United States coast
[Mr. Whelan.)
March 28, 1977

Order Paper Questions
guard, is also available in this sector. Sector Two (Haro Strait and waters east of Vancouver Island): Service in this sector is identical to that provided in sector one, with the exception of the United States operated communications system. Sector Three (Vancouver Harbour and Approaches): Radar equipment, supplemented by closed circuit television, enables the centre to monitor traffic in English Bay, the approaches to Vancouver Harbour and the Harbour itself. Ship shore communication facilities are also provided, as in Sectors One and Two. Sector Four (Fraser River-South Arm): Commencing March 1, 1977, Vancouver traffic zone is extended into the south arm of the Fraser River. Facilities in this sector are limited to a system of bridge to bridge communication, with vessels advising each other of their presence when passing specified calling in points. Tofino Traffic Zone and Prince Rupert Traffic Zone provide an extension of vessel traffic management services into the western and northern waters of British Columbia respectively. Participation is voluntary at present and is based upon each ship transmitting a message giving certain basic navigation information at critical points during her passage to all other participating vessels in the immediate area. As a means of enhancing navigation safety in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Strait of Georgia, voluntary traffic routing systems have been established in these areas. If it is determined that the systems are effective in promoting navigation safety, they will be considered for mandatory use. A medium frequency radiotelephone ship to ship and ship shore traffic monitoring and regulating system operates in the Mackenzie river to prevent congestion in constricted and dangerous areas. It also provides navigation safety information and weather forecasts and is conducted through Canadian coast guard radio stations.
(a) (ii)Installations Planned: Facilities presently under construction, and expected to be in operation during 1977 include: Tofino Traffic Centre: By means of long-range radar and radio facilities, this centre will be able to monitor, and communicate with, traffic approaching and departing from the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Vancouver Traffic Centre: Remote controlled radar installations mounted at strategic locations will provide surveillance of traffic in Haro Strait and the southern part of the Strait of Georgia. A radio direction-finding system will enable the Vancouver Centre to make a positive identification of vessels in this area, (b) (ii) Services Planned: Coupled with the provision of extended surveillance and identification equipment, it is intended to make participation in the Vancouver and Tofino Traffic Zones compulsory, thus providing active control over marine traffic in these areas. Extension of the present service in the Prince Rupert zone is also anticipated, but details of the degree and type of service to be provided will
not be decided until a decision has been reached on the proposed Kitimat project.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): What are the names of the (a) acting ministers (b) second acting ministers of each department of the government?


Ralph Goodale: P.C. 1976-3081 Certified to be a true copy of a Minute of a Meeting of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 10 December, 1976. The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, advise: 1. that in the absence from Ottawa of the Prime Minister or in the event of his being unable to perform the functions of his Office, the next Senior Minister who is in Ottawa, and is able to perform the functions of the Office of Prime Minister, be authorized to act for the Prime Minister; 2. that in the absence from Ottawa of a Minister whose name is set out in Column II of an item of the Schedule to this Minute, or in the event of that Minister being unable to perform the functions of his Office, the Minister whose name is set out in Column III of the item be authorized to act for the Minister named in Column II in respect of the Office set out in Column 1 of the item; 3. that in the absence from Ottawa of the Ministers named in Columns II and III of an item of the Schedule to this Minute, or in the event of both of those Ministers being unable to perform the functions of their Office, the Minister whose name is set out in Column IV of the item be authorized to act for the Minister named in Column II in respect of the Office set out in Column I of the item; 4. that in the absence from Ottawa of the Ministers named in Columns II, III and IV of an item of the Schedule to this Minute,or in the event of all those Ministers being unable to perform the functions of their Office, the Prime Minister or, if the Prime Minister is absent from Ottawa or unable to perform the functions of his Office, the next Senior Minister who is in Ottawa be authorized to act for the Minister named in Column II in respect of the Office set out in Column I of the item; 5. that where an Office set out in Column I of an item of the Schedule to this Minute is vacant, the Minister whose name is set out in Column III of that item be authorized to act in the Office of the Minister whose Office is set out in Column I of that item; and 6. that where an Office set out in Column I of an item of the Schedule to this Minute is vacant, in the absence from Ottawa of the Minister whose name is set out in Column III of that item, or in the event of that Minister being unable to perform the functions of the Office set out in Column I of that item, the Minister whose name is set out in Column IV of that item be authorized to act in the Office of the Minister whose Office is set out in Column I of that item.
Column I Office
1.	Agriculture
2.	Communications
3.	Consumer and Corporate
Affairs
List of Acting Ministers
Column II
Column III
Name
Mr. E. F. Whelan Mrs. J. Sauve Mr. A. C. Abbott
Acting Minister Mr. D. J. MacDonald Mr. A. W. Gillespie Mr. M. Lalonde
Column IV Second Acting Minister Mr. O. E. Lang Mr. J. Roberts Miss M. Begin

March 28, 1977
Order Paper Questions
List of Acting Ministers
Column I	Column II	Column III	Column IV Second ActingOffice	Name	Acting Minister	Minister4.	Energy, Mines and Resources	Mr. A. W. Gillespie	Mr. D. S. Macdonald	Mr. D. C. Jamieson5.	External Affairs	Mr. D. C. Jamieson	Mr. A. J. MacEachen	Mr. D. S. Macdonald6.	Finance	Mr. D. S. Macdonald	Mr. O. E. Lang	Mr. A. C. Abbott7.	Fisheries and the Environment	Mr. R. LeBlanc	Mr. M. Lessard	Mr. E. F. Whelan8.	Indian Affairs and Northern Development	Mr. W. W. Allmand	Mr. J. J. Buchanan	Mr. J. Chretien9.	Industry, Trade and Commerce	Mr. J. Chretien	Mr. L. S. Marchand	Mr. R. K. Andras10.	Justice and Attorney General	Mr. S. R. Basford	Mr. F. Fox	Mr. W. W. Allmand11.	Labour	Mr. J. C. Munro	Mr. A. Ouellet	Mr. J.-P. Goyer12.	Manpower and Immigration	Mr. J. S. G. Cullen	Mr. R. K. Andras	Mr. M. Lalonde13.	National Defence	Mr. B. J. Danson	Mr. D. C. Jamieson	Mr. A. J. MacEachen14.	National Health and Welfare	Mr. M. Lalonde	Mrs. I. Campagnolo	Mrs. J. Sauve15.	National Revenue	Miss M. Begin	Mr. J. S. G. Cullen	Mr. J.-J. Blais16.	Post Office	Mr. J.-J. Blais	Mr. A. C. Abbott	Mr. J. C. Munro17.	Privy Council	Mr. A. J. MacEachen	Mr. J.-J. Blais	Mr. A. Ouellet18.	Public Works	Mr. J. J. Buchanan	Mr. J.-P. Goyer	Mr. M. Lessard19.	Regional Economic Expansion	Mr. M. Lessard	Mr. R. LeBlanc	Mr. D. J. MacDonald20.	Science and Technology	Mr. J. H. Faulkner	Mrs. J. Sauve	Mr. A. W. Gillespie21.	Secretary of State	Mr. J. Roberts	Mr. J. H. Faulkner	Mr. F. Fox22.	Solicitor General	Mr. F. Fox	Mr. W. W. Allmand	Mr. S. R. Basford23.	Supply and Services	Mr. J.-P. Goyer	Mr. J. H. Faulkner	Mr. B. J. Danson24.	Transport	Mr. 0. E. Lang	Mr. S. R. Basford	Mr. R. LeBlanc25.	Treasury Board	Mr. R. K. Andras	Mr. J. Chretien	Mr. J. J. Buchanan26.	Urban Affairs	Mr. B. J. Danson	Miss M. Begin	Mrs. I. Campagnolo27.	Veterans Affairs	Mr. D. J. MacDonald	Mr. E. F. Whelan	Mr. J.-P. Guay
P.C. 1976-3142 Certified to be a true copy of a Minute of a Meeting of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 16 December, 1976. The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, advise that Order in Council P.C. 1976-3081 of 10th December, 1976, which appointed Acting Ministers, be hereby amended by deleting item 26 from the schedule thereto and substituting therefor the following: Column I, Office, "26. Urban Affairs; Column II, Name, Mr. A. Ouellet; Column III, Acting Minister, Miss M. Begin; Column IV, Second Acting Minister, Mrs. I. Campagnolo".
THE HON. LfiON BALCER


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Is the Hon. Leon Balcer, former Member of Parliament for Trois-Rivieres, employed by the government and, if so, what (a) is his position (b) was his starting date (c) is his salary (d) department employs him?


Ralph Goodale: No.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 1,939 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Forrestall: What is the name and number of calls made by each vessel at the ports of (a) Montreal (b) Quebec (c) Trois-Rivieres (d) Sorel during the months of (i) January (ii) February (iii) March, 1976 to load and/or discharge cargo?
Return tabled.


Ralph Goodale: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS


Robert Jardine McCleave: that the Second Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Thursday, February 3, 1977 be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, most of the legislation that has cleared this chamber these days and in recent years has contained provisions whereby the governor in council, the minister or some agency may make regulations for carrying out of the purposes of the legislation that we pass. The question arises as to how this process is carried out; whether there is ever an attempt to see that the process is carried out in the spirit of the original legislation and, if not, what sort of remedies are available. It is to these three important questions that I address myself this afternoon.
The scrutiny of what one might call the delegated parliament, as opposed to the parliament in which we sit, owes its existence to several outstanding figures in this House. I think credit is due all around this chamber, but I would single out
March 28, 1977

the hon. member for Peace River, who seconded my motion for concurrence, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, on the other side, who is chairman of the committee that brought in very important recommendations in this field, the hon. member for Greenwood, the hon. member for Bonaventure-!les-de-la-Madeleine, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, the hon. member for Regina East, and the deputy House leader of the Conservative party. These are several of the prominent figures, but there are more besides. When one mentions some names, the danger is that one does not mention nearly enough. In any event, people such as Senators Forsey, Godfrey, Lafond, Yuzyk and others made substantial contributions in this particular field. At the beginning of this parliament I had the honour to be chosen, with Senator Forsey, as joint chairman of the committee. I succeeded the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. That shows that my stricture about myself was worth-while, since I had neglected to mention his name. He was a tall figure in this field, both physically and otherwise.
From the beginning of this parliament the work of this committee has continued and has culminated in the report, concurrence in which I have now moved. It is one of the lengthiest reports ever presented by a joint parliamentary committee. It is presented in a specially printed form covering 57 pages of two columns each. It includes a large variety of points, some technical, others simplicity itself. I shall review the work of the committee and deal with some of the recommendations I consider as particularly important, and then listen to the hon. member for Peace River, the Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Greenwood, and perhaps the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council comment on the work of this committee.
Sometimes those of us working in special committees think our committee is a world of its own and we wonder how the work will fare when it is scrutinized by this House. This afternoon and this evening, no doubt, I shall have my share of elation when others review the work of the committee, and perhaps my share of regret that we did not do better in certain respects.
I now come to the report itself. It covers the work of the committee from January 1, 1974, until January 27, 1977. For those who are not familiar with the workings of the committee, let me say that its work is initiated-I think that is putting it correctly-by two counsel to the committee, Mr. E. G. Egling-ton and Miss Lise Mayrand, and their efficient secretary, Mrs. Helen Leroux. They look at all the regulations, statutory instruments, and the like, of the various ministries and Crown emanations. Then, having scrutinized this vast body of regulations, our counsel come before the committee and report whether they see any irregularities in them or any other points which ought to be followed up. Paragraph 3 of the report perhaps best describes the work of the committee. It reads in part:
The committee's primary function is to maintain a watch on the subordinate law made by delegates of parliament. In the modern era parliament has been forced
Statutory Instruments
by considerations of time and lack of technical and scientific expertise to leave to subordinates the making of detailed rules and regulations and to confine itself increasingly to setting the main structures of legislative interventions in society. However, parliament retains responsibility for the law of the land and to the extent that those detailed rules and regulations are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, parliament is forfeiting its effective right to settle the laws that must be obeyed by the people.
Later in my speech I shall draw an important distinction between the work of parliament and what parliament can do and the work of the committee and what the committee cannot do. I draw a tantalizing curtain over that part of my speech by simply saying that it is possible for one of those two bodies to order a cook to be boiled in oil. If hon. members listen, they will learn later in my speech whether parliament or the delegated authority is able to order such an awesome punishment. I mention some figures. I point out that we are a continuing committee. Every week we deal with several dozen regulations, orders in council, statutory instruments, and the like. Up to July 15 last year the committee dealt with 1,348 instruments, which represents a massive amount of work. About half those instruments passed the committee without commentary, but after having been scrutinized by our counsel. Questions arose about the other half. Many of those questions were minor, although some were of substantial nature.
In the report presented to the House we have drawn attention to what we regard as defects in particular instruments. It is not likely that the committee will again make such a lengthy report to the House. I think we will be more apt to look into particular instances which concern us. That is a fair summation of the committee's work. For example, we are currently looking at the method by which increases in first-class postage were brought about by the use of a section in the Financial Administration Act rather than by an amendment to the Post Office Act. No doubt in due course the House will discover our findings in that regard.
A couple of years ago, in 1974, both Houses adopted criteria for the examination of statutory instruments. Those criteria were really an elaboration on the smaller number of criteria set forth in our founding legislation, the Statutory Instruments Act. There are some 16 or 17 criteria about which we are concerned. Perhaps I may refer to four or five of those criteria to make my remarks clearer. The criteria are found in paragraph 10 of part B of the report. We look at a statutory instrument or regulation to determine if, in our judgment it, and I quote criterion (1 )(b)-
does not clearly state therein the precise authority for the making of the instrument.
In one half of the committee's work, whether to do with the Privy Council office with which we were most directly dealing, or the various ministries, that criterion was referred to many times, for it is a generally accepted practice in the government that when statutory instruments are framed, the precise authority for the making of the instrument must be clearly stated. We found that the occasions for invoking criterion (l)(b) were few. In this regard, I think the committee would like to commend publicly-as I am doing in this debate-the

March 28, 1977
Statutory Instruments
ministry for its co-operation. The second criterion is number 4, that the regulation or other statutory instrument-
makes some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the enabling statute or by the prerogative-
Here I will refer to what I call the Baby-face Nelson amendment. It was once put out under the Explosives Act. The problem and the reason for the objection by the committee is that section 108.1(2) of the regulations prohibits the sale of fireworks to a person who appears to be under the age of 18 years. In their wisdom, the committee considered that the subsection could be given effect to in this wise even if you are under the age of 18 years: if you appear to be under 18, you may not buy fireworks. This is not the most earthshaking problem that has ever been encountered. We took it up with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources which agreed with the committee that the subsection should be replaced by better wording. 1 hope that the Baby-face Nelson amendment has now been put to rest, because the department came forth with these words:
No person shall sell any fireworks to a person who appears to be under the age of 18 years and does not produce evidence that he is of the age of 18 years or over.
The third criteria I go to is number 9, whether any regulation or other statutory instrument, and I quotein the absence of express authority to that effect in the enabling statute or prerogative, appears to amount to the exercise of a substantive legislative power properly the subject of direct parliamentary enactment, and not merely to the formulation of subordinate provisions of a technical or administrative character properly the subject of delegated legislation-
Here one is in the very important field of the question of whether the delegated act or instrument, in effect, amounts to the making of policy rather than to carrying out the purposes of the legislation. This is something that strikes right home at ourselves as members of parliament because under the representational gifts remission order it states:
-"in recognition of international comity and practice that heads of state, heads of government, ministerial representatives of government and members of parliament exchange gifts during official visits" customs duty, sales tax and excise tax shall be remitted on gifts received by the prime minister, ministers, and members of parliament on official visits to other countries or presented by visiting foreign donors in Canada.
The committee considered these remission orders very carefully. It was of the opinion that they were not concerned with administrative detail but constituted a substantive departure from established taxation law, giving us, in effect, a special privilege. That is set forth in the report. This reminds me of the time I headed a delegation of parliamentarians to Finland. One of the more splendid gifts of the Finnish parliament was a 40-ounce bottle of Finnish vodka which found itself in my luggage when I arrived back at the Halifax international airport. I was able to persuade Customs that I had accepted this 40-ounce bottle in trust on behalf of the parliament of Canada and that I would be able to share my pleasure with my fellow parliamentarians. I take the opportunity now of saying it was a great pleasure indeed.


