1971-02-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is not possible, in the few minutes which the rules permit me, to describe to the House in more than a summary fashion the Singapore Conference of Commonwealth Heads of Government. With the permission of hon. members, however, I should like to convey to the House some of the impressions that I brought away with me. These impressions, hopefully, will add to the information already received from Singapore in the form of the conference communique and the very full journalistic reports.
The meeting was, as the House is aware, the first regular Commonwealth Conference to take place outside of London, and the first at the head of government level to be sited in Asia. I think that an Asian location was most fortunate, partly because it was in Asia that momentum was first initiated for the Commonwealth to be transformed from its older, more confining structure into the widely representative association which it is today, and partly because an Asian situs permitted conference delegates to live and work in a newly-independ-ent community in which racial harmony is a necessary fact of life. The world, as we know but so often tend to forget in the immediacy of our own domestic problems, is populated to an overwhelming degree by persons who are desperately poor and whose colonial experience in many instances leads them to question the values and the sincerity of the developed countries. All too often as well, "rich" and "white" are regarded by them as synonymous. We forget these facts at our peril.
In Singapore it quickly became apparent that the future of the world will not necessarily be determined in accordance with European conceptions. The Commonwealth, viewed from Singapore, presented challenges to the ingenuity and good will of its members to find ways of communicating across differences measured in many instances by thousands of miles and by centuries of experience, yet without insisting upon adherence to preconceived notions or attitudes. In the result, the value of the Singapore conference might best be described in terms of the comprehension gained by delegates, and not by the persuasion which anyone attempted to exercise.
The conference dealt with a number of important
issues, Mr. Speaker, foremost among them the contentious issue of arms sales to the Republic of South Africa. I am relieved, as I am sure are all here, that, following consideration of factors affecting the security of maritime trade routes, the members agreed to the formation of a committee to study these questions as they relate to the Indian and South Atlantic Oceans in hopes of resolving some of the complex variations and differences of view. I am also pleased that an amended Declaration of Commonwealth Principles, which had been presented earlier to the meeting in its basic form by President Kaunda of Zambia, received the unanimous support of the meeting. Each of these measures confirmed to a large extent the belief by most heads of government that the Commonwealth Association is important; one that is capable of contributing significantly to a better understanding among men of their common ideals and aspirations, their fears and problems, and their increasing interdependence in a technologically complicated world.
The agenda at Singapore permitted wide-ranging discussions of political and economic trends in the world, of the possible consequences of the entry of Britain into the European Economic Community, of a variety of Commonwealth programs, and of the immediate future of the Commonwealth association. Canada disclosed at the meeting that it was prepared to support up to 40 per cent of the financial burden of an expanded commonwealth fund for technical co-operation. Canada also supported a less rigid format for future conferences-one which will relieve some of the unnecessary pressures now present in the preparation of an acceptable communique; one that should reduce the number of pre-prepared statements and thus permit heads of government to take advantage of the particular nature of the meetings. There was general agreement that these changes are desirable, and that the unprecedented opportunity for so many heads of government to meet regularly and informally should be jealously protected.

It is my view now, Mr. Speaker, as it was prior to Singapore, that Canada could get along without the Commonwealth but it remains my strong view that we could not get along nearly so well. No problems would be solved by the break-up of the association; not one member would find it easier to advance its own interests in its absence. The Commonwealth benefits all members and harms none. It is my firm expectation that with the help of the important Commonwealth Declaration the association will prove to be a major contributor to the enrichment of human relations. Commonwealth members share a common language. Even more important, they share a common idiom. In the result, there is permitted
23786-44)

February 1, 1971
Singapore Commonwealth Conference
an informality of encounter and a meeting of minds that surely must be the envy of other countries.
The journey to and from Singapore gave me an opportunity to travel briefly in four of the many countries which have issued invitations to visit over the past several years. Three of those countries-Pakistan, India and Ceylon-are Commonwealth members and long-time major recipients of Canadian economic assistance. Together with the journalists and photographers who accompanied me, I travelled to several of the more important of our aid projects. Through the pens and cameras of these reporters, Canadians are now more aware of the way in which Canadian funds have assisted persons less fortunate than ourselves. I found, too, that in each of those countries the earlier visits of Canadian Prime Ministers St. Laurent and Diefenbaker were well remembered. I should add that the extensive travels in 1958 of the right hon. member for Prince Albert, when he occupied this office, were brought to my attention again and again.
The fourth country visited was Indonesia, the giant of South East Asia, which Canada has recently named as a country of concentration for our aid program and one of whose outstanding citizens, General Nasution, will soon come to Canada as your guest, Mr. Speaker.
In each of those countries the program provided for discussions with the Prime Minister or President and between Canadian officials and their counterparts. These face to face encounters, and that with the Shah of Iran during an overnight stop in his country, provided an opportunity to learn at first hand of the attitudes and beliefs of world leaders in a way which cannot otherwise adequately be duplicated.
A refuelling stop at Lahr permitted me to meet a good number of our servicemen, their wives and children.

Wherever I went, Mr. Speaker, I am happy and proud to report that the name of Canada was held in warm and sincere respect. The professional dedication of Canadian representatives abroad, be they in the public service or the armed forces, serving in our diplomatic missions or in United Nations of NATO assignments, the quality of our aid programs, the value of our trade and investment relations, the friendly and positive nature of our external policies within and without the United Nations-these have all accumulated for Canada over the years an enviable reputation. I am happy to report that the resourcefulness and skills of the members of my official party and of the Canadian Armed Forces crew who were responsible for our transportation contributed not only to the effectiveness of my trip but to Canada's good name wherever we went. To them I am grateful and offer my thanks.
I have no doubt that all Canadians will agree that this high national reputation places upon our fortunate country a special obligation to conduct our affairs both internally and externally in a manner in keeping with the desire of all men to live in a world which contributes to human dignity, justice and social progress. To this end,
all Canadians must dedicate themselves consciously in order to be rid of racial or regional or linguistic prejudices for these are belittling to the world, to Canada, and to us as individuals.
In that respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote in conclusion three sentences from the closing remarks of Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, Chairman of the Singapore Conference. He said:
In a multitude of ways, this conference has mirrored in miniature some of the irreconcilables the world community faces. They must be made less irreconcilable. It will become too costly and painful for mankind if these conflicts are not tempered by the spirit of common brotherhood.
Canada cannot live apart from the world. Events in far off places do affect us, as we have seen again and again in our history. If we are able to influence those events for the better, through attendance at important international conferences, and through meetings with heads of friendly states, then it is the duty of Canada to attempt to do so. This duty does not flow from some vague international role to be played by Canada. Canada must act according to how it perceives its aims and interests. It is in our interest that there not be a general racial war in Africa in the near or distant future. If the Commonwealth Conference reduced the chances of such a war, and if the Canadian delegation contributed to the success of that conference, then I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the effort was well expended.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to welcome the Prime Minister back to the House of Commons and to see that he is in good health after his extensive travels. He seems to have recovered well from the bout of sunburn which afflicted him in the course of his trip. I can sympathize with him in the pain of that experience because sunburn perhaps affects him in the same place as it affects me. As a result of my own familiarity with this localized discomfort I believe I shall have some insight at least into what may be one of his actions during the next week or so: when I see him scratching his head I shall know he is not necessarily perplexed-he is just peeling.
We always follow the Prime Minister's travels with interest. His most swinging encounter this trip appears to have been with an orang-outang named Joan. This adventure evidently happened during a recreational period spent in a wildlife sanctuary. Some people might accuse the Prime Minister of frivolous behaviour with Joan but I want to make it plain that I do not. I am aware of his abiding affection for wildlife and I can believe that this episode may well have been a serious discussion, perhaps about the possibility of a cabinet appointment for Joan as part of the government's current reorganization program-and I hope nobody will think I am being unfair to Joan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am prepared to believe there was a similar serious purpose in mind when the 350-pound

February 1, 1971

turtle was turned on its back to make sure it would stay put during the Prime Minister's visit. I expect this arrangement was designed to help the Prime Minister maintain an awareness of Canadian domestic affairs while he was away. I can picture this hapless, hard-shelled creature, head withdrawn under cover, feet pawing the air in protest, all its immense potential immobilized. The Prime Minister would surely ponder such a sight, and this thought about home would surely flash through his mind: "I wonder", he would say to himself, "how the Minister of Finance is making out with the economy."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I thank the Prime Minister for his report on the Singapore conference. I share his view that it would have been tragic indeed had the Commonwealth collapsed as a result of the dispute over the British arms sale to South Africa. I understand that the Prime Minister, along with certain other participants at the conference, played a part in preventing a break-up at this time. I believe that he, as well as others who were active in this sense, deserves our congratulations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We must recognize, however, that the danger to the Commonwealth is not yet over. Irrespective of what happens with regard to the sale of arms to South Africa there remains a considerable amount of tension and perhaps even resentment between some Commonwealth members. I know the Prime Minister does not like the image of Canada as an honest broker, but however we may describe the role I believe this country should continue to try to retain the trust of all sides so that we can do our part to keep the Commonwealth in existence and strong.
Certainly it is a complicated institution but it has been, and remains, one of the most effective forces in the world for peace and understanding among nations. It is in Canada's interest to encourage continued harmonious relations within the Commonwealth and I hope we shall do everything in our power to this end. I am encouraged in this regard by what the Prime Minister said this afternoon.
I have already expressed my pleasure at the Prime Minister's return to parliament. In his absence the Acting Prime Minister and his other colleagues were trying, I am sure, to mind the store, but they often gave the impression of merely going through the motions. They seemed to feel that the action was taking place many thousands of miles away rather than here at home.
Unfortunately, I have to tell the Prime Minister that even in his absence Canadian problems persisted and in some cases grew worse. I presume that the Prime Minister has been brought up to date on the unemployment situation. He may remember-I am sure he will-that shortly before leaving he announced that henceforth unemployment was Canada's number one priority. I can only presume that having told the people this he forgot
Singapore Commonwealth Conference to mention it to his colleagues in the cabinet. Otherwise I find hard to explain the lack of concern they have displayed about this problem while he was away.
In fact, when the right hon. gentleman is out of the country we seem to get a more vivid and accurate picture of the kind of government that he leads. Each temporary removal of the Prime Minister's colourful wrapper enables us better to know what is really in the package. When the actions of this government are not modulated by his charming charisma in the course of their transmission to us, we get the real message, and it is an old, familiar message of arrogance and complacency that becomes less and less acceptable as times become more and more difficult.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On his return the country has a message for the Prime Minister. It is a message of urgency. The country can no longer afford delay, and it does not want sweet talk any more than it wants vague promises. This country wants action, and it wants it now. It wants effective action to fight mass unemployment, not next summer, not next spring, but now. It wants action to alleviate human misery now. It wants action now -


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -to get the Canadian economy moving vigorously again.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition, of course, since he is making such an important comment on the important statement made by the Prime Minister. However, before we get into serious difficulty I think at this point I have to remind the hon. gentleman what he knows much better than I do, that comments on ministerial or prime ministerial statements should be limited as much as possible to the contents of the statement made to the House. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is only because of the seriousness of the conditions existing in this country that I am speaking about these matters. As I terminate, may I in personal terms most cordially welcome the Prime Minister back to Canada and to parliament. On behalf of the members of my own party and also the Canadian people, I think, I welcome him back in the hope that he will now have something concrete to propose to deal with the pressing problems of this country. We can wait no longer.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of this party I should like to welcome the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) back from his safari abroad. In common with all Canadians, we have followed his travels with

February 1, 1971
Singapore Commonwealth Conference
great interest through television and the press and have watched him riding elephants and camels and smooching with an orang-outang.
I thank the Prime Minister for the report he has given the House this afternoon. I commend him for his statement regarding the importance of the Commonwealth and the part which it can play in the life of our day and generation. I was glad to hear him say that he thought we would gain from this association. This is a commendable change from the time when the Prime Minister, prior to a previous conference, described the Commonwealth as a useful anachronism.
3 (2.30 p.m.)
I for one do not accept the idea that the Commonwealth was in any danger. The Commonwealth is a free association of free nations working together for certain common principles and objectives. It is not necessary that they agree about everything. There is no requirement for unanimity. There can be no question of the Commonwealth trying to force its decisions or opinions on any single member of the Commonwealth.
I do not agree with the Prime Minister's statement in India that if other countries left the Commonwealth we would not want to feel less pure than they. I think it should be remembered that the men who go to these conferences to represent the various parts of the Commonwealth are simply heads of government who in a democracy at that particular time, according to the will of the electorate, head their respective governments. Governments come and governments go in a democracy but nations continue and the Commonwealth continues, and no statesman has the right to talk about taking any country out of the Commonwealth. The people are determined to stay in the Commonwealth, and I do not think any disagreement should lead to talk of the Commonwealth disintegrating.
For that reason I am all the more concerned about the whole question of the sale of arms to South Africa by Great Britain. The Prime Minister seems pleased that the amended version of the Zambian declaration of principles was accepted unanimously by all Commonwealth nations. It was accepted unanimously because it had been rendered meaningless by the Canadian amendment which said:
No country will afford to regimes which practice racial discrimination assistance which, in its own judgment, directly contributes to the pursuit or consolidation of this evil policy.
Of course, by allowing each member to decide what in its opinion is assistance to the policies of racial discrimination and apartheid it was very easy to get unanimity. I submit that the Commonwealth could have survived even had there been a difference of opinion on the Zambian declaration of principles, and that it would have been a good thing for Canada to line up with those nations who uncomprisingly and specifically condemn racialism and those who supply arms to those nations which practice racialism.

The Prime Minister said in his report today:
It is in our own interest that there not be a general racial war in Africa in the near or distant future. If the Commonwealth reduced the chances of such a war, and if the Canadian delegation contributed to the success of the conference, then I submit Mr. Speaker, that the effort was well expended.
This did not solve the problem of the sale of arms by Great Britain to South Africa; this merely shelved the problem. The setting up of the committee of eight to look into the trade routes in the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans has merit, but the whole question of whether or not we approve of the sale of arms to South Africa has been left entirely unanswered, and the declaration adopted is virtually meaningless. Therefore the problem has not been solved; it has been merely shelved. I recognize, of course, that the Canadian Prime Minister is in some difficulty in lecturing other countries about the sale of arms when Canada has been selling over $300 million worth of arms annually to the United States to carry on a bloody and senseless war in Southeast Asia. Therefore it is very difficult to lecture other countries on international morality when one's own hands are dirty.
May I say in closing that there is one thing for which the Prime Minister dan be very thankful. One of his colleagues, Mr. Milton Obote of Uganda, found that during his absence a general had taken over. I say to the Prime Minister that in his absence a general has also taken over-general discontent, with an army of between 500,000 and 750,000 unemployed. We welcome the Prime Minister back to the cold world of reality. He returns to face real problems. The Canadian people, who on television watched him playing Santa Claus round the world, hope that he will be equally generous in dealing with the problems that face Canadians.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just reported to us about his participation at the Singapore Conference. I am convinced the survival of the Commonwealth depends to a large degree on the success of such conferences. It is certainly in the interest of Canada to maintain excellent relationship with all member countries.
I remember that two years ago, I attended the Conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association with other hon. members. I was most interested, and mainly surprised at the vitality and vigour of the debates. Although we spoke the same language, we sometimes told each other some very hard facts but I finally understood that within an association, it is necessary to speak frankly.
I am also pleased to see that the Prime Minister during his travels has stopped in Ottawa. Frankly, all Canadians are pleased to see him back.
We are also glad that the Prime Minister has received such a warm welcome in all the countries he visited. The press, television and radio have kept us informed about those social activities. It could not be otherwise, Mr. Speaker, since Canada has been generous to those countries.
February 1, 1971

The Prime Minister of Ceylon stated that Canada was one of the most important supplier of the Colombo Plan. Indeed, the newspapers reported that before the visit of the Prime Minister to Ceylon, Canada had granted that country loans totalling some $94 million. It was therefore quite normal for that country to extend an appropriate welcome to the head of the Canadian government.
Another loan was granted to Indonesia, another country which the Prime Minister was pleased to visit.
During the past five years, all those countries received assistance from Canada which granted them interest-free loans of some $419 million, according to a reply given on June 18, 1970, to a question put on the order paper.
On his return to Canada, the Prime Minister might also decide to grant loans without interest to the provinces and municipalities of Canada, so as to allow them to undertake public works in order to relieve the misery of families affected by unemployment.
It is said sometimes that credits granted to foreign countries help them to buy products in Canada, thus providing work for Canadians. I am convinced that this is an excellent formula, and I feel that the loans that we would grant to provinces and municipalities, so as to allow them to undertake public works, would help not only to stimulate Canadian production, but also to reduce the high unemployment rate that we have presently.
I hope very sincerely that the Commonwealth conferences will be beneficial to Canada. I hope also that in the course of this year we will see very profitable results ensuing for Canada from the last conference.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43. Because the reasons for presenting it are contained in the wording of the motion itself, I need take no time in introducing it. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), that:
In view of the request of a number of the provinces for the early establishment in Canada of a guaranteed annual income, and in view of the support for such a program by all parties represented in parliament, this House now declares its support, in principle, of a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians, and urges the government to introduce such a plan at an early date.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is being proposed by virtue of Standing Order 43. The House knows that this Standing Order requires that there should be unanimous consent. I have to inquire whether there is such unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimity, the motion presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre cannot be put.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimoulh-Halifax East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-220, to amend the Criminal Code (Attempted Suicide).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is pretty straightforward. It is to remove from the Criminal Code the section dealing with the punishment of those who attempt suicide so as to permit the provincial areas of concern to pursue better more humane methods of operation than in the existing section of the Criminal Code.


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


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motions:
January 29, 1971-The President of the Privy Council:
That the following matters be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development:
1.	The annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the year ended March 31, 1968 and the evidence adduced by the committee in its consideration thereof during the twenty eighth parliament:
2.	The annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the year ended March 31, 1969;
3.	The subject matter of Arctic icebreaker service; and
That during its consideration thereof the committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government Notice of Motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Thomson: 1.	What are the costs of prosecution of (a) Regina v. Jack-lin. Plenty, Saskatchewan (b) Regina v. John Rogers, Plenty, Saskatchewan?
2.	Who paid for these costs?

February 1, 1971
Questions
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board: 1. (a) $2,167.40; (b) $592.75.
2.	Canadian Wheat Board.


WRITS OF ASSISTANCE ISSUED 1961 TO 1969
Mr. Howard (Skeena): For each department or agency by name, how many writs of assistance were issued for each year 1961 to 1969 inclusive?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Writs of Assistance issued on behalf of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the years 1961 to 1969, except as noted, are: 1961, 249*; 1962, 38*; 1963, 46*; 1964, 44*; 1965, 6; 1966, 245; 1967, 176; 1968, 220; 1969, 286.
*These figures do not include Writs of Assistance under the Customs and Excise Acts, the records of which are available only from January 1, 1966.


CANADIAN EXPORTS TO SOUTH AFRICA 1963 TO 1969
Mr. Rowland: 1.	What was the total value of exports from Canada to South Africa in each year 1963 to 1969 inclusive and what are the projected total figures for 1970?
2.	How many firms located in Canada were involved in such exports in each year?
3.	How many Canadians are dependent exclusively for their employment upon such trade?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the
Dominion Bureau of Statistics is concerned: 1. Total value of exports to South Africa, as published in "Trade of Canada-Exports by Countries", are shown below for the years 1963-1970 (to date).
Year	Domestic Exports
($'000)
1963	60,299
1964	69,166
1965	76,226
1966	74,393
1967	77,690
1968	68,341
1969	78,513
Jan.-Oct.	1970	86,978
2.	and 3. To be answered below.
In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. Answered above.
2. and 3. It is impossible to give precise answers to parts (2) and (3) of this question. However Canadian exports to South Africa, which are expected to top $100 million in 1970, are broadly based and are comprised to a very high	degree	(over 90 per cent) of fabricated
materials and end products inedible. This compares to our exports to Britain (62 per cent); the EEC (54 per cent); and Japan (34 per cent). The percentages are even more striking in the category of end products alone i.e.: Britain (7 per cent); the EEC (13 per cent); Japan (3

per cent) and South Africa (34 per cent). All figures are calculated on the basis of Canadian exports for the first nine months of 1970. For the first six months of 1970 South Africa ranked fourth as an individual offshore market for fully manufactured goods (D.B.S. Classification, end products inedible) behind Britain, Australia and the Netherlands and ahead of such countries as Japan, Germany and France.
There is a very broad regional representation in Canadian sales to South Africa as indicated by our leading exports to that market viz: aluminum; automobiles and trucks, newsprint, softwood lumber, printing and writing papers, motor vehicle parts and accessories, wood pulp, wheat, sulphur, canned and smoked fish, textile fabrics, various chemicals and plastics, and a wide range of fully manufactured goods.


W. J. A. GAGE LTD. PUBLISHING COMPANY
Mr. Rowland: 1.	Was the textbook firm W. J. A. Gage Ltd. recently purchased by American interests?
2.	Had majority ownership in the W. J. A. Gage Ltd., prior to the purchase, been in Canada?
3.	How many textbook publishing houses now operating in Canada are wholly Canadian owned or have a majority interest owned in Canada?
4.	What percentage of the Canadian textbook publishing business do Canadian owned textbook companies now control?
5.	Were conversations held between representatives of the Government of Canada and W. J. A. Gage Ltd. before the sale took place?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliameniary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned and several other relevant Departments, the answer is as follows: 1 and 2. Information reported by W. J. A. Gage Ltd. under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act indicated that as of December 31, 1969 the majority ownership of the company was Canadian. The firm has entered into an agreement to sell a majority interest in its textbook publishing division to a United States firm with a new company being formed to operate this Division. There is no indication that the existing company W. J. A. Gage Ltd. has ceased to be majority Canadian-owned.
3.	In the year 1968, 22* companies that can be identified as wholly or majority Canadian-owned reported to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics factory shipments of textbooks of their own manufacture.
4.	The 1968 value of textbook factory shipments by the 22 companies identified as wholly or majority Canadian-owned represented 40.3 per cent of the total Canadian factory shipments of textbooks as reported to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics in that year.
*Companies have been classified as Canadian-owned where information reported under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act indicates that more than 50 per cent of the voting stock is held by Canadian residents, or where other publicly available information provides conclusive evidence as to company ownership. A number of smaller textbook publishers do not report
Re-exports
($'000)
875
2,026
2,017
1,764
1,691
1,655
1,399
February 1, 1971

under the above Act nor is sufficient other evidence available to conclusively establish their ownership. These companies which have not been identified as to ownership accounted for 2.4 per cent of total factory shipments of textbooks in 1968. It is possible that not all establishments publishing textbooks as a secondary activity are included in the above figures. However, it is believed that the omissions, if any, are insignificant.
5.	No.


RCMP PERSONNEL LOCATED IN QUEBEC
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many additional members of the RCMP have been transfered to the Province of Quebec since the date that James Cross was kidnapped?
2.	What was the total number of RCMP located in the Province of Quebec on January 1, 1970?
3.	How many RCMP were located in the Province of Quebec on October 18, 1970?
4.	What has been the total cost to date to the federal government for the transfer, housing and feeding of the additional members of the RCMP located in the Province of Quebec and, of this amount, what proportion of expense will be borne by the federal government and what proportion of expense will be borne by the Government of the Province of Quebec and the Government of the City of Montreal?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. None.
2.	700.
3.	718.
4.	Although no members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were transferred to the Province of Quebec during the period following the kidnapping of James Cross on October 5, 1970 various members of the Force performed temporary duty in the Province of Quebec since that date. The approximate cost of the transportation, housing and feeding of the additional members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police employed on temporary duty within the Province during the period October 5, 1970 to November 5, 1970 was $11,900.


ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST MICHEL CHARTRAND, PIERRE VALLIERES AND CHARLES GAGNON
Mr. Coates: 1.	To the knowledge of the government were actions taken by the Attorney General of the Province of Quebec against Michel Chartrand, Pierre Vallieres and Charles Gagnon for sedition, if so, in each instance, what was the outcome of the action?
2.	To the knowledge of the government were Michel Chartrand, Pierre Vallieres and Charles Gagnon arrested under the War Measures Act, are they still being held under the War Measures Act or have they been released and if they are still being held, what charges are to be laid against each of these individuals?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: By the
Department of the Solicitor General: 1. Yes, as of November 5, 1970 the cases were still before the courts.
Questions
2. Yes, they were arrested and are being held under authority of the War Measures Act. The following charges have been laid: Pierre Vallieres, Section 4(a) War Measures Act; Sections 62(a), 62(c), 230 and 231(a) Criminal Code of Canada. Michel Chartrand, Section 4(a) War Measures Act; Section 62(c) Criminal Code of Canada. Charles Gagnon, Section 4(a) War Measures Act; Section 62(c) Criminal Code of Canada.


NATIONAL REVENUE-NET REVENUE OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE BRANCH
Mr. Souiham: By province, what has been the net revenue of the Customs and Excise Branch, Department of National Revenue, for each year 1967, 1968 and 1969?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: 1967-68	1968-69	1969-70Newfoundland	
$	7,905,887 * *	7,022,213 $	8,021,931Nova Scotia	
59,190,635	61,752,469	62,951,053Prince Edward Island.	857,724	674,920	671,667New Brunswick	17,817,866	19,046,308	19,037,408Quebec	
1,279,952,410	1,296,092,892	1,357,484,376Ontario	
1,921,196,160	1,923,939,624	2,059,722,090Manitoba	
84,742,688	36,538,681	36,627,868Saskatchewan	
23,158,091	112,954,763	118,983,337Alberta	
90,612,966	47,960,961	60,774,016British Columbia	233,655,882	243,000,250	289,776,201Yukon Territory	572,961	599,733	569,855
*3,719,663,270 *3,749,582,814 *4,014,619,802
Note: Distribution of the above figures is based on the province in which collection points are located. The amounts are the Customs duties, excise duties, sales tax and other excise taxes taxes collected at Customs ports and collection offices within each province on goods which may be used or consumed in any province. Consequently, the provincial totals should not be taken as reflecting the effect of Customs and Excise duties and taxes on the residents of each province.


PAYMENT OF REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO ARREST OF ABDUCTORS OF JAMES CROSS
Mr. Godin: Has the government paid the $75,000 reward for the person providing information leading to the arrest of Mr. Cross' abductors?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: One of
the conditions agreed between the federal and provincial governments in the making of the reward offer was that the identity of any person providing information would be fully protected and would remain confidential. This condition was promulgated in the announcement of the reward offer. In view of the agreed condition it would not be in the public interest to say whether or not a reward had been paid.

February 1, 1971
Questions


INDIAN RESERVES-ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS GOVERNING TRADE AND HOURS OF OPENING STORES
Mr. Godin: Who is responsible for the enforcement of regulations governing trade and hours of opening of stores on Indian reservations?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Federal and provincial governments work together in the enforcement of regulations governing trade and hours of opening stores on Indian Reserves and the relevant laws and regulations are under the provinces' jurisdiction except to the extent that it conflicts with the Indian Act. At least one Indian band in Quebec has passed its own hours of closing by-law under the Indian Act.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION-LOANS IN ARREARS
Mr. Rowland: 1.	What percentage of farmers having loans with the Farm Credit Corporation have been unable to meet their obligations to the Corporation during the past two years?
2.	Of those farmers who have successfully met their obligations, what percentage have been forced to borrow money from other sources in order to make their payments to the Farm Credit Corporation?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minisfer of Agriculture):: 1. The
Farm Credit Corporation advises that the percentage of all borrowers in arrears increased from 6.4 per cent in 1968 to 9.9 per cent in 1969, and to 15.1 per cent in 1970.
2. Information not available.


INFORMATION CANADA POSTERS
Mr. Coates: 1.	Did Information Canada sponsor the production of nude posters displaying the maple leaf and, if so, for what reason?
2.	(a) Who was commissioned by Information Canada to produce the posters in question (b) what was the actual cost of producing the posters (c) how many were produced (d) how many have been sold to date?
3.	Has any action been taken by the federal government to have these posters withdrawn and destroyed?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: 1.
Information Canada has lately published three posters. On one of these two cartoons figures appear adorned with maple leaves. These posters represent an experimental effort to communicate to Canadian young people, and to serve as means of them expressing sentiments of national awareness and solidarity.
2.	(a) Information Canada/Expositions. (b) Design costs, overhead, and printing was $7,237.25, which it is hoped to recover fully from sales, (c) 6,000 (2,000 of each), (d) About 700.
3.	No.


DRUG ADDICTS-NUMBER CONFINED IN FEDERAL PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Sullivan: How many known drug addicts were confined in federal penal institutions and which institutions had rehabilitation programs in effect?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: There were 310 known heroin drug addicts confined in federal penal institutions. The major treatment program of the Penitentiary Service for narcotic addicts is conducted at the Matsqui Institution, Abbotsford, British Columbia. Addicts in other federal penal institutions receive individual treatment by the institutional psychiatrists.


FEDERAL PENITENTIARIES-TESTS GIVEN TO PERSONNEL
Mr. Sullivan: Are periodic psychiatric and psychological tests given on a yearly basis to (a) wardens (b) senior officials (c) guards and other officials of federal penal institutions?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: No.


RECORDING OF &quot;O CANADA&quot; BY RCMP BAND
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Has the American Federation of Musicians refused to permit the RCMP Band to record "O Canada"?
2.	If so, has an official protest been made by the Government of Canada and, if not, for what reason?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Solicitor General that the answer to the first question is no, and that therefore the second question is not applicable.


DISPOSITION OF MERCANTILE BANK CAPITAL STOCK
Mr. Caouette: 1 Has the Mercantile Bank of Canada decided to offer part of its capital stock to Canadian citizens and, if so, does it intend to do this (a) by placing part of its present capital stock on the market (b) by increasing its present capital stock?
2.	If the Bank has decided to increase its present capital stock (a) for what reason has this decision been made (b) in what proportions will the capital stock be increased (c) what will be the terms and conditions of the sale of the new shares?
3.	Was the Minister of Finance consulted on these decisions?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minisfer of Finance):: 1. The Mercantile Bank of Canada has announced its intention to increase its present authorized capital.
2. (a) In order to issue shares of the Bank to Canadian residents until Canadians hold at least seventy-five per cent of the Bank's shares, (b) The authorized capital of the Bank will be increased from $10 millions to $40 millions in successive increases of $5 millions, each of which to become effective when previously authorized capital
February 1, 1971

has been fully issued, (c) The shares must be sold to Canadian residents only. If all the new shares have not been issued by December 31, 1980, a Canadian trustee will be empowered to sell sufficient existing shares of the Bank to bring the total holding by Canadian residents up to 75 per cent. The price and other terms on which the new shares will be offered have not yet been announced by the Bank.
3. Yes.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-CANADIAN MILITARY COLLEGES
Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The: Islands):
1.	What was the enrolment in each of the officers' training colleges of the Department of National Defence in Canada as at December 31, 1970?
2.	What was the annual cost of operating each of these institutions during either the last calendar or fiscal year?
3.	How many individuals graduated from each of these institutions during the year 1970?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: 1. The Canadian Military Colleges consist of the Royal Military College of Canada, Royal Roads Military College and College militaire royal de Saint-Jean. As of September 30, 1970 the following number of cadets were in attendance: RMC, 542; RRMC, 215; CMR, 407.
2.	Estimated costs for the fiscal year 1970-71 are as
follows:	RMC, $6,159,000; RRMC, $2,735,000; CMR,

3.	Total number of cadets graduated from RMC in 1970 was 179.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many Writs of Assistance have been issued on behalf of each department in each of the past ten years?
2.	How many Writs of Assistance have been used on behalf of each department in each of the past ten years?
3 Are there any regulations or government guidelines as to time limits governing the use of Writs of Assistance?
4.	How many RCMP Officers have Writs of Assistance in their possession which can be used at the discretion of the Officer?
Return tabled.


INFORMATION CANADA PERSONNEL
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the present total staff of Information Canada; are there to be additional hirings and, if so, what is the estimated complete staff for Information Canada?
2.	(a) How many members of the staff of Information Canada are presently receiving salaries of $10,000 or more (b) what are their names (c) what is each person's position (d) what is the actual salary?
Return tabled.
Orders for Returns


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. Since October 9 my question No. 143 dealing with aircraft tenders has been on the order paper. At one time or another various bits and pieces of information sought have been either given in committee or in the House. I wanted the information in tabular form, as well as some additional information. Surely to goodness the answer to this question could have been given within three or four weeks. It is long overdue.
Your Honour understands well and I have had a good deal to do with the use of written questions in the past. We readily understand that questions are put on the Order Paper in order to elicit information, but not at some indeterminate time in the future. We know that questions can be put down in a much more logical and understandable form than during oral questions so that the information can be more readily produced. I suggest to Your Honour that the conduct of the government in postponing answers to questions such as this one is quite indefensible. I hope that we can get answers with a minimum of delay; otherwise the whole purpose of questions on the order paper is frustrated.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of that question, but I do resent the implication that we are delaying.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Alexander Jerome: As I said last Wednesday, every effort is being made to answer every question on the order paper. At times they are put forward in quantities so great that it is not possible to answer them. Last Friday some 55 further questions were put on the order paper. The ministries are kept very busy trying to keep up with the pace, but we are doing the best we can.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, last week I raised a question concerning an answer to my question No. 79 which was put on the order paper on October 8 in this session and also put on the order paper four, five or six months before that in the last session. Could I get some indication when this question, which I do not think is that complicated, will be answered?


James Alexander Jerome: Further to the hon. member's remarks of last week, some further work has been done on the answer, and I hope we will be able to provide it in a very few days.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 LABOUR CONDITIONS NUMBER OF PERSONS DRAWING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26 I wish to ask leave of the House to move a motion for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration.

February 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Without making extraneous or embellishing remarks about the gravity of the situation, may I say that the motion concerns the fact indicated by the Acting Prime Minister on Friday, January 29, as recorded in Hansard at page 2889, that about three-quarters of a million Canadians are presently claiming unemployment insurance benefits.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena has filed a notice as required under the terms of Standing Order 26 and which has given me the opportunity to give serious consideration to his request. The subject of his proposed motion, as outlined by him, is similar to others which have been made from time to time upon the publication of statistics relating to unemployment. The last requests for such motions were made by the hon. member for Spadina and by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands on January 14 last. The reasons outlined in the ruling denying those motions, as reported at page 2397 of Hansard of January 14, 1971, would appear to apply in the present circumstances.
As hon. members know, we have just recently had a two-day debate on the subject of unemployment. That took place on January 18 and 19, the House dividing on an amendment by the hon. member for Edmonton West. That was on the third and fourth days of the budget debate. As hon. members also know, Standing Order 26 provides that the Speaker should take into account the probability of the matter being brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means. There are still two days available to hon. members for completion of the budget debate. Indeed, the Standing Orders will provide a number of other opportunities for further discussion of the unemployment situation.
In view of the provisions of Standing Order 26 and in light of all the circumstances, I must conclude that the hon. member's motion should not be put to the House today.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's recognition during the Christmas recess that unemployment is now the country's number one problem and as no new measure has been announced since then by himself or by his ministers in his absence, now that the Prime Minister is back I would like to ask him whether the government proposes to announce immediately any new measures to deal with this grievous problem and render the present situation a little less unjust?
[Mr. Howard (Skeena).l


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should discourage the Leader of the Opposition from thinking that new measures can be announced each time the opposition notices that there is some unemployment in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Woolliams:: Some!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: New measures were introduced last March to change the cash requirement position of the government from a surplus to a deficit, inidicating that as early as then the government was aware that it had to reverse the economic trends in the country in spite of the fact that the official opposition was condemning us for going into a deficit position. Again in June we announced measures; again in September we announced measures, and again in December. We do not expect, Mr. Speaker, to be announcing them every other week. The hon. member knows that the economic system is not something that changes direction over night. We are confident, and the economic indicators all indicate it, that the measures we initiated last March and in June, September and December are having a beneficial effect and that this serious problem of unemployment will be unproved as time goes by.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not ask the Prime Minister to show any consideration for me but simply some consideration for the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the recent statement by the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada that he is not impressed by the degree of stimulation provided by the government's fiscal policies, is the Prime Minister prepared now to consider selective tax cuts? I do not ask the Prime Minister for an announcement every other week, Mr. Speaker, just one good policy that will do the trick.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister apparently does not want to answer questions. In view of the forecast by economists outside the government service that they see no prospect of any material reduction in the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment in 1971 based on current fiscal policies, is it the government's policy to accept this level of unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be referring to some economists but this certainly is not the consensus. I repeat that the economic indicators are, on the contrary, to the effect that the downtrend in industrial production is not continuing, that the index of industrial production is rising, and that in seasonally adjusted terms we have reached the maximum unemployment that we are likely to go through. The Minister of Finance did indicate that in absolute figures it is likely that the figures will rise in January and February, as they do every year even in the best of years, but it is not the
February 1, 1971

intention of the government to be panicked into putting the country back on an inflationary course.



GOVERNMENT FORECAST OF PEAK WINTER UNEMPLOYMENT-NUMBER OF JOB APPLICANTS AT MANPOWER CENTRES

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's statement that the unemployment figures may rise, and in view of the fact it is reported that government economists have forecast the unemployment peak this winter as between
675,000	and 700,000, can the Prime Minister tell the House what the government's forecast is as to the peak which unemployment will reach in the present winter? What is the government's estimate of the unemployment figures for this winter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the figures, and I do not believe it is customary to answer statistical questions in the House.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who, when he was Acting Prime Minister, said outside the House that the government had an estimate as to what it thought the unemployment figure would be, and he did not divulge it at that time. Is he prepared to divulge it now?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker. I think the Prime Minister is quite right in saying that statistical questions of this kind are not in order in the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since someone in the government must know what the unemployment figure is, may I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration if he can tell the House what the latest figures are of the number of persons who have applied to Manpower centres as being out of work and desirous of securing employment?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that figure, but I am sure I can acquire some recent data covering the particular information which the hon. member is seeking and try to furnish it to him.



UNEMPLOYMENT-SUGGESTED REINTRODUCTION OF WINTER WORKS PROGRAM

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the thousands of unemployed in the country, is the government now going to reintroduce a winter works program as requested by the province of Ontario?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is that the program we introduced involving $160 million is about six times as big as any winter works program we ever had.
Inquiries of the Ministry



UNEMPLOYMENT-WELFARE COSTS-SUGGESTED CONFERENCE WITH PROVINCIAL PREMIERS ON FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister this question. In view of the heavy financial burden on the cities and provinces because of the number on welfare in Canada, would the Prime Minister now agree to call immediately a premiers' conference to discuss assistance to the cities and provinces in the financial plight in which they now find themselves?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there will be a premiers conference next Monday and Tuesday. This subject is not on the agenda but I am sure that if they-[DOT]


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Not on the agenda!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, it is "not on the agenda."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



UNEMPLOYMENT-LOANS TO PROVINCES-INCREASE IN AMOUNT TO BE SPENT THIS WINTER

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's histrionics may I address my question to the Minister of Finance who may not try to perform an act. In view of the fact that only $40 million of the $160 million loan fund to municipalities and provinces that he referred to a few minutes ago is scheduled to be spent by the end of the present fiscal year, which means during the winter months, and in view of the increasing unemployment situation, is he prepared to make a change in the amount to be spent this winter and increase the amount to the provinces and the municipalities?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we are willing to advance the money to the provinces just as soon as they are ready to accept it and they have projects under way.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker-


Edgar John Benson: To finish that answer I might say that the provinces will have to estimate exactly when they need the money. If it means a change in estimates this year because they can use it more quickly for these particular purposes, then of course we would consider a supplementary estimate.



UNEMPLOYMENT-GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT INCREASE REQUIRED TO REDUCE LEVEL TO 4 PER CENT

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Again referring to the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada who is reported to have said at Waterloo that in order to reduce the unemployment rate to 4 per cent-

February 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether it is in order to quote extensively or even briefly from a statement of this kind. Perhaps the hon. member might ask the question in another form.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I shall try. Can the Minister of Finance inform the House whether he has revised his estimate with regard to what will happen to employment and unemployment? Does he agree that it will require a rate of growth in the gross national product of some 10 per cent in order to reduce unemployment to about 4 per cent in one year?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, what I have said is that we expect the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment to decline throughout this year, and that is still our expectation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Since government officials, presumably officials of his department, are giving forecasts regarding unemployment to the press, would the minister be good enough to consult them, obtain the information from them and give it to the House?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will not accept the first assumption made by my hon. friend.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



UNEMPLOYMENT-REQUEST FOR MORE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OFFICES

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchesier North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Since there are some 750,000 claimants for unemployment insurance benefits at present, would the minister give consideration to establishing, even temporarily, suboffices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in various areas, because the offices are now regional, have to cover a very large area, and it is very difficult for claimants to secure their benefits?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question gives me an opportunity to state categorically that there are not 750,000 people in Canada drawing unemployment insurance today. I challenge the hon. member for Skeena to reveal the source of his figures.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Nor are there 750,000 claimants. On Thursday, the figures announced by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for the end of November were 480,000 action claimants.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North has a supplementary question.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, rather than argue about the numbers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North in a moment. I understand that the hon. member for Skeena is rising on a question of privilege.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege would not have arisen if the Minister of Labour had not thrown out a challenge. May I point out to him, if he does not know this already, that the figure used last Friday was substantiated by no less a person than the Acting Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Minister of Labour might allow the hon. member for Skeena to indicate what the question of privilege is.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is this: who the hell are we supposed to believe over there?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That was obviously a point of debate. I believe that the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North wishes to ask a supplementary question. We ought to return to him. I suspect that the supplementary he wishes to ask is related to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Skeena.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is based on the original question I asked. I am not worried about whether there are 700,000 or 800,000, or whatever the number is; I am worried about a devil of a lot of unemployed people who are unable to obtain satisfactory service from the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I want to see that they get better service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Since the matter has been raised in this way, I have no alternative except to suggest to the hon. gentleman that if he has any tangible evidence of any lack of service by the Unemployment Insurance Commission he should do what other members of the House do and bring the particular case to the attention of my department. Then I shall rectify it.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, may I raise a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister wishes to raise a question of privilege.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is this. Unintentionally, I am sure, the hon. member for

February 1, 1971

Skeena on Friday said the following, as reported at page 2889 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister about the government's unemployment program. Has he received reports showing that the total number of people unemployed and drawing unemployment insurance benefits now stands at 756,000?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the minister again. We appreciate the point he is trying to make, just as we understand the point which the hon. member for Skeena was trying to make. This, I suggest to the hon. member, is simply a question of debate. It is not a question of privilege at all. The hon. member for Skeena suggests that certain figures were given to the House; the Minister of Labour suggests that those figures were not given to the House. This has nothing to do with privilege. There must be some other way for the matter to be resolved without the raising of questions of privilege.



UNEMPLOYMENT-ESTIMATES FOR JANUARY, FEBRUARY AND MARCH

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on television yesterday the Minister of Finance said that the January figure for unemployment would be 100,000 greater than-


Some hon. Members:: Speak up.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member's microphone is faulty.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on television yesterday the Minister of Finance said that the unemployment figure for January would be 100,000 greater than-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Apparently there is some difficulty with the microphone. I seek the co-operation of hon. members to give the hon. member for Winnipeg North a chance to ask his question so that it can be heard by the minister concerned and by the Chair. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on television yesterday the Minister of Finance said that the unemployment figure for January would be 100,000 greater than the 538,000 applying to December, and that unemployment would be
12,000	greater in February. Can the minister tell the House and the country whether the figures he quoted on television yesterday were correct and what the estimates of unemployment are for January, February and March?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke on television I was simply indicating, and my friend can obtain this information by studying the figures over the years, that the change in unemployment figures between December and January, because of the seasonal factor, is normally about 100,000, and that between January and February this change is usually between 12,000 and 15,000. These figures are all published and available for all members of the House to see. I am referring to the unadjusted unemployment figures over the years. After February the unadjusted figures, those
Inquiries of the Ministry
relating to the absolute number of unemployed, tend to decline very rapidly.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member on his supplementary, but I think I ought to caution hon. members that that type of question ought to be asked directly and that there should not be references to statements made by ministers outside the House. The rule is well known. Hon. members cannot ask ministers to comment on or to confirm or deny statements made outside the House but may ask their questions directly. The hon. member might now be allowed to ask his supplementary, after which I believe the Chair ought to recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse who has been waiting for the chance to ask the lead-off question on behalf of his party.


David Orlikow: Can the Minister of Finance give to the House the estimates made by officials of his department of the actual numbers who will be unemployed in the first three or four months of 1971?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister has already answered part of that question. I think everyone knows the answer to the other part of the question. I have given it. If the opposition would study the figures which have been published over the years, they would find the seasonal changes that I have mentioned.


Mr. Muir:: The Prime Minister says that we must like it or lump it.