An hon. Member:: Did you share it?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The spirit of the pleasure I shared if not the spirit itself. In any event, if you look at the report and examine the front portion of it, you will find that the representational gifts remission order came under some consideration by the members of the committee. The fourth example, criterion number 10, provides that whether any regulation or statutory instrument, and I quotewithout express provision to the effect having been made in the enabling statute or prerogative, imposes a fine, imprisonment or other penalty, or shifts the onus of proof of innocence to the person accused of an offence-
Members will be reassured to know that this criterion has never had to be invoked. We have never got into the field so far that fines, imprisonment or other penalties arose by administrative act rather than by the express provision in an enabling statute. Finally, in dealing with these 17 criteria may I point out criterion number 5, a very important one that we looked at on a very large number of occasions namely, whether any regulation or other statutory instrument-
-(a) tends directly or indirectly to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts without explicit authorization therefor in the enabling statute; or
(b) makes the rights and liberties of the subject dependent on administrative discretion rather than on the judicial process-
A sample that I will quote in this regard deals with the sale of postage stamps and their regulations. I quote from the report:
Section 14 of these regulations gives to any postmaster an unfettered power to cancel any licence at any time issued under the regulations.
A corner grocery store with a postage stamp vending machine may suddenly lose that if the local postmaster decides that it should. The committee was concerned by the fact that no grounds or criteria are spelled out as justifying cancellation. There is no provision for a hearing or any opportunity for the licensee to be heard, or any obligation to tell the licensee why he is losing that particular right. The Minister of Justice may argue, and perhaps will, that an action to review the decision to cancel a licence would exist under section 28 of the Federal Court Act in the event that the rules of natural justice are ignored. I am not saying it is certain, but it is possible. The committee felt that the subject should not necessarily be forced to litigation in order to establish his rights or to seek that sort of justice.
Another of the recommendations that we had regarding the carrying on of the work of this committee-really, the first recommendation-was that the criteria, of which I have only dealt with five out of some 17, for scrutiny be written into the Statutory Instruments Act so that they will not need to be adopted and incurred in anew by the two Houses at the commencement of every session of parliament. The committee also suggested that there be an additional criterion, namely, whether a statutory instrument trespasses unduly on the rights and liberties of the subject.
The last point is with regard to our relations with parliament. This answers the question of the cook who was ordered to be boiled in oil. Let it be noted that parliament can do what it wishes within its jurisdiction. It is said it can change a man
March 28, 1977

into a woman, or a woman into a man. But delegated authority must always be subordinate.
"The power to legislate, when delegated by parliament, differs from parliament's own power to legislate. Parliament is supreme and its power to legislate is therefore unlimited. It can do the greatest things; it can do the smallest. It can make general laws ... it can make a particular exception out of them in favour of a particular individual. It can provide ... for the payment of old age pensions to all who fulfill the statutory conditions; it can also provide-and has in fact provided-for boiling the Bishop of Rochester's cook to death. But any power delegated by parliament is necessarily a subordinate power, because it is limited by the terms of the enactment whereby it is delegated."
This is a statement which is undoubtedly written large on the walls of the classrooms when students are dealing with the powers of parliament and delegated authority. It comes from the committee on ministers' powers, better known as the Donoughmore committee, in the United Kingdom in 1932. I think I have now given a satisfactory explanation about the boiling of the cook. Except that the other day there was a debate in this chamber-such debates take place almost every year, and 1 believe one will take place tonight in the Senate- in which great interest was shown in the subject of $1 items.
The co-chairman of my committee, Senator Forsey, has indicated that in a very rare meeting of committee of the whole of the other place the question of $1 items will be raised together with the propriety of some of the things those items set out to do. Perhaps this is the most important battle we shall get into in parliament for a long time, the question of what can be done with $1 items and what can be done with legislation which does not specifically set out the powers which can be used under that legislation. The subject is one which has been well ventilated in this place, and no doubt it will be well ventilated in the other place, so I shall not get into it now.
In the report to both chambers we have dealt with what we consider to be a defect in the method used by parliament to handle delegated legislation. More particularly, we turned to the Statutory Instruments Act. The first point which must be considered as being a defect in the act is the absence of any real system whereby orders which have legislative effect are tabled in the House, are automatically referred to the standing joint committee and are published so that the public may know what is being done. This concerned us because we do not know how many instruments are effectively being hidden from us. We do know, for example, about the guidelines used by the department of immigration. Some of us, more particularly the hon. member for Greenwood, have seen portions of these guidelines. He can advise the House that they do contain substantive rules. We are told, for instance, that they contain a definition of the crime of moral turpitude, the commission of which is a ground for exclusion from Canada. It is our opinion that such rules should not be contained in documents which in no way, shape or form come before a parliamentary committee for scrutiny. This matter is being considered now in connection with the new Immigration Act which is presently before parliament.
The second point with regard to the Statutory Instruments Act is that the definition of a statutory instrument is obscure. I
Statutory Instruments
suppose that if either Senator Forsey or myself operated as strictly as some chairmen are inclined to do, we would be bound to examine each piece of material which comes before us in light of the definition of a statutory instrument under the Statutory Instruments Act and make a ruling as to whether or not the committee was in order in even attempting to examine some of these sacred pronouncements. The fact is that in the end we simply threw up our hands, as did our counsel, in face of the definition set forth in the Statutory Instruments Act. We implore, beseech and beg that when parliament gets around to dealing with the act it gives us a better definition to deal with. The present definition of a regulation is equally obscure, in the opinion of the committee, and as we say in our report at paragraph 45:
There is no provision for a body to give a definitive ruling on whether or not a document is a statutory instrument. There is a procedure by which the Department of Justice can determine whether or not a statutory instrument is a regulation, but this is open to the objection that the parliamentary scrutiny committee is cut off from the decision.
The course which is recommended by the committee-and I must say it is a very non-partisan committee-is to proceed along the lines which were originally recommended by our "father committee", that is, the committee headed by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, namely, to have one class of document, broadly defined. This would remove the distinction between regulations and statutory instruments. It would subject all documents of the class to uniform procedures as to registration, publication and restriction as to retroactive effect.
The report of the committee headed by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville with regard to what should be the regulation and classification of the documents proposed is set forth in paragraph 47 of the report by Senator Forsey and myself. I simply draw it to the attention of the powers that be in the hope that parliament will have some interest in the problem we are up against and try to help us in our work. We think we have important work to do and we believe, also, that we are hampered by the present unhelpful definition. If nothing else happens immediately, I do hope the Statutory Instruments Act can be implemented so as to include a sensible definition and incorporate criteria to guide us in the examination of these regulations, possibly by way of a schedule to the act.
I have dealt with the recommendations concerning the criteria. I have dealt with the need for a new definition. We also make reference to the enabling powers in the Appropriation Acts, including $1 items. That is paragraph 113 of our report in which we say:
The commiltee endorses the views of the Auditor General. If enabling powers to make statutory instruments are to continue to be granted in Appropriation Acts, the vote texts should be specific and unequivocal, and contain all the wording having legislative effect, with none being contained in the estimates. Legislating by means of dollar votes and altering the purpose of previous votes by a number of successive votes are practices with which the committee does not agree.
May I make a specific point about recommendations dealing with the powers of officers of agricultural agencies. This is a point which did not make much impact when the report was
4386

March 28, 1977
Statutory Instruments
presented the other day, though it was the feeling of the committee that very large and substantial issues are involved here. I could have mentioned these earlier when we dealt with some of the criteria as examples, but I thought I would deal with this specifically at the tail end of my remarks.
It is our opinion that in the past the powers given under agricultural acts to marketing agencies and the like are too broad and sweeping. As a matter of fact, it was said in the committee that we thought ordinary farmers should be treated no worse than ordinary criminals, yet criminals have rights established under the common law and in the Criminal Code which ordinary farmers would probably give some of their eye-teeth to have. For example, here is something which came out in the Saskatchewan hog information, interprovincial and export, regulations. I do not mention this because it is the worst example, but because it was an ordinary example of what one finds under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act. This is one part of the regulations, which is set forth in paragraph 130 of our report:
5(1) Any member or authorized representative of the commission may, at any reasonable time, inspect any place or premises used for the marketing of hogs.
(2) Every person in possession or control of any place or premises referred to in subsection (1) shall
(a)	permit any member or authorized representative of the Commission to inspect such place or premises; and
(b)	furnish any member or authorized representative of the commission with such information in respect of the marketing of hogs as he may reasonably require.
What the regulations do in this case is to give powers of inspection without any requirement that the inspecting officer show his authority or establish his identity. There is no limitation on what is a "reasonable time". The requirement to produce information to an inspector is stronger than that which a peace officer can require of a person. For example, it could destroy, and it does destroy, the inspected person's basic right not to incriminate himself.
These problems have been taken up with the Department of Agriculture and that department is setting to work to remove the objectionable features of many of the regulations pertaining to agricultural marketing. The point should be made that over the years some bad practices had grown up as a result of the actions of people who drew up regulations without there apparently being the scrutiny that we in parliament would have given them had the regulations been presented to us in the first place in the form of legislation.
I think the committee can pat itself on the back for digging out some of these things and starting to effect cures, but it is a long and slow process and sometimes one does not get all the co-operation one would like. Departments, being composed of human beings, as is the committee, are apt to see things in a different light. While mentioning the co-operation of the Department of Agriculture, I am hoping for the co-operation of the Department of Fisheries since some four dozen queries have been directed to that department regarding which the committee has not yet received satisfaction. I should also mention the co-operation that we have enjoyed from both the Privy Council office and from the Minister and Department of

Justice. So gradually I think battles are being won, though there is still an enornous number of battles to be fought.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I make four points of a general philosophic nature in concluding my contribution to this debate. The first is that parliament need not fear the delegation process. I say this because there have been some silly press reactions to the original report of the committee, as though all delegation in itself is necessarily evil. Parliament need not fear the delegation process any more than it need fear its own process of enacting legislation. What we have to fear here is whether the delegation process is properly used. We should also insist that the delegation process be scrutinized properly by the joint committee of which I have the honour to be a chairman. In other words, every member of parliament should take it upon himself to want to know that, when legislation leaves here and is subsequently carried on by a delegated process, that delegated process is exercised properly and examined properly.
Secondly, we must improve our method of dealing with the delegation process. From time to time the House and the other chamber must welcome members of the committee to come and relate our problems, just as I and others are doing. I think possibly there should be a debate at least once a year, or once a session, on the question of how we cope with the delegation process.
Thirdly-I have mentioned this before but it is worth mentioning again-the procedure committee should also take a look at the problem. Perhaps we should be establishing a process whereby all regulations go to the committee most directly affected. For example, regulations under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act should go to the agriculture committee at least once so the members of that committee have an opportunity to discuss them. After all, those members are the most concerned with agricultural matters, much more so than the members of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. They can pronounce more directly on whether the regulations carry out the intention of the legislation and on what they understood to be the intention when that legislation went through.
We do have the advantage in the regulations committee that regulations and statutory instruments are automatically referred to us if passed, I think, since January 1, 1972. Once a regulation properly comes before us, as I understand that most generous reference in section 26 of the Statutory Instruments Act, then it is possible for us to again and again go to the same regulation if we feel it is offensive or should be examined for some reason or another. We never lose our power to examine that particular regulation. The fact is that some of us would feel comfortable if the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry would look at some of the regulations dealing with fisheries, in that they only do so once in a lifetime.
My fourth and final point is that more members and more people from the public should use the process of the committee to look at regulations. If those regulations bother them, they
March 28, 1977

should at least write in and say, "Have you chaps taken a look at this? It seems to affect some of my basic rights. I wonder how you can allow that sort of thing to happen in any part of the parliamentary system."
The purpose of the speech I have just delivered, and the speeches the House has heard from other hon. members, no doubt will give some emphasis to the fact that we are trying to cope with the problems of the delegated process and the fact that we are trying to enlist as many people to this cause as we possibly can.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker, this second report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, as those who have read it will be able to testify, is a lengthy, complicated, legal document. It is none the worse for that. In effect, it has to be that sort of report dealing with that sort of subject matter. It is important that the salient features may not possibly be recognized because of the torrent of legalistic words. I will bring out some of those features which deserve special consideration.
The committee's primary function is to maintain a watch on the laws made by the delegates of parliament and to subject all rules and regulations to parliamentary scrutiny. I suggest that that delegation is necessary. This delegation is regarded as necessary, as evidenced by the well-known practice of almost all developed countries and their legislatures. There is no way we can rail against delegated legislation and say it should not be: it is here to stay; it is a natural result of the type of society in which we live.
The report which we are now discussing indicates that the intentions of parliament in respect of parliamentary scrutiny have been whittled down by a series of interpretations of the meaning of the expression "rules and statutory instruments" by legalistic refinements of the meaning of these terms. This exercise has apparently been promoted by the Department of Justice. It is not too much to say that the report indicates in great detail how the will of parliament has been frustrated by this process of interpretation by the bureaucracy within the Department of Justice. I am glad the Minister of Justice is going to speak after me. He will be able to correct me if I am wrong, or say wherein the report is wrong.
The interpretation given by the legal advisers of the Privy Council office removes from the class of instruments covered by the act a substantial number of subordinate laws. This is done by the application of what the committee called a magic formula. Unless an enabling power reads that the governor in council or minister may "by order, by rule, by regulation, by warrant, by tariff', and so on, there can be no statutory instruments.
This interpretation would remove, from the class of statutory instruments and the committee's scrutiny, instruments made under enabling powers in common use. For example, the phrase "terms and conditions as the governor in council may prescribe", or "as the board may regulate", do not, in the opinion of the Privy Council, constitute statutory instruments and therefore they are free of regulation.
Statutory Instruments
In this connection I would remind the House that Bill C-24 on immigration which recently received second reading in this House contains much of such phraseology which would remove some of the rules passed by it from the scrutiny of the committee. For example, under section 14 of the new Immigration Act it is provided that where an immigration officer is satisfied that it would not be contrary to this act or the regulations to grant admission to an immigrant who has been authorized to come into Canada, he may, after such further examination as he deems necessary, grant landing to such person and impose terms and conditions of a prescribed nature. That is language which, according to the legal authorities of the Privy Council, means that the rules made in respect of providing or imposing terms and conditions are not to be scrutinized by any instrument of parliament. As far as I can make out, they do not even require publication. That is a secret form of legislating with respect to the rights of people.
The instrument or document describing these terms and conditions for admission would not be a statutory instrument, according to this interpretation, and would not require publication or scrutiny by the committee. To my way of thinking, the legal contortions used to arrive at this extraordinary conclusion are beyond comprehension. It is obvious that they deprive the Regulations and Statutory Instruments Act of the application parliament intended them to have; namely, the committee should have wide jurisdiction over all statutory instruments and legislation. There is no rhyme, no sense or no reason in saying that one parcel of documents should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and others should not.
To put it another way, an ingenious formula has been found for substantially curtailing the purposes of parliament in passing the act. I know what the purposes were, because I was a member of the MacGuigan committee and I took part in all the debates which dealt with this subject. I believe it was the intention of parliament that this committee should have wide jurisdiction and should not be restricted by these legalistic interpretations which deprive it of much of its jurisdiction. To go into the legal merits of this matter would tax the patience of the House, and indeed I would not even have time to go into them.
The committee said, on page 19 of the report, that despite widespread belief to the contrary, there is no system whereby all orders which have legislative effect and are tabled in parliament are automatically referred to the standing joint committee and are published so that the public can know what is being done. That is the purpose of this, so that the public can know, through the filing and scrutiny of this Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, what is being done to remove an atmosphere of secrecy about laws applicable to Canadian citizens and others in Canada. The committee report continues to read as follows:
There is a system only for regulations and not for all statutory instruments, many of which are effectively hidden, are unpublished or are unknown even to the parliamentary committee.
80010-71V2