AGRICULTURE


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In the fight of what he said in Fredericton, at the meeting of the dairy producers, could the minister indicate to the House whether the government is contemplating a change in its dairy policy so as to increase substantially the subsidies paid to dairy farmers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, the translation is not coming through the public address system. To answer what I heard, I should like to advise the House that we are working as rapidly as we can with the industry. We had several meetings last week, and we hope we can come to the point at which we can make an announcement within a few days regarding the levels of support.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There may be a lack of
communication both ways between the hon. member and the minister. Perhaps the Chair ought to recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



SALE OF ARMS BY FRANCE TO SOUTH AFRICA- CANADIAN POSITION

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I am
glad to be able to qualify for the fervor of the welcome that has just been given to me by the House. I rise, as is usual for me, to ask a question. Before I ask my question, might I be allowed to join in welcoming the Prime Minister back to the House. I know something of Prime Ministers' conferences and the difficulties encountered. I join in the welcome to him and express appreciation of the kindly reference myself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Having done that, I now direct a question to the Prime Minister. Even from the meagre reports from the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, I gathered that the Prime Minister had raised a strong objection to the sale of arms to South Africa by the United Kingdom. In view of the fact that Canada is a member of the Francophone group of nations in Africa, I have tried recently to get some information from the Acting Prime Minister. I see that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is telling the Prime Minister in advance what the answer should be. Has the Prime Minister communicated directly with the French government to complain about the fact that the French are selling a tremendous amount of arms to various parts of the world, including the latest order of 100 Mirage aircraft to South Africa? In keeping with his strong adherence to the principle in which he believes, has the Prime Minister directly approached the French government to indicate Canada's condemnation of such action? Without the consent of the French government, French munition firms are not permitted to sell arms to various countries.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will begin by answering that the right hon. member has his facts right about Canada's condemnation of Britain's intention to sell arms to South Africa. I cannot say as much for the leader of the New Democratic Party, who does not seem to know these facts. On the question of whether we protested the sale of arms to France, the answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. We protested in the United Nations. In Singapore I mentioned the subject on several occasions. I must confess that my communications with the head of the government of France are not as direct as with the head of the government of Great Britain, who was kind enough to discuss this problem with me. If Mr. Pompidou wants my advice, I will repeat to him what I have said both publicly and privately.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: That is not my recollection. When the Prime Minister wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom condemning Britain out of hand, he was not asked for his opinion or that it be made public. Whatever the communications are with the Republic of France or the local embassy, on behalf of all Canadians will the Prime Minister consider doing that
which he did with such energy against the United Kingdom?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am surprised that the right hon. member, who has experience in Commonwealth matters, has not been able to make a distinction between la Francophonie and the Commonwealth. In the Commonwealth the custom is for members to consult with each other frequently on matters which affect the others. In this particular case the Prime Minister of Great Britain said he would consult his Commonwealth colleagues about the opportunity of taking that step and their reaction to it. La Francophonie does not operate in this fashion.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if Canada believes in a principle applicable to the United Kingdom, is it not time it should follow the same principle toward France?



REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES RESPECTING AERIAL BOMBARDMENT OF VIET NAM, CAMBODIA AND LAOS

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the increasing American aerial bombardment of Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos, with the resulting destruction of civil lives and the ecology of these countries, has the Canadian government made or will it be making representations to the United States government on this subject?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have not made any representations for some time. As the hon. member knows, we did make very vigorous representations with the result that there was a very sharp reduction of military activity in Viet Nam, including bombing. We will again study the matter in view of the ecological and other considerations raised by the hon. member.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Prior to making these objections to the United States, may I ask the minister if the United States government invited representations, as was the case with the British?


Mitchell William Sharp: There are occasions when we make our views known in the United Nations and elsewhere. We have no hesitation in making our views known on this matter. I hope they have the support of the hon. member.


Donald MacInnis: I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister not object to the British sale of arms to South Africa prior to communicating with Prime Minister Heath?



IMMIGRATION


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: My question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the minister protested through the proper channels the

February 1, 1971

action of the CBC last evening in giving substantial television time-in colour yet-to five Vietnamese whom he only recently banned from entering Canada because they wanted to use closed circuit television to direct their propaganda to Canadian and American audiences?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, I was not aware of the incident until this point in time. Of course, it does not strike me as falling within my jurisdiction or offending anything I did in any way.



WELFARE


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the federal-provincial welfare conference did not reach any decisions and there will have to be continuing conferences, will the minister advise the House whether he is considering the provision of an emergency welfare fund for the provinces based on per capita income and unemployment rates, as recommended by the Atlantic provinces?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Without agreeing with the premise initially stated by the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member, coming from Newfoundland, is aware that the Atlantic provinces submitted a proposal to the federal government for a change in the cost sharing formula under the Canada Assistance Plan. The hon. member's colleagues from Newfoundland, who attended the conference, are aware that the federal government has that formula under consideration.


Jack Marshall: Will the minister advise how he proposes to cope with the immediate crisis which exists in the provinces and municipalities in view of the over-extension of welfare budgets? Also, how does he propose to cope with the critical need for immediate relief to those suffering both physically and mentally right at this moment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member and the minister that this question is very wide in scope and would require a statement on motions.



INQUIRY AS TO INCREASE IN FEDERAL PAYMENTS UNDER CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN

Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that the problem of welfare costs exists right across the country, can the minister state if he will be making an announcement at an early date on whether the government is prepared to increase the percentage it pays under the Canada Assistance Plan?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker. I cannot precisely state when
Inquiries of the Ministry
there will be an announcement in this connection, if indeed there will be an announcement. As the hon. member is aware, in the white paper on income security approximately 14 areas are identified for revision under the Canada Assistance Plan. Negotiations will continue with the provinces on whether a consensus can be developed with reference to them. In the meantime, it is open to the provinces to change their own priorities to deal with this problem and to receive fifty-fifty sharing with a view to more adequately improving this situation.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF BRIEFS AND REPORTS PRESENTED TO CONFERENCE

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Will the minister agree to table the briefs of the provincial welfare ministers and the reports of the federal task forces, which were presented at the federal-provincial conference?


John Carr Munro: As the hon. member should be aware, two of these task force reports were in fact tabled and made public last Friday. The other is not yet complete.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


J. Michael Forrestall: My
question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since President Nixon's budget proposals now confirm that the United States definitely intends to continue underground nuclear testing on Amchitka Island, is Canada considering making further representations to the United States with respect to the continuance of this program and, if so, what is the nature of these representations?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have now received scientific reports concerning these operations and they are under consideration. We have not made up our minds whether or not they would justify our making another representation.


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


Mr. Mather:: Mr. Speaker-


J. Michael Forrestall: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has already recognized the hon. member for Surrey so it might be easier to allow him to ask his question. Later, I will return to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.


J. Michael Forrestall: Did the scientific information we are currently studying reach us before the United States made a firm commitment to go ahead with further testing? The Secretary of State for External Affairs is, of course, familiar with the reasons for asking this question

February 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
and its great importance to Canadians, particularly those living on the west coast.


Mitchell William Sharp: We had some knowledge that the United States was considering proceeding with these tests. The information we are studying was received before the President delivered his recent message. Its importance is reinforced by the announcement which has now been made.


POLLUTION
Barry Mather: My question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the mounting public protest in British Columbia in connection with the proposed shipment by tanker of massive oil supplies through Puget Sound, can the minister tell us whether the government has accepted this potential threat of pollution? If not, then what is the position?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: This question, of course, involves international waters- the high seas-and waters off the west coast which are within the sovereignty of the United States. It is thus a matter which concerns the Secretary of State for External Affairs and, since it deals with oil transportation, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The hon. member may rest assured, however, that the government is seriously concerned about the transportation by large tankers of very large cargoes of oil down the west coast, particularly in the area, hazardous to transportation, of Puget Sound.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Murray McBride (Renfrew-Lanark-Carleton):: My
question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the widespread concern felt among farmers in eastern Ontario over the loss of markets represented by the announcement that Canada Packers are closing their slaughtering facilities in Hull, what action does the government plan to take to prevent this loss of a traditional outlet for livestock products?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am keenly aware of the concern of livestock producers in the area affected who have traditionally delivered their animals to this plant for slaughter. However, it does not fall within the purview of my department to make announcements respecting the construction of other plants in this area. I should like to advise the hon. member that the regulations concerning meat inspection have not been responsible for the closing of this plant; the action was more directly related to the treatment of the effluent coming from it.


FINANCE
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Having heard the homily delivered by the Prime Minister on the longterm effects of the government's monetary and fiscal unemployment policy, I wonder whether the Minister of Finance would now agree with the chairman of the Economic Council, and admit he was wrong in criticizing the fifth report of the Economic Council of Canada which warned the minister and the government of the longterm effects of its monetary and fiscal policies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is very interesting but it is in the form of an argument, or debate.


CONSIDERATION OF PRICE AND WAGE CONTROLS- REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON INCOME POLICY
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In light of statements by the Minister of Labour, is the government actively considering mandatory price and wage controls at this time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Throughout the period when we were actively concerned with inflation, I did say to the House that the government was studying all means whereby inflation could be curtailed and controlled. This was one of the means we were considering, and have been considering.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I take it, then, that it is under active consideration. In light of similar statements by the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission and the uncertainty of the economy generally, will the Prime Minister make a statement on motions outlining the position of the government with regard to an income policy for 1971?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I certainly cannot undertake to make a statement on policy on that particular basis. It is the kind of statement which is generally made in a budgetary context, and it will be made when the next budget is brought down.


INDUSTRY
Robert Muir: My question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the possible involvement of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, which is one of the minister's babies, can the minister advise us what steps are being taken by the government to prolong the life of the McBean mine, bearing in mind that 200 men will face unemployment if this mine closes in March as scheduled?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire whether some action might be taken or whether is was decided recently to do so and I shall report about it to the House.

February 1, 1971


AIR CANADA
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Did the minister meet with any officials of Air Canada recently? If so, was he pleased with the meeting and can he offer some hope there will be an abatement of the lay-offs proposed by that organization?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I did not
meet with any officials of Air Canada, but our industry specialists met with representatives of both the unions and the company to ascertain what, if anything, could be done to reduce the impact of the proposed lay-offs.


Thomas Miller Bell: We realize that the Minister of Transport has a responsibility in this regard, but will the hon. gentleman undertake to involve himself in this matter having in mind the effect of heavy lay-offs particularly in certain areas?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It has been the policy of this minister, and of the Department of Labour to be continuously involved with all industries that come within federal jurisdiction at all times.


Jack Marshall: In
view of the fact that some of the people being laid off have to move today and have been given lay-off notices which will mean that for two weeks they will receive no pay, will the minister undertake to look into this serious situation immediately?


EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET-SEEKING OF ASSOCIATE STATUS FOR CANADA-ACCESS TO UNITED KINGDOM MARKET
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: My question is addressed to the minister who answers for the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that the United Kingdom is seeking entry into the European Common Market and the effect this might have on Canadian exports, is the minister studying the possibility of Canada seeking associate status in the European Common Market, and can he inform the House what steps have been taken to ensure access for Canadian grain, pulp, paper and other commodities to the United Kingdom market?


Otto Emil Lang: The question of associate status is not, to my knowledge, under active consideration. The government is, of course, making representations to Britain continuously about the position of our trade. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce reported not long ago on the most recent discussions he has held with his counterparts in Europe and with the government of Britain.
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES


LEVEL OF MERCURY CONTAMINATION IN SWORDFISH FOUND UNFIT FOR MARKETING-POLICY FOR GUIDANCE OF FISHERMEN
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to direct this question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the fact that two shiploads of swordfish totalling
30,000	pounds, recently landed in Nova Scotia, were found to be unfit for market because of mercury contamination, can the minister tell us the level of mercury contamination in these fish and indicate whether this level would be such as to prevent the sale of these fish for mink or pet food? Will he also tell us whether his department has established a fishing policy for the guidance of those who fish for swordfish so that they may regulate their operations in the future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some doubt whether the question asked by the hon. member is in order; he seems to be asking for detailed information. But since the matter may be of particular urgency, if the minister has the information he might convey it to the House.


John (Jack) Davis: Unfortunately, most swordfish caught on the high seas at a considerable distance from Canada contain more than the half part per million of mercury. The older, larger fish are having to be condemned, at least for human consumption. We are looking into this situation very carefully and if there are any alternative uses for the swordfish that have already been caught we will certainly make use of them.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, since the entire swordfishing operations of Atlantic Canada have now been brought to a standstill, can the minister indicate whether he or his officials have established some policy for the guidance of those men who are now unemployed through no fault of their own?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we will endeavour to do much the same thing that we did for other fisheries in this country, namely, to support the incomes of fishermen until they can either find work in another segment of the fishery or be retrained for employment in other industries.


INVITATION TO SEND DELEGATES TO COUNCIL OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State.
Can he tell us whether the government has been invited to send representatives to the Canadian Council of Social Development Conference on Student Employment and Transient Youth Services? If so can he tell us what departments will be sending representatives and whether officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare have been invited to attend?

February 1, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Stale): Mr. Speaker, I have no recollection of any invitation emanating from the organization the hon. member has just mentioned. I will however make inquiries in this regard in order to be able to pass on to him the information he wants.


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, January 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Drury (for the Prime Minister) that Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that we have a thorough debate on Bill C-207 in view of the wide range of subject matters involving government operations that are covered by this bill. I recognize the unavoidable absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) recently, but at the same time I think it important that he be present during this debate, and that we hear from him about some of the implications and consequences that flow from the changes that are proposed in Bill C-207.
I did note that when the Prime Minister returned to Canada from the Commonwealth conference he chose to make a reference to the business that has been dealt with by the House of Commons during his absence and indicated some impatience with the progress being made by the House of Commons. Just what the reason is for this impatience I find difficult to tell. As a result of this comment, I took the time to review the matters dealt with by the House of Commons during the 15 days since we recommenced the session on January 11.
First of all, we have spent four days on this bill, the government reorganization bill. I suggest it was necessary to spend this time in view of the many matters the government has chosen to include in the bill and in view of some of the consequences of it. Two days were spent on the budget debate. I would ask whether the Prime Minister feels we should not have spent those two days on the budget, since they were devoted by agreement to a consideration of the very serious unemployment problem facing Canada. We spent two days on the young offenders bill, as a result of which the opposition persuaded the government to delay further consideration of the bill until it had considered some representations that have been made and reviewed its position. I suggest that, in taking this stand on the bill, the opposition was fulfilling one of its responsibilities in this House. That disposes of eight of the 15 days.
[Mr. Comeau.l
I do not want to deal in detail with the remaining seven days, but I do wish to point out to the Prime Minister that the House of Commons gave third reading to seven items of government business. Most of those bills were of some importance and consequence to Canada as a nation. One bill received second reading and then went through the report stage. There was also a motion to refer a subject matter to a committee of the House of Commons. I suggest that, in light of the business dealt with during the absence of the Prime Minister, the House of Commons has in fact been carefully discharging its responsibilities during that period.
To turn to Bill C-207 now before the House, I may say I took note of the comments made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), who introduced this bill on behalf of the Prime Minister on January 26. At the conclusion of his speech, he asked for the co-operation of hon. members in giving the bill careful consideration and speedy passage. I suggest that there is a conflict between those last two phrases, "careful consideration" and "speedy passage", for the reasons I have already enumerated.
The fact is that in this bill we have a mish-mash of many aspects of government operations. Possibly there is some justification for including some of them in the same bill, particularly those items dealing with executive functions and executive operations of the government. However, also included in the bill are some very important provisions that involve new precedents and departures from principle as they relate to the public service of Canada. Just what sort of rationale the government used in putting together these two areas, matters dealing with the executive functions of government and matters dealing with the public service, I fail to see.
I think there are implications in the decision the government made to include all these items in the one bill. In fact, I think this points to the view of government that is held by those on the treasury benches. As pointed out by some other members, we really have a group of technocrats running the government. I think this point was made very well by the President of the Treasury Board who, in introducing the bill on second reading, said as reported on page 2769 of Hansard:
In essence, the government organization bill deals with the constant challenge facing Parliament and the government-
Then, the first point he made was this:
-to be as efficient as possible in doing those things which are in the interest of the Canadian people and society.
I suggest that this is the view of a technocrat. To be fair, I should also point out that the minister went on to mention the changes taking place in Canadian society, and said there were implications for the relationships between governmental institutions and our changing society. Nevertheless, the first point he made was the one of efficiency. It is the view of some technocrats that an attempt should be made to make efficiency an end in itself rather than a means to an end.
I suggest that the government needs to give more consideration than it apparently has to some of the implications that flow from the bill now before the
February 1, 1971

House. One of the most important of these that I feel requires consideration is the balance between the executive arm of government and the legislative arm of government. In recent years we have witnessed an increasing concentration of power in the hands of the executive branch of government. We have had any number of examples within the past two or three years which indicate that the sole concern of the government has been to increase the power of the executive branch.
One example, of course, was the introduction of the roster system, and the manner in which the government did it. I want to say that I sympathize with the situation of ministers generally, in view of the very wide range of responsibilities they face and the difficulties imposed on any group of human beings in discharging these responsibilities. Again, I would have to point out that what we had was the imposition of this roster system on Parliament with some unfortunate consequences. I should have thought it would have been quite possible, by following a procedure of negotiation and the exercise of a little patience, to have worked out a system that would have been acceptable, to all concerned. In fact, I suggest that, in the long run, the government would have been caused less trouble than it has had as a consequence of the manner in which it imposed this new ad hoc system.
We had the introduction of regional desks in the Prime Minister's office. Again, this involved a concentration of power and a bypassing of Parliament through the setting up of independent machinery which was responsible only to the Prime Minister. I think this has resulted in an imbalance of power in our governmental structure.
Then, as well, we had rule changes, some of which were introduced by the government. Most of these rule changes, I think, met with the general approval of members of the House of Commons. However, I suggest that the intent of the government in forcing through some of these proposals, and in particular Rule 16a, was to disrupt the proper balance between the executive and the legislative functions of government.
There are also consequences arising out of the use of the committee system and some of the changes which have been made in the operations of the committees of the House. I do have to say in that context that I think all of us recognize that, to some extent, we are experimenting. We are in an experimental stage in dealing with the rules which relate to the operation of the committee system as it is presently embodied in the structure of the House of Commons. There are some satisfactory aspects to the operation of committees, but I think there are also problems that have to be taken into account. I think the fact is that the committee system, as it has operated over the past two years, has in effect reduced the power of the House of Commons in areas which are the proper jurisdiction of the House of Commons.
Another area in which there have been developments relates to the increase in staff and the increase in powers and functions of the Prime Minister's office as well as the office of the Privy Council. This aspect is well known to
Government Organization Act, 1970 hon. members and again can only result in a further imbalance of power. As a matter of fact, there are some suggestions that this change has resulted in some imbalance of power within the Cabinet itself. The suggestion is that the result has been to concentrate power in the hands of the Prime Minister and those around him. The developing trend, therefore, has been a rising growth in ministerial staffs. This is, of course, related to the increasing role that Parliament or government must play in our society. This, by itself, should not be criticized. It simply must be noted when we are taking into account the changes which are to be made in the executive and legislative functions of the government.
We have a further growth in the ministry. This, of course, has to do with the executive branch. There is provision for a number of ministers of state within the government. We are going to have more Parliamentary Secretaries and a larger cabinet. Possibly they are needed and possibly further development is needed. I am not going to argue against these changes in view of the very important role the government must play in our society today, but again we have the government concentrating the growth in the executive function and the power of the executive. I think the question must be asked, where is the balance in this situation? I think the power of Parliament to act has been reduced, and this has been noted by many parliamentary authorities on the constitution and government of Canada. Comments to that effect appear in a number of texts which I could cite if necessary. These authorities have, in fact, pointed out that, in many respects, Parliament is in the hands of the Cabinet. I suggest that the power of Parliament has been reduced, in particular in dealing with money matters. This, of course, goes to the very core of the Power of Parliament as we know it, and as it must function if we are to preserve and develop our parliamentary institution.
There have been a number of token gestures to help the opposition parties in particular, and private members in the House of Commons, including such things as extended research assistance. Of course, this assistance has helped the private member and Parliament, but I suggest that in no way does it begin to offset the increasing power of the executive as we have seen it. While I am on this subject, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note, as I have had occasion to do during some other debates in this Chamber, the comparisons that are often made between Canada and Great Britain. I believe the President of the Treasury Board made similar references when he was introducing this bill.
The fact is that while our parliamentary institution and our system of government has been modelled on the British parliamentary system, we do have to keep in mind the fact that Canada is a different sort of country. In the first place, we have a federal system of government rather than a unitary system. This imposes some very fundamental differences on the way in which government operates. We are at a different stage of development. The geo-economic structure is different, and I think as such it imposes some real differences on the operation of government and our parliamentary institution.

February 1, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
While at this stage I should also deal with some of the provisions of Bill C-207 concerning the ministries and ministers of state. I know that some rather extensive powers are to be given to the Governor in Council in deciding on the need for a new ministry of state. Clause 14 of the bill, if I might be allowed to quote briefly from it, reads:
Where it appears to the Governor in Council that the requirements for formulating and developing new and comprehensive policies in relation to any matter or matters coming within the responsibility of the Government of Canada warrant the establishment for the time being of a special portion of the public service of Canada presided over by a Minister charged with responsibility for the formulation and development of such policies, the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, establish a Ministry of State for that purpose.
True enough, this does introduce some flexibility into government operations. It also begs some questions and it leaves some questions hanging in mid-air. For one thing, it seems to me in reading over this particular clause, along with some of the others, the question of the status of these ministers of state within the government and the Cabinet is left in the air. It seems to me there are some unexplained aspects and areas which are not completely clear. Will these ministers be of Cabinet rank or are they in fact going to play some different sort of role within the government?
In addition, I also note that there is no time limit in respect of the phrase "for the time being". It seems to me that the use of this phrase does suggest this is a temporary arrangement or an arrangement which is of limited duration. However, since there is no provision to limit the existence of these new ministers of state, we could see a new ministry of state established, as is provided for in clause 14, for the time being, which in fact became a permanent institution. It would then have been established not by this Parliament but by the Governor in Council. I suggest this is not the proper way to proceed with the business of government. I also note that power is given under clause 15 to transfer functions from other departments or other agencies of government to one of these new ministries of state.
I suggest that here is another important consideration. If parliament does vote money for the use of an agency or a department of government and then the reorganization is carried out, under the provisions of this bill power is given to transfer some of that money from existing agencies or departments to this new ministry of state, and this new ministry of state may in fact be constructed on an entirely different set of principles. In fact, the establishment of this new ministry of state may involve completely new departures from government policy. The departures from government policy may be completely acceptable to Parliament, to myself and to other Members of Parliament, but the fact is that the government is given the power in this bill to transfer moneys which have been voted for one existing structure, and presumably a certain set of policies which go along with it, to a new agency which may be operating on a completely different basis. Of course, that would apply only within
the fiscal year in which the particular change occurred, but again I suggest it is a violation of the principles of parliamentary government and of the control of Parliament over money matters.
I think also we must keep in mind what is happening with regard to the collective ministry. Here, I note one of the comments by the President of the Treasury Board. He suggested that the warp and woof of our ministerial system is very complex. I am not quite sure what interpretation might be placed on that remark. The interpretation of some people is that things are going to the dogs. Certainly, there is a good deal of foundation for that belief. I think the government is warping many of the responsibilities which they have been called upon to bear, and with respect to the woof, there are indications that many aspects of our affairs are going to the dogs.
We have to keep in mind what is happening to the various ministries because it would appear that the government is embarking on some new departures in policy with regard to the ministry. It would appear that the government is perhaps taking a partial step at least towards the British system which does involve a separation of the functions of the cabinet and of many of the ministries which exist within the British government. I suggest that we need a clearer elaboration on this particular point, and on some of the implications and consequences of the provisions of this bill with regard to the over-all operation of government. I suggest, with all due respect to the President of the Treasury Board, that this can only come from the Prime Minister. This is why we need to hear from the Prime Minister in this debate. I want to make clear that I feel there will be many occasions in dealing with the problems of society as they exist today when it will be necessary to have special agencies such as are provided for in the sections dealing with the establishment of various ministries of state.
However, I think we do need to reconsider some aspects of this particular portion of the bill. At the same time, I should also state that reference has been made to the possibility of appointing a minister of state for science policy. We are going to have a minister of state for urban affairs and possibly in some other areas of government activity as well.
There is one particular area to which the Prime Minister should give his attention. I refer to the very serious state of affairs that exist in Canada today because of the fact that the rural society in Canada is disintegrating at present, in some cases as a result of policies and in others because of the absence of policies. At present we have a number of departments of government which are concerned with one or more elements of rural affairs in Canada, but nowhere do we have a co-ordination of those efforts. The Department of Agriculture, of course, is involved; the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has also been involved in rural problems and rural affairs. A number of other departments must of necessity be involved as well, each with their own particular area of responsibility. But nowhere do we have a co-ordinator, at least in terms the public can identify or that can be identified by members of the House. Thus, I would sug-

February 1, 1971

gest that in a reorganization of the government consideration should be given to the establishment of a ministry of state for rural affairs. I will not attempt to spell out any thoughts I might have at this time concerning what it should include or how it might be structured. However, I feel there is a good case for giving consideration to the establishment of such a ministry which could co-ordinate the activities of the government in dealing with the problems of rural Canada which are very serious indeed and which, I feel, must be taken into account by the government in the near future if we are going to salvage any sort of viable rural society in Canada.
One of the more important aspects of the bill has to do with the establishment of a department of environment. 1 noted very carefully the remarks of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) who is the minister designate for this new department. I noted also some of the steps that are proposed and some of the steps which are being taken to deal with the problems of pollution and environmental planning. I am sure all hon. members will agree with those steps. I think that this is a very important new department of government. I suggest that when we are dealing with problems of pollution and of environmental affairs and planning, in fact we are dealing with some of the crunch issues that face society today, both in Canada and in other countries. The fact is that the state of our environment, its deterioration, is one of the causal factors of the social discontent in our society today. I say that because in today's society young people in particular note that there are two particular elements present around them which could result in an end to human life on this planet within their own lifetime. One is the threat of nuclear war, and the other is the possibility of environmental deterioration which would make life on this planet no longer possible. I suggest the realization that there are elements present about us today that could result in a termination of life does result in some of the impatience which we see about us in society and some of the discontent which we have seen expressed in so many forms within recent years.
In dealing with the new department, I think it must be noted that this is where we will have a crunch between government and industry. This is where we are going to face the crucial issue of whether industry will be required to operate in the public interest or whether it will continue to be allowed to operate strictly for its own profit, its own narrow interests and benefits. This is where we are going to face some crucial issues, such as whether or not the government has the determination to ensure that industry in fact takes the necessary actions to develop a better environment so that we all might live healthy lives.
There are two or three other issues which I should like to mention as well in dealing with the new department of environment. One has to do with the potential conflict which I feel must be taken into account and which should be drawn to the attention of the House. The department of the environment will be concerned with all aspects of the natural state of life, and this will have particular consequences in northern Canada where the ecology is very fragile. On the other hand, the Depart-
Government Organization Act, 1970
ment of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources are more concerned with the economic and commercial development of that area. It seems to me that there is ground for potential conflict within the framework of the departmental structures as proposed in this bill, taking into account this area. It is a problem which must be noted by hon. members, and by the government in particular.
I find it difficult to understand why the government dos not propose to transfer the national parks service to the proposed department of the environment. It seems to me it is a natural for inclusion within that department. This is an agency dedicated to the preservation of certain areas in their natural state for the use and benefit of all our people. But it is not being transferred to the new department. It is being left with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, even though responsibility for the Canadian wildlife service and for the Migratory Birds Convention Act is being transferred to the new department.
The bill proposes the establishment of a Post Office Department separate from the Department of Communications. This, of course, involves a rather long, sad story which I do not intend to relate at this point. However, I would like to take this opportunity to place one matter on record again, the matter of rural postal service. I am very much concerned about it because I have had to deal with a number of problems in my constituency, and I know the problems in other areas of Canada, where the withdrawal of postal service seriously affected rural communities. I must say that in some instances I could not argue against the withdrawal of postmasters from small communities, but I wish to place on record once again a proposal which I made when I was speaking in the Throne Speech debate last October. I see no reason why we could not develop a sub-post office system in some rural areas similar to that which operates in large urban centres. I see no reason why we could not have a main post office located at some central point, with a number of sub-post offices operating under its jurisdiction to ensure an adequate standard of postal service for all the settled rural areas of Canada.
Much has been said during this debate about the proposed amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act. Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, I take serious objection to some of the provisions in this respect. I fully sympathize with an attempt on the part of government to introduce a greater element of flexibility in its personnel management policies. Certainly, I am not going to stand in the way of any reasonable steps which will enable the government to deal with its personnel-management problems in a better way, but I am not prepared to support a measure which will provide a degree of favouritism to some people in the public service which is not available to others. I feel that these proposals in Bill C-207 are very objectionable.
This is one of the most important pieces of legislation to be brought forward during the current session of

February 1, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 Parliament. I am very unhappy at the government's handling of the bill, and at the manner in which it was introduced. I am very unhappy when I think of some of its implications and consequences, and that is the reason for my intervention in the debate today.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my first remarks in connection with this bill on the fifth day of debate are to express a rejection of any question of an apology for a continuation of the debate. I can only express regret that the Canadian media have seen so little in this bill which is about to transform the structure of parliament, of the Governor in Council, and the relationship between the two. They have been deluded, as in the past, by siren songs of efficiency, of flexibility, and themes of that kind. And yet every time that this is done it is done at the expense of parliament, at the expense of the House of Commons.
This is another slice of the salami sausage, only this time it is a big chunk that is being taken. I shall go into that in greater detail when I discuss the proposals to set up the ministries of state and then, by proclamation, make the necessary changes. It seems that this administration has forgotten one fundamental principle. This House is not responsible to the cabinet, nor does it owe obedience to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The Governor in Council is responsible to this House, but to see it behave, to see what the Governor in Council wants to do, you would never believe that. It rides roughshod over the principle of having to come to this House to justify its actions.
Every time we give the Governor in Council power to do something it is an abdication; it is a laissez-passer; it is a carte blanche to go and do something without telling parliament. I know it will be said, "well, there will be provision in the estimates thereafter." Just whom are they trying to fool? Is the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) going to try to substantiate that argument, that there is control by authorization after the event, that there is control after the payment of the salary of a minister? What debate is there on the salary of a minister? What debate is there now on any estimates? What opportunity is there for justifying the restructuring of government? Mr. Speaker, government is responsible to this House. This House is not a tool of the cabinet. But this cabinet is composed of technocrats and former bureaucrats who insist that this House must be molded, must be trapped, must be formed into some complacent organization. It makes me think that in the minds of those who have designed this they wish a rubber stamp assembly, merely to say yea or nay, much as we see in various countries around the world operating under despots, benevolent or otherwise.
In precisely a bill of this kind, and by this devilish principle, you can see the manacles being fashioned to be tied to hand, to wrist, and to ankle of this House. Oh, it will be made to sound very plausible, very smart, and acceptable under the guise of so-called efficiency and flexibility. The government backbenchers have been

hoodwinked all the way through. Some additional parliamentary secretaryships have been thrown to them as a sop. They are just pennies for children, candies for grasping, greedy kids.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is what this is. There is no need for all these new parliamentary secretaryships. We shall see, when we see the final composition of the ministry with the four categories of ministers, just how big the cabinet will be. I suppose that a parliamentary secretaryship will become a first rate status symbol. Parliamentary secretaryships will become status symbol No. 1. The government will appoint a few more members from the backbenches who have had no experience of parliamentary secretaryship. May I say that I spent many years as one. I have some idea of the duties of that office, of the potential of that office and how few ministers are able to recognize the best way to use their Parliamentary Secretaries to full advantage. Most ministers have been scared of their Parliamentary Secretaries. They are frightened they might take some of the shine away. This has been one of the facts of life in the past. That appointment was made as a reward on a regional basis, or for good attendance, or far too often for some other capricious reason. On the other hand, there have been some very notable exceptions of ministers who understood how to use a Parliamentary Secretary. Such ministers used the Parliamentary Secretary to his best advantage and, as well, for the general benefit of the department and of the minister. I will deal with that question in a moment.
Having said that, I hope, for goodness sake, that the press, the radio and television, instead of chasing their tails like puppy dogs on other fluffy issues, will look at this particular bill and see how serious it is. Oh, there has been mention of it, but that has been in passing. The hare is running another way and they all want to chase after it. Yet the principal game is here, in the consideration of Bill C-207, and they ought to pay attention to this debate.
I want to join in the general resentment and objection to the omnibus nature of this bill. I made some remarks to Your Honour at the opening of this stage of the debate about that matter. I have noted Your Honour's remarks and, of course, do not question your decision. Yet I wish, with the greatest of respect, to underline to the Chair the absolute requirement, and I say this in all seriousness because I have had some experience in that position, that any question put before the House must be capable of resolution in a clear and straightforward manner, readily understood by hon. members. There must be no tricky solutions. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this bill, to import a phrase, is too clever by half. It is a contradiction of principles. Oh, we were fed some pap the other day.
We were told that this bill was for the greater efficiency of government. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) said that the underlying principle of the bill was the more efficient organization of the government. What a lot of nonsense that is. As I said to Your
February 1, 1971

Honour, we could take all bills relating to one ministry and lump them together into an omnibus bill. I suppose then that we should consider 15 or 18 bills during the year. For instance, we could take all the bills dealing with trade and lump them together. Alter all, it could be said that they are for the improvement of the trade of Canada and that that is the principle of that bill. Surely to goodness, we are not reduced to that; and therefore I say, this bill must be rejected. This bill must be rejected because of its manner of presentation. Separate bills should be introduced, as was done in the past. When the ministry of forestry was first set up, an appropriate bill was brought in and discussed. When fisheries and forestry were combined, there was a government reorganization bill. The previous administration under Mr. Pearson brought in a proper bill for that.


Mr. Drury:: That was dealing with government
organization.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But it certainly did not do all that this bill seeks to do. This bill is to extend to deputy ministers or deputy heads certain continuing privileges with regard to superannuation. What on earth has that to do with the setting up of the department of environmental control or with the redefining of the duties or responsibilities of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources? I have no cause for complaint about the latter department. What has it to do with the redefinition of "Post Office". After all, that poor orphan has been left out in the snowdrift since last fall. One can almost see the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) pining away from the lack of attention in this House. That is fine. That is proper reorganization.
But, Mr. Speaker, will the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) tell me what that has to do with reducing the period of service in the Public Service after which some shall be entitled to additional pension benefits? What has that reorganization to do with an obvious sop to some deputy ministers, now or in the future, who are to be allowed to continue contributing to the superannuation fund after they have ceased their government employment? What has all that to do with the organization of the government? Nothing at all. Nevertheless, hon. members are interested in seeing the establishment of a department dealing with environmental control and the consequential changes regarding responsibilities in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. As I was indicating, there possibly will be a narrowing of the definitions of the responsibilities of the latter department so that perhaps the minister will not make a damn fool of himself with regard to oil and gas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That way he can concentrate on a few lesser matters and perhaps pay better attention to them.


Mr. Paproski:: Sock it to them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will give general approval to the establishment of the department of
Government Organization Act, 1970 environmental control. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am sure I can say, and I think most of us will agree, that that is not the solution. The setting up of the department will not solve the problems of pollution. This is only putting together a framework. We see the direction of the intention. I hope that there will not be an attempt to bring in all sorts of bits and pieces from wherever they can be gathered in the Public Service, and that there will not be the sort of growth in the department that we have seen in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and that we saw when the President of the Treasury Board was minister of industry. In those cases we saw empires being built. We then saw some of them being torn down again. We saw how much swelling went on. Thousands of public servants were engaged in a wild campaign of empire building. We hope this will not occur again with this particular department. This department cannot be another organism of government that is given an unbridled head to grow and proliferate.
I would like to see a much more highly organized department which placed emphasis upon efficiency and co-operation with other levels of government. It will not be the only department that has to deal with the control of pollution. The provincial counterparts and municipalities will also have responsibility. All responsibility will not be in the hands of one mammoth department.
I was completely mystified when the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) suggested that the national parks should be under the jurisdiction of the minister responsible for the control of pollution. I suggest to the hon. member that there are plenty of national parks which are for the benefit of the people and not for a bunch of theorists. The protectionists would put up 15 foot fences around large areas of the country, lock the gate and throw away the key.


John Stratford Burton: Environmental planning, not pollution.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is not environmental planning. When it comes to the philosophy of the national parks, in many instances it is just for the pres-servation of bears. Those people who have never been in a national park are quick to state their opinions. Those who have direct contact with the advantages and problems of national parks are scoffed at by the self-proclaimed authorities who live thousands of miles from any meaningful national park.
I already referred to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As he will have fewer duties in the future, I hope that this will eliminate the possibilities of the wild performances we have seen in the past months with regard to oil and gas development, sales to the United States and our relationship to the United States with regard to resources development. Perhaps he will have more time to pay attention to the facts with regard to our nuclear policy. Hopefully, he will have an opportunity to read the report of the Senate Committee on Science Policy with regard to nuclear development. The Presi-
2948

February 1, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
dent of the Treasury Board raises his eyebrows. He used to have responsibility for nuclear power generation and heavy water production, so perhaps he is sensitive. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should be able to stick to the facts rather than make wild sounding statements.
I now wish to deal with the creation of ministries and ministers of state. This is where my qualified assent to the bill ceases. As I indicated earlier, I think that Parliament is being raped by this very subtle step. The government has stated "Give us the powers and we will look after them in the future." Parliament is being asked to grant these powers carte blanche.
In the context of the Canadian organization, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) is more powerful than the President of the United States within the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain in respect of the British Parliament. There is less restriction on the Prime Minister of Canada than there is on the head of the two countries which I mentioned.
The government wants to create five ministries of state to be established by proclamation of the Governor in Council. Why is Parliament being asked to do this? Not one justifiable reason has yet been advanced as to why the government should not come before Parliament before creating a new ministry. The hon. member for Regina East referred to the wording of clause 14 a few moments ago. I will not put it on the record. However, if one reads these words in clause 14 he will see that there is no hope left for this House. That is what will happen if the Prime Minister and the Governor in Council obtain this reserve supply of ministries.
Under the terms of clause 16 the Governor in Council, by proclamation, may vary the means and nature of departments. The government does not have to come before Parliament in order to create these five potential ministries of state. I suggest that with a little care, at least half of the really worth-while areas of responsibility within the government could be concentrated in five ministries. It would not take me very long to calculate how much of the controlling features of government could be included under five ministers of state. There are going to be four categories of ministers. There is nothing to prevent a cabinet of ten, which would include five ministers of state who would have responsibilities of an all-encompassing nature. A minister of state for economic affairs could be responsible for trade, industry, finance and revenue. The heart and core of government could be under the jurisdiction of five ministers of state. Five ministers and the Prime Minister could control everything in a cabinet of ten ministers. The cabinet, by proclamation, could play around within the compass of these five ministers of state. Hon. members opposite are so easily satisfied. They do not have any qualms or uneasiness about what might happen.
Now, if there is to be a ministry of state for a particular purpose, if it is to be called a ministry in name, like others, why change the name of the chief executive
officer, now to be known as a secretary, not as an undersecretary? We already have a secretary of two departments. We have a Secretary of State; we have a Secretary of State for External Affairs. Their chief executive officers are know as under-secretaries. But, to take one example, there is to be a ministry of state for urban affairs whose chief executive officer will be known as the secretary for urban affairs. Is he of cabinet status, or is he not, in the minds of the public? We have a Secretary of State who is a cabinet minister with definite responsibilities, well-know by tradition. There is no confusion. But as to the Secretary of Urban Affairs, what happens in that case? C'est un autre fonctionnaire. But he has a title of the same rank as a cabinet minister. Why contribute to confusion?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: What about the Secretary to the Treasury Board?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, he is not an
official who is seen by the public to that extent. And then again, I would say there was perhaps a lapsus ommisus on the part of Parliament when Treasury Board was set up as a separate ministry. At the time the title "Secretary of the Treasury Board" really came into being the Minister of Finance was the President of the Treasury Board-it was not a separate ministry to that extent. Of course, the hon. gentleman is quite right. I am glad the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) has brought this point to my attention. Perhaps my criticism should have been made earlier. However, I believe it is highlighted now. I would say that the Secretary to the Treasury Board, that this official, if indeed he is the senior official directly under the President of the Treasury Board, should be known as Under-Secretary, if he is the deputy minister, because after all there is no reason why a man should be known as a Secretary for Urban Affairs when his minister of state will be known as the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
As I said earlier, there has to be a minister of a department and I suppose that is category one-or is he to be known as a sort of minister, class four? You know, like deputy minister one, deputy minister two, deputy minister three. We now get into categories of ministers. I suppose the minister class one would be a minister without portfolio, a minister class two would be a plain minister of state who had been appointed to assist somebody. Third, the ministers of a ministry of state would be ministers class three, though their salaries would be about the same. Then, of course, there are posts of prestige with some additional "perks". They would be the ministers of departments, the ministers class four. But what sort of catch-all is this? It is like a cat's breakfast.
I am wondering what kind of a cabinet will emerge out of this. All ministers of equal rank meeting together, some 30 odd? The President of the Treasury Board knows very well that there will be no decisions reached in meetings of a cabinet so large; it merely becomes a debating society unless there is, shall we say, one presiding thereover who is not so benevolently disposed that

February 1, 1971

any discussion can take place. In that case, everything will be approved in accordance with the wishes of the Prime Minister. That, of course, is a possibility. But in my own limited cabinet experience I always felt that 25 was far too many. Ultimately, one would come to the idea of an inner cabinet. So, there will be ministers of state who will not be entitled to attend all cabinet meetings. Oh yes, ministers class three and ministers class four might make it into cabinet, but a minister of state would not be required to attend unless the affairs of the department to which he is related were under consideration, or a report on which he had been working was up for discussion. And, of course, the poor old minister without portfolio would be called in only now and then. It would be the old story of "don't call us, we'll call you". I can imagine what type of jealousies this will cause as between competing ministers, the jockeying that will go on, the knifing that will go on-


Mr. Langlois:: Speaking from personal experience?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Non, monsieur, not at all. When it comes to personal jealousies and knifings, the President of the Treasury Board went through a period of years here from 1963 to 1966 when the place was awash with blood.


Paul Langlois: You can start from 1958.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. former Parliamentary Secretary was not here in those years.


Paul Langlois: I read.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There was a short period when there was disagreement but it finished very quickly. That is the way it went. It is not the first time it has happened and it likely will not be the last, because it is the nature of men that they disagree and sometimes they disagree violently. So, there you are. In any event, let us say that this framework here is made to order for nights of long knives.
Another point I shall refer to is administrative in nature. It affects the transference of funds under clause 16, the question of the transference of funds without authority by way of an estimate and an appropriation bill for a particular ministry. I believe we shall see attempts made to transfer funds by way of a proclamation or order in council. The President of the Treasury Board could possibly take it upon himself to give the House an unqualified undertaking that such a proclamation will not be used to effect the transference of funds from one ministry to another. It is my view that there is only one way of lawfully transferring funds from one ministry to another and that is by means of an appropriate item in the appropriation bill.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: And the Transfer of Duties Act?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is the only way to do it-to obtain parliamentary sanction. I certainly do not agree that it could be done by proclamation. Clause 16 is the one which makes the changes. Oh, it seems to
Government Organization Act, 1970 me that within the last 18 months some subterfuge was attempted, but the government was caught; it had then to stand red-faced, protesting its innocence, saying something had perhaps been done through inadvertance. This is something we should avoid. I would point out to hon. members on the government backbenches that they have a responsibility. They do not realize how they are being shackled, manacled and muzzled. That is something that should be made absolutely clear.
I also wonder why we must have this increase in the number of Parliamentary Secretaries. The number, of course, will be limited by the number of ministers class 4, as I call them. They are the ones who will come under section 4 of the Salaries Act. The ministers of ministries of state will come under section 5 of the Salaries Act and will not be entitled to parliamentary secretaries, but the section 4 ministers will. With all due deference, not every minister in the list requires a Parliamentary Secretary, though I know some ministers who could really do with two.


Mr. O'Connell:: What we should have is more ministers.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The other way to approach it would be a proliferation of ministers. However, some ministers, who 1 will not name, could quite easily employ the services of two parliamentary secretaries, two good men or women as the case may be, providing they are given their head to go ahead and work.
As I have already pointed out, I have had over 14 years' experience in this House. I came into the House as a Parliamentary Secretary. I was fortunate in the minister I first struck because he was quite prepared to assign as much work as I wanted, and sometimes quite a bit more. But some of my colleagues were not so fortunate.
I also remember when I occupied the chair Your Honour now occupies, and on other occasions when I have been on this side, seeing some really good men literally wither on the vine because they had a minister who was either jealous of the potential of his parliamentary secretary or who did not know how to delegate authority.
It seems to me absolutely ludicrous for an intelligent Parliamentary Secretary to stand up in the House when an ordinary question is directed to his minister during the question period and to mutter or stutter that he will take the question as notice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He gets $4,000 a year for that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am glad to see that in some instances ministers use their Parliamentary Secretaries to pilot legislation through the House. Not necessarily major departmental legislation, but certainly many of the amending bills or legislation from the other place, which is usually of an amending nature, can be taken through the House in this way. Let the minister take through a major bill by all means. I know the hon.

February 1, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will express horror, but I would use more Senators in the cabinet to avail myself of the talents in parliament. I would also make Parliamentary Secretaries more responsible in the House. I would not be averse to using a minister of state or a Minister without Portfolio to cover in the Commons a minister who sits in the Senate. The British parliament has functioned very satisfactorily in this way for decades-no, far longer than that. Some present day cabinets draw about one third of their members from the House of Lords, and their spots are covered off quite adequately in the House of Commons by Praliamentary Secretaries or ministers of state. It seems to me this is the way it should be done.
I should like to see Parliamentary Secretaries take more charge of debates. Let them be responsible for the debate behind the minister. It is not for the minister's office, for some lackey or executive assistant in the Minister's office, to take charge of a debate; that is the responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary who should know what is in the legislation. Let him organize the debaters behind the minister if the government is putting up speakers. However, this government and others have been far too prone to muzzle their members and not let the backbenchers in on the discussion of legislation. If the Parliamentary Secretaries want any tips on how to organize a debate, let them consult the opposition chairmen of committees and also former Parliamentary Secretaries over here who have had that task. I think there is a tremendous future in the use of Parliamentary Secretaries if proper use is made of them.
However, I am just wondering whether this is some means of taking wholesale care of the deficiences of our parliamentary pay as far as government backbenchers are concerned. That is what this measure appears to be because more government backbenchers will have their pay increased by $4,000. I suppose one of these days, when and if this legislation goes through-if it is not thrown out because of this type of provision-we will have another dozen Parliamentary Secretaries named. This salary increase is guaranteed to embellish the bill as far as government backbenchers are concerned. I say it is ridiculous to have 26 or 28 parliamentary secretaries because there is not the need.