March 28, 1977
Statutory Instruments
Because these documents are not said to be statutory instruments, they were not even reported to the committee and the committee did not know that many of them existed-and to this day the committee does not know how many of them exist. The committee recommended the adoption of the definition proposed by the so-called MacGuigan committee which would clear up this question of definition. We hope the government will afford an early opportunity to remedy this situation.
The committee report also refers to the sub-delegation of the rule-making power and suggests that this should be clarified and cut down, and that such delegation should only be allowed when clearly provided for in the legislation. The committee further dealt with the power of dispensing with regulations in favour of individuals and raised many examples where this is being done at present. It was through the exercise of dispensing this power that James II lost his throne and Charles I lost his head. It constitutes a vicious practice designed to ensure that we are governed not by a democratic parliamentary system but by a bureaucracy.
No one in the House does not appreciate the necessity of having a bureaucracy of officials to administer the law, and indeed I think many of us have a good deal of respect for our officials who are serving this country. But to apply a term which I think was originally used in respect of the army and its position vis-a-vis the civilian power, the bureaucracy should be on tap, not on top.
The committee took the view that the wording of the definition section of the act is obscure, and the Privy Council office's interpretation of it is, and I quote the language of the report, "Quixotic in operation and subversive to the committee's function so narrowly to confine the committee as to hamstring it". This parliament is now having a report prepared for it by the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons saying that this provision has hamstrung the committee's functions. I think we should do something about that.
The committee refers to immigration guidelines which the House has been discussing recently in a different context. It says it is satisfied that these guidelines and manuals are in effect statutory instruments and should be disclosed. The committee reports that it has not been vouchsafed either a perusal of the guidelines or the detailed reasons for there not being statutory instruments, and is therefore unable to give an opinion as to whether the guidelines now in existence do, or do not, fall within section 58 of the Immigration Act, or do not lay down any rules applicable to subjects or immigrants.
I invite the House to consider how serious a statement that is. The committee of the House and of the Senate was not even allowed to look at the guidelines which I for one am able to assert dealt with the rules by which we admit people or refuse them admittance to Canada. We were not allowed to even see what these documents are. As they said, they could not judge whether the guidelines now in existence do, or do not, fall within the relevant section of the act.
While it is obvious that the committee cannot pronounce itself on documents it has not seen, these guidelines do contain matters of substance which guide immigration officers' deci-

sions in the case of applicants for immigration into Canada. These documents have been kept rigidly secret, not only from the public or those directly concerned in the cases involved but from parliament as a whole. I hope parliament has enough self-respect to say that this must not continue. The total picture is one, therefore, of frustration and obstruction as well as one of secrecy.
The committee has had before it, as the House knows, another reference to inquire into the secrecy of public documents whose production has been sought in parliament. This committee has not yet reported. I am not quite sure whether it has up to date terms of reference now before it. This refers to a subject that is widely known under the heading of the freedom of information act. This is all part of the same picture in which some of us in the House are striving to bring about greater public participation in the decisions of government. The present report, however, lays the groundwork for some general observations, namely, that we are not governed by participatory democracy, which would require full disclosure of what the government is doing unless the matter falls within a special exemption as clearly set out in the statute.
It is imperative that we should change this situation. Democracy means government by the people. It is essential, for this to be effective, that the people and their representatives should have knowledge. Knowledge, in effect, is power. It can hardly be too much to say that those who have knowledge and power today are the bureaucracy who are supposed to be subordinate. Parliament should take this matter up with vigour and should insist that the definition of regulations and statutory instruments be made broad enough so the committee can function effectively and the Senate and the House of Commons are respected and recognized.
Perhaps we do not need a revolution such as occurred in the days of the Stuart kings of England. But what I think we need is a revolutionary change in attitude, and I hope that when the Minister of Justice speaks in this debate he will say what the government is planning to do to ensure that we move to that freer, more open society in which people have power and in which other instruments of government are in the subordinate position in which they should be.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the chairman of the committee and the hon. member for Greenwood. As both of them indicated, the matter under discussion, namely, the work of the committee and the report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, is immensely complicated and complex, not only because of the legal technicalities-some of which have been raised this afternoon-but also by reason of the novelty of this area of parliamentary inquiry. Traditionally, in this country, questions as to the legality or not of legislative instruments were left, until the Statutory Instruments Act came into force, to the realm of the courts.
This is the first substantive report by the committee, and as such it merits very careful consideration, as suggested by the
March 28, 1977

hon. co-chairman. I can assure him and the House that the report is receiving careful attention within my department and by the government and that it shall continue to do so.
Because of the importance of the subject 1 accept with readiness and support the suggestion of the co-chairman that some means be found by which this subject could be reviewed, analyzed and debated-if 1 recall the co-chairman's suggestion correctly-on an annual basis so that from time to time we can see the progress which is being made in the area of providing-and this is the desire of hon. members of this House and of the government-that delegated legislation is given proper scrutiny to ensure that this delegation is being done properly.
As the hon. co-chairman indicated, parliament need not fear the delegation process, and as both speakers before me have indicated, that delegation is not new to parliament. It is certainly something which in this complex society and in this complex day we are going to have to continue. And what we as a parliament, and obviously those on this side as members of the administration, must be concerned about is that this delegation is used properly and that we have-on a continuing basis-an adequate process to ensure that its exercise is scrutinized.
The government is as concerned about the scrutiny of subordinate legislation as much as any hon. member in the House and certainly as much as hon. members on the opposition side. I am glad that the hon. co-chairman pointed out the work which preceded the passage of the Statutory Instruments Act, namely, the work of the MacGuigan committee which lead to the passage of the present legislation and the work which hon. members on both sides of the House have done. The hon. co-chairman mentioned a group of people, and he indicated that in any list we invariably leave one out. I would like to add to his list. It was a matter of great interest and concern to the late prime minister Lester B. Pearson that we legislate a proper regime for inspection of statutory instruments. He took particular, personal and keen interest in the work of the MacGuigan committee and the legislation which flowed from it.
I think the process put in place by the Statutory Instruments Act and the standing committee is basically a good one. Our concern here, in what is a new function for parliament-at least, for the Canadian parliament-should be about continually reviewing how the system is working. We should continually be concerned about refining our system as time goes by and bettering the system of scrutiny as our insight and experience increases.
Before dealing with the report, I want to mention one specific matter. While it was not raised by the co-chairman, it was raised by the hon. member for Greenwood. He complained about the definition of statutory instrument-and I also wish to complain about it-but he said that the definition resulted in a whittling down of the matters which could be reviewed by
Statutory Instruments
the committee. He seemed to imply, as some of the speeches in the other place have implied, that there was almost a conspiracy on the part of officials of the Department of Justice to do that. I was pleased to note that later the hon. member indicated in his remarks that he had a very high regard for many of the public servants who serve our country. I am glad he said that, but because of what else has been said in connection with the drawing of regulations I would like to make one point very strongly. Simply stated, I am confident in asserting that the officers of the Privy Council office section of the Department of Justice bring a very high degree of competence and dedication to the very difficult job of examining the myriad of regulatory enactments which pass through their hands. In saying that, I in no way want to take away from the dedication and competence of those in the committee who do exactly the same job.
I would remind hon. members that under the terms of section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act, all proposed regulations must be inspected by the Department of Justice to ensure that they are authorized by the statute pursuant to which they are made; that they do not constitute an unusual or unexpected use of the authority pursuant to which they are made; that they do not trespass unduly on existing rights and freedoms; and that they are not, in any case, inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights; and the form of draftmanship of the proposed regulations are in accordance with established standards. In carrying out their work as officers in those inspections or in those analyses of matters passed under the Statutory Instruments Act, they are performing duties specified under the Statutory Instruments Act and under section 4 of the Department of Justice Act which provides that the administration of public affairs must be in accordance with the law.
Because of some possible inference by the hon. member for Greenwood and some remarks made in the other place, I want to assure the House that, from my observation, the dedication of the officers of my department to the principle that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law, and their dedication to the rule of law, is as strong as that of any member of the committee or any hon. member of this House.
While, obviously, in any free, democratic and parliamentary society it is essential that there be constant vigilance against abuse of public power, in my view this country is undoubtedly fortunate in having law officers of the quality, competence and dedication that it has. While it is fashionable, and always worth a headline, to attack senior civil servants, it has been my experience in four different departments that as a country and as a parliament we are generally well served by this group of dedicated, hard-working and capable advisers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: I think from time to time that needs to be said, and I think these advisers are the first to recognize the point I

March 28, 1977
Statutory Instruments
have just made, namely, that in any free society there must be constant vigilance against abuse of public power by those holding public office, elected or otherwise.
As I said in the beginning, this is the first time a committee of parliament has reported on the operations of the Statutory Instruments Act. There is a need for fresh approaches to the problems raised in the report. I want to say that my department and the government as a whole has shown willingness to develop such new approaches.
I would illustrate that claim by example, Mr. Speaker. One problem-dealt with at considerable length in the report, as it should be, because it was a matter of very great concern to the committee-was how to provide the committee with adequate background information to the regulations it was examining while at the same time protecting the confidentiality of the advice provided by my department to its client departments and to the government generally. This protection is akin to that provided by the solicitor-client privilege at common law. The hon. member for Peace River might note-and I see him taking notes-that I believe even he recognizes the confidentiality of legal advice. I do not want to quote Hansard, but when he was a parliamentary secretary on another occasion he made a very long speech about it. He also included an exemption for legal advice covering this type of material in the right to information bill that he introduced in the last session of parliament.
On the one hand there is the question of protecting the legal advice given by my department to the government, and on the other the valid and legitimate need of the committee to have more information about the regulations they are scrutinizing. A solution was developed to this problem which hinges upon the distinction between legal advice and statements by the relevant departments as to their legal and policy position vis-a-vis the particular regulation in question. As a result of meeting with the committee and discussing this matter at length, I made a series of recommendations to my colleagues in cabinet who agreed-and the committee has been subsequently so informed-that henceforth each department shall have a senior adviser designated to provide these statements. My deputy minister has written to other deputies to inform them of this new arrangement. Each department will have a senior officer who will provide these legal and policy statements to the committee upon request.
I would hope that when the question of legal advice and the need of the committee for information arises the arrangement we have proposed will serve both those needs and interests. I am happy that the committee notes these new arrangements in its report and expresses the hope that they will serve the committee's purpose. I join in that hope.
It has been mentioned that this is a very legalistic and technical report. I should like to deal, in order, with some of the other sections of the report, and this discussion will as a result become somewhat complicated. I think it is necessary, however, that I put some observations on the record. This
being an extensive report covering many areas of the subject, I would hope that members of the committee would not want me to respond today with a speech to cover every paragraph. Hon. members are having some difficulty keeping awake at the present time, and they certainly would be sound asleep if I dealt with every paragraph of the report, as it raises many, many issues.
I would like to begin with Sections D and F of the report which deal with the form and public availability of statutory instruments. With regard to the form of statutory instruments, the committee's basic concern relates to the citation of the statutory authority for each instrument, the citation of previously relevant amendments and the publication of explanatory notes. When they conduct their inspection of each statutory instrument, the Privy Council office section of the Department of Justice will normally see that the relevant statutory authority is not only legally valid but that it is also cited. Henceforth, this long-standing administrative practice will be refined to as great an extent as possible to ensure that the circumstances referred to by the committee will become even more rare. 1 think the co-chairman acknowledged that progress was already being made in this area.
The matter of providing appropriate footnote referencing to the latest relevant amendments to instruments is now being looked into by the Privy Council office, as is the matter of publication of explanatory notes. I can only state at the present time that the clerk of the Privy Council is considering the committee's recommendations very seriously, and I hope very shortly to be able to inform committee members of new developments in this regard.
I should like to turn now to section E of the report which concerns alleged defects in the Statutory Instruments Act and which has been the subject of comments by the hon. member for Greenwood. The co-chairman of the committee has also made a number of recommendations in this regard which principally, but not entirely, relate to the definition of "statutory instrument" in the act. The committee says it has found this definition incomprehensible and unworkable. In response to that, I say that basically I have sympathy with them on this point and, as I indicated when I appeared before the committee, my officials and I are prepared to consider any specific suggestions the committee might wish to make toward improving the definition. The committee has recommended the inclusion of certain departmental guidelines, directives and manuals-a recommendation which I have raised in correspondence with the committee and the relevant departments.
The committee also recommended that a new definition of a statutory instrument should be arrived at "by taking the sum of the law-making exercised by the Crown and its agencies and any other delegate or subdelegate of parliament and where made pursuant to or under a statute or to the prerogative and by declaring the whole to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny." This would, however, cause some problems of interpretation just as does the present definition. While I think the need for some exemption to this definition was dealt with in the committee's report, it would seem to me, touching only on

March 28, 1977

certain matters, that such a general definition would, subject to whatever exemptions existed, include all bylaws made by private corporations established by an act of parliament, copies of every order made by a judicial or quasi-judicial body established by act of parliament, plus the ordinances of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and any regulations or orders made thereunder.
The value or even the wisdom of having a committee of the federal parliament reviewing this kind of material seems somewhat questionable to me. There is a need for a better definition of statutory instrument and a need to avoid some of the problems created by the present definition. And, as was said, my officials and I are considering the observations made in the report. And, I say that to indicate that in the light of difficulties with regard to the definition, I would still consider any further observations emanating from members of the committee or the committee itself. These would help in the formulation of a precise definition which may be proposed as a change to the Statutory Instruments Act.
The hon. member for Greenwood said he hopes the government will provide an early opportunity for dealing with this question in parliament. I assure him that my officials and I are considering the observations of the committee in its report but, as the hon. member knows, the timing of the introduction of any amendments to the act is not in my hands. It is entirely out of my hands in that it is a matter for the President of the Privy Council and the government as a whole. One appreciates that the legislative list with which this parliament must deal is extensive.
The committee also recommends that the Statutory Instruments Act should be amended so that as a general rule no subordinate legislation should come into effect before it is published. The previous speaker also raised the problem of publication. The Statutory Instruments Act at present already effectively deals with this point in a slightly different manner. Subsection 11(2) provides that, with certain specific exceptions, no person shall be convicted of an offence consisting of a contravention of any regulation that at the time of the alleged contravention was not published in the Canada Gazette in both official languages.
The subsection makes a sensible exception in most cases where it is proved that at the date of the alleged contravention reasonable steps had been taken to bring the purport of the regulation to the notice of those persons likely to be affected by it. For example, there are occasions when it is necessary to act quickly, such as at the close of a fishing season for conservation purposes. This happens in my part of the country weekly, sometimes almost daily. In such cases signs are posted immediately near the river or lake affected, which would seem to be a better method of informing the concerned parties than publication in the Canada Gazette, which I do not think is a best-seller among fishermen. If the government waited for publication in the Gazette, the purpose of the closing would be lost.
Statutory Instruments
The committee also recommends that all subordinate legislation, unless expressly excepted by the terms of the Statutory Instruments Act, should be registered, published and transmitted to the committee. The act, however, already requires all regulations to be transmitted to the clerk of the Privy Council for registration. Furthermore, it provides as a general rule that no regulation shall come into force before registration. It also requires publication in the Canada Gazette after registration.
Finally, with regard to transmission of regulations to the committee, my understanding is that directives already exist on this point. Steps will be taken to ensure that this is indeed the case already prior to the introduction of, say, amendments to the act. In effect, with respect to regulations the committee's recommendation is already being implemented. The further recommendation that these requirements should extend to all subordinate legislation as defined by the committee may cause severe difficulties. One need only again mention court orders and ordinances of the territorial councils to give hon. members some idea of these difficulties. This issue is one which will be receiving further attention from appropriate officials.
The committee also recommends that "the Statutory Instruments Act should provide for a statutory instruments reference committee having the authority to issue a conclusive determination for the purposes of parliamentary scrutiny as to whether any particular document is a statutory instrument or not." The effect of this recommendation would be to delegate to the proposed reference committee the determination of the term "statutory instrument", as I understand the recommendation, for all the purposes of the act and not just for the purpose of scrutiny by the standing joint committee.
Personally, I have some difficulty with assigning to a committee of the House the task of defining words in a statute. Hopefully, an improvement of the definition would make such a recommendation unnecessary. An improved definition could also handle one other recommendation of the committee, namely, that any departmental guidelines, directives or manuals which contain substantive rules not contained in statutes should be included in the definition of "statutory instruments" and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It seems to me, unless I misread the report, that if these difficulties could be dealt with by way of definition, we should not need some of the other recommendations. I am glad to note that the co-chairman seems to indicate that I have read the report correctly.
1 apologize for being so technical, Mr. Speaker, but I think the members of the committee would wish me to deal fully with their report. Recommendation 10 of the summary, in section E of the report, advocates that the committee should be provided with reasons wherever any statutory instrument is to come into force before registration and publication. This strikes me as an extremely reasonable proposal and I am pleased to announce that steps will be taken to implement it. The government agrees, as well, with the next recommendation of the committee, namely, that the words "regulation-making authority" should be redefined. The objective here is to make it clear that these words mean the department, ministry or