An hon. Member:: It would be cheaper to send them to the Senate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With all due respect, this provision is for the relief of some impoverished government backbenchers.
I come now to my last point. Why should a former deputy head be allowed to contribute to the public service superannuation fund beyond his service? This proposition raises questions in my mind. First of all, would such contributions be matched by the crown and, if so, under what formula? There is no provision in this bill that the contributions shall not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The provision is already in the act. Everything is matched.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, this is a question we want answered. It seems to me that every penny contributed to the public service superannuation fund by a public servant is matched by the crown. A reading of this provision leaves me in no doubt that there should be a matching contribution made by the crown. I am sure there are many deputy heads who now wonder what on earth they have been given. A fair reading of this provision would cause anyone to say that there had to be a matching contribution. In any event, I have raised the question and I should like to know what formula is to be used.
What is the minimum service to be required before a deputy head could avail himself of this provision? I understand that it is ten years pensionable service, so that apparently answers this question. I should like to know also why this is being done. As a result of the annual salary increases, have these deputy ministers grade one to grade four reached a salary range from $30,000 to over $40,000 per year? Is that not good enough? Do we have to give them this additional privilege? I have not heard this is going to be offered to ministers or Members of Parliament. After they cease their services or take a leave, perhaps with the inducement of their electors, are they to continue to contribute to their pension funds?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I do so only to advise him that, according to the rules, his time has now expired.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think he is almost finished, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members of the House. I have very little more to say, but I did want to put these questions on the record. Is this to be an inducement to squeeze out certain deputy ministers? Is the little "deputy head" to include a secretary to the ministry of state, because he is described as the chief executive officer under the terms of this bill?
Why is this privilege being extended to deputy heads and no one else? Does it extend to heads of agencies who are of the rank of deputy head as we now have in many instances? I had in mind the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Chairman of the Broadcast Commission and the heads of a number of these government boards and agencies including the CRTC who hold the rank of a deputy head. Are they to be included under these provisions? We want to know that.
I spoke about the power struggle between Parliament and the Governor in Council, and I shall not go into that in detail now, but I say that any change in the efficiency or better organization of Parliament, whether it is by an amendment of the rules or done under the guise of a government organizational or reorganizational bill, is
February 1, 1971

equivalent to reducing by another notch the power and prestige of the House of Commons.
To go back to the theme I put forward at the beginning of my remarks, we see many so-called democratic assemblies around the world which frankly represent rubber stamp operations. They exist only to give the rubber stamp of approval to the action of an executive which may be a small cabinet of ministers under a dictator or under an absolutely powerful president. There is absolutely no question of the existence of a democracy at any time within those regimes. This is the sort of thing we are called upon to move toward sometimes under our rules. We are being asked to take one giant step toward that end through this bill, some parts of which are quite unacceptable. There are other parts dealing with the ministries of state and the appointment thereof, and some of the other things provided for which are totally repugnant to this House, and I would ask hon. members to reject the bill on that basis.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I am wondering if we could call it five o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there is unanimous consent, the hon. member may call it five o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Canadian National Railways-request for government committee respecting pensions to expedite House business; the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Allmand)-Canadian National Railways-Discontinuance of dining car service, Ottawa-Montreal; and the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather)-External Affairs-Proposed Amchitka underground nuclear tests.
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.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give immediate consideration to amending the Old Age Security Act
Old Age Security Act
to provide for the full amount of the income supplement provided thereunder to be incorporated into the basic pension, for the amount of the basic pension to be increased to $150 per month, and for the increase granted each year on account of an increase in the cost of living to reflect the full extent of that increase, so that all persons 65 years of age or over who meet the residence requirement will receive a full pension of $150 per month, plus the cost of living increase, without any means or income test, the full amount of the Old Age Security pension thus being recognized as a matter of right.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this Motion that Your Honour has just read from the Chair calls for the old age security pension to be raised to $150 a month and for us to get back to the basic principle of the Old Age Security Act. That principle is that pensions under that Act should be paid on a universal basis without any means or income test on any part of it. The motion also calls for the cost of living escalation which has been in the legislation for a number of years to be made applicable to all pensions paid under the Old Age Security Act, and likewise, for the present 2 per cent ceiling on the amount of escalation that can take place in any year to be removed so that the full amount of the cost of living increase might be reflected in the amount of the pension itself.
As I shall no doubt be told during the course of this debate, this is not the first time I have presented a motion of this kind. It is not even the first time I have presented this very motion. I suggest, however, that the urgency of this motion is increasing and that it is time for the government and Parliament to give it serious consideration.
My assertion that the urgency of this matter has been increased is based on two propositions. The first of these propositions is an obvious one, one which, no doubt, hon. members had in mind when I said there was urgency, namely, the increase in the cost of living and the difficulty that many of our senior citizens are having in living on the amount of income that they now receive. Despite the provisions that were made in a bill which has already been passed in this session, and which we must therefore not refer to in the course of this debate, the amounts that will be available in April still do not bring our senior citizens up to the poverty line. That is one of the points of urgency that I feel make it imperative that the government and Parliament reconsider the whole question of the provisions of the Old Age Security Act.
I said, however, that there were two bases for my using the word "urgency", and in my view the other one is even more serious, if not quite so precise as the dollars and cents angle I have just been speaking about. The other element of urgency arises from the fact that the government in its white paper on income security has come out clearly and definitely for a lessening of the application of universality and for greater use of selectivity in all of our pension, welfare and security programs. I know that the government does its best to marshall arguments. I know that it quotes figures, that it tries to tell us that universality is out of date. But I suggest that this declaration by the government that it is going to move in the direction of selectivity rather than

February 1, 1971
Old Age Security Act
universality is a case of going the wrong way and that it will yet destroy our whole social security setup.
I know that there is a great deal of talk about what we are going to do for the poor, whether they are senior citizens or the working poor or any group in our society. But I do hope that some day we will get to the realization that it is not good enough just to do things for the poor and keep them that way. When we do things for the poor because they are poor, they are poor at the end of the road. This is not good enough for a society that is capable of producing the amount of wealth that we can now produce in this country. If we are going to do something for people and not hurt their pride and dignity, not do damage to their souls in the process, we should do it for them because they are people and have rights as people. In my view, the day will come when even our attitude toward jobs and toward being employed will change. Now, you are not a first class citizen unless you can get a job, and if the job is non-existent, you have to fall back on some form of unemployment insurance. When it is gone, you have to fall back on social assistance, relief, welfare, or what have you.
I firmly believe the day will come when all people in a democratic and decent society will be guaranteed the income to enable them to live as a matter of right, whether or not they get attached to an existing or a non-existing job. I want us to move in that direction, and back in the early 1950s I was glad when we started to move in that direction by putting our old age pensions on a universal basis. Like other members in this House, I have had enough experience with older people to know that that legislation did a great deal for the sense of pride of our older people.
Now that we are going in the other direction, we are losing much of the gain that we made by that course of action. Therefore, I suppose this is a case of starting all over again. It took us many years to get the means test removed and to put the old age pension on a universal basis. It stayed that way for a decade and a half. Now, because the government has announced it is going the other way, some of us have to start all over again. If that is the case, I suppose that is what I am doing today. By this motion, I am saying we are starting all over again to try to win the battle for old age pensions to be paid to all our people as a matter of right. Let us not talk about any war on poverty, about being concerned about the poor, or about the dignity of our people if we are going to require these means and incomes tests. If we really mean what we say about dignity and the rights of our people, let us determine that our legislation will provide a proper standard of living, first of all for our older people, then for our families, and for our citizens generally, not because they are hard up but because they are people.
I need not make the point that I do not stand alone in my contention that universality is a much better principle to work on than selectivity, but I would like to read a few sentences on this subject which I thought put the point very well. They were contained in a brief that was drawn up by the Canadian Council on Social Development in December, 1970. These are comments on the position set out in the white paper so far as the govern-

ment's old age pension position is concerned. At the point in this document from which I shall read, reference is made to certain dangers and then the following statement is made:
A major example ol this inherent danger is the unfortunate polarization of the argument about "universality versus selectivity" in the white paper on income security.
I have said that I am a universalist, but I am happy to subscribe to what I now read in this paragraph. It goes on to say:
The two are not necessarily incompatible, granted effective use of the income tax system. Progressive income tax is the fairest way we know of raising money for social purposes. If it is wisely employed in relation to income security measures, the desirable features of selectivity can be achieved while maintaining the most important advantages of universality. Indeed, it is noteworthy that the white paper on unemployment insurance argues strongly for the principle of universality (which the white paper on income security appears to denigrate) in support of its proposal to include all members of the labour force in the program, whether or not they are likely to benefit by it.
I might say that in this same document the Canadian Council on Social Development-which we knew for so many years as the Canadian Welfare Council-complains about the level of benefits under the Old Age Security Act not being high enough and also about the fact that those on the basic pension will not get the cost of living escalation. But I come back to the portion of a sentence in this paragraph which I have just read which it seems to me is very significant, "If it is wisely employed"-that is, the income tax principle-"in relation to income security measures, the desirable features of selectivity can be achieved while maintaining the most important advantages of universality." If I understand that right, and I think I do, it says very simply that it is far better to make a universal grant, whether it is the old age pension or what have you, and tax those who, because of that grant, get into higher income brackets, than it is to test people's income before you give them something that should be their's as a matter of right.
I say again, Mr. Speaker, that I think the Liberals of the early 1950's, and they were in power most of that decade, were right when they agreed to our demand to take the means test off the old age pension. I think that the Old Age Security Act which was passed in 1951, and came into effect on January 1, 1952, was the best and most progressive piece of social legislation ever passed in this House of Commons, and I am proud to have had a part in seeing that this was done.
Far from accepting the statement that some of us are old fogies because we want to stay with that principle that was brought into effect in January, 1952, I suggest that that is the way to achieve a just and decent society, not to call upon people to disclose their means before they get something that is handed to them because they are poor, but to grant pensions, allowances, and soon, I hope, a guaranteed annual income to all our people as a matter of right.
This is private members' hour, Mr. Speaker. I have now taken up 13 or 14 minutes of it. I know what will
February 1, 1971

happen to this motion. Debate will still be taking place until you, at six o'clock, tell us you are leaving the Chair until eight o'clock. So, I do not expect it to come to a vote this afternoon. I do not expect to win this battle this month, perhaps in the next little while, but I do ask hon. members of the House to give serious consideration to this whole question. I will listen to argument. Others have their right to present their points, as I have mine, but I submit we are going in the wrong direction by taking away universality from the old age security pension. I urge that we get back to that principle as soon as we can and, when we do it, that we establish the pension at more realistic levels, such as $150 a month with the right of everyone who is on the pension to the cost of living escalation.
I will not take time to answer the arguments that I know will be made about the cost and all the rest of it. We have been over that ground many times. We can afford in this country what we want to do. If we want a decent, just society, if we want people to have their share of the affluence we are able to produce, we can order our affairs accordingly. This motion asks that we take this one important step in that direction, and I hope hon. members will give it favourable consideration both in this hour and in the thinking about old age pensions that they will do, as they must, in the months that lie ahead.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, may I repeat that it is always an honour for me to have an opportunity to deliver a speech during the private members' hour, particularly on as significant a subject as that dealt with in the motion put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I am satisfied that he has long been concerned with the welfare of elderly Canadians. I hope he will pursue this laudable objective, especially with regard to subjects involving persons of a certain age who served well the Canadian community.
The hon. member must also be commended for stating that the Liberals of the early '50s were progressive and enlightened men because they passed legislation on this most important question of old age security pension.
I must say that even though they were right in 1950, they did not think perhaps that one day they would have to take new measures and adjust to other circumstances. Many changes have occurred since 1950 and many more will occur in the future. In 1950 these people were wrong about income security especially with respect to people who retired at 70.
I should say also that at that time oil heating was far less popular than it is today. In fact, many people still burned coal for heat. If we had not evolved and since today coal is increasingly rare, I wonder where we would be.
In fact, changes are happening so' fast that one must keep up with the times. The present government, like those that preceded it, has to go through some sort of readjustment made necessary by present circumstances.
Old Age Security Act
I also know that the hon. member is in favour of a universal plan as opposed to a selective one. This is all very natural since his party is essentially socialist. In fact, the New Democrats shun like the plague anything that is selective by nature. They insist on giving a little to everybody and, the end result is that nobody gets anything.
In any case, this philosophy is far remote from that of the present government and I take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation for it because given our present circumstances and more specifically the amount of public funds at the government's disposal, it is unthinkable that with the financial resources available we should give out more money in all directions as we would like to do.
Unfortunately, with the responsibility to govern comes also the responsibility to redistribute the money at our disposal.
As far as the arguments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre are concerned I recognize in part their value. He and his colleagues are trying to get into power. I do not say that they are using the right means to do it but it seems to me that they used one of those means. Indeed people who are not in power say a lot of things which generally may sound pretty good to the press and to the public. But when one takes a serious look at the issue one realizes quickly that it is inconceivable to satisfy everybody by passing uniform acts in order to make every body happy.
When you have lived for a while you know that it is impossible to please everybody. It is inconceivable that everyone should be happy in this valley of tears of ours. Even tremendous amounts of money cannot satisfy the rapacity, if I may call it so, of human nature.
Those who have something want a bit more, and those who have more want even more than they have, and so on, until death.
But I should also like to mention that the federal government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: I was alluding to the liberals, Mr. Speaker .. . I should also like to mention that the liberal government-how strange that the word should always find its way to our lips, that even our adversaries should be forced to use it-belongs to the elite of Canadian society.
The federal government has been legislating in the field of social security since 1927. It started by granting a modest pension of $20 per month to which the provinces contributed. In 1931, the federal government decided to contribute 75 per cent and in 1949, the amount of the pension was raised to $40.
But on Friday, I heard one hon. member say he was surprised at the speeches full of substance that had been prepared in dusty offices of some officials. I think that to make sensible and rational speeches, one must be rather well informed and from what we hear in this

February 1, 1971
Old Age Security Act
House, it is not easy. I do not know whether this is due to excessive smoking, but it seems that there are hazy periods in some poor brains, at least judging from what they say.
In spite of the hon. member's comments, I would like as much as possible to stick to the text which I had the pleasure to draw up with some officials, because as I said a while ago it is difficult to memorize all relevant statistical data. Moreover, it is the custom in the House when a question is put to government members to consider statistics to be out of order. This is normal.
Indeed, the public life of Our Lord lasted three years. I do not know whether he studied from early childhood until age 30, but at 33 years of age, he died under the tragic circumstances with which we are well acquainted. This is why it is unthinkable that I could give you specific information gathered for quite a long time. Indeed, somewhat like Our Lord, I came into political life a little late and I did not have the astuteness of some members who have spent almost all their life behind those oak walls where stiffness and coldness usually prevail.
I would like to keep to a text, as much as possible, because it contains some extremely interesting figures.

Since its introduction, the Old Age Security Act has been amended on a number of occasions. The rate of benefit was increased twice in 1957, first to $46 monthly and then to $55. In 1962, it became $65, and in 1963 the monthly pension again was raised, when it reached $75 a month. It remained at $75 until 1968 when, because of an amendment enacted in 1965, the pension could be escalated each year depending on, and in accordance with, changes in the pension index used for the Canada Pension Plan. Provision was also made in 1965 to reduce the pensionable age under the old age security pension program one year each year so that the OAS pension would be payable in 1970 to all persons aged 65 and over. As a result, the percentage of elderly persons aged 65 and over covered by the OAS program increased from 66 per cent in 1965 to 91.8 per cent in 1969 and very close to 100 per cent in 1970.

I must say that this is an extremely important thing, since it deals largely with the problem of money expended for this program.
I would like to say also that-

By 1970, the Old Age Security pension was $79.58 monthly and the maximum guaranteed income supplement amounted to $31.83, for a combined total of $111.41 a month, but by the end of that year the OAS pension scheme had been amended again following the proposals set out in the White Paper on Income Security.
Under these new changes to the Old Age Security Act, which received Royal Assent on December 18 as we know, substantial improvements have been made to
benefits payable under this income support program for our senior citizens and improvements have been made with respect to its other features. The basic old age security pension has been set at $80 a month while the maximum supplement, payable to elderly persons with little income other than the old age security pension, has been raised to $55 monthly for a single pensioner and to $95 a month for a married pensioner couple. The 1971 maximum supplement will increase by 72 per cent for single pensioners and by about 50 per cent for pensioner couples over what it was in 1970.
In 1960-61, and this is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, the expenditures under the Old Age Security Act were $592.4 million and represented 1.55 per cent of the Gross National Product. Between that year and 1969-70, the value of the Gross National Product more than doubled, but costs in the same period under the OAS pension legislation, which by then included the guaranteed income supplement program, nearly trebled to $1,730 million, so that in 1969-70 OAS/GIS benefits to aged people represented 2.16 per cent of a much larger GNP. These costs are therefore growing at a faster rate than Gross National Product, which means that a greater proportion of the nation's resources are being channelled into this program for the aged. These amounts exclude any payments or assistance received by elderly persons under any other programs, whether government or privately administered, which, if included, would increase the proportion of GNP just mentioned.
The hon. member has recommended that each elderly person now eligible for the old age security pension should be paid a basic $150 a month, escalated each year by the full increase in the cost of living. Let us consider the financial implications of his proposal. Taking the fiscal year 1969-70 as an example, old age security pensions and guaranteed income supplements payable in this year totalled $1,730 million. If instead all OAS pensioners received $150 a month, total expenditures in that year would have been $2,809 million. His proposal would involve an additional $1.1 billion. Based on estimates for fiscal year 1971-72, annual expenditures under the new OAS/GIS amendments legislated for in 1970 and which will come into effect on April 1971 will total $2,183 million, whereas under the scheme proposed in this motion expenditures would amount to $3,108 million. From these data, it can be quickly calculated that paying all pensioners $150 a month would cost the country nearly $900 million more than the recently amended Old Age Security Act.
Further, if these dates are projected and if the base-year benefits are escalated at 2 per cent a year, costs in the fiscal year 1975-76 under the amended Old Age Security Act are estimated to be $2,450 million, while those under the proposal suggested in this motion would amount to $3,680 million, more than $1.2 billion in extra expenditures. This means that in four years the additional cost of the proposed scheme under motion 13 will increase from $900 million to $1.2 billion over the new OAS/GIS program. Not only are these additional costs

February 1, 1971

large, but they are becoming larger and larger as time goes on. Surely the hon. member is not suggesting that the taxpayers of this country can afford this additional load in one particular sector of the income security system. As it is, the latest amendments to the act will place an additional $200 million into the hands of the most needy elderly persons in the current year. Hon. members will agree that is a substantial sum of money.

Any good government will try of course to provide as much social security to the taxpayers as possible but as I said at the beginning the financial means at the disposal of the government are limited. However through his white paper the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) is trying to ensure better distribution of the funds at his disposal.
To me, the principle of redistribution is the most important today, much more so than in 1950.
The same thing probably applies to family allowances. It is obvious that if our resources are distributed exclusively to one population group, as proposed in the motion, we will necessary have to neglect the other Canadians. Even those who are unemployed will be deprived of certain financial resources if we put all our eggs in one basket.

Another factor is that the hon. member is suggesting a return to the type of program based on an approach of universality, while the philosophy of the white paper on income security suggests selectivity in income security. Universality was important at one stage of the development, but social and economic change indicates that a selective approach is a much better technique. This change is explained in the recently issued white paper on income security, part of which I quote as follows:
The challenge, then, is to arrive at a renewed affirmation of income security policy which will have the effect of assisting the people in the greatest need without detracting from programs designed to stimulate the economic development which is the basis of national well-being.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary, but his time has expired.
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbel:
Mr. Speaker, I will speak for only a few moments. I support the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), with one reservation. My main concern is for the aged in this country who are suffering from exceptional incapacity. The white paper on income security states that after April 1 old age pensioners will receive $135 a month. This is certainly below the poverty line. Hon. members forget that there are old people who cannot look after themselves. There are people in my province who are crippled because they worked for many years trying to make a meagre living. They live alone in hovels. They need a tenants' allowance in order to acquire proper accommodation. When they ask for increased benefits, we cannot supply them.
Old Age Security Act
The previous speaker referred to the great cost in providing additional benefits. The state owes the aged of this country a decent living, a living at least above the poverty line. The motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre does not ask for too much; it asks for $150 a month. As I stated, I have one reservation. I do not agree that a man of 65 years of age earning $25,000, $30,000 or $35,000 a year requires such a pension. I do not agree with a universal, across the board pension of $150 a month. I say, with respect to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that if he inserted an amendment which would require a means test I would support the motion to increase the old age security to $150 a month. That would be little enough, Mr. Speaker. The government should forget about bandying around figures and talking about the millions of dollars it would cost. There should be no end to this bucket. I say that old people who are exceptionally incapacitated should receive more.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is to be congratulated on bringing this motion before the House. As everyone knows, he is an outspoken advocate on the problem of old age pensions. We are happy to have an opportunity to debate this motion this afternoon. The hon. member spoke on television last evening in a similar way. He will be pleased to know that at least one of the members on the government side took time to listen to his dissertation. The hon. member proposes that old age security benefits be increased to $150 per month for everyone 65 years of age and over. If this were done, we would be able to do away with the guaranteed income supplement which we passed only a few weeks ago.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has suggested that the urgency for bringing forward this motion is the increase in the cost of living. He has also argued the question of universality versus selectivity. I suppose that is the real argument. To be against this motion would be to be against motherhood. We are really debating whether $150 per month should be available across the board regardless of the income of the person receiving it or whether it should be available on the basis of a means test.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). He is a very capable member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. He handles himself well in that committee. He opts for the selectivity approach rather than universality. I have forgotten all the figures mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary as to the increased cost of a universal as opposed to a selective program. However, one figure that sticks in my mind is that there would be an increased cost of $900 million over the present program. As the number of our senior citizens increases, this amount will increase.
One aspect which has been brought to my attention by people concerned with welfare in my constituency is that people receiving old age security benefits and the guaran-
2956

February 1, 1971
Old Age Security Act
teed income supplement are not eligible for general welfare assistance, except perhaps for drugs. It seems to me that when the federal government is negotiating the terms of the Canada assistance program with the provinces, some provision should be made to meet the needs of people in exceptional circumstances, people receiving old age pensions, to qualify them for special assistance should the cost of housing, for instance, be unduly high or should some other special need arise.
Income maintenance for this group of the Canadian population has been the subject of numerous revisions and adjustments from time to time. Income maintenance payments for aged persons made under federal programs amounted to $773 million in 1962-63. The figure had risen to about $1,950 million in 1970-71, just short of a threefold increase. Older Canadians now receive income protection through a number of measures both public and private. Under public programs income support is available under the Old Age Security Act, the guaranteed income supplement, retirement and aged survivors pensions under the Canada and Quebec pension plans, and supplementary social assistance under provincial welfare programs, the costs of which are shared by the federal government under the Canada assistance plan. In the private sector, income protection is provided through private pension plans or various self-help measures such as annuities and other privately-arranged retirement schemes. Public and private programs which provide income support are important to elderly people. It is also important to ensure that a wide range of health, welfare, recreation and other services are provided to meet the needs of this group.
I should like to review the needs of elderly persons for benefits in kind or services. Canada's first century of progress was characterized by the pioneering of young people. Only in comparatively recent years have we become fully aware of the special circumstances of the aged in our population. Changes in this aspect of our development have come upon us faster than we have been able to prepare for them. There are greater numbers of older people than ever before, and the number continues to rise. The urbanization of our society, employment practices, inflation and rising costs of living have all contributed to the changed conditions for older persons. Since families live in smaller homes and in apartments, there is less room to accommodate aged members of families. There are fewer tasks for old people to do in the home, and too often they are left out.
I turn, now, to population and life expectancy in Canada. The 1.6 million persons aged 65 and over in Canada represent slightly less than 8 per cent of the total population. Thus, while Canada may be regarded as having a low percentage of older people when compared with some other countries, we are experiencing serious and increasingly complex problems for which there are no simple solutions. Life expectancy at birth for both males and females has risen substantially over the years. On the other hand, although the number of aged persons has increased, only small gains in life expectancy can be reported for those who reach age 65. But while improvements in life expectancy are important, of equal or perhaps greater importance is that the quality of life be improved. The problems of the young have become of such concern that they have to a major extent absorbed the creative energies as well as the economic resources of communities. All too often, therefore, there is little left to invest in improving the quality of life of the older sector of the population.
Hospital care is available to all residents through provincial hospital plans by means of a cost-sharing arrangement with the federal government. The majority of the provinces are participating in medical care plans in which the federal government shares in the costs. For the indigent, payments for health care are assured by the provincial governments, with costs shared by the government of Canada under the Canada Assistance Plan. This plan is designed to provide increased federal aid, thereby enabling the provinces to integrate, expand and improve their welfare assistance and service programs.
Aside from health care there are some services specified in the legislation which can be of special assistance to the aged. I refer to case work, counselling, assessment, information and referral, home-maker or home-help and day care. In some places hot meals are delivered to older persons at midday in their own homes. Arrangements to live with private families, the so-called foster care programs, are being developed in some areas. Nursing care for the aged in their own homes is also provided in many communities. Senior citizens centres have been provided in some places, where the aged can go for recreation and in many cases receive a range of other services. Hundreds of clubs have been organized, some of them by older persons themselves and others by churches or other agencies. A national organization of older adults has been established with branches in most of the provinces. It is interesting to note that nearly all these groups presented briefs and wrote to many Members of Parliament during the past year and a half while we were reviewing the old age security program and the guaranteed income supplement.
The Canadian Council of Social Development, which was formerly called the Canadian Welfare Council, has concerned itself over the years with matters pertaining to the aged and aging. Some provincial and local welfare councils have established sections on the aged. Service clubs have been actively engaged in organizing and helping older persons in many localities; for example, they have developed senior citizen centres in housing projects. These service clubs as well as churches, fraternal organizations and other voluntary agencies frequently engage in providing recreational programs for the aged. Grant programs organized by the Department of National Health and Welfare, as well as grants from federal funds allocated to fitness and amateur sport, have provided funds for research and demonstration programs which directly or indirectly will improve the care of elderly persons.
I should now like to refer to the provision for living accommodation for aged persons. In all provinces, homes for the aged and infirm, including nursing homes, are provided under provincial, municipal or voluntary aus-

February 1, 1971

pices. The provinces contribute to the maintenance of needy persons in these institutions, 50 per cent of the payments in respect of assistance cases being met by the federal government. All provinces, in varying degrees, make capital grants toward the construction of homes for the aged and infirm and in some provinces capital grants are also available to municipalities, charitable organizations and non-profit corporations for the construction of low-rental housing. According ot the 1961 census, of the
747.000	heads of households aged 65 and over, almost one-quarter lived alone. It is within this group of older adults-those who live independently in their own homes, whether owned or rented, and whether separate dwellings, flats or apartments, as well as an additional
198.000	elderly persons who live with relatives-that the need for community services exists.
An attempt has been made to describe in a very general way the programs available to serve older persons in Canada. But the gaps are many, and too often even existing services fall short of being able to meet the needs. It is generally agreed that older persons should remain in their own homes in the community for as long as possible. To achieve this goal, a range of community services designed to provide the necessary care of the appropriate type and of the quality and quantity required is essential. Moreover, these services have to be readily available to persons in both urban and rural settings.
In Canada the emphasis has been upon institutional care. This is due to many reasons, including distances to be travelled, difficulty of staffing programs in more isolated areas, limited professional resources and inappropriate living arrangements for aged persons. Thus, when communities have turned their attention to the needs of the aged they have tended to plan first and, all too often, for the construction of institutional care facilities only.
An added complication arises when an old person is in hospital and is ready for discharge to a lesser level of care. Frequently there is not a bed available to provide the care he needs in a home for the aged or a nursing home. Even if there is, he may resist transfer because payment is made on his behalf under the provincial hospital plan for as long as he is in a general, chronic or convalescent hospital, whereas for institutional care, or care in his own home, with few exceptions he must pay for services himself in so far as his financial resources permit. In order to encourage older persons to remain out of institutional care, it may be that we shall have to consider paying for community services so that institutional care offers no financial advantage. For any special services which may be needed by only a limited number of persons, payment may have to be based upon ability to pay.
It is roughly estimated that from 5 to 10 per cent of aged persons require some form of institutional care. Some 20 to 30 per cent are in need of intensive supportive services within the community at large. The remaining 60 per cent are well, ambulant individuals functioning independently in the community. We see them every
Old Age Security Act
day going about their affairs; we do not think of them as aged. Indeed, if we are suddenly asked to focus our attention upon the needs of the aged, those living in institutions first come to mind. We think of the bedridden, the frail and the sick.
More emphasis should be placed on keeping those aged persons who are well and actively carrying on their affairs in that happy state. Preventive health measures, such as disease detection screening programs and early treatment of conditions found through such programs, should be intensified. Since it has long been recognized that chronological age is a very unsatisfactory determinant in deciding the ability of a person to continue in employment, there should be greater flexibility in respect to the age of retirement. It is, however, a proven fact that fewer persons at age 65 wish to continue in employment than was the case 25 or 30 years ago. Technological advances are beginning about even lower ages for retirement in some industries. Further, by actual choice, increasing numbers of persons are voluntarily choosing to retire earlier than age 65.


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


Maurice Brydon Foster: As soon as I finish my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to give the hon. member an opportunity to pose a question. Without becoming involved in the pros and cons of arbitrary versus more flexible retirement arrangements, there is no doubt that society still equates productivity with monetary reward; that is, life earning a living. There is a consequent loss of status for the majority of persons at retirement. But some older persons have perceived "productivity" in terms of service to their community, in service to contemporaries and in creative achievements. The aged represent a vast resource of human abilities and skills which society has been overlooking.
Some older adults are asking: What can we do to help ourselves, each other and the community? Many are simply continuing to serve within the community as they have all their lives, but others are offering themselves for the first time, sometimes for service on a voluntary basis, sometimes for pay. Older adults are very strongly motivated to engage in various programs through a desire to help others. Even those who are not in the best of health report that having something to do for others keeps them active.
In summing up, may I say that aging, a lifelong process of growth, development and change, begins before birth and progresses at different rates and in different ways in every individual, depending upon genetics and environment. Just as each phase of a person's life cycle is determined by those which have gone before-adulthood, adolescence and childhood-so also is the preparation for a successful and satisfying life in later years a lifelong preparation. A first requirement is good health care, including the application of all known aspects of preventive and restorative health practices, so that we do in fact attain complete physical and social well-being to the greatest degree possible. Further, every individual needs

February 1, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 to develop interests, retain and sharpen his curiosity about the world around him and participate in lifelong education whether formal or informal.
There is no single problem of the aged. Rather, there is a whole complex of problems-health, housing, jobs, family and community relationships, attitudes and so on. Planning in terms of older persons requires a realistic approach to the problems on a wide variety of fronts. We need to apply new knowledge, new concepts and new techniques as these emerge. We must learn to live with change and to direct it. We must continually remind ourselves that effective solutions are intimately related to the conditions under which we live, and when some of the conditions change we must adjust other aspects of our lives to these changes. We need to be experimental, creative and imaginative in developing programs to meet the challenge of the later years and in accord with the society in which we live.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member concludes his interesting dissertation, would he mind saying whether he is for or against the motion?


Maurice Brydon Foster: I have already said, Mr. Speaker, that being against the motion would be like being against motherhood.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. The fifteenth hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 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. Drury (for the Prime Minister) that Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.
Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, we have been discussing these past few days Bill C-207, entitled an Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.
This bill provides for the reorganization of several departments and the establishment of the Department of the Environment. The minister in charge of this department will assume all the responsibilities of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry while receiving new
powers in order to control the pollution of the environment.
As regards this scheme, I remain rather sceptical. It appears that this is an improvement over present efforts to solve the problem of water pollution and it is obvious that immediate steps must be taken in that respect. But I am wondering if those that are proposed in the bill will be adequate and effective. As a matter of fact it is not because there is a Department of Agriculture that all farm problems have been solved. Neither did the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce put an end to all bankruptcies across the country.
I hope the public will not be under the impression that the proposed department is the answer to all problems relating to pollution, because in any event it is a very serious one.
Let us refer to an article in La Presse of Wednesday, June 11, 1969, under the by-line of J.-Claude Paquet, entitled: Water pollution is beyond control, and I quote:
"Water pollution is overtaking us at a frightful speed. One may even affirm without a doubt that it is beyond control." This statement was made yesterday by Dr. Richard Nelson of Hull, a member of the water development committee of the Quebec Wildlife Federation.
Assembled at Manoir Richelieu for their annual convention, the engineers and technicians of the water development association expressed their concern-
Speaking in a somewhat reproachful tone, Dr. Nelson told members: "You fully realize that you have retreated too long behind the imperviousness of your discipline, only allowing scraps of information to leak through, uninclined to launch a sustained campaign against water pollution.
Deficiencies responsible for the present situation are to be found at all levels of our community.
A large measure of the blame should be placed on the silence of the experts on water in the face of what is happening.
According to the lecturer, organizations dealing with Quebec's water problems have given the impression, up to now, that all is for the best in the best of possible worlds and that the higher authorities have the situation well in hand.
Mr. Speaker, we can imagine to a certain point all the publicity which will accompany the setting up of a department of the environment. We know that new regulations will be issued if they are required. Actually, some very logical ones have already been in existence but they were practically never implemented. I would like to quote a report which was published in the newspaper Action on September 22, 1969:
Our natural environment has a tendency to depreciate slowly! "The fast depreciating and often non-reversing condition of the natural environments needed for recreation is a by-product of our industrial society". This serious accusation against our modern way of living was brought by Professor Robert Lagueux, during a lecture that he delivered at the conference on water problems during the weekend in Quebec.
According to him, this degradation has been taking place at such a pace, especially for the last ten years or so, that one can truly speak of a clogging of the natural cycles of recuperation and self-purification of the environment.
This problem is so serious that it endangers the survival of man, Mr. Lagueux told us. In his opinion these ever increasing dangers result from the arrival on the market of these multiple-use chemical products with unknown side effects.
According to the lecturer, we are embarked in a vicious circle.

February 1, 1971

We waited until the situation became urgent before taking steps and securing the services of television, newspapers and radio to do some advertising.
I remember quite vividly the recommendations made by the federal government a few years ago with regard to farmers. I recall among other things that they had been instructed never to dump insecticide containers into rivers or lakes.
During the same period, with the federal government's blessing, the Canadian Corporation for the World Exhibition dumped thousands of gallons of DDT around the Expo grounds. Since these were islands in the river, the St. Lawrence was completely polluted, so much so that today we wonder just how much longer the fish will survive.
Nowadays, publicity is made at the housewife's expense. She is told what detergents to choose while she only uses a few gallons of water a week to do her washing.
I would therefore appreciate it if the sponsor of this bill could tell us whether the government has asked the pulp and paper companies, which pour their residues 24 hours a day into the river, to change acids.
Pollution of the soil, pollution of the sea, pollution of the air, pollution of the water: there is pollution everywhere. Let us wage war against pollution as we are doing against poverty.
The number of unemployed and of those who have tighten their belts in the face of affluence is a concrete proof that there is also, within the government, pollution of the mind, pollution of the intellect.
One thing is sure: that the government is about to increase taxes. On January 26, 1971 La Presse reported the following statement made by a bank manager. I quote:



NO TO AFFLUENCE IS THE PRICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL.

[Stage Direction]
"Canadians must be willing to forgo affluence so as to palliate the cost of pollution, said last night the Chairman of the Bank of Montreal, Mr. G. Arnold Hart. However, the public must be cautioned-"
-about what is forthcoming.
"Because the problem is really there: any effort against pollution will result in economic restraints, added the banker who explained however that "it is much too easy to demand that the cost of pollution control be paid by those responsible for pollution".
"All of us create some pollution and we must all pay the cost, either by accepting an increase in prices or in taxes, or by forgoing certain goods which seem very desirable, or by putting up with the unemployment caused by the closing of industries incapable of complying with new standards."
This is a bank manager who says that: factories will close down, the number of unemployed will increase, taxes will be increased. So as to satisfy the voracious appetite of the banks, the people will have to tighten their belts. Privations and reductions, that is good enough for the people. Meanwhile, banks bring up their interest rates. It is possible that this expert, a bank manager, will go as far as getting his salary increased.
And who knows if the increase in the assets of the Bank of Montreal, which was 33 per cent for 1969-70,
Government Organization Act, 1970 will not reach 50 per cent. Anything can happen since this bank is one of those which can tighten or loosen credit at will.
We remember quite well the years 1929 to 1939 when credit was under strict control. It had been enough that the word "war" be used for all the banks to grant more credit. We are still paying for this supposed favour. The people have lost from it and so have the provinces. We remember that under the pretense of temporary measures which were to last during war time only, the provinces had agreed to part with some of their taxing powers. To save Christianity and freedom the provinces had yielded. Unfortunately, more taxes are levied so that people enjoy less and less freedom and communism is spreading throughout the world.
Taxes were increased to establish the family allowance plan. These taxes have gone up but family allowances have remained unchanged. Other taxes were imposed to cover the increase in old age pension. Other collection methods have been created under the pretense of fighting poverty. The number of poor people is increasing but we still have the same methods.
The government, which has been fighting inflation by new taxes and restrictions, is now launching war against pollution because our major businessmen have finally agreed to co-operate.
We have known capital shortages but surely our businessmen will put an end to them to fight pollution.
In return, the citizens' work will still be taxed, and so will building materials, clothing and many other life related commodities.
In setting up this new department, I am convinced the government will find a way to tax the air we breathe.
Clause 5 of the bill reads as follows:
5. The duties, powers and functions of the Minister of the Environment extend to and include all matters over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other department, branch or agency of the Government of Canada, relating to
(a)	sea coast and inland fisheries;
(b)	renewable resources, including
(i)	the forest resources of Canada,
(ii)	migratory birds, and
(iii)	other non-domestic flora and fauna;
(c)	water;
(e) the protection and enhancement of the quality of the
natural environment, including water, air and soil quality;
With regard to the soil, Mr. Speaker, we must get acquainted as soon as possible with all available research in this field.
As to air, which changes in colour from one region to another, action should be taken as soon as possible.
In the case of water, studies involving the various aspects of water resources management have been carried out in the province of Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. These studies lead us to confirm that from a legal as well as practical standpoint water supply and treatment fall mainly under provincial jurisdiction.
However, in view of the inter-relationship of water related problems in the different areas of the country, we must recognize that the provincial framework is hardly
[Stage Direction]
February 1, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
adequate if we want to approach their various aspects efficiently. Some of them are of Canada-wide concern.
We do not necessarily conclude that it is either mandatory or desirable for the federal government to assume full responsibility over the water question, but that it should rather take a keen interest in all aspects of the various Canadian problems.
The water question can be broken down into three parts. First, municipal and industrial water supplies.
In this regard, it is generally recognized that to date provincial jurisdictions have fulfilled their tasks adequately. Drinking water is available in adequate quantity and quality as well in Quebec as in the rest of the country.
* (8:20 p.m.)
Then there is the comparatively new problem of sewage treatment whose solution is to be found mainly in a collective desire to take the appropriate measures. Purification costs remain almost the same whether the undertaking is achieved under the federal, provincial or municipal government or with industrial participation. In this connection, the federal government can and must help financially to make up for inequalities and take the necessary measures.
Finally, as water is a basic element in our environment, the part it plays should conform to the ways of life followed by all Canadians. In this respect, the approaches may differ from one province to the other; however, a general notion of the minimum requirements is essential and the federal government can and must assume a constructive role in determining the goals.
Under every aspect of water management, each level of government should discharge its responsibilities within the framework of our Canadian political institutions and in a spirit of co-ordination and co-operation. Any federal government initiative or arrangement likely to impede the action of a provincial jurisdiction would act contrary to the results looked for.
On the one hand, the federal government's action must be very strong in the fields where it has exclusive powers, but on the other hand it should be complementary only in the fieds that traditionally come under provincial jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, in their own interest, the provinces should take advantage of any financial or technical aid available from the federal government. In our opinion, initiative and planning should remain in the hands of the provinces. Besides, the federal government can and must act as a catalyzer of public opinion, guiding the choice of national goals and choosing measures calculated to create a collective will aimed at correcting the situation.
To that end, we suggest that the complementary action of the federal government deal with the following aspects: research, technical information and popular education. There must be co-ordination in research and information. All Canadian citizens must be sensitized in a rational way to the problem of water and environment.
Minimum criteria should be established on the quality of water and wast° in co-operation with the provinces. A
step has already been made in proposing Canadian standards. There only remains to complete them.
The government should, in co-operation with the provinces, make an inventory of the water resources of Canada. Although each province is interested in that inventory, the general picture must also be considered.
It would be necessary to set up mechanisms of federal financial participation based on long term estimates of financial needs. In other words, we suggest that spending estimates be made for each province as well as for the whole of Canada. The allocation of expenses, for each level of governments and for all the users, must be made according to these estimates within the framework of an orderly financial program.
Every effort must be made to find more equitable and more rational financing methods. In the immediate future, municipalities and industries are confronted with a financing problem which impedes the implementation of the required programs. The federal government can give essential financial aid and must give it without delay.
In the issue of October 3, 1969 of La Presse, one could read a statement by the then Minister of Resources, who said:
-that some Canadian firms will be forced to close their doors because of the government antipollution program.
During an interview, the minister explained that pollution was at the present time everybody's problem, but that the pollution caused previously by certain firms was their direct responsibility.
Some industries might not be able to pay for measures to fight pollution and will then have to shut down.
Mr. Speaker, if industries are forced to shut down, due to lack of funds, I think there is a serious problem and before spending millions here and there to start new industries we should find ways to save those that already
exist.
The same thing goes as far as public undertakings are concerned. Public needs may be urgent, well detected, expressed and understood by public bodies, but if those bodies have no money or not enough, the implementation of plans is delayed.
What is missing, then? There is no lack of materials. We know that manpower is abundant. There are plenty of competent people. Finally, the only thing missing is money, financial credit.
In short, with or without this new department, the pollution problem in our country is becoming a financial problem. There is no going back. The co-operation of the public, the provinces and municipalities is necessary, but the essential steps cannot be delayed. However, we know that in the present system, most public bodies are deep in debt and can no longer consider any development, even in the case of pollution which is a matter of life or death.
It is obvious that it is only by incurring other debts at a 10 per cent interest, that we could reimburse our old ones and carry out the necessary pollution control programs.
As the government is the supreme authority in this country, I wish it would prove its capability by demand-

February 1, 1971
[Stage Direction]
ing that the Bank of Canada grant to the provinces and municipalities which might request them interest-free loans similar to those granted foreign countries.
I agree that we must set up programs to control soil, air and water pollution, but if we really want to do it we should first wage war against financial pollution by reorganizing the Bank of Canada.
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, on rising to comment on Bill C-207 I wish to associate myself with those hon. members who have already expressed objection to it. I do not believe it is necessary to go into detail on the aspects of an omnibus type bill other than to state that all too often in this Parliament we have seen a few goodies thrown in with a bag of tricks in one piece of legislation, parts of which are unpalatable but which are presented to Parliament for approval.
This bill gives the government power to expand, to spend and to entrench without recourse to the representatives of the people. From now on a ministry may be established simply by proclamation, something which is completely contrary to the traditions and precedents of our parliamentary system. This bill reaffirms the trend of the present administration toward the establishment of a bureaucratic dictatorship. It also reaffirms the truth of the often used cliche that the Liberals are concerned with expectations of power-patronage in perpetuity.
When we look at the potential expansion of ministries combined with the expansionary provision for parliamentary secretaries, we can see that this bill, if passed, will give everybody on the Liberal side a chance to be somebody; and the suggestion is that they had better behave and support the government or they will find themselves among the minority group classified as nobodies. I suggest this would be extremely disastrous for them when they face the electorate in the next election, and that applies even to my hon. friend from St. Boniface, Manitoba.
With the exception of that portion of the bill which proposes the establishment of a department of the environment, of which I approve although I suggest it is a rather feeble and cursory attempt to strike at the "gut" issue of pollution, I see nothing in the bill which will give any measure of ease to the many Canadians suffering economic burdens and miseries. The creation of a department of the environment will be in fact a nonevent. I submit that the bill should establish a comprehensive administrative structure to fight pollution. Instead, it proposes a piecemeal structure which will have incomplete power. I say this because the acts to be administered by the new department were drafted for other diverse purposes and will not provide the new minister with sufficient regulatory power to undertake a comprehensive campaign against pollution. Indeed, if the government is serious about a comprehensive and planned attack on pollution, it must introduce comprehensive regulatory powers directly intended for this department to enable it to carry out its ambitious responsibilities.
Government Organization Act, 1970
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, the bill offers nothing in the way of a measure of ease to alleviate the burdens, miseries and pressures which affect so many Canadians today. On the contrary, they will be asked to dig deeper into their pockets to finance the rewards to be handed out to Liberal members who have distinguished themselves as well-disciplined, well-behaved boys fully endorsing the policies and trends of their seniors. I am given to understand that already the impact of the bill has been felt in this regard. I am told that many Liberal members who wanted to speak on the bill have been asked to refrain from participating in the debate. This is the brand of participatory democracy in which the government believes, the kind in which Liberals cannot afford to disagree.
To the more than three-quarters of a million Canadians who are presently on unemployment insurance, to the many, many more living in poverty without access to public assistance, to the old age pension recipient, to the war veteran, to the many small businessmen who have been forced to close their enterprises and to the many, many more on the verge of closing because of the government's perpetrated economic crisis, to the many, many small farmers and to some not so small who have been attempting to eke out a living on 63 cents per bushel for barley and $1 per bushel for wheat, of which 50 per cent is retained in respect of previous advances, this bill offers no hope and is nothing more than a clouding of the issues.
This bill deserves nothing more than contempt, because the government simply does not care. It cares not about those who are unable to assert their rights and privileges because of lack of organization or political power. The people in these groups are suffering the gravest injustices in our society. This government with callous and coldblooded disregard simply carries on building its empire and its bureaucracy. It is creating positions which will do nothing but increase frustrations and complicate the channels of redress for those attempting to obtain consideration for their plight.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that until the war on inflation was won there was little hope of relief for those struggling at or below the poverty line. The Prime Minister now states that inflation is licked. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that those were nothing more than empty words. I remind the Prime Minister that only because of lower food prices the cost of living index levelled off and reduced. Speaking as one who represents an agricultural area and many agricultural producers, I hope the Prime Minister does not expect producers and retailers to bear the brunt of the war on inflation. I hope he does not expect us to fight inflation single-handledly. I submit that if the major food chains declare a truce, we shall again experience a rise in the cost of living.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. No doubt he will recognize that it is necessary for the Chair to relate directly what the hon. member is saying to the bill before the House. I know