March 28, 1977
Statutory Instruments
other body which recommends the regulations to the governor in council.
The final recommendtion of the committee with respect to the Statutory Instruments Act is that section 32 should be amended to require the publication of regulations registered under that section. With few exceptions, the publication of these regulations has now been carried out. I think the committee in its report mentions, for example, among the remainder which have not been published, regulations which govern the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. With respect to all of these, the Department of Justice will publish this summer a complete consolidation including all regulations and other statutory instruments enacted since 1955. This consolidation would include all regulations registered under section 32, which will give effect in practice to the recommendation of the committee.
In section H of the report the committee recommends that any subdelegation of rule-making powers should be expressly spelled out in the establishing statute. This recommendation, like many of those in the report, raises what is essentially a fine question of law involving the extent of the authority granted by the general words which are traditionally employed when conferring regulation-making powers. After considerable research and consideration of the matter, Professor E. A. Driedger, Q.C., a well known Canadian authority on legislation, has concluded that the results of the court decisions to date "would appear to be that there is no rule or presumption for or against subdelegation and that in each case it is a question of interpretation of the language of the particular statute". The committee rejects this conclusion and I suggest one can only await the final decision of the courts on this matter.
With regard, however, to the general question of the desirability of subdelegation, it should be noted that the combination of the complexity of contemporary regulations and the need for flexibility in applying them in the field has created what is, indeed, an inescapable need for subdelegation as discussed in this section and sections I, J and K of the report. In my discussion of these sections I will attempt to demonstrate this necessity. In section I of the report the committee deals with the language of delegation. My officials are now studying, for future use, the general recommendations contained therein. Hopefully, hon. members will bear the committee's recommendations in mind in enacting forthcoming legislation. It should be noted, however, that it would not be desirable to impose a straitjacket on the words used in legislation by forbidding, as the committee recommends, the use of particular terms such as "respecting".
Section K of the report concerns enabling powers which are granted by the use of Appropriation Acts, the so-called "dollar items". This was a topic of considerable debate and a ruling by you, Mr. Speaker, last week. I do not intend to repeat all that was said at that time. I follow the example of the co-chairman who moved the motion before us today. One can understand
the concern which was debated last week to which Your Honour's ruling adds a new perspective. I will leave it simply to the debate that was held last week and to the effect of the ruling of Your Honour with regard to that matter.
Section S of the report deals with the power of officers of agricultural agencies. In this regard I would like, first of all, to state that, as the committee itself points out, the regulations setting out the powers of officers of agricultural agencies are within the terms of the acts of parliament governing these matters. Second, I should point out that there does not seem to be evidence that agricultural agencies are presently trampling on the civil liberties of citizens. As the committee has recognized, the Department of Agriculture has co-operated willingly in removing objectionable features of regulations when these have been brought to its attention.
I would like now to turn to a section of the report which I understand has given rise to a fair amount of controversy amongst the members of the committee. It was touched upon by the hon. member for Greenwood. A good portion of the committee's report deals with regulations that exempt one or more individuals from the application of general regulations. Part J of the report gives examples of such regulations, and appendix III of the report sets out at considerable length why the committee considers such regulations to be illegal.
It is the committee's opinion that such regulations have been outlawed by the "revolutionary settlement" embodied in the English bill of rights of 1689. The report sets out the history surrounding the passage of the act in Britain and concludes, in essence, that the so-called "dispensing regulations" cannot validly be made unless each and every case is expressly authorized in the body of the statute itself. This particular matter was mentioned by the hon. member for Greenwood and my name has been linked with those who in times past have "lost their heads" over the issue. I have read speeches made in the other place by the co-chairman from that place wishing to give me the title "latter-day Stuart"-a title which I reject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe you are a Latter Day Saint.


Stanley Ronald Basford: This would seem to be an issue which, in the final instance, involves a subtle point of statutory interpretation. It is not extraordinary that there is disagreement between the lawyers on the committee and those of the Department of Justice as to the interpretation of the sections which provide for the creation of regulations. Justice's view is simply that all the regulation-making powers in question include the power to limit the application of the regulations. Since the regulationmaking power is itself a parliamentary enactment, the "revolutionary settlement" principle is not infringed upon.
The report also indicates, in section N, the committee's disagreement with the practice of departing from the language of the statutes when the same idea is repeated in the instruments made thereunder. On the very few occasions where this has occurred, the responsible departments acknowledged that it was not a proper practice. Certainly, the officers in the Department of Justice will endeavour to assist the committee
[Mr. Basford.J
March 28, 1977

by ensuring that such instances do not occur, or are corrected if they do occur.
In section O of the report the committee indicates that the statutory conditions precedent to the making of published instruments should be recounted in the preamble as having been complied with. The committee has noted, however, that the legal advisers to the Privy Council office have co-operated with it in this regard and they, undoubtedly, will continue to do so in future. The report raises many other technical points which, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, are too numerous to cover here. In conclusion, I would simply like to state that the Department of Justice and the government will continue to examine the good work of the committee in what, as was also said before, is a new area of parliamentary activity, scrutiny and reporting.
It should be noted that there have been occasions where the legal views of the committee have been brought to the attention of justice officers who have agreed, and have subsequently recommended to the departments that the regulations in question be amended.
I agree with the comments of the co-chairman that we must always ensure that there is in place an effective means of scrutiny, and that we in parliament as much as within government itself, have two jobs, namely to ensure that our regulations are properly written and properly passed. We also have to ensure that the committee gets the kind of information, support and help it needs to do its job properly. We should not rely upon the courts to ensure that our regulations are properly passed. We should not rely upon the hope that if a regulation is not properly passed, some citizen will take it to court and challenge it. It is our responsibility to put into place both the proper governmental and parliamentary processes and procedures.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I must inform the hon. minister that his allotted time has expired. He may continue only with unanimous consent. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I would indicate that I have about one minute left. I was making the point that while we have to ensure that we always have in place appropriate governmental processes and parliamentary procedures to ensure that our regulations are proper and that we should not rely upon citizens having to go to court to exercise their right and have the court declare regulations ultra vires. However, it is significant that almost every regulation passed by the government affects a citizen in some way, some corporation in some way, or some association in some way.
A search of the court proceedings of this country would indicate that though from time to time particular regulations are knocked out by the courts, these are very rare occasions indeed. I believe that on the whole we can take some comfort from the fact that the processes within government and within
Statutory Instruments
parliament have ensured that only very few regulations are challenged in the courts. This perspective is important when our attention turns, as it undoubtedly will from time to time, to cases where there has been a mistake.
Overall, the government is desirous of establishing a spirit of co-operation with the statutory instruments committee. The willingness to create new systems and adopt new procedures, as demonstrated in the initiatives I have described today-for example, the solution we have put forward with respect to the committee's information requirements-is significant, and we hope the committee will adopt the same posture in its future work and that our future relationship will continue to be one of co-operation, recognizing that there is good will and devotion to the rule of law and the public interest not only on the part of the committee but on the part of the government and of my own officials and advisers.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, later on I shall commend the minister for some of the things he has said, and criticize him for others, but at the moment I should like to comment on the last statement he made, that there are very few occasions upon which members of the public have successfully been able to challenge orders in council and regulations.
Of course that is true, but one of the main reasons is that most individuals affected feel that for one reason or another they cannot, as it were, fight "City Hall" with any chance of success. In other cases they do not know how to look for these regulations or go about having them altered. Many cases have come to my attention as a member of the bar and as a member of parliament in which citizens who have been adversely affected by orders in council and regulations of the federal government-and, I am sure, of provincial governments as well-lack the opportunity, the cash and the knowledge to take to court the body responsible for the unfair and improper regulations which have affected them. It is as well to bear in mind, in this regard, the somewhat technical language which has been used in this debate by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice and by the hon. member for Greenwood.
Effectively, there are two questions at issue here. First, there is the entire principle of the use of orders in council and regulations which affect the people in so many ways. Then there is the application of those orders in council. My learned friend from Halifax-East Hants, the co-chairman of the committee, has stated that parliament is supreme. Mr. Speaker, parliament was supreme. It is supreme no longer because of the very use of orders in council and regulations of the kind we are discussing. I am not blaming anyone in particular; I am sure we all have some share of the blame to assume. If this parliament is bleeding to death, as some say it is, much of it is from self-inflicted wounds. We sit back and allow these things to happen. Our inability to deal with this situation is illustrated by the history of this particular committee. I recall debating this subject back in 1965 with the then prime minister-I am glad the Minister of Justice raised the fact that the late Lester B. Pearson was instrumental in bringing about the course of events which ultimately led to a greater willingness to subject these matters to parliamentary scrutiny.
4394

March 28, 1977
Adjournment Motion
We were debating the need for an ombudsman, and at that time I told the prime minister that while I had no objection to this idea it was, in my view exceedingly important to establish, in the Canadian parliament, some kind of scrutiny committee such as that which already existed in the United Kingdom. Mr. Pearson agreed with me. I subsequently crossed the floor of the House and talked with him on several occasions, and it was following those discussions and the intervention of other members, that the MacGuigan committee was set up. That committee approached its work with persistence and a great deal of study. A very good report was produced. Unfortunately, its recommendations were not completely followed. But that was 12 years ago, Mr. Speaker. It has taken 12 years to get around to the report, to the presentation of a bill, a debate on the bill, the establishment of the present standing joint committee and here, for the first time since the matter was raised in the House, to taking action to come to grips with the problem which afflicts us. It is all very well for the Minister of Justice to say we are going to do this, or we are going to do that. If it takes another 12 years to come to grips with the problems our committee has raised, God help the country!
I see it is almost five p.m. On a point of order, this is a debate on a motion and I believe that, properly speaking, the debate should continue and that private members' business should not intervene. It is my recollection, however, that there has been some discussion on this matter and I am quite prepared, if it is the unanimous wish of the House, to see the debate adjourned so that private members' hour can proceed, in which case may I call it five o'clock?


Ralph Goodale: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion between representatives of the various parties and there is, I understand, consensus that we should proceed with private members' hour today and deal with notice of motion No. 15 in the name of the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There have been such discussions, Mr. Speaker, and we agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my understanding, then, that we will proceed to private members' business.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Transport-Appointment and terms of reference of commission to study problems in Newfoundland; the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro)-National

Defence-Policy of department with respect to uniforms for cadets.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.
Shall notice of motion No. 4, in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), stand?


Ralph Goodale: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of implementing programs to assist the development of small business in this country, consisting of such positive initiatives as (a) allowing tax credits for investment in small business (b) providing assistance in the formation of small business export consortia (c) changing government tender practices so that small business supplies a portion of government purchased goods and services (d) reducing the government paperwork burden imposed on small business.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by saying that in my mind there is no segment of our society which unites this country as much as the business world; that is to say, business in general, and small business in particular. I believe this is an important observation to keep in mind, especially during these troubled times when the threat of separation and the possibility of the ultimate break-up of Canada is hovering over every Canadian.
The fact is that business problems, concerns and potential solutions in Victoria are the same as in Regina, Toronto, Quebec City, Halifax and St. John's. Therefore, if we are to keep the remaining binding fibres of our society intact, we must all pool our efforts and resources in supporting and encouraging the growth and stability of the free market system and, therefore, the basis of this system which I believe to be small and medium-sized enterprises. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in most cases the government either ignores or overlooks this sector which forms the backbone of our economic way of life. It is true that from time to time, however, the government does throw the odd bone to the small business community, some of them quite worth while. Unfortunately, I believe that these few and far between moves are made primarily for pacifying reasons with no basic, over-all commitment in mind.
March 28, 1977

March 28, 1977
Small Business
small entrepreneurial operations, do not have the manpower to handle the massive volume of government demands now made for paperwork of various descriptions. Too many small businessmen who are victims of an unco-ordinated leap-frogging by government departments in their demands for ever more statistics find the productive effort is increasingly swamped by form-filling.
Laws and regulations, often made by government to regulate the activities of large corporations, have often failed to take into account the small and medium-sized businesses which find themselves defenceless in a bizarre jungle of apparently conflicting regulations without the aid of the platoons of corporate lawyers, tax accountants and government relations men who serve larger firms. Even regulations which at first might seem fairly innocuous, such as the federal government's labelling act, can put many hitherto prosperous companies into bankruptcy.
The government does not appear to realize in any meaningful way that the survival of small business is inescapably linked to the survival of the mixed economy. Therefore, other than my insistence that it is imperative to reverse the generally existing philosophies of centralization in this country by all of our governments, I believe most strongly that the government must begin compiling a definitive policy on small business. When asked about a policy, the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Marchand) stated four or five months ago that a policy would soon be forthcoming. When asked again just last week he indicated that he had no idea as to when a policy, if ever, would be forthcoming.


An hon. Member:: He didn't say "if ever".


Otto John Jelinek: A policy must be forthcoming by this government, before it is too late. A step toward that direction would be for this House to accept some of the basic proposals listed in this motion. If I may, I will read them again. One is, "allowing tax credits for investment in small business". Everyone knows that we have a non-competitive banking system in Canada, unlike that of the United States, and unless you are a large, multinational corporation, and unless you have enough collateral to triple or quadruple the amount of money that is needed for your small business expansion, you are more often than not unable to get a loan. The biggest problem is raising funds.
This suggestion of allowing tax credits for investment would solve a two-purpose situation. First, we would create an opportunity for further investment by Canadians in Canada, rather than going south of the border, which is the case now. Second, we would be making funds available to the small business sector which does not now have the opportunity to deal with fund-raising.
Continuing the proposals: "providing assistance in the formation of small business export consortia". Japan is one of the best examples in this area. That is why their economy is flourishing. Their small businesses are flourishing because they

are small, independently and privately owned businesses. Most of them fall under umbrella organizations which help export their needs to the rest of the world. Something along those lines should be considered in this country.
The proposals continue: "changing government tender practices so that small business supplies a portion of government purchased goods and services". That is better known as the "set aside" program. In the United States this has been in effect for some time. One of the main reasons is that that country considers it very important to act on behalf of the small businessman and has had for some time a small business act. I would like to quote from section 2 of the United States small business act in respect to the "set aside" program which reads as follows:
It is the declared policy of the Congress that the government should aid, counsel, assist, and protect, in so far as is possible, the interests of small business concerns in order to preserve free competitive enterprise, to ensure that a fair proportion of the total purchases and contracts or subcontracts for property and services for the government... be placed with small business enterprises-
That is a very simple solution, yet one that is not taking place in Canada and one that has not been considered to date. It hurts the small businessman as much as any other area that I have mentioned. The final proposal in this motion reads: "reducing the government paperwork burden imposed on small business". I realize the minister has already taken a move in this direction: he has taken the initiative to reduce the reporting of corporations to Statistics Canada. I compliment him on that move. It is something for which our party was pushing for years prior to the appointment of the minister responsible for this area. That is a move in the right direction.
I would hope the government would go much further than that, because there are countless government surveys, statistics and regulations within nearly every other department where curbs and waste are taking place. Curbs on this wastage must take place as soon as possible in order to assist the small business community. The provinces are to blame for this as well as the federal government.
To sum up, then, what must be done is, on one hand, reduce considerably the existing bureaucracy which is strangling the small business community, while on the other hand make available incentive programs which, by way of a tax system, would be based upon research and development, increased employment, productivity, export sales, expansion, secondary manufacturing, and so on.
In the few brief moments I have left, let us take, for instance, the secondary manufacturing. Canada is the richest nation, per capita, in natural resources, and look at the state of our economy! One of the reasons is because we do not have the incentive. We do not offer incentives to industry to develop our secondary manufacturing. We need the United States and other foreign concerns to develop some of our natural resources. Then we fight like hell to sell them to other countries-Japan being one of them-where we help their economy, where we help their employment, their unemployment being zero. Then we turn around and buy the finished product-very often at a much higher cost-made out of our own natural resources, in the first place, and dug up by the
March 28, 1977

Americans. If we want the trend in our economy to reverse itself, then surely we must come up with incentive programs to assist this very vital sector which has not been established in our country.
To my mind, "incentive" is the key word and one that, unfortunately, is disappearing from the political vocabulary in Ottawa. Instead of incentive programs we are now in the midst of the greatest give-away era in our history. The higher the number of direct grants or give-aways, the less incentive for realistic productivity. Just as the higher the number of unemployment benefits, the less incentive for long-range employment.
My concern is so genuine regarding the problems of small business and the freedom of enterprise that I hope the seriousness of these problems can be dealt with on a non-partisan basis. We cannot wait any longer to move in a positive direction in this regard. I hope hon. members will realize the seriousness of this situation and accept some of the proposals which I have outlined today. Opportunities still exist in Canada, but they are diminishing very quickly. Let us not lose them completely.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek), while we do not always agree with some of the comments he makes in the House, has brought forward a worth-while motion. When one looks a little more closely at the recommendations that are contained in the motion, one can easily see that a good part of it has been taken from the Speech from the Throne. In it the government promised, first, measures to reduce the paperwork burden on small enterprises; second, to render government lending sources more accessible to small businesses; and third, to restructure major programs of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in order to orient them more specifically to small and medium-sized businesses.


An hon. Member:: Copycats.


Maurice James Harquail: The hon. member is correct in that. In introducing his motion this afternoon the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) agreed that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a good choice in selecting the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo to be Minister of State for Small Business.


Mr. Huntington:: Where is he?