February 1, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
that this is an omnibus bill which covers quite a bit of terrain. Perhaps the hon. member would enlighten the Chair and indicate how his remarks relate to one of the many parts of the bill.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I was merely following the pattern established by previous speakers who, it seems to me, covered a wide range of topics. Turning to the subject of inflation again-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he cannot under the guise of discussing this bill discuss unemployment and the general financial and economic situation of the country. I recognize that the hon. member who had the floor before spoke of the Bank of Canada, and for a while I wondered how those remarks related to the bill before us. Just when I had determined to rise and bring this to the attention of the hon. member, he managed in some way to relate the Bank of Canada to some of the provisions of this bill.
Nevertheless, I very much doubt that hon. members should take advantage of this bill to promote a general debate on the economic situation of the country. I certainly do not think that this is in order. I invite the hon. member to return to consideration of one of the many aspects of the bill. Hon. members have complained that this is a very general bill which covers a large number of subjects. If that is so, it should not be difficult to make a 40-minute speech on some of its aspects.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I was merely trying to point out that this bill is inflationary in effect. I was hoping to make my point because so far as I am concerned inflation is very closely related to productivity. I would like to know what productivity factors will arise as a result of approval of this carte-blanche measure which will authorize the expenditure of millions of dollars to entrench more firmly the Liberal establishment. The only increase in productivity, I suggest, will be that involving an increase in propaganda emanating from Information Canada. Much of that production we can well do without.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: submit that they should continue to hold their distinction and should not be downgraded in any way, shape or form. These two industries, because they are subject to many vagaries to which other industries are not, ought to be strengthened, not weakened, by government assistance and protection.
What do we see? We see the Department of Fisheries downgraded and buried in a new department, thus becoming a nonentity. The Department of Agriculture has been fragmented almost into non-existence by the shared responsibilities of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). Today the ministry of agriculture has become not much more than a title. With respect to agriculture, my colleagues from the Atlantic provinces wondered why the Department of Agriculture was not buried in the omnibus bill as well as the Department of Fisheries. Let me only remind them that when we look at the record of achievement for the year 1969 as outlined in "Canadian Farm Economics", it is shocking and disturbing to learn that in 1969 for the first time in our history Canada became a net importer of agricultural products. I would like to record the figures but I may be ruled out of order.
This is shocking, unbelievable and unwarranted in a country which has the agricultural base, technological know-how and ability to produce. It is certainly a harsh and chilling indictment of this government's mismanagement in the field of agriculture. This occurred within a year and a half of the present government assuming office. The hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) wondered why agriculture was not included in the new department of the environment. Even though we will still have the Department of Agriculture, it has been emasculated and downgraded to the point where it is no longer a prime department. Agriculture is not considered to be a priority item or a national asset. The government wants to see the last traces of agriculture reduced to so-called manageable proportions.
The hard fact of the situation-an area of public life usually skirted by the government-is that this reorganization bill evades grappling with our demanding and contemporary problems. It contributes to structures and privileges which already allow excessive evasion, indecisiveness and arbitrariness on the part of the executive. The issues of our urban and rural life styles-shelter, transportation, full employment and environmental control-if they are to be solved, require hard decisions. If they are to be solved democratically, the hard decisions must be made in public.
If this were an honest and comprehensive reorganization of the government, with different concepts of government in action than those which characterize this government, I could applaud the bill. However, it is not. This government has not in the past, and does not seem now, willing to introduce legislation outlining specific intentions regarding these problems. Indeed, we are asked
Government Organization Act, 1970 to create structures without passing judgment on the philosophy and goals they are to pursue.
The preamble to a particular war, whether pollution or poverty, is to be made in public: however, the strategy and the tactics are to be made in private. I reject this. This is an aberration and distortion of democratic government. Parliament can delegate the administration of a goal, but it cannot delegate goal-setting and the essential choice of means. However, that is what this administration continually asks of Parliament: it asks us to share in the platitudes but leaves the choices to the government, choices to be rejected or accepted in secret. This measure is no adequate substitute for strong and democratic government. Strong and democratic government openly makes decisions. That it not what we are getting.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, some aspects of Bill C-207-are of vital interest to my constituents. I refer to the creation of a department of the environment. I believe this is an important step forward. If the department is given the means and the tools to do the job, it may play an important role in the meeting the environmental crisis.
I do not wish to detract the very reasonable criticisms of my colleagues about the hodge-podge of different subject matters brought under the cover of this bilL That is extremely unfortunate. However, I do not propose to deal with that aspect of the matter. I shall deal with the subject of pollution of the environment particularly as it affects areas such as the one I represent, the metropolitan area of Toronto. It is trite to say that we have reached the situation in which the unintended result of our practices has been to threaten animal and plant life and to destroy the environment on which the quality of human life depends. There has been no lack of warning. In the course of this debate, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) drew attention to a declaration of the United Nations in 1968 which gave that warning very clearly and explicitly. I will not repeat what he said.
We should pay close attention to that warning. It refers to a crisis of worldwide proportions. It refers to the explosive growth of human population, poor integration of a powerful and efficient technology with environmental requirements, the deterioration of agricultural land, the uplanned extension of urban areas, the decrease of available space and the growing danger of extinction of many forms of animal and plant life.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), when he was Acting Prime Minister a short time ago filed a report on pollution of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. It was an extensive and full report of the International Joint Commission. Lake Ontario and Lake Erie are two of the greatest freshwater lakes in the world. While the report refers to one part of the country, similar problems have arisen in nearly all the great waterways and freshwater lakes in Canada. I quote from the conclusions reached by that commission as follows:
In response to the question, "Are the waters of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and the international section of the St. Lawrence River being polluted on either side of the boundary to an extent which is causing or is likely to cause injury to health or property on the other side of the boundary?"

February 1, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
The commission finds that the waters referred to in the question are being seriously polluted on both sides of the boundary to the detriment of both countries and to an extent which is causing injury to health and property on the other side of the boundary.
In response to the question, "If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative, to what extent, by what causes, and in what localities is such pollution taking place?"
The commission finds the polluted waters are lakewide in extent; that the two principal causes are wastes discharged by municipalities and industries into the above waters and their tributaries; and that pollution is taking place in all jurisdictions whch share these boundary waters.
The report goes into greater detail in the lull text. The third question was as follows:
If the commission should find that pollution of the character just referred to is taking place, what remedial measures would, in its judgment, be most practicable from the economic, sanitary and other points of view and what would be the probable cost thereof?
The response was the following:
The commission finds that the remedial measures include the adoption and adherence to this commission's general and specific objectives as a matter of urgency; immediate reduction of the phosphorous content in detergents; the prompt implementation of a vigorous programme to provide the necessary municipal and industrial waste treatment facilities and to reduce the phosphorous inputs into the above waters and their tributaries-
And so on. Later in the report is a series of detailed recommendations spelling out what ought to be done- the setting of water quality objectives for these boundary waters, as they are called, among other things. The tragic part of all this is that a report in almost exactly similar terms-and I have it here-was made by the International Joint Commission as long ago as 1952, I believe it was, and very little or nothing has been done about it. The International Joint Commission exists by virtue of a solemn treaty made in 1910 between the United States and Britain, representing Canada at that stage of history, in which both countries pledged themselves not to pollute the waters in the other country. Yet this pollution has been going on since 1910 and was reported on fully in 1952 without, as I say, anything being done about it.
This is why I am glad to see specific reference to the matter in the bill before us. Under clause 5(g) the proposed minister of the environment is to be given jurisdiction in connection with the enforcement of any rules or regulations made by the International Joint Commission in respect of boundary waters, as far as pollution control is concerned. This task alone is a tremendous one for the new department and I earnestly hope it will be carried out.
I wish to call attention to two points with regard to the whole question of pollution of the environment. First, on the question of enforcement: there have been many studies made and much research done in the pollution field, and there is need for more studies and more research; but all the studies and research in the world will not enable us to deal with this question adequately unless there is adequate enforcement. I hope the minister will

succeed in getting an effective staff on the enforcement side. I hope he will get people who are not only trained in the law but who have the required energy, tact and determination to enforce the legislation in co-operation with other jurisdictions.
The other thing that is required is consultation with informed and interested local organizations. I am happy to see that many of these are springing up. In this connection, as well as in connection with the point I have just made about the necessity of adequate enforcement measures to ensure that the rules made are not disregarded, I refer the minister to a new body known as The Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation. I do not know whether the minister is aware of this association. It is a group of mostly younger lawyers in Toronto; I am sure they will soon spread out on a national basis. I wish to read what they say about their purposes, because this is of great importance. They say the following:
In downtown Toronto people choke and wheeze. Elsewhere In Ontario fishermen and Indians lose their source of livelihood when the fish become contaminated with mercury. Vacationers turn away as mounds of green algae pile up on the beach. What can they do about it?
Growing numbers of Canadians are seriously concerned about the deterioration of their environments. Groups have sprung up across the country which, each in their own way, attempt to meet the pollution crisis head-on. Whatever they do to arouse the public, however, they are ultimately faced with the realities of the Canadian political and legal system.
If we are to proceed in an orderly fashion to solve some of these problems quickly and rationally, current law must be put to better use and new approaches must be explored. Given the constitutional and jurisdictional complexities of resource management in Canada, an all-out effort must be made by the legal community to assist in the formulation and, more important, the interpretation of legislation for the management and control of the environment.
Recognizing, however, that in a democratic society the public must understand and be able to utilize the law, we believe that citizens must be educated as to the legal recourse offered them. Unfortunately, the Canadian public and, indeed, most lawyers remain largely unaware of the existence of such remedies.
Recently a group of lawyers and law students, brought together by a common concern for their imperilled environment, formed the Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation. Although a separate entity, it will work closely with Pollution Probe.
I urge the minister to get in touch with this organization and consult them in the development of his staff. Unless he has on his staff people who are not only knowledgeable about such matters as prosecutions but are endowed with the requisite tact and judgment to enable them to co-operate with other law enforcement jurisdictions, I fear the department of the environment will not carry out the purpose to which it is dedicated.
I wish to speak, now, about another organization which exists in my own constituency and which has concerned itself deeply with the question of local pollution, something which closely concerns federal jurisdiction and the proposed new department. This organization is called ForWARD 9, "ward 9" being the municipal designation of part of the area covered by the riding of Greenwood. It is a non-partisan, voluntary citizens' organization. It has formed a pollution task force which has surveyed the nature of the source of pollution in the area. Its findings draw attention to what are probably the three main
February 1, 1971

polluters: the Richard L. Hearn generating station of Ontario Hydro which is, itself, a creature of the Ontario provincial government; the municipal incinerator on Commissioner Street operated by the metro works department, part of the municipal government; and the main sewage treatment plant on Ashbridge's Bay, also operated by the metro works department. It turns out that the three main polluters are all public organizations, so the report throws light on what is likely to be one of the main problems in this field.
1	shall not go into detail here as to the findings of this pollution task force, the type of pollution caused and the methods necessary to improve the situation. As to the hydro station, they say proposals have been put forward which if acted upon will lessen the damage being done by that plant. I should like to put on record the following conclusions reached by the task force:
1. These three plants are responsible for constant, hazardous and massive pollution of the city.
2	Methods of cutting down this pollution are known and available.
3.	While there is some public discussion of pollution control measures, and a little implementation of partial schemes, there has as yet been no all-out effort to attack and eliminate pollution from these three plants.
4.	The three plants belong to public and semi-public agencies rather than private firms. They are supposed to serve us and to operate in our interests. The condoning of pollution from such sources inevitably forces us to question whether our representatives at city, provincial and federal levels are yet either serious or honest in their much proclaimed concern to do something about pollution.
5.	Finally, it is quite obvious that there are many ways in which the pollution could be cut down-e.g., regular replacement of screens on the incinerator stacks, better precipitating equipment at the incinerator and at the Hearn plant, covering the sewage plant tanks to cut down the smells, speeding up the sewer separation program, etc. All these improvements cost money. But pollution costs us a lot, too-every day, in many ways. It's hurting our lakes, our air, our houses-and probably our health too.
That is the authentic voice of people from my riding who are interested in this subject, and I am sure their message could be duplicated across the country, particularly in urban areas. I urge the minister to take full advantage of the provisions of clause 6 (b) which are as follows:
The minister of the environment, in exercising his powers and carrying out his duties and functions under section 5, shall-
(b) promote and encourage the institution of practices and conduct leading to the better protection and enhancement of environmental quality, and co-operate with provincial governments or agencies thereof, or any bodies, organizations or persons, in any programs having similar objects.
I would be glad to send the minister the address of the Forward 9 pollution task force so he may, if he wishes, be apprised of their findings. In working on this problem he and his department will have the advantage of the information gathered by many very knowledgeable and concerned people in the area.
There has been a lot of criticism of this bill, but I would conclude by wishing the new minister and the new
Government Organization Act, 1970
department the very best of luck in the urgently important task that they will be undertaking. I suggest that this task will call for imagination, tenacity and fact. For the sake of future generations of Canadians, I sincerely hope the new department will be a success.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I echo the sentiments of most members of the House who have spoken so far. I echo their expressions of concern for the environment and their good wishes to the minister. I think these expressions were sincerely put forward. If not totally sincere, they were at least put forward out of a very deep and continuing sense of concern for the condition of our environment and our seeming inability to cope with the problem as time goes by. I join these people in wishing the minister good luck in the task that faces him. No minister in Canadian history has faced such a monumental job with such a total absence of sources of information, guidance and precedents. As well, no minister, at least in my opinion, faces the task that is ahead of him with better skills, talents and, I am sure, more sincerity and dedication to the task of bringing some rhyme and reason to this headlong rush of madness that we are facing.
If I may be permitted one other comment in connection with the minister's very real responsibility, it is this. I hope the minister will have the fullest support not only of the cabinet in its present configuration but as well in its proposed configuration. I am a believer in numbers and I believe there is strength in assistance. Whether or not the minister will get that support every time he asks for it in trying to clean up all aspects of our environment and all the problems of pollution remains to be seen, but I have some confidence in his ability to get it.
Like my colleagues who have spoken before me, I express concern over the downgrading of our fisheries. 1 trust that in practice this will not take place. I am prompted to raise this question because of the very startling step taken today in closing down the swordfishing industry. The implications of such a move are very serious. I hope the minister is much more on top of the situation than the news that has come to our attention so far would indicate. The closure of this industry means the loss of a swordfishing fleet of 40 to 60 ships, involving 300 to 400 men and their families, not to mention the supporting services of the industry and the satisfying of the palates of thousands of North Americans who enjoy swordfish as a delicacy.
The source of mercury pollution in fish must be identified rapidly, not only to save the industry but to preclude the fear and panic that I think the minister is well aware could spread among those who enjoy this food. I am terrified that one morning I shall wake up and find the pollution situation so bad that I have to give up eating mackerel, lobster, tuna, cod, hake and halibut. The minister shakes his head, and I pray to God he is right-that this is just an isolated incident, a phenomenon of the industry. However, it is still my understanding that the source of this pollution has not been identified. The causes are not completely understood, but I hope they

February 1, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
will be as soon as possible, for the sake not only of those of us from the provinces next to the sea but for those inland who only know of the oceans through the delights of fish dinners.
With regard to the minister's department, like everybody else I have been waiting very patiently for a long time, realizing that the minister has no clear precedent to guide him-


Louis-Roland Comeau: Just his head.


J. Michael Forrestall: I am almost prepared to accept that reason alone, because time is running out. But the minister now virtually has his new department. As my colleague who just interjected said the other night, departments, concern, care and talk are all very well but it takes dollars and cents to do something about pollution. It will take dollars and cents to find out about the swordfishing industry, but it will take a hell of a lot more dollars and cents to lay out a program that will be effective against those primarily responsible for polluting our environment in its totality. Is the government prepared to make them pay for this?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: We cannot do that without the legislation.


J. Michael Forrestall: The minister says they cannot pay for it without the legislation. If the President of the Treasury Board would get on his feet and guarantee that the new minister of the environment will be given the necessary funds to clean up the Great Lakes, the oceans and our northland, I am sure the co-operation of the members on this side of the House would be very readily achieved. To come back to the question of money, so far no member on the other side of the House has dared even to approach the question of the cost of cleaning up our environment. Yet this must be done. The people of Canada who so anxiously await the steps to be taken by the minister also await a price tag. So I repeat the words of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau): it takes money to fight pollution, and money must be forthcoming if we are to survive and not permit raw sewage to be dumped into our inlets, harbours and bodies of fresh water. I was going to mention the Ottawa River, but that is a moving body of water. Perhaps I should confine my remarks to bodies of water that do not have self-flushing capabilities.
One of the first steps the minister should take is toward stopping what is taking place. He should not accept suggestions and proposals which would only perpetuate in one way or another the problem we are attempting to attack. If we are to clean up pollution, let us at least start by putting an end to situations which permit new pollution to creep into our environment When new plants are built, let us insist upon standards which are high enough to be effective and keep the air clean. Let us apply the same principle and influence in respect of the effluent that pours into our rivers, lakes and oceans. Let us put an end to this pollution quickly.

In spite of the difficulties the minister will face in the coming months with the type of legislation and regulations required, he will find comforting support among his colleagues in the House of Commons. I hope he is aware of the fact as he steps forward armed with his new legislation.
One might argue that it is a form of pollution to allow governments and societies to continue to discard policies before they have been effectively used, policies which have been demonstrated to be effective but which are changed in some way to meet the demand for change. This happens frequently. It seems to me that those who are filling responsible positions have been by and large useless. The cabinet system has not been a bad one up to now. The worst I can say about it is that I think it is in the wrong hands. Our system of government seems to have worked fairly well for a number of years but I am not at all sure it has not outlived its usefulness. That is one of the conclusions one must draw from what appears to be the intent of this legislation. It seems to discard other policies simply because change seems to be the desirable thing. When we discard ideas and concepts before they have fully served the needs of society, we have wastage-and that is pollution. As my leader said some days ago, this is prideful pollution and it is unnecessary at this time. It is wasteful in itself when it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the people of Canada that there is a real need to expand the cabinet.
The people of this country, through their representatives in the House of Commons, are being asked to accept this open-ended legislation. This is wrong, if the legislation is placed in the hands of those who would use it for other than correct purposes, in terms of our understanding of the political system. Sometimes I wonder just what is the concern of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government in proceeding to this extent. What does this all mean, and how far do they intend to go? What is their intention? Apart from the department of the environment, for which there is an obvious need, why do we need these open-ended ministries of state? They are very loose in their application.


An hon. Member:: How about pay-offs?


J. Michael Forrestall: Good salaries and pay-offs could make the boys happy. That is one argument, but I think it is a little too simple. The government could act on the Beau-pre report: that would keep the boys happy and it would not displease me.


An hon. Member:: And it would cost less.


J. Michael Forrestall: It would cost a lot less in the long run. I am little more concerned about this measure than is expressed by that suggestion. The legislation seems a little too superficial. I wonder what this bill really has to do with the acquisition of power. Let me cite an example and in this way perhaps throw some light on the message of my western colleagues. Let me caution the Premiers of the provinces west of the Manitoba-Ontario border. Inherent in this piece of legislation is an uncontrolled de-
February 1, 1971

sire to effect total and absolute power, not in a wider and broader cabinet but in the hands of relatively few people. I wonder why the government and those close to it desire the type of power included in this legislation.
I refer to an article which appeared in a periodical in that city across the harbour from mine, the capital of Nova Scotia. It is entitled "The 4th Estate". In volume No. 2, issue No. 28, dated January 21, 1971-just eight or nine days ago-there is the headline, "Tom Kent Killing Maritimes". It is the use of power in such a manner that I have alluded to which would cause a reporter such as Dulcie Conrad, who has eight or ten years' experience in covering the political scene in Nova Scotia, to write the type of article the editor would feel deserved such a headline. Whether I am right or wrong, I have no pathological fear of Tom Kent, deputy minister notwithstanding. One must take note of such an article by a responsible reporter with some prestige and some ability, depending on whether you agree with her or are in favour of what she says at a given time.
I would like to quote from this article so as to demonstrate what I am afraid is really happening. I refer to the divide and conquer policy which a handful of people with tremendous power can apply. Miss Conrad writes:
The latest example of Mr. Kent's power over maritime planning was his order to Liberal Premier Gerald Regan of Nova Scotia to get rid of the province's newly formed cabinet secretariat, a planning body set up by the previous Conservative government. The secretariat had been making at least a tentative start at planning for Nova Scotia at the provincial level keeping in mind special provincial conditions and, hopefully, the feelings of the province's people.
What concerns me is that a perceptive writer would attempt to deal with power in this way. I do not believe that she is shooting down Tom Kent. I do not think Dulcie Conrad has a pathological fear of Tom Kent. She is really asking what happens to a province when a minister is given virtually unlimited authority to do things. What happened to Prince Edward Island? My dear friend and colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), is not here. If he were, he would tell you-and so would the people of P.E.I.-that they have lost their provincial rights, they have lost their autonomy.
I would not be afraid to bet a buck with anybody that in the preparation of budget considerations and papers for the forthcoming fiscal year, every blessed minister in that province had to submit them to Tom Kent for approval before they could come up with their final budget or estimates. The suggestion, of course, is that Tom Kent or the Deputy Minister of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is using the same type of control and the same type of power in the province of Nova Scotia. I am afraid of that type of power. I am afraid of a philosophy of political office that says: Let us appoint a whole lot of ministers. Let us so divide and conquer, let us so spread out the responsibility of government that any one of the responsible ministers can be ticked off just like that.
Government Organization Act, 1970
I am afraid of that. Better a powerful, single, bad man whom you can understand than the weakness that comes with the division of broad responsibilities so that surreptitious methods can be employed to usurp power, to take away power, and in this case to take away power from provinces which enjoy it and have every right to it.
The story is that Tom Kent is killing the Maritimes. By God, he had better not try it! But that is not all. So extensive is the article that the newspaper decided to editorialize it. The title reads, "Stop the Sellout to Ottawa". Again, this type of headline by an editor or an editorial writer is born out of a sense of fear, not of what could happen but what indeed is happening. Of course, the bill speeds up that process. It creates a ministry with tremendously broad authority and unlimited power which, mind you, is still open and above board. People can see and understand it and they can deal with what they can see and understand. But there is fear of a broadening of power, for whatever reason, of ministries about which we know nothing and whose authority is open-ended and unlimited. The author of the editorial asks:
Who should have the final say about how the three maritime provinces plan for their future future economic development?
This is a rhetorical question. There is no question about it in my mind. It has to be done jointly. That may surprise hon. members. It must be above board and open. But the intitiative and final authority must come from the Maritimes. The author goes on to answer the question, also rhetorically:
The federal government, which provides the bulk of the money for this development? Or the political leaders of the three provinces who are-or should be-in touch with what the people they serve feel are the important issues of development?
There's the old saying, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
It is this hidden uncertainty, this unknown quantity that gets me to my feet tonight to express some concern. I do not think the government is moving in this direction simply to create and enhance income positions for 60, 70, 80 or 100 of its members. I do not think they are quite that stupid. I do not believe they are quite so unsubtle as that. I think there is a much more sinister reason behind their action. There might not be, mind you, but I would still like to see a minister rise to his feet and talk seriously about what really is intended by this legislation and tell us what it means. What does the government intend to do with an unlimited number of ministries?
A colleague of mine on this side of the House said the other day that if they are interested in an efficient government there are many examples around the world at which they could look, not the least of which is the British House of Commons where with a relative handful of men-12 or so-they manage the affairs of a nation of 50 million or 60 million people. Great Britain has a unitary form of government. I wonder if that is what this government is after. I wonder sometimes whether they are trying to create such a proliferation of ministries that, for example, cities will rapidly become less concerned with dealing with Ottawa through their provincial legislatures. I wonder if this is what they are after.