Maurice James Harquail: I hear comments from the other side. I am surprised that only three conservative members are sufficiently interested in the motion to be here to support the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley this afternoon. I would have thought he would have been able to muster more support for Canadian small businessmen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Small Business


Maurice James Harquail: I was delighted to hear that this new, young minister, the Minister of State for Small Business, has travelled across this country and went to western Canada in January and to Atlantic Canada in March to meet small businessmen in this country. He had very good reason to do so, because it is estimated that over 60 per cent of Canadians work in small businesses either as employers or as employees.
Let me quote a few figures, Mr. Speaker. There are an estimated 329,000 small businesses in Canada. Those 329,000 businesses are in the following sectors; retail, 137,000; wholesale, 32,000; construction, 46,000; manufacturing, 37,000; service, 56,000; transportation and warehousing, 13,000; owners of apartments and other buildings, 8,000-for an estimated total of 329,000, which is over 60 per cent of the work force. So I can confidently state that small businesses are the lifeblood of the economy in Canada.


Otto John Jelinek: Then do something about it.


Maurice James Harquail: We are doing something about it. As a matter of fact, the Minister of State for Small Business, as he himself mentioned in the House this afternoon, will soon be bringing in a bill amending the Small Businesses Loans Act. He has been also working very diligently with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and is developing an excellent rapport with this and other organizations which have felt for some time as though they were cut off and did not have a voice in government.


Otto John Jelinek: They still don't.


Maurice James Harquail: Another example of positive action and good leadership by the government was indicated in the Speech from the Throne and in the appointment of the Minister of State for Small Business who travelled across the country to speak to this most important sector, namely, the entrepreneurs.
Another excellent move by the government to assist small business was through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which operates programs to encourage small business enterprises in northern Canada. They have programs to encourage and facilitate business development by native people throughout the country. These programs are the small business loans fund, which applies to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, the Eskimo loan fund and the Indian economic development fund. As well, the Minister of State for Small Business is consulting with small businesses in every part of the country regarding the Small Businesses Loans Act which is administered by the Department of Finance. Through it, Canadian chartered banks and other lending institutions make loans to businesses. The loans are backed by government guarantees. At present the interest rate under the act is 9'/2 per cent. At the end of March, 1977, the interest will be recalculated. The rate of 9'/2 per cent is only three-quarters of 1 per cent above the bank's prime rate, the rate charged to the bank's best customers.
Another direction in which the government is moving is to provide, through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, major support to small business in many regions of

March 28, 1977
Small Business
Canada under the Regional Development Incentives Act and also in the agricultural field through ARDA and special ARDA programs. Also, through the Canadian government office of tourism the government is providing a variety of programs in support of the tourist industry.
While I have this opportunity I should like to make a suggestion on behalf of Canadian small businesses that we bring some forceful recommendations to the House through the Minister of State for Small Business with regard to the competition act. All too often big businesses impinge on small businesses to the extent of, if not crippling them, putting them right out of business. Therefore, I would support any measure brought in by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) or the Minister of State for Small Business to give greater protection to small businessmen in Canada. This is much needed, as I know from the representations I receive at my constituency office.
One of the very important and effective ways in which our government can give greater assistance to small businessmen is by improving and tightening up legislation dealing with unfair competition. I am one of those who would certainly encourage new legislation brought into the House on this subject so that we might do much more even than is contemplated and than is done by the Minister of State for Small Business as well as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance on behalf of small businessmen in this country.
In summation, I should like to say that although the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley, in our view, does not always speak words of great wisdom, he has brought out some excellent points in his motion and 1 think we should express our thanks to him for bringing it forward. I have no difficulty in agreeing with the majority of the recommendations contained in his motion. However, as I have said, most of his recommendations are already contained in the Speech from the Throne and are being acted upon by the Minister of State for Small Business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate on the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek).
To start with, I would like to correct the remark of the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) that the motion came from the speech from the throne. May I say for his benefit, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the recommendations contained in his motion have been the subject of frequent comments for many years from members on this side of the House, and it is on the basis of those remarks and speeches that mention of this subject was made in the Speech from the Throne.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I was also surprised the Minister of State for Small Business, who was present in the House until a few minutes after five o'clock, saw fit to leave when a motion which elicits elaborate comment and information is being debated.


Maurice James Harquail: He had business with small businessmen.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: If that is the case, then I will forgive him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: There are four parts to this motion. The first is to allow tax credits for investment in small business. I think that is an important suggestion which gives us in the House an opportunity to offer a few comments on it. The greatest need is for small businesses to improve balance-sheet and profit and loss ratios which will improve the borrowing powers of small business in dealing with chartered banks.
Small business loans legislation should be adjusted to serve the equity and working capital needs of small business so that they can increase the leverage they have in dealing with chartered banks. I would also like to see interest rates on loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act tied to a rate above the prime. I suggest that that rate above prime should be in the order of 1.25 per cent to 1.75 per cent so that we do not again get into the situation we have experienced whereby we have fixed the rate and removed the incentive from chartered banks to involve themselves in government guaranteed loans.
I also think that after having gone through an era of a very high rate of inflation the amount of the loan, $50,000, should be increased to at least $75,000 and perhaps even to $100,000. Perhaps also that should come up for annual review.
In view of the inflation we have been through, and if the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Marchand) is recommending changes to the Small Businesses Loans Act, perhaps he should give consideration to increasing the gross volume of business for firms qualifying under that act. I suggest that we look at something in the order of $1.5 million.
I understand that the loss on these government guaranteed loans has been very small, and I would like to commend the officials in the Department of Finance for the performance they have achieved under this act to date. However, steps should be taken to make possible the use of this lending resource for equity and for working capital purposes. I think this would have a greater effect on the small business community than limiting it only to expenditure for capital use.
The government would also be well advised to study tax credit incentives which should be applicable to small businesses, that would give them the incentive to hire people. So far we have talked only about incentives to provide capital for fixed plant. I would like to see the loans re-arranged to provide assistance with regard to working capital areas and leverage areas, but one of the problems we have is that the activities of many small businesses are of a marginal and seasonal nature.
March 28, 1977

In many cases employees are laid off because of seasonal or peak demands, and these employees have to go on the UIC rolls. Then along come unforeseen windfalls or orders, and these small businesses go back to hire, but they cannot assure a period of employment which is long enough to cause people to come off UIC rolls and go back to work. That is quite understandable, and it is one of the faults in the design of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
We need a special study of cases like these so that UIC benefits can be interrupted without loss of sustaining benefits due or without people having to go through the earning and waiting period again. I urge the Minister of State (Small Business) to consider this because it is one of the serious employment problems in the small business sector. The UIC system should be molded to adapt to this variable which is so common among small businesses.
The government perhaps should also look at a tax credit for Canada Pension Plan and UIC costs to the small business owner as an incentive toward meeting the payroll taxes involved for small business employers when we are dealing with work which can employ those at the marginal perimeters of the Canadian work force.
On the matter of equity needs of small business, and the inherent risks for minority shareholders in small businesses, the government might also look at tax deduction features as it has done in the cases of film production and oil exploration. Surely the goal today is to generate economic activity, and what element of our industrial organization serves the marginal work force more than the small business component of our country?
I would now like to move to item (b) of the motion which would provide assistance in the formation of small business export consortia. I know of a person who went to Nigeria to attempt to sell Canadian assembled or manufactured generators. This person noticed that the fishing industry over there was short of the equipment we on the west coast take for granted. He travelled around and tried to put together a group of orders for equipment manufactured on the west coast. The federal government paid for this person's trip to Nigeria. He spent a great deal of his own time exploring the area of additional business for secondary manufacturers in Canada. I am speaking of drum gear and hydraulic gear which is very common to us on the west coast. We manufacture it there. This person just did not have enough cash flow in his own company to follow this through. If there had been some kind of aid from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, or if that department had provided assistance in the form of an officer to study whether that type of trade consortia could have been developed for the benefit of small business in that particular region in Canada, it would have been a good thing.
I think the government should have some seminars on developing trade consortia for small businesses. Small businesses do not have the muscle of large institutions to take care of this need. We have a need for more of the community oriented trading type of consortia than the proposed government corporation which will be an international trading com-
Small Business
pany trying to emulate Mitsubishi and some other large Asian firms. It is rumoured that Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin will be head of that corporation when he steps down from the Anti-Inflation Board.
CIDA and EDC seem oriented to serve Canadian businesses which have heavy and well organized lobby interests. Their work, and the work they create in Canada, just do not seem to benefit the small business community. The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley read into the record the small business act of April, 1970, of the United States Congress. Perhaps the Minister of State (Small Business) should study that because it shows that the United States is very concerned about the viability of this aspect of its community. As a matter of fact, the United States protects a percentage of national defence contract orders-as much as one third for the benefit of the small business community there. If we are to have anything like a free enterprise economy, an initiative like that should be taken by the Minister of State (Small Business).
More and more the trend in the world today is toward international business between governments. Surely the Minister of State (Small Business) can lobby his cabinet colleagues for a small business component in dealings with CIDA, EDC and CCC.
I would now like to move to item C of the motion, which would change government tender practices so that small business suppliers would provide a portion of government goods and services. I have already mentioned how some United States legislation has benefited the small business community.
I am concerned about the lack of fairness which is developing in the various regions of Canada in the inter-communication or business intercourse which goes on across provincial boundaries. 1 am sad to have to draw to the attention of the House the fact that drivers of trucks moving from Ontario into Quebec are now being harassed. Even passenger cars are being stopped for full inspections, and tickets are given to drivers not wearing seat belts. I understand that contractors from other parts of Canada cannot now participate in contracts which are for work within the province of Quebec.
In many cases western industries can no longer compete with industries in Montreal. In one case a uniform manufacturing industry in Vancouver can no longer compete with the bids tendered by Montreal firms. If Montreal firms are going to compete right across Canada, that principle has to apply in Quebec as well. If we are going to have international boundaries, God help us. In the city of Calgary companies were bidding for a contract to supply firemen's uniforms. The contract was given to a Montreal firm for $243,000. The Calgary firm bid $257,000, the Vancouver firm bid $257,000, and the Toronto firm bid $300,000. The western Canadian industries involved can no longer compete and are facing bankruptcy as a result of this type of competition. I call for fairness across all provincial boundaries.
Another example which troubles me in this matter of the regionalism that is developing is that in British Columbia, with

March 28, 1977
Small Business
the aid of programs of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and of the National Research Council, there was a major breakthrough in high-intensity lighting. When the federal government, through the Transport Development Agency, was giving a contract for expansion of the use of high-intensity lighting, however, it was given to a Montreal firm that is a spin-off of a United States firm whose technology is completely obsolete in light of the technology developed in Vancouver. I do not know why the Transport Development Agency would not give full and due consideration to research and expertise that exist in other parts of Canada. Why can the Vancouver firm not have the lighting contract and give the time tests needed on the Centennial Pier project or some other project? When the patents are owned by Canadian Patents and Development Limited why can the Vancouver firm not get the same consideration as eastern firms? There seems to be a stigma because it is located in Vancouver.
Another firm in Vancouver just lost a bid on hollow tubing for the extension of the penitentiary at Agassiz. That firm, a subcontractor, produced the lowest bid in Canada, yet the major contractor who won the bid refuses to use their product. This does not sit well with the Vancouver firm. The product that will be used will be made in Montreal, shipped across Canada, put into an institution being built at Agassiz, and the west coast producer of the same product can apparently go to hell.
Another contract was available for curtain track for a hospital. We have a Canadian product-100 per cent designed, 100 per cent owned, and 100 per cent produced in Canada. The tooling is done in Canada as well. But a west coast firm lost out to an eastern firm, which used an American design, and was a subsidiary of an American company.
The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is stirring up an extremely biased reaction amongst retailers in Vancouver. Retailers in the prairies and Ontario are not being subjected to the same type of examination and scrutiny. This regional interference is causing rising tempers in the west, and I plead with the government to change its attitude. The provinces of British Columbia and Alberta need their fair share, and the small business sector of those provinces needs its fair share of the federal government's expenditures.
If the Minister of State (Small Business) wants to help small business he could consider helping a chocolate factory in Vancouver that has the knowledge and the people to make a go of the business. If the finished product were imported from England it would be subject to a 10 per cent tax. There would be no other tax or expense except the distribution costs and freight, and there would be a refund of the liqueur tax to the manufacturer. In other words, the offshore manufacturer would get a refund of tax paid on the liqueur. The offshore manufacturer can buy the liqueur at low rates. There is a 15 per cent import duty on milk chocolate imported in bulk to Canada. This factory employs 18 people and prints all the boxes and packaging supplies in Canada. They buy all their packaging material and formula material from Canadian suppliers. They must buy the liqueurs in the liquor stores at retail

prices, however, and they must also pay the 7 per cent provincial sales tax. This is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. How can you build an industry with any hope of exporting, say, to the United States, when there are these crazy and obsolete customs and excise laws? It is time we all worked toward creating something worth while in the small business sector.
There is another industry that bothers me, Mr. Speaker. In the cement business if you are a small operator and you put cement sand and gravel in a bag and keep it dry, you have to charge 5 per cent federal tax on the product. But if you are a big company, buying your sand, cement with $2.20/ton tax, and gravel on a tax-exempt basis, and if you mix them with water and sell the resultant product as ready-mix concrete, then it is exempt from federal sales tax. What is important enough about adding water to dry ingredients that gives one company an advantage over the other? In a small company the auditors can go in and do an audit in three or four hours so they get a bill for the sales tax. But a big company is so cumbersome that it is too much trouble for the government auditors, so that large company can sell the same dry mix and not pay the sales tax. In British Columbia we have the example of a manufacturing company that has been in existence for about 15 years. Its very survival is threatened by this type of taxation law. I plead with the government to do something about this. There are all kinds of employment opportunities in this country, but our laws suppress incentive and make it almost impossible for small firms to stay solvent.
I do not have time to go into matters in the textile industry, Mr. Speaker, but if ever a group of small businessmen got a shafting it was this group when the guillotine was brought down. That has turned out to be a very sad state of affairs. Instead of maintaining the level of low-cost garment imports for low-income workers, the guillotine was brought down. It disrupted the whole market and the trading pattern. I agree that a quota was necessary, but I think we moved too fast on that one. The retailer and small importer bringing specialty material into the country fell under the guillotine. Their livelihoods are in danger.
Why can we not give consideration to the small business component of the Canadian community, Mr. Speaker? Why do we not use the research and development facilities that are available and share them between the large industrial component and the small industrial component? We also need to pay attention to regional balance when issuing invitations to tender for government supplies. I plead with the government to give consideration in this matter to the small business and industrial component on the west coast.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, in his motion the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) indicated a number of steps that the government ought to take to assist small business. I suppose it is understandable that he would avoid mentioning some of the very positive things already being done. I think it is also understandable that in the motion he would imply that things are not being done that are in fact being done.
March 28, 1977

First of all he talks about tax credits for investment in small business. Technically I think he is right; there is no tax credit system for such purpose at present. I think hon. members should realize, however, that in terms of incentive to small business through the tax structure there is a special small business tax rate of 25 per cent, excluding the manufacturing sector, and 20 per cent for small manufacturing industries, as opposed to 40 per cent for large manufacturing industries. This in itself is a significant tax advantage to the small businessmen of this country, and it is inappropriate to leave the impression that those kinds of steps have not already been taken.
Second, he asks us to provide assistance in the formulation of small business export consortia. May I draw to his attention and to that of all members the fact that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, under certain of its programs, supports trade missions all over the world? Through those programs the department helps small businessmen to make arrangements with other small businesses in other countries, so that they may mutually handle each other's products, to the advantage of businessmen in both countries. I think that is moving precisely in the direction the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley has in mind. I would not want to leave the impression there is no room for improvement in this area. I think there is and the government is moving in that direction, to the considerable benefit of the business community of this country.
Third, he talked about changing the government's tendering practices for small business. I do not know the hon. member's experience with the Department of Supply and Services, but I can tell him that there is no question in my mind, from my dealings with the Department of Supply and Services, that the department already provides considerable assistance to small business people. True, no special segment or percentage of total government business is earmarked for small business, as implied in the motion. I think that the question must be examined. The simple fact is that the Department of Supply and Services is already moving in that direction. It is decentralizing its operations across Canada to make sure that local business, mostly small, has a better opportunity to do business with the Government of Canada.
Fourth, the hon. member suggests that we should reduce the amount of government paper work being imposed on small business. That is an important suggestion. I have been making it since 1968. I say that we should arrange for a federal-provincial conference, in order to rationalize the paper work which emanates from federal, provincial and municipal governments. In other words, we should rationalize this entire process so that the small businessman need not hire an accountant to do the paper work the government requires him to do. That point is important. I understand that the minister of state responsible for small business will address his attention to this question in a federal-provincial conference, in order to minimize the amount of paper work we require small businessmen to perform. I note that Statistics Canada has already
Small Business moved in that direction by eliminating the requirement for small business people to submit statistical reports. The agency has removed one of the great irritants.
It is also necessary for those in the House who want to assist small business to do more than speak about assistance. We must do practical things in our areas and ridings to help small business. I, for one, have done a great deal, in my view. Back in 1968 I pioneered what became the first industry seminar in this country. Finally, after we had worked on this matter for one year, the government agreed to send officials to my riding and expose the business community to what I call the other side of the coin. Many people think that government plays a negative role in our lives, but big business realizes it also plays a positive role. Because the small businessman does not have the necessary expertise and staff, and does not know of federal and provincial government programs designed to help small business, he is often left holding the bag, as it were.
There are many programs available for helping the business community and it is our responsibility, as members of parliament, to make sure they are aware of these programs. For example, do small businessmen know of the existence of the Federal Business Development Bank, which can give much help? Not many small businessmen know about it, and it is our responsibility to see that they do. The list of programs we should draw to their attention is long. How many small businessmen know about the Small Businesses Foans Act, the alphabet soup programs of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for providing assistance for research and development, programs for assisting with exports abroad and the financing of exports abroad, and other programs to do with research? The range of such programs is broad indeed. By this I do not mean to imply that all is well with the business community or with federal programs.
I, for one, take exception to a point raised by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). I enjoyed his remarks. He said that he would prefer it if the Small Businesses Loans Act would allow the banks to charge higher interest rates. That may make sense at first, but does not make sense when one examines the idea in depth. I think there is a better way to provide assistance than that suggested by the hon. member. The government assumes the risk of those loans; therefore I do not see why a bank should be entitled to as much interest as when it assumes the risk itself. It makes no sense. Perhaps we need an increase in the interest rate, but we need a hooker in the legislation-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: No.


Norman Augustine Cafik: -which requires banks-


An hon. Member:: We already have plenty of hookers.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Just one moment. You be quiet. I am speaking at the moment and I did not interrupt you.
As I say, the law should require the banks to devote a minimum percentage of loans to the small business commu-

March 28, 1977
Statutory Instruments
nity. And these loans should not be charged at rip-off interest rates, either, as implied in my hon. friend's suggestion.
I think also that we want to reduce the size of many give-away programs. On the other hand, we want to provide working and equity capital to the business community, capital of which our business community is desperately short.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member not believe in free enterprise?


Norman Augustine Cafik: That would help, as I think hon. members opposite agree. I know that much remains to be done, but am convinced that the government has a greater commitment toward the small business community than the party opposite, whose big concern has primarily been the big business community. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are trying to figure out which is the Tory party in this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McCleave that the Second Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Thursday, February 3, 1977, be concurred in.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, just before five o'clock 1 had responded very briefly to what I consider to be a very smug and fatuous statement by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bas-ford). He said that this system of governing by order in council regulation cannot be too bad because nobody is suing the government, because no one is taking the time and the trouble to bring the government to court. What a stupid and fatuous thing to say.
As I pointed out, it is a pretty big job to take City Hall to court. First, you need to know that you have a right. Second, you need to have the determination and the money to go to trial. Third, you have to know on what your rights are based.
For over a year the standing joint committee has been frustrated and inhibited by the refusal of a number of departments of government to tell us what rights they are operating on, the basis of their declaring that certain orders in council have been passed and showing us the orders in council. If the co-chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), and the co-chairman from the other place, were unable to find out what kind of orders in council and what documents the government was basing its operations on, what chance has the ordinary person on the street?
This was a good committee. My friend was a very good co-chairman, as was the co-chairman from the other place. They worked together. It was a committee where politics was hardly present. Shortly after its organization we had a tremendous task to undertake on behalf of the people of Canada. The committee members worked together very well. It was not a case of being frustrated because of politics in committee.
The committee was united in its determination to get to the bottom of this problem. If we could not do it, what chance has the ordinary individual, the farmer from my country, the fisherman from Newfoundland, the storekeeper, or the person in the factory?
In a great many instances it is not a case of being able to sue the government. It is not a case of the government acting illegally or in a way which is ultra vires. It is a case of a government having the power like a gigantic monstrous operation and using that power unjustly and inequitably. That is the kind of thing that affects people.
The woods are full of situations and cases. For example, people are to be deprived of saccharin. We will not know until the facts are disclosed whether there is a good case for it or not. However, thousands of people have been placed out of court. They have no opportunity to challenge this because the government has acted under statutory instruments, legally passed, properly enacted, and under regulations which have been dealt with under the enabling powers.
As I said before five o'clock, we all know of thousands of cases. There is not a member of this House who cannot put a finger on a dozen cases which come to his attention every time he returns home. What about the Indian people in Yellowknife who have probably been slowly poisoned by taking arsenic waters from the lake there? All this is controlled by regulations and statutory instruments. What of the AIB regulations? How we are controlled, as far as wages and prices are concerned, is all done under statutory regulation.
For the minister to make the absolutely stupid remark that what the government is doing must be all right because no one is suing the government, is not a defence that will not stand up for consideration.
The minister also said that this is a comparatively new problem. He said they are facing up to it, and doing what they can. I gave the minister credit, and I repeat it now. In his appearance before the committee the minister at least discussed with us some of the more minor problems that we have

March 28, 1977

been having. But I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it was not until the committee got to the stage at which it was going to make its report and indicated that it would be debated in the House that we had a chance to get the minister before us. For far too many months we had been completely frustrated by our incapacity to get to grips with many of the issues to which reference is made in the report.
1 said earlier that we had waited 12 years before reaching our present position. Are we to wait another 12 years before the government moves to deal with the difficulties which the committee has now outlined?
As my hon. friend mentioned, 40 years ago there was a committee set up in the United Kingdom, the Donoughmore Committee on Ministers Powers. On page five of that committee's report there is a reference to a report of another committee set up in 1931 and I will read this interesting statement into the record because it demonstrates the whole problem:
The most distinctive indication of the change of outlook of the government of this country in recent years has been its growing preoccupation, irrespective of party, with the management of the life of the people. A study of the Statute Book will show how profoundly the conception of the function of government has altered. Parliament finds itself increasingly engaged in legislation which has for its conscious aim the regulation of the day-to-day affairs of the community, and now intervenes in matters formerly thought to be entirely outside its scope. This new orientation has its dangers as well as its merits. Between liberty and government there is an age-long conflict. It is of vital importance that the new policy while truly promoting liberty by securing better conditions of life for the people of this country, should not, in its zeal for interference, deprive them of their initiative and independence which are the nation's most valuable assets.
That was in the United Kingdom 40 years ago. In a short time I shall ask the House to consider some of the bills which the government has asked parliament to deal with in the present session to show to what extent it now proposes to intervene even more massively into the everyday affairs of the people. Consider the enormous growth and power of the civil service between 1931 and 1977. At the snap of his fingers, upon a mere whim, a civil servant can make decisions which affect the lives of thousands of people. This has become a disease, a disease which, in my opinion, is malignant, and I do not think parliament will survive much more of it.
Some of my hon. friends opposite were at a meeting in Toronto over the week end. I can understand that. I am not going to disparage it in any way. It was a thinkers' meeting. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made one or two of his philosophical statements. It was not a successful meeting. Supporters of the government met people, thinkers, from all over Canada who came fresh to that meeting from contact with their fellow citizens, and I am sure they told the Prime Minister and the others they met that the mood of the country is not good. I suggest that members opposite should not take the Gallup Poll too seriously because it does not take that mood into question.
People are sick to death of being pushed around by bureaucrats on a day to day basis by means of regulations which they feel powerless to alter. It amounts to government, not by statute, but by order in council and by regulations about which
Statutory Instruments
even many of us in this Chamber know nothing. I believe that what happened in Quebec was this: the people took a look at a government which was behaving precisely in that way; they looked over the litany of scandal, secrecy and autocracy which characterized their government, and decided to throw it out. I believe the electorate will do the same to the Government of Canada, and for the same reason.
There is no doubt about it; unless the government straightens up and cleans up the mess it has created and which lies, now, at its own doorstep, the people will get rid of it. They are fed up with things being done in the name of democracy which constitute something entirely different. Parliamentary democracy has yielded to prime-ministerial dictatorship made possible because of the ability to govern through orders in council and regulations of the kind we are considering.
I told the House earlier I would refer to instances where this is happening during the present session. At the end of last week there was a debate on $1 items. A supply bill contained 52 $1 items which, in many instances, would permit government officials to state the terms under which uncounted millions of dollars are to be spent. By a very wise decision, Mr. Speaker reserved the right of the House to challenge these provisions from time to time. This was not the first time such a thing had happened. Our committee has demonstrated that between 1971 and 1976 104 similar items appeared of a similar nature. I do not believe the government has altered its ways. I think it will continue doing this kind of thing.
Then there was the telecommunications bill, Bill C-43. I do not intend to outline the enabling and regulation-granting clauses of that bill, but it is a measure which removes virtually all controlling power from the CRTC and places it in the hands of the minister and the government. This is a dangerous prospect, and I do not believe the people of Canada should look lightly on a bill which gives power of that kind to a political party forming the government.
Then there is Bill C-27, the bill dealing with unemployment insurance and the changes in the department. Again more power has been taken by the minister. Some illustrations have been given already. The co-chairman of the committee has given an indication of what the Unemployment Insurance Commission was doing. It was established to our satisfaction that applicants for benefits under the act were required to show, to the satisfaction of the officials, that they had made reasonable efforts to find "comparable employment". And we were told that there were in existence secret guidelines, in the hands of officials of the Commission, by which judgment was made as to whether or not an individual had indeed made the necessary effort to secure other employment. We ourselves were not able to see those guidelines. We know they exist, though, and I think it is a disgrace that people who may well be entitled to certain benefits should be deprived of the opportunity to find out precisely what criteria they have to meet in order to become qualified.
Not long ago the amendments to the Immigration Act were dealt with. There is no question that under the Immigration Act the minister can issue directives which do not need to be

March 28, 1977
Statutory Instruments
called regulations, and by virtue of which officials at the border have complete discretion as to methods of controlling the flow of immigrants to this country. The new act which is before us will go even further. It will place almost dictatorial power in the hands of the minister which, in practice, means in the hands of his senior officials, to direct the flow of immigrants to any part of the country without their decisions being in any way liable to challenge in the House.
Then there is the combines legislation which is going to committee shortly. Power is being taken away, in this case from the courts, and placed in the hands of a commission which will have tremendous authority to deal with the everyday economic affairs of a great many corporations and individuals.
Finally, there is the Transportation Act. I have left this until last for a definite reason. There is no question that the Transport Commission is to be divested of most of its authority and that this authority is to be placed in the hands of bureaucrats at the higher level in the department. I just so happens that there are comments on this by a man who is very well versed on questions of transportation and who also knows something about the bureaucracy. John R. Baldwin, under date of January, 1977, presented a seminar paper to the Canadian Transport Commission. Mr. Baldwin was for many years a very valued and respected civil servant. He was deputy minister of the Department of Transport and he ended his career in the public service as president of Air Canada. He has been a mandarin, but he has also been a working civil servant. He has been out of the political sphere for some time.
What does Mr. Baldwin say about the proposals contained in the new transport bill? On page 4 I read this:
In spite of the long slow move to greater recognition of the importance of normal economic processes, recent trends to strengthen the role of the bureaucracy at the expense of the operator, of Parliament, of the regulatory agency and even of the cabinet cause concern.
That is the statement of a man who, as I say, has been a deputy minister and president of one of the great air carriers of Canada. He continues:
The trend is typified by the increasing concentration of power, as defined by statute or regulation, in the hands of Governor in Council or the Minister. This means, more often than not, the advice of the bureaucracy and is leading to a bureaucratic discretionary authority that is some cases should belong to the legislator or, in other cases, to the regulatory agency rather than departmental officialdom. This, if unchecked, could lead to a greater interference with normal processes in transportation;
We then have the human rights bill. With all the exceptions and the rather vague definitions contained therein, human rights will, in effect, be what the minister declares them to be from time to time, almost on a day to day basis. By "the minister" we mean, of course, the officials who advise him.
I have given the House five items-the $1 items, the Immigration Act, the unemployment insurance changes, the National Transportation Act, and the human rights bill-which this year the government is demanding parliament pass and which will divest us of the opportunity to do the job we were
[Mr. Baldwin.}
sent here to do on behalf of the Canadian people. These items will pass unless some of my hon. friends opposite become alarmed at the kind of authority they are prepared to give to the government. I do not care whether the government be Liberal or Conservative; I would not give those powers to any government, though certainly not to a Liberal government which has had some 45 years' experience of misusing power. Unless my hon. friends opposite are prepared to challenge the government on those items, by the time this session passes into history the government will become one of the most powerful governments in terms of the bureaucracy and its capacity to intervene, without challenge by the House, in the affairs of the people of Canada.
It is this kind of thing which leads to the deterioration of the democratic process. People become cynical. They are cynical because of this kind of situation. They mistrust the government. Any one of us who goes home on a weekly basis and talks to his constituents hears about this sort of thing. Gallup polls show it. I suggest that the time has come for us to face this challenge and to do something about it.
I agree with what has been said by speakers heretofore. You cannot turn the clock back. For one reason or another, be it good or bad, we have permitted or encouraged government to engage in this sort of interference in our lives. What we have to do is to set up a means of making the government accountable. The government must be prepared, as one of my hon. friends has suggested, to set up a statutory committee, so that when we pass a bill giving these kinds of powers to the government that statutory committee will have authority to examine the basis upon which those powers are given, how they are exercised, and what effect they are having. We simply cannot afford to sit back idly any longer and allow the government to have this authority without compelling the government to come to a committee of the House, or to the House itself, and to answer for what it has done by producing an accounting of its stewardship and how the government has acted and conducted itself in connection with such powers.
I am going to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by making some suggestions. I think that in an issue of this kind it is not enough to scold the government. It does not take any great orator to show how many mistakes the government has made in this regard. I say to hon. members opposite that this is their parliament. This is their country. The people are theirs just as much as ours. Legislation should not be passed simply at the whim of senior bureaucrats, admirable people thought they may be. We have heard from one of the most senior bureaucrats of all in the person of Mr. John Baldwin about how he saw the dangers which are present in this situation. Therefore I would urge my hon. friends opposite to give serious thought to this question and to tell the government, either in caucus or in the House, that it cannot go this far; or that if the government does go this far, that it must somehow give to committees of the House, or to the House itself, the opportunity to challenge people who pass regulations. Then those people will know when they pass an order in council or a
March 28, 1977

regulation that they have to account for the exercise of the power they have given themselves under regulation.
I do not think there is any magical cure for this. Government being what it is there will always be misuse of power. But as 1 said earlier, Mr. Speaker, there should be statutory committees. For example, I do not think we should pass the bill amending the Transportation Act without including a provision for the establishment of a committee which would ride herd on the extent to which the government makes use of the power to use the order in council procedure, what authority it gives, and how it has conducted itself in implementing the regulations.
The scrutiny committee-that is, the joint standing committee-must be strengthened. It is not for us just to bring in reports. I would go further than my hon. friend from Halifax-East Hants and say that it is not enough to bring in a report perhaps once a session. The authority should be granted, either by statute or amendment of Standing Orders, so that when our committee comes to a decision that the government has acted inequitably, that it has breached the rules of natural justice, that it has made unusual and unexpected use of some power, or whatever may be the case, that we should be entitled to bring into the House a petition seeking to have that order in council amended or set aside. I do not think there need be too many.
Some of my hon. friends in the government may say that this will take too long. It is my experience as a member of this House, having observed the machinery of government, that if the civil servants who draft these regulations and enforce them knew that the orders in council that they produced to their minister for signature by the governor in council could, in due course, be brought into the House after committee examination, and a thorough and detailed study made of the extent to which they had been used, this would be a very salutary brake. It would be a silent policeman on the inequitable abuses of the capacity of government to govern by order in council.
Committees should have the power to call witnesses, but under what is known as Crown privilege any minister can say that he will not allow a civil servant to be called. This is a power which has been exercised. He can say that he will not allow civil servants to produce documents if he does not want them to do so.
We had a situation a week ago when an agent of the Department of Justice appeared before a provincial tribunal and said "I want a blanket exemption and blanket immunity for every civil servant whom you have called as a witness before you." What gall, what a travesty of justice! The Department of Justice headed by a member of this House, a constitutional adviser to the government, says "I won't allow civil servants to be called to give evidence." What right have they to have immunity different than that open to the rest of us? That is the sort of thing governments claim as a right and that has to be taken away.
Statutory Instruments
There must be much more care taken in the drafting of orders in council. They should be drafted by people who have a common experience. One only needs to look at the thousands of orders in council. My friend from Halifax-East Hants said that our committee had looked at a little over 1,000 of them. My understanding is that during the course of one year there are between 3,000 and 4,000 orders in council regulations passed, aside from countless directives which do not qualify under that title. I think there should be some common approach in the drafting of these so that people will know what they are up against. There should be notice published, not only in the Canada Gazette, but in newspapers in areas where people will be affected.
We all remember the story of the Roman emperor who was called upon by law to have his laws engraved on tablets of stone. He did so, but had them hung up so high that people could not see what was on them. This is the trouble today. There are very few people, even in government, who know how many order in council regulations are passed, where they are hidden away, and what effect they have. There must be publicity. There must be some changes on the question of judicial review. At the moment we can only have judicial review if there is a question of something being ultra vires. People will have more confidence if there is a simple, inexpensive method of challenging some of the regulations. People have more confidence in the courts than they do in some of the tribunals.
I have tried to keep this debate on a non-partisan level, just as it has been in the committee. I suggest to my hon. friends opposite that if they believe a parliamentary democracy is the least dangerous of all the systems of government which man has invented, then they have got to do something about it. We on this side have been doing the best we can. I am convinced that dozens of laws are passed every session which do not have the approval of the majority of the members of the House, but because the government side feels compelled to go along, they do so. Then we have a situation where provisions for orders in council are included in the enabling powers in those bills, and are entrusted to our public servants.
Public servants are not bad people. They are not dishonest people. But sometimes when they get into the highrise towers of power and get their hands on the levers of power, they run wild. If our system is to survive, is to flourish and is to have that capacity for creativity to make this House of Commons a place of light and learning, rather than what it is today, then a lot of the responsibility lies on the shoulders of hon. members opposite. They have a very considerable responsibility. If they fail in that responsibility, then the people of Canada will well and long remember it.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I consider it an honour to be able to participate this evening in a debate on this important subject, and particularly to have the opportunity to follow my learned friend from Peace River who has, in the course of the last few minutes, made a valuable contribution to this debate. I do not intend to take a long time this evening because I think there are other members of the House, particularly those who