February 1, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
Are they trying to make service so acceptable to people as to bring about a situation where they can leapfrog over the whole system of government in Canada, that is to say, the existing levels of government provincial and municipal? I wonder if that is what they are after. Whatever it is, I am afraid they are attempting to divide and conquer, to so diversify responsibility that no one will ever really know who is supposed to answer for what. This would let men like the Deputy Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and men like the director of the cabinet-the real source of power in this country-Mr. Lalonde in the Prime Minister's office, do what they damn well please about the country. I for one do not like that. I do not think the people of Canada will accept it, but that is what seems to be happening.
We have blank looks on the faces of members on the front benches opposite when matters are raised. Just the other day we raised the question of aid to Francophone college graduates. Good God! Who knew about it? Where did it come from? I do not know why anybody is puzzled about it. It came out of the Prime Minister's office, but probably not with his knowledge. It came out of that real source of power, or what seems to be becoming the real source of power. It was not the deputy ministers, a closely knit little group of people who whenever they run across a problem say, "Feed them peanuts, feed them apples. We will fix them up one way or another.'' This is not the way Canadians want their government to operate. I do not think that is pursuing the course that the vast majority of Canadians want to follow. I wish to read another comment from "The 4th Estate" as follows:
The N.S. secretariat, and its chairman, planner Len Poestchke, are being axed by the provincial government because they could prove a thorn in the side of Mr. Regan when he wants to collect a fast bunch of goodies (in the form of money from Mr. Kent's Department of Regional Economic Expansion for such things as highways and sewerage systems).
What prompts a writer to make comments like that unless it is fear about who wields the political power, unless it is fear about the method by which the destinies of Canadians are being controlled? Mr. Regan is not alone in his surrender to this bureaucracy. Premier Campbell has also been involved. The new Premier of the province of New Brunswick, Mr. Hatfield, hopefully has seen enough to know how to approach the federal authorities.
I say to my hon. friends from the Prairies that when the government comes to them bearing gifts for infrastructure developments, saying "What do you want and we will give it to you?" let them beware. I fear that the thing they are after is total and absolute power. That is a form of pollution. Pray God what I am saying is not true; but if it is, it is probably the worst form of pollution this country will ever face.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I must say that I do not see much in this legislation that looks like a gift for western Canada or for any other part of our society, with the exception of a few more members of the Liberal party who will be advanced to the esteemed position of Parliamentary Secretary.

The headline item in this legislation is the establishment of the department of the environment. Of course, this is a very saleable item at the present time, but I believe the government is using it as a method of slipping through many other things that are not quite as desirable and that probably would not stand the test of careful scrutiny. If the bill does nothing else, we can hope that with the establishment of a single department of government concerned with fostering a better environment in Canada, all the agencies concerned with that objective will be drawn under one roof.
I understand that there are well over 100 agencies of the federal government concerned with various aspects of protecting our environment, but in many cases they do not know what each one is doing. They seem to be going off in all directions, duplicating many functions at the expense of the taxpayer. In many respects they could be considered inflationary because they spend money but do not produce very much. So perhaps we can get some sort of efficiency into this aspect of the government's activities.
What worries me is that once the government esta-lishes this department it may be tempted to split its authority, which it has already done with respect to other departments, particularly the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture is nothing more than a name at present. So far as western Canada is concerned, most of its important functions have been hived off in other places; for example, I think of the Wheat Board which has travelled through a number of ministries and is now resident in the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
I would like to hear an explanation from the minister who is piloting this legislation through the House as to why the government does this. Why does it not leave the things that are concerned with a particular area under the control of the minister who would ordinarily be thought to be responsible for that area? In light of the government's past actions in this regard, we are rather suspicious of what may happen in this case. If the government is really concerned about organization, why does it not do something about the split in jurisdiction between the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Department of Labour with respect to unemployment problems? Since the Unemployment Insurance Commission has remained with the Department of Labour, the Manpower centres across the country no longer deal with unemployment insurance; such matters have now been centralized in the larger centres. From questions raised each day during the oral question period, we know that serious problems exist in the administration of unemployment insurance.


An hon. Member:: They give counsel.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: My hon. friend says that they counsel, but I think they are developing an attitude of arrogance, something which seems to be prevalent in Liberal administrations. I think that those in the unemployment insurance offices do not care whether people have to line up. They treat people like sheep. In many cases the clerks are shuffling papers back and forth while the
February 1, 1971

unemployed have to stand in line as if they were seeking a favour instead of a service which the government has a duty to provide.
I think of a situation in the city of Calgary. A painter became unemployed on January 4 and submitted his claim on January 5. Last Friday, January 29,1 believe, he was advised by the Unemployment Insurance office in Calgary that his claim had been lost and so far as they were concerned he had to fill out a new one. We are talking about government organization. I think the government should be more concerned about the every day administration of programs already on the statute books and should try to accomplish practical results, instead of shuffling matters around as it is here. That course, I submit, is not really productive.
I refer to another part of the bill. I went through the bill and saw that it contains many parts. I can understand why so many people have objected to lumping together so many pieces of legislation in one bill. I think there is probably room for suspicion. Perhaps the government is trying to put something across. Some matters are being introduced which properly ought to be introduced under separate bills. Hon. members have referred to the question of Parliamentary Secretaries. I have not studied that office, being a new member on the opposition side of the House and therefore I have no practical knowledge of it. I do not understand why a substantial increase in Parliamentary Secretaries is contemplated in the bill. It seems that if this bill is passed well over 30 new Parliamentary Secretaries could be appointed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The government backbenchers are not making enough money.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: The increase could be in the order of more than 100 per cent, compared with the present number of Parliamentary Secretaries.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I can only speak of Parliamentary Secretaries from personal observation. On the first day of the resumed part of the session, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), as reported at page 2272 of Hansard, diverted a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). That minister was not here. According to the roster system, he should have been here. In his absence the Parliamentary Secretary said he would look after that inquiry of the ministry. Actually, the Parliamentary Secretary said he would bring the matter to the minister's attention and that he hoped a proper answer could be provided on the following Thursday, which I believe was January 14.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Many Thursdays have since gone by.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: As my hon. friend from Vegreville says, many Thursdays have since passed and no answer has been given. Your Honour knows that because the question was asked during the question period, it must
Government Organization Act, 1970
have been urgent; otherwise, I suggest, it would not have been allowed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The matter still is urgent.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: It concerns the outbreak of rabies, a disease prevalent in western Canada at present. The matter is still urgent, and the Parliamentary Secretary still has not answered. This leads me to believe that our present Parliamentary Secretaries are not overworked.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That Parliamentary Secretary no doubt needs an executive assistant.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Perhaps, as my hon. friend for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) says, he needs an executive assistant.


Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: So do some others.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) wants one too.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He needs a couple, to help him on his trips.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, although there is a demonstrable need for the new department of the environment there is no demonstrable need for other parts of this legislation. I object to doing things that are not required to be done. I have said before-and I shall probably say it again-this government is doing too many things that could well be left undone. The government's attitude is that it knows best how to order the affairs of this country's citizens, a philosophy I cannot and will not accept. I feel that is the main reason behind our unemployment crisis. Most people in this country do not feel that the government will allow them in future to determine what ought to be done with the rewards of their labour. They do not know how much money they will be allowed to keep. They do not know whether a government directive will take money from them, money that will be used for purposes over which they have no control.
I think it is clear that the private sector of the country lack confidence in the immediate future. Such people are holding back. The last budget was an example of the government's philosophy. It would not cut taxes and allow citizens to decide how to spend their money. It kept taxes high and directed the money where it thought the funds would do most good. Evidently the government does not have the answers. We heard today that only about $40 million, or 25 per cent of the loan fund, has been taken up. Even that money will not work to create jobs. We also see that the government is doing its best to fill the gap left by private capital which has been leaving Quebec. I suggest that no government can fill a gap of that size.
In the meantime, those areas that could be productive, in the short term, in the creation of employment are not being attended to. Obviously the government does not know what to do. It does not have the right answers to our difficulties and as a result the economy is stagnating.

February 1, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


An hon. Member:: They are saving our money.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I do not know that they are saving it. Certainly they are spending it and even that does not seem to be doing any good. That course will never produce the results the government hopes to achieve. If the government has any desire to reorganize, I suggest it should begin at the bottom and not at the top. Let it begin with those areas that directly affect the private citizen. The private citizen is not overly concerned about the number of departments of government or ministers of state, except to the extent that the additional bodies will mean more expenditures and additional bureaucracies which grow under new ministers.
Although the concept of a department of the environment is good, I do not think much can be said for the rest of the bill. Before resuming my seat I would mention the superannuations dealt with in this bill. It appears to me that some of our senior civil servants were involved in the drafting of that part of the bill for their own benefit. I really do not see what merit there is in that portion of the legislation. What has this to do with a bill on government organization? I think that part of the bill should receive more attention from Your Honour. Your Honour ought to decide whether it is proper to include such a provision in this type of bill.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, as stated by several hon. members, a bill of this nature provides a tremendous amount of scope for debate because it encompasses so many aspects. I hear the government whip muttering from his seat. Regretfully, I did not hear what he said-not that it matters a great deal. Initially I wish to deal with that part of the bill which relates to the establishment of a department of the environment. I also have some views regarding other parts of the bill. As there are only five or six minutes remaining this evening, I will deal only briefly with the proposal to establish a department of the environment.
In recent years almost everyone has got into the act of pollution control. There has been a tremendous amount of discussion on the subject. A large number of community groups and organizations of a voluntary nature have become concerned with the environment and its quality and preservation. Politicians are not excluded from this exhibition of concern. At least on paper, the proposal of the government indicates that it wants to exhibit another aspect of its concern about environmental matters. Perhaps the most helpful aspect of concern which the general public is showing is the intensity with which the younger generation is approaching the problem. I am familiar with a great many grade school students in my constituency and other areas. Many of them have embarked upon essays and projects relating to environmental matters in their own areas. Some have even effected prosecutions against industries in contravention of the various provincial laws relating to pollution control. This is very gratifying because these young people

depend upon the heritage which we will establish. Young people feel they are going to live forever. There is a tremendous period of time in front of them. As one gets older, that period of time shortens. Perhaps that is why older people have a less enthusiastic and intense approach toward matters such as this.
The government is faced with the British North America Act. The government has not shown any great interest or desire in overcoming the problem of our Constitution. The British North America Act gives the provinces exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to civil and property rights. The exercise of that jurisdiction prevents Parliament enacting legislation for environmental control or legislation that impinges upon the rights of provinces, municipalities and individuals. The Canada Water Act was passed in the last session of Parliament. It conceived establishing authorities and criteria for water quality control in Canada. The proposals in the Canada Water Act were, and still are, merely pious expressions. The act is of no value to Canadians unless there is mutual agreement with the provinces. As a consequence, we have a piecemeal approach to that aspect of the environment which relates to water.
The bill before us seeks to establish a department of the environment. Any companion legislation dealing with pollution of land, air or any other aspect of our environment will hinge upon agreement being worked out with the province. This does not apply to fisheries and shipping, where we have constitutional jurisdiction. That is not the proper approach to the matter. It simply reflects an oversensitivity on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with regard to technical concepts and constitutional rights.
I am not suggesting that Parliament should take action which would override the constitutional authority of the provinces. Ethically and morally that is not right. In any event, it would flounder in the Supreme Court. The government is not prohibited from proposing to the provinces specific constitutional amendments to deal with the environment. In 1941 there was an amendment which dealt with unemployment insurance. A few years ago there was a constitutional amendment dealing with survivors benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. At that time there was unanimous agreement on the part of the provinces to give this authority to Parliament.
The matter of environmental control is as vital as life itself. If we do not act quickly, there may only be two or three generations of life left in the world. Surely this fact should be important enough for the government to overcome its extreme sensitivity about the constitutional question and directly propose to the provinces that differences of opinion about the Constitution be set aside. Surely there is some common ground where Parliament can have jurisdiction over environmental matters. Rather than approach the subject on a piecemeal basis by agreement with the provinces, it should be dealt with by Parliament because the problem is national in scope.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
February 1, 1971



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Before I begin, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I can be given a nod as to whether there is someone in the House to answer my question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are two questions, one in my name and one in the name of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), which call for an answer from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) or someone representing him. I do not see anyone who might be doing so, or is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) going to give the answer?


Mr. Mahoney:: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is good to know there is someone in the House to give an answer, but what an answer we usually get from him! As hon. members are aware, on September 9, 1970, the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications adopted a report in which there was a clearcut recommendation for immediate increases in the pensions of retired employees of Canadian National Railways along the lines of the increases provided for retired federal public servants.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to note the applause from the other side of the House and on this side of the House as well. That report was presented to the House of Monday, October 5, 1970. Two days later, the House of Commons unanimously endorsed it.


Mr. Perrault:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is another "Hear, hear". We are doing well tonight, Mr. Speaker. In other words, it is the clear and unanimous wish of this House of Commons, including all the members of all parties, cabinet ministers, backbenchers and all, that the pensions of retired employees of the Canadian National be increased.
On Friday, October 9, 1970, I asked the Minister of Transport whether he would bring this matter to the attention of the railway company. He said he would do so though he had the impression the company was aware of it. I asked a similar question on October 23, 1970, and
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion was told the matter was still under consideration. There was a "late show" discussion of the issue on Monday, October 26, 1970, and there was the usual talk about the sympathy felt for this proposition on the government side of the House, but we had to let the CN rim its own affairs.
Some of us, Mr. Speaker, have contended throughout this business that since the CNR is before the House seeking a large sum of money, we have the right to get this matter settled, to get this wish of the House of Commons complied with, before we vote these additional amounts. Therefore, on December 11, 1970, as reported in Hansard at page 1965, I asked the Minister of Transport whether he would be able to assure hon. members that these pension increases would come through so that we could get on with the business of passing the CN financing bill. The answer on that occasion was not particularly satisfactory and that is the reason the subject was posted for a "late show". In the meantime, however, on January 22, 1971, as reported at page 2659 of Hansard, I put the following question to the Minister of Transport:
Has he yet received assurances from the Canadian National Railways that the pensions of retired CNR employees will be increased along the lines recommended by this House?
The minister in his answer referred to discussions he had had with CNR and then said:
I think I can say at this time that there is sympathetic response. I have asked for the specifics of what the company is anticipating it will do and I should have this information on Monday or Tuesday of next week.
Well, what was then next week is now last week, so really all I am doing in raising the issue tonight is giving the government, out of the kindness of my heart, an opportunity to tell us it now has the specifics of what is to be done about this very important matter. I do not think this House or the retired employees of the CNR should have to wait any longer. It is a reasonable proposition which has been made, and the entire House is behind it. I think the CNR should be told in plain language that the time to put these pension increases into effect is now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House that I am responding to this question on behalf of my hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Duquet) who is, regrettably, in hospital at the present time.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has raised this specific question on a goodly number of occasions over the past six months. It is an important one and I think all hon. members are aware of the hon. member's genuine concern on the subject of pensions. I recall the extensive work of the Standing Committee on Transport whose recommendations as set out in the fourteenth report put new impetus on the Crown corporation, the CNR, to look closely at their different pension schemes. The Minister of Transport

February 1, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
(Mr. Jamieson) has explained to the hon. member and to the House on different occasions, most recently on January 22, that he has had direct discussions with the CNR on these recommendations. He has expressed hope of what would appear to be a sympathetic response by the company in their discussions.
There are, as all hon. members know, complicating factors in that different aspects of the pension issue are a matter for collective bargaining. While it would not be appropriate to comment on this particular point, the subject was covered in the House by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) in a reply to the hon. member from Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) on January 20, and again on January 22 by the Minister of Transport in a reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). In responding to this adjournment proceeding, the Minister of Transport has asked me to express to the hon. member and to the House that he is optimistic about this subject and very hopeful that progress will be forthcoming at an early date.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-DISCONTINUANCE OF DINING CAR SERVICE. OTTAWA-MONTREAL

Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago Canadian National Railways announced it was going to discontinue the dining car service on their passenger trains between Montreal and Ottawa. When the CNR made that announcement, several of us in this House protested. I personally approached the president of the CNR, the president of the Canadian Transport Commission and the minister. Hon. members protested because, to begin with, these trains travel at the breakfast hour and the supper hour and have been receiving very heavy patronage. As a matter of fact, I travel on these trains very often and it is not uncommon for me to have to wait up to half an hour before I can get into the dining car.
In addition, many people use this train between Ottawa and Montreal-a service between the national capital and Canada's metropolis-because the highway is so bad that it is almost impossible to drive upon it safely. I think someone wrote an article recently pointing out that this stretch of highway has had the highest rate of accidents and deaths in Canada for the last few years. We based our protest also on the fact that more people would be put out of work at this time of heavy unemployment if this service were withdrawn.
In posing my question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson] last Friday, I asked whether he had received any further answer from the CNR on this matter and he replied he had not. At that time I had not received any answer from the CNR either, but today I received an answer from the president of the CNR in which he stated that despite the use of the service, the CNR is sustaining a loss of $300,000 annually. I am not suggesting that the government of Canada should subsidize people's meals on this service to the tune of $300,000 a year. But I am wondering whether the railway has really looked into alternate methods of providing dining car service. I think many people would be willing to pay

an additional amount to receive a good meal in the morning and at supper time. Has the company investigated the possibility of giving out a concession for this service?
What really disturbs me is this. I support what has been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I was a member of the transport committee which put forward the report on pensions, and what bothers me is the way the CNR disregards the wishes of the elected representatives of the people. It seems to me that the CNR should not only administer this national railway in an economical and efficient manner, but should also administer it with a social conscience. I am not convinced that they do this. They are not doing this with respect to pension plans, they are not doing it when they take off a dining car service at a time like this.
The minister's representative is here tonight, and through him I ask the CNR to reconsider this whole decision. I ask them to reconsider whether there might not be a way of providing this service and in particular I ask them to pay more attention to the fact that they are a national railway. They should serve the needs of Canadian people. When they come here from time to time and ask for money through a finance bill, we should have the right, as members of Parliament did in the seventeenth century in England, to refuse them money until they deal with our grievances.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), is very much aware of the decision of Canadian National Railways to adjust food service facilities on the Montreal-Ottawa passenger service effective today. It is understood that the adjustments, including the specific one mentioned by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), were designed to rationalize the Montreal-Ottawa service. They include revised arrival and departure times at both cities, the use of rail-liner equipment on several trains and reduced club car fares. The dining car service, which is extremely expensive to operate, is being replaced by hot snack and bar service facilities.
As the hon. member knows, the Canadian Transport Commission is also aware of this matter. In reference to the National Transportation Act, this decision is one which the railways are free to make without coming to the commission for prior approval. The Canadian Transport Commission would, of course, be required, subject to the terms of section 315 of the Railway Act relating to the adequacy and suitability of accommodation and incidental service, to investigate complaints respecting the change.
I assure the hon. member that I would be pleased to bring his representations to the attention of the Minister of Transport, who will no doubt refer them to the government-owned railway for its consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That will be a big help!

February 1, 1971



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-PROPOSED AMCHITKA UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR TESTS

Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, in the very few moments at my disposal tonight I want to ask the government whether it is going to allow another and very much greater nuclear underground test in the Aleutian Islands of the North Pacific, to the potential peril of British Columbia and coastal communities. Is it going to protest this intention of the United States government, as indicated over the weekend in President Nixon's speech, as it did in 1969 in the case of a smaller test? If such a protest is made and fails, will the government consider other protective action on behalf of British Columbians?
I should like very briefly to interpolate the fact that my concern over the proposed Aleutian explosion is underlined by two other developments also exposing British Columbia to foreign pollution. I refer very briefly, Sir, to the announced intention of the Atlantic Richfield Oil Company to ship oil by tanker from Alaska down the B.C. coast, through Puget Sound to a point within a few miles of British Columbia recreational and beach areas in my constituency, with its attendant danger of oil spills. I also refer to the application for the right to build a spur railroad line from a B.C. coalfield to link with a U.S. rail line in order to ship coal to the United States and up through the existing rail line in White Rock and Crescent Beach in my area. This is some of the most beautiful beach area on the continent.
Specifically in connection with the news we heard over the weekend of the intention of the United States government to provide funds for this very much greater nuclear explosion in the Aleutian Islands in the north Pacific, I want to say that this is an area which is earthquake prone. While there was no quake and no tidal wave as a result of the small test in 1969, there is certainly no guarantee that this will not happen as a result of the test which I understand is to be made next fall. British Columbians, at least, can recall the effects of the Alaskan earthquake which took place a few years ago. There was a tidal wave generated in the same area which resulted in high waves crashing into B.C. communities such as Port Alberni, causing tremendous damage.
The underground nuclear test planned in the Aleutians by the United States-I have studied this matter at some length-will be of immensely greater blast power than the previous one, having the power of thousands of tons of TNT to be exploded underground in the Aleutians in what we could call British Columbia's back fields. I think this proposal is a very foolish one from three points of view. In the first place, it will cost millions of dollars to the United States even if it does no damage to Canada, to Alaska or to other areas on the Pacific coast. In the second place, it can do no conceivable good; it will only
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
spur the Soviet Union to undertake similar, insane tests. In the third place, it really poses a threat to the health and property of Canadians.
I remind hon. members that in 1969 this government warned the United States, in the case of a smaller test, that if damage resulted to Canadians we would expect the U.S. government to compensate Canadians for that damage. In other words, we objected to that test. Now we are faced with a much larger one. My general contention is that British Columbia, and British Columbians in particular, are in danger from what is proposed. I ask the government whether it is going to accept this threat of foreign pollution or whether it is considering what efforts it may make to prevent the test being conducted.


Mr. Andre Ouellel (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, the decision of the United States to undertake a series of nuclear tests on Amchitka Island in the Aleutian Islands prompted Canada to make very energetic representations to the American government.
I understand the point of view of the hon. member, especially as the Canadian government is extremely concerned about the very serious consequences the explosions could have on the environment. But it is also worried about the whole matter of nuclear testing. In fact, Canada is extremely worried about all nuclear tests in general and our aim is that nuclear tests everywhere, including of course underground, must stop as soon as possible. We hope that it will be possible in the near future to come to an agreement to end all nuclear tests. This is our hope in Canada, and this is what the government is endeavouring to realize.
In this connection, we expressed the hope that every country which is not a party to the 1963 treaty which provides for partial prohibition-including nuclear powers such as China and France-will sign and ratify this treaty. In the meantime, in order to facilitate progress toward a total prohibition of tests everywhere, the Canadian delegation to the Geneva Committee on disarmament kept up its efforts to further an agreement, by requesting international exchanges of seismic data which would assist in identifying undergroung nuclear tests. At the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1969, Canada moved a resolution urging member states to provide information on their methods to detect earth tremors and to indicate which data they would be prepared to communicate on a guaranteed basis, in an international exchange on detection and identification of underground tests through seismological methods.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.22 p.m.

Tuesday, February 2, 1971