March 28, 1977
Statutory Instruments
have participated in the work of the committee, who want to address a few remarks to Your Honour. However, there are just a few comments with respect to the work of the Standing Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments which I would like to make.
My first words have to be ones of commendation for the work of the two co-chairmen of our committee, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) and the Honourable Senator Forsey. Indeed I would like to commend all the members of the committee who have worked so hard in the preparation of this report we are discussing today, and who have established a solid tradition of conscientious scrutiny of the subordinate legislation which emanates from the various departments and agencies of government.
The report is a major work. It represents months of detailed effort. It is breaking new ground in many respects. In regard to some of the criticisms which have been offered, and no doubt will be offered about the report, it is important to bear in mind that in many cases the report, in Canadian experience is plowing new ground. It covers an enormous amount of ground. It is difficult to deal with all of its aspects in one comprehensive debate, or perhaps in one all-encompassing vote on concurrence. There is just so much included here that it is impossible, really, to come down to a bottom-line single word yea or nay judgment call with respect to all of it.
In fact the voluminous nature of the report has been outlined by the co-chairman this afternoon. All of the work, the consideration and compromise of members and Senators, which went into its drafting reminds one of that old tongue in cheek definition of a camel, which is described as a horse but one designed by a committee. Perhaps that is a little bit of what we are dealing with this evening.


Gerald William Baldwin: I would have thought designed by
bureaucrats.


Ralph Goodale: I do not mean to be unkind in using that definition. That is part of our problem that we are dealing with in this report. Perhaps we are dealing with one of those proverbial Committee camels. This is an essential problem in trying to come down to a single conclusion about it.
As I mentioned repeatedly during the deliberations of the committee-and this is clearly included in the minutes of the committee-I for one do not agree entirely with some of the analysis, methodology, and conclusions of the committee as expressed in this report. I would like to take a few moments this evening to express a few of my reservations. In doing so I do not mean to deprecate the sincerity or the considerable good work of committee members. However, I believe the House should be aware of the defects which some of us believe exist in the criticisms in this report.
First of all, I would like to comment upon the over-all tenor and tone of the report, the general impression which is conveyed by some of the language which is used, and the peculiar emphasis it gives to the instances where the committee claims the regulatory system has broken down. In some serious

respects the report is prone to overstatement. The language used, in some cases, is pretentious to the point of being incomprehensible in some sections. It almost borders upon the sarcastic. I want to emphasize that I am not making that as a blanket condemnation of all aspects of this report, but there are some sections which are impaired by that kind of language usage. It demonstrates a flair for a colourful or super emphatic turn of phrase, and that does not do anything particularly to enhance the credibility of the report. To support that contention I would make only one rather homely reference to statistical facts which are set out in the report itself. I would draw the attention of members to paragraph 6 which appears on page 2. It points out, at that point, that 1,348 cases have been reviewed in the committee's work since July 15, 1976. Of those cases, 689 have been objected to, queried, or found to be in need of further explanation. Of these, 487 have been answered by the government, and 202 were awaiting reply at the date of the reports. Of the responses which have been given, only 24 have finally been considered by the committee as defective.
Even if the committee's view is 100 per cent correct with respect to each of the perceived defects in those cases, even if the committee is absolutely infallible in its approach to the problems which it sees, that represents a failure rate of only 5 per cent of the instruments objected to and for which replies had been received. To look at it in another way, it amounts to a failure rate of less than 2 per cent of all the instruments that have been reviewed. Yet, despite that rather slim numerical basis, the report of the committee seems to me to be unfortunately couched in rather pompous language, as I have mentioned, which seeks to condemn government action in broad and sweeping terms. In places the language used would appear to seek to convey pretended importance far beyond any basis in fact. I admit that some of this may simply be explained away as a matter of style or writing. But to my mind it renders the report less readable and less comprehensible, and seriously detracts from the credibility that a work of this kind should certainly have.
Secondly, on a more important matter, I should like to mention a problem to which I referred during the course of the committee's deliberations, and this has to do with the preoccupation which the committee seems to have had with legalistic debates between the committee's counsel and rather junior legal or instruments officers in various departments of government. What we have seen in some of these cases is a failure or refusal of the committee to "go to the top", so to speak, to a senior departmental official or to the minister himself to pursue an objection and seek satisfaction.
If this matter, which we are discussing this evening and which the committee has discussed for so many months, is as important to parliament and to good government in Canada as we say it is, then we as a committee should be more diligent in prosecuting our various cases with senior people in responsible positions in the departments which concern us. If we are going to make sweeping denunciations of ministers, departments, and government practices generally, and that seems to be the
March 28, 1977

tenor of much of the report, then before we make those denunciations we had better make sure that we as a committee have taken our complaints to the minister or his senior departmental people for redress and found them lacking. If that had happened in all the cases about which we have complained, I think the authority of the report would have been greatly enhanced. Instead, in many instances we seem to content ourselves with dealing at a rather junior level and getting involved in some legalistic debate between instruments officers. This may be explained by the fact that the approach of this committee is a new approach, that we are plowing new ground. But certainly that is a recommendation for the future which we should bear closely in mind.
It may well be that ministers in some of the departments which have been particularly criticized, or at least criticized by implication, are not at all aware of the legal battles going on at some lower level in their departments. Yet in this report, even though they may be unaware of what has transpired, we make them at a senior level "carry the can", so to speak. This is a serious flaw and it undermines the strength of the committee's complaints.
I have noticed, in reviewing some of the work of the committee, that this point was drawn to the attention of members on many occasions in the past. In fact my predecessor as parliamentary secretary to the president of the privy council, who has now joined the government in the capacity of Postmaster General (Mr. Blais), suggested a very useful procedure to committee members more than a year ago to avoid the criticism of our dealing at a lower level of authority, and refusing, or failing to go to senior officers in departments or to ministers to seek redress. Unfortunately his suggestion was not acted upon. I hope, as a result of the further work of the committee, and perhaps of some comments this evening, that in future that kind of recommendation will receive more attention, and that if we do have a serious complaint that is as important as we say it is in this report, then we should certainly pursue it with senior people.
Thirdly, as a point of concern about this report, for me at least, I regret the rather short shrift given in the report to the appearances before us during our committee proceedings of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and to his recent letter to the committee, portions of which are quoted in the report. They are found in paragraph 80 on page 26. The minister spoke earlier today in this debate and gave an excellent and learned defence of his position. I do not intend to review all the ground that he covered in his speech. I think his letter and his evidence to the committee, as well as his speech today, deserve close attention by members of the committee. They hold out considerable hope that in future some of the problems which we have felt in the past will be alleviated.
In his letter, and again today, the minister outlined a new system for dealing with committee inquiries. He suggests that we deal at a more senior level than we have in the past, and proposes a procedure to be followed. He indicated that he has the approval of his colleagues in cabinet and their support for the position which he has taken, which is certainly one of
Statutory Instruments
co-operation and indeed, I suggest, supports the work of the committee. The impasse that we have complained about in the report appears to have been broken by what the Minister of Justice has said. But at the very least, I think, the positive, constructive and practical response we have had from the minister should offer the committee some hope and some reason for optimism. But again, despite the fact that the minister's letter was before us during our deliberations on the drafting of this report, as evidenced in some of the terminology used, there has been a tendency to "slough off' or at least to "downplay" what the minister has had to say. Again I would suggest that this tends to sap the committee's credibility and it impairs the impact of our work.


Mr. Ellis:: You have said it three times already.


Ralph Goodale: I regret the sweeping cynicism that may have been evidenced in that last interjection, and which certainly seems to be apparent in some of the statements in the report which have been largely based on old business conducted at a junior level in the bureaucracy, and based upon experience which predated the minister's proposals for improved procedures.
I would also like to mention-I do not do so to raise a procedural problem and I do not propose to make a formal motion or take formal action as a result of mentioning these items-some procedural flaws of a technical, but important nature which may defeat some of the impact of our report. They may indicate that some of the things upon which we have pronounced ourselves were indeed not within our terms of reference.
We have a full mandate to peruse and criticize subordinate legislation, but I am not convinced that we have a mandate or jurisdiction to comment on the very method which parliament has chosen of delegating responsibility, nor do I believe we have been charged by parliament with the responsibility to challenge the Statutory Instruments Act itself. Our views may well be very helpful in future to the minister or to the government with respect to these items. Indeed, in a letter to the committee the Minister of Justice invited us to pass along any views we might have. But I do not think those views, and these opinions on matters upon which there is perhaps some doubt, would fall within our terms of reference. If we had advice and opinions to make known about those items, perhaps we should have chosen a different route in order to make them known to the government, to the responsible ministers, and indeed to the bureaucracy. By including them in our report, from a technical point of view perhaps we exceeded our jurisdiction and our mandate as given to us by parliament.
I would like to make one final point in closing, and that is a plea that in this debate tonight and, more important, in the future deliberations and work of the committee, we stress a practical and realistic approach to our problems and perhaps avoid some of the academic or theoretical debates which perhaps in the past have hung us up to a certain extent.

March 28, 1977
Statutory Instruments
I think the committee has done good and valuable work, and what it has to say will no doubt lay a solid foundation for future contributions to our system of parliamentary democracy. As I have indicated, the beginning has not been perfect. I think I demonstrated that in my few comments this evening. As I said, my comments are offered as constructive criticism and advice. I hope they will help because this committee, in which I have enjoyed participating, has important work yet to do, and in order to do that work in the best way, and in order to discharge our mandate to parliament, and through parliament to the country, I think we should bear in mind the need to approach our task in a conscientious way and also in a practical way to ensure that in real terms we are discharging the mandate which has been given to us by the House of Commons and by the Senate.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate today as a layman wondering what this committee has been doing for the last while. I listened to the legal, dry-as-dust presentations on this great study, and every moment I listened I became angrier and angrier because here we are witnessing an effort by a very sincere group of people from all parties to find out about the injustice in our system, and there is injustice. They presented, in what I thought to be a very moderate way, some proposals which I did not hear discussed on the government side. I heard some statements today which shocked me, in view of this study about how these instruments or regulations-or whatever we want to call them-are being used as a method of injustice in a so-called democratic society. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) stood up today and said he was here representing his clients, the people in his department. Why is he not here as an elected representative representing the people of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The parliamentary secretary who just sat down sympathized with the ministers because officials at lower levels do things about which ministers do not know, and for which ministers are blamed. Why should they not be blamed? Ministers have the power to punish, dismiss, move sideways, upwards or downwards people who do harmful things, but the fact is that ministers, with the support of some spokesmen in the House today, are not doing anything to check and control the servants of the people. That is the essence of why it is important to look at these regulations to see if there is something we can do to take away the sting of their injustice and, when they are brought to light, to take countervailing action.
As this House knows, I have been in this fight for many years. I have fought as a minister and I have fought as a member of the opposition. In Canada in the last 40 years we have moved to the point where our so-called democratic institutions have turned over all effective power to civil servants who are not responsible to the people directly. If the Canadian people had been here last Friday when we were debating metric conversion, they would have realized that we were

debating an issue which should not even be a matter of controversial debate. We were debating whether we should put the system in arbitrarily, knowing the opposition of the people, or put it in slowly. One would think that would be a matter of judgment, but it is an article of faith to hon. members opposite that because the Metric Commission has said that in Australia it was adopted rapidly, we have to do it rapidly here. It is this attitude on the part of hon. members opposite that is getting to us, and I hope getting to the people of Canada.
I am going to give just two illustrations of what has been happening in recent years. I have gone to ministers privately, I have gone to senior civil servants privately, I have asked questions on the order paper and questions in the House orally, and these two cases are not the dry-as-dust type of cases a legal man faces when he appears before a supreme court justice. These are cases that hit your very guts.
Some years ago this parliament passed legislation, which was supported by all parties, providing that children up to age 16 should have the right to family allowances. Parliament said that whether a child's father is a millionaire or his mother is a millionaire, or whether they are paupers, that child should receive $20 a month in family allowance, to ensure there was no injustice. Granted, in the case of those with wealthy fathers some of it would come back in taxes. As I say, this parliament, with all its majesty and power, passed a law providing that every child, regardless of the wealth of his parents, would get $20 a month in family allowance.
What did the civil servants in the Department of National Health and Welfare do without telling parliament? What did they do without even telling the minister? They quietly slipped through regulations which said that every child up to the age of 16 shall have family allowances except one class of children, and that one class of children is made up of orphans. If any child, or group of children, loses both parents, under the regulations as they exist, and as drafted by civil servants in a room by themselves, and promulgated by order in council, that child or group of children loses the right which parliament gave of having family allowances. That exists today in Canada. When I raised this matter with the minister, he was shocked, as he should have been shocked. He said he would take it up with his civil servants, but the answer came back that that could not be changed because it is a regulation. The minister took the matter up with his civil servants, but they said it was a rational regulation, that every day people are dying, that when they die they leave estates, that whether a child is three, two, five or eight he gets the estate of his parents and that he is then an adult.
The regulation says that if a parent has an estate of $1,600 or more, a child is no longer a child in this country; he is an adult as far as family allowances are concerned. That was not done by parliament; it was done by civil servants with a parliamentary secretary saying, "Yes, Sir; no, Sir; when shall I sit down, Sir; and how high shall 1 jump, Sir?" When I raised this matter with the minister and asked what the reward of the deputy minister involved would be, I learned that he was promoted. There is a place for the recommendations of a
March 28, 1977

March 28, 1977
Statutory Instruments
happens and how and why his government, paid with his taxes, takes such and such action or how its public administration makes it act in such and such a way. The Canadian citizen wants to know, for instance, if the increase in postal rates proclaimed by order in council last year was made pursuant to legislation.
The fisherman from Gaspesie, Magdalen Islands, Mingan Island or Sable Island, from Burin-Burgeo, Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, Lunenberg, wants to know what kind of boat, of which length, what kind of net he will use this year. He wants to know that before, not after the season starts. He also wants to know what quantity of fish, what quantity of cod, of seabast he will be allowed to land and what size lobsters he will take during the next season.
The fishermen who take part in the seal hunt, for example, are subject to a heated controversy. My colleagues will permit this digression because I cannot help talking about this seal hunt which gave rise to shattering and shocking lucubrations which compromise the reputation of Canada and which are made by people who do not even know what they are talking about. They, and incidentally she, had better keep their mouths shut instead of coming to Canada to publicize not only a man but also a European business.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are impatient and 1 come back to the subject of the debate. The seal hunters need to know beforehand, and not in January or February, what will be their quotas. Costal fishermen have a right to know how many seals they will be entitled to kill during the next season.
He is entitled to know what type of boat of what length he may use to go seal hunting. And as I said he is entitled to know not long before the beginning of the season, perhaps during the fall.
And in the midst of such an abundance of modern media, governments alone remain frozen in their self-centered and jealous tendency to hang on to their prerogatives. There is not one member here who is not aware of such government attitude, whether it be the present administration, the one before or any other administration we had in Canada. When we ask that some correspondence, some document, some report be published, the response is: "Sorry, the document requested by the hon. member is confidential because it is an inter-departemental, intergovernmental or interministry document, or because it involves national security or national defence. We ask the hon. member please to withdraw his motion."
In the face of such secretiveness, however, commendable in purpose although in many cases antiquated and anachronic beyond words, the 28th Parliament, inspired by a legislation or declaration by the late former Prime Minister the right hon. Lester B. Pearson, under the sponsorship of the then minister of justice the Hon. John Turner, decided to put forward a piece of legislation providing a large degree of openness to allow for better public information.
It was not the end of the world. However, with the establishment of the joint committee to study regulations, we can at least rely on an institution which, in spite of the deluge of new
regulations enacted each year it has to scrutinize, is acting as a watchdog or some type of ombudsman with rather limited powers. In the scrutiny of these documents care must taken not to frighten the civil servants that are charged with the preparation of these regulations, or have them follow the legal process up to and including passing or proclamation of such documents, but rather to call their attention to certain unwanted anomalies that may creep in. They do creep in our debates, so therefore they can creep in the preparation of regulations, despite the best of intents. Let us keep in mind also that the purpose of this exercise is to protect the taxpayer whose freedom and rights are more often than not encroached upon and trampled on because of his more or less adequate knowledge or rather his outright ignorance of the legislation and the related regulations which are enforced generally without any consultation with the people involved.
The duties we have been carrying out since the committee was established have given us the opportunity to note a great many faults and discrepancies in the legislation, faults and discrepancies which prevent us from studying more effectively the documents which are put before us. As a matter of fact, other hon. members have already examined a number of them during this debate. But on many occcasions, the committee had to cope with the stubbornness of civil servants within the legal branches of other departments which refer their files to the Department of Justice.
Contrary to what the Minister of Justice tried to infer this afternoon, our aim is not to criticize to the point of destroying these officials whose competence and dedication I do appreciate, but neither is it to let ourselves and the people we represent be destroyed. Public servants are moving forward, following a policy established by the Department of Justice. I suggest that the only way to promote more liberalism in the disclosure of legal opinions would be for the Department of Justice to develop new and less obsolete guidelines, more in keeping with a 1977 style public information system. I am probably being credulous to expect such an extraordinary thriftlessness. It is a fact however that without more co-operation from all those who have at a given time something to do with drafting legislation or attendant regulations, the committee is seriously hampered in its work, I would even say it is threatened with being choked.
The lack of specific definitions in statutory instruments has also been emphasized. Mr. Speaker, the committee has been functioning for almost three years, maybe more. And as yet it has been impossible, unbelievable as it may seem, to get a clear definition of statutory instrument. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that with all the legal experts who are working within the Canadian public service, some of them holding PhD's, it must be possible to enlighten us-unless of course such information is classified.
Mr. Speaker, concurrence by the government and later by Parliament in the recommendations of the second report now under discussion is essential to the intelligent and effective carrying on of the committee's work. As we are very understanding and familiar with the delays of public administration,
[Mr. B6chard.)
March 28, 1977

we do not want to delude ourselves but some of the remarks made by the minister during this debate are hopeful since they suggest to our satisfaction that our work was not worthless. We are unavoidably moving, in the interests of those governing as well as the governed, towards a more open information and a gradual unmasking, if I may use this term, a gradual unmasking of the whole myth surrounding government machinery. I am pleased to see at least one or two cabinet members who are listening at present, and they are most progressive. Secrecy is no longer in fashion, Mr. Speaker. It is more and more in governments' interest to act in the open. Of course I understand that some restrictions might exist in the area of national defence and security-and I am convinced of it-but they certainly do not apply in every single instance. Thus it is more and more in the interest of governments to act in the open. Injustices as well as so called scandals or even scandals and allegations of all kinds will be avoided in and out the House. Since the public foots the bill, it is entitled to that. It demands it. We must comply in as much as possible with this legitimate wish. And the sooner, the better.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it is rather singular to find that those on this side of the House who are most interested in the subject we are discussing should be members who were first elected in 1957, or thereabouts. My hon. friend from Halifax-East Hants was elected in the same year as I was, 1957. My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain was elected in 1957, and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) in 1958. And I know that others in the House, as their years of service in this Chamber lengthen, are becoming very uneasy about the implications of this debate.
In the other place Senator Forsey, when he was introducing this report, asked why members of the Commons and the Senate were only now bringing forward this material about orders in council. Mr. Speaker, it took a tremendously long time to convince the government that the committee should be set up. It took hammering after hammering. I was pressing the point in speech after speech, in committee of the whole and in debates in this House, objecting to the general powers we were giving to the government, in any and all bills. These representations have been taken up and emphasized in the findings of the committee. Also, on Tuesday of last week this party put forward a motion dealing with $1 items and condemning their use. In fact the Chair did find that two of these items were quite illegal. Another four of them, with a little more strictness, could have been thrown out, too.
But I should like to bring the attention of hon. members to section K of the report having to do with enabling powers under appropriation acts and, in particular, to paragraphs 104 to 113. Every one of them amounts to a ringing condemnation of the practice of the government in extending the use of $1 items. As has been pointed out, parliament is being asked, very often, under a $1 item, to give power to a subordinate official to do something, subject to the rules and regulations of that subordinate power, on the strength of a $1 item when there is
Metric System
not even the money there. I commend in particular the reading of paragraphs 112 and 113. As a matter of fact 1 shall read them into the record.
112.	The Committee notes that power to make subordinate legislation is not granted in Votes in Appropriation Acts in the United Kingdom or in the Commonwealth of Australia and has concluded that it should place on record its opposition, as a matter of principle, to the making of delegated legislation under Votes in Appropriation Acts, whether under substantive or "dollar" Votes or under Votes used in conjunction with items listed in the Estimates. The Committee has made this position known to the Auditor General, the President of the Privy Council, the President of the Honourable the Treasury Board and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and has invited each to place his observations on the problems and practices now reported before the Committee. The Auditor General has replied in terms which confirm the Committee in its disquiet.
113.	The Committee endorses the views of the Auditor General. If enabling powers to make statutory instruments are to continue to be granted in Appropriation Acts, the vote texts should be specific and unequivocal, and contain all the wording having legislative effect, with none being contained in the Estimates. Legislating by means of dollar Votes and altering the purpose of previous Votes by a number of successive Votes are practices with which the Committee does not agree.
The other day the government repudiated its own members. It repudiated its own members on this committee. One cannot say this loudly enough. It should be said loudly enough for all to hear. For the benefit of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) particularly, I shall repeat it. He must hear it loud and clear.


An hon. Member:: He does.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All that is contained in this report is for the benefit of the House and for the benefit of the government.
May I adjourn the debate?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is moved by Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) that the debate be adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 25, consideration of Bill C-23 to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 9.30 p.m., pursuant to the order made earlier this day, it is my duty at this time to put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of deferred divisions at the report stage of Bill C-23.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
[Stage Direction]

March 28, 1977
Metric System
[And the division bells having been rung.]
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As indicated at the beginning of the consideration of report stage, there are eight report stage motions. All but motion No. 3 stand in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). At the outset of report stage consideration I indicated it would be appropriate to group motions Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 for discussion and for one vote. This afternoon the hon. member for Moose Jaw indicated to me that it is agreeable to him that his motion No. 6, which is similar in principle to the other motions, also be grouped, and therefore a third vote would not be necessary. Therefore I will put the question on motion No. 1 and that result will be entered for motions Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
The question then is on motion No. hon. member for Moose Jaw.		1 in the name of


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 3 lost.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: that Bill C-23, to faciliate conversion to the metric system of measurement, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee of Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the question I wanted to discuss tonight is a bit superfluous because the Minister of Transport
Adjournment Debate
(Mr. Lang) announced today the appointment of a commission to look into the transportation problems of Newfoundland. I did try, however, to find something to discuss and I think 1 was able to come up with an answer.
The commission which has been appointed is another commission to study a transportation problem which has been studied so many times before that everybody in Newfoundland certainly knows the answers-with the exception of both levels of government which asked that yet another study take place. I have said many times before that there was no need of another study after the findings of the Trans-Newfoundland Corridor Transportation Study. Its many volumes discuss the needs of Newfoundland with regard to an intermodal transportation system, including the demand characteristics and user opinion of passenger transportation, air transportation, the trucking industry, inter-city bus service, the change from narrow gauge railway to standard gauge and vice versa, but we are to have still another study of transportation problems when the answers are already obvious.
The minister indicated that the present commission would look at particular Newfoundland needs and that all the studies I have mentioned, and others, would be considered, and that recommendations would be forthcoming to establish a system for the province in line with economic and social factors.
While I am not aware of the terms of reference of the commission I hope that the minister will take my advice. He told me he would include in those terms of reference not only the intermodal base but the relationship to the industries that provide the livelihood of many Newfoundlanders.
My knowledge of those industries is confined more to the western end of the province and I hope the commission will consider the following factors.
First and most important is support for the pulp and paper and linerboard industry in western Newfoundland. I regret to say that due to all the long-shot gambles and political stupidity in the past to create industry for the sake of expediency, that all the millions of dollars put in by the federal and provincial governments went down the drain of expensive dreams. After some 27 years of confederation we still depend on the Bowater pulp and paper industry as the main source of economic stability. That industry was established before Confederation by free enterprise. It took advantage of the resources available and made a go of it. Unfortunately, however, the mill has reached the point where, as a result of its isolated position and distance from the United States and other offshore markets and the resultant cost of transportation, it is becoming more and more difficult for it to compete with new mills coming on-stream in other market areas in the United States and offshore.
This, coupled with the burden of an infestation of the forests which seems to be beyond the capability of anyone to control, means this resource based industry could collapse. Every effort must be made to recommend, in consultation with knowledgeable Bowater officials, the transportation means necessary to lend stability to its continuance for the economic benefit of Newfoundland.

March 28, 1977
Adjournment Debate
The same problem holds true, only more so, in relation to the Labrador linerboard mill, which is a $200 million concern subsidized by the government of Newfoundland at some $25 million per year. One of the many problems confronting the mill is due to the lack of common sense planning for transportation to provide cost effectiveness in delivering the resource to the mill from the woods, let alone competition as a result of high transportation costs to reach offshore markets and compete with mills in the United States and Europe.
While time does not permit me to go into the many other factors relating to transportation support, 1 hope the terms of reference will include the basic demand that railway workers in the area will be allowed to provide an input into problems of rail freight service which has been neglected for so many years by the CNR.
I hope that the Corner Brook Development Association and councils and chambers of commerce which have just completed a massive transportation study on the Corner Brook harbour will be included in the deliberations by the committee.
I hope that the transportation base which exists in Newfoundland between Deer Lake, Corner Brook and Stephenville connecting the northern and the great northern peninsula as well as the western corridor, which consists of Bay St. George and Port au Port, will become part of the study that will finally make a realization that in order to produce and take advantage of the rich resources of Newfoundland, we must have a transportation system.
I trust that the parliamentary secretary will relate this to the minister and that I will get an answer that he is indeed thinking along the same lines.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, to confirm the extent to which communications are efficient between the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and the Newfoundland Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Alex Hickman, announced today the setting up of a commission of inquiry into transportation services in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Minister of Transport stated that the commission will look into existing services with a view to determining whether they meet generally accepted standards in Canada and will recommend, if indicated, such changes as will meet present and future needs. It will also give its conclusions and recommendations in a report to be presented to the Minister of Transport before December 31, 1977.
The Minister of Transport pointed out, as mentioned by the hon. member, that the active participation of the public will constitute one of the essential elements of that inquiry, and that the commission will hold public hearings in various centres across Newfoundland. The minister also added that he had asked the CN to suspend any changes of structural or technological nature which might lead to the lay-off of permanent employees during the inquiry. The number of seasonal

employees will continue to fluctuate according to the volume of traffic.
The federal government consulted the Newfoundland government with regard to the mandate and membership of the commission which was set up under Part I of the Inquiries Act. [English]
I suggest that with regard to the terms of reference of this commission of inquiry into transportation services into Newfoundland and Labrador, the hon. member examined the press release of the terms of reference that was distributed to all members of parliament this afternoon. If the hon. member wants, we can table that documentation. I have all the terms of reference in my hand tonight.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-POLICY OF DEPARTMENT WITH RESPECT TO UNIFORMS FOR CADETS
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I regret to report that once again the Canadian people have been let down by the government. What is more, Canadian youth has been grossly deceived by the government. It is a dangerous procedure for this country in its present de(icate balance hovering between hope and cynicism, fear and misgiving, unity and disintegration. Credibility in government is more essential today than it ever was.
On April 13, 1976, in answer to a question from me in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, the then Minister of National Defence gave this undertaking:
We have listened to the representations of the naval cadets, and the Chief of Staff and I have agreed to defer any change in the naval cadet uniform for at least 18 months to two years to enable full discussion with personnel interested in the naval cadets, to have them come to us and make their case on cost and any other factors you have mentioned, the design, cut and so on.
There was the undertaking of 18 months to two years to enable full discussion. On January 13, barely seven months later, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) made this statement to the Conference of Defence Associations, speaking about the same matter. I quote:
We need to encourage greater service identification and greater unit identification .. . After all, if a man joins up to be a sailor, he wants to be identified as a sailor.
There are two undertakings, two expressions of opinion that looked as though the naval cadets were going to be allowed to continue to wear their naval uniforms.
Barely a week later the Navy League had a meeting with the Minister of National Defence. They were listend to perfunctorily when they presented their case, but the decision was taken on January 20 of this year, nine months after "consultation" had taken place, that a safari-type uniform would be issued to all naval cadets. This is what I mean when I say Canadian youth have been deceived. They had been led to believe they could continue wearing their traditional uniforms.
There are some 14,000 young Canadians in nautically oriented programs. The basic aim of the cadet movement is to give young people the advantage of training, to get them to
March 28, 1977

understand the principles of discipline and responsibility. There should be means of attracting young people to this service, particularly in the light of the extensive maritime concerns of the country. There should be means of developing a nautically-oriented cadet movement, rather than driving possible members away. Samplings indicate that the sea cadets wish to stay with their traditional uniforms and not be put in safari uniforms. As I say, undertakings were given on April 13, 1976, and those concerned were later encouraged to believe those undertakings were still valid. But on January 20, 1977, it was all over.
It is important that the youth of the country and the direction of this movement should feel a sense of satisfaction with an effort well directed, undertaken by a group of people toward a single goal. The object of it all is to inculcate strong community values and make good civic training available. The effort is not necessarily directed toward supplying recruits for any branch of the Canadian Armed Forces. It is directed toward turning out young men and women with high national and community motivation. The cadet movement is to be commended on doing this, and the services are to be commended for encouraging them. But the youth of the country should be encouraged to join the movement, not discouraged from doing so.
The Department of National Defence has no claim on these cadets, though the facilities of the department are used, admittedly. Some of the cadets go to the coastguard service. Others go to college, or to the police force, or to private life. Some go to the Armed Forces. But they all finish their cadet training as better citizens. It would be a tragedy to turn youth away by refusing them permission to wear the traditional uniform of their choice.
On the cost side, it has been demonstrated to my satisfaction that the differential could be as little as $1.19 per uniform, and this does not take into account the difference in the price of the proposed uniform of some $4.50 more for a raincoat. This is additional to what is now being paid. An extra $50,000 spent on raincoats alone is hardly justifiable.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence and his parliamentary secretary, I shall answer the hon. member's question.
Adjournment Debate
I said from the outset that I worked myself with the cadet corps in the riding of Laval and I am completely opposed to what the hon. member mentioned, namely that national unity could be related to the colour or the cut of the cadet corps uniforms. I think that national unity should rather be related to discipline and to some basic principles on which I cannot expand this evening. However, I think that discipline and training are much more essential to the unity of the country than the colour of the uniforms.

Under the authority of the National Defence Act, the Department of National Defence has the responsibility for the training of cadets and for the provision of the material such as clothing and equipment, training aids, etc., to support the training.
In 1972, after a careful review of several factors, the department decided to provide a common green uniform for the navy, army and air cadets. However, procurement action was not initiated until after the ninth meeting of the national cadet advisory group held on December 6, 1974, when the presidents of the navy, army and air cadet leagues all agreed to the adoption of the new green uniforms.


Donald W. Munro: They did not agree at all.


Marcel-Claude Roy: On January 21, 1977-


Donald W. Munro: They were told.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, my time is limited and I would ask the hon. member to give me the chance to give some information. On January 21, 1977, after discussing the new uniform with cadet league officials, the Minister of National Defence announced that the sea, army and air cadets would receive green uniforms similar in colour to those worn by the Canadian forces. In his announcement the minister said that the leaders of the cadet leagues and senior forces' officers would select distinctive badges and colour combinations for the sweater and headdress of each cadet service.
The foregoing is the policy of National Defence with respect to uniforms for cadets, and I might add that as recently as last Thursday the hon. member was advised of the policy personally by the Chief of the Defence Staff at a meeting of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.


END OF VOL. IV