1971-02-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I referred yesterday in my statement on motions both to the final communique of the Commonwealth heads of government meeting and to the Commonwealth declaration. Under Standing Order 41(2) I should like now to table each of these documents and, should it meet the pleasure of the House, request that they be printed as an annex to Hansard for the convenience of members, as has been done in the past.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of above documents, see Appendices A and B.]



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 having to do with the projected takeover of a Canadian oil company by a United States firm. Since 83 per cent of oil and gas production and 99 per cent of petroleum refining in Canada are now under foreign control, it seems imperative that the government should take action, as it did in the case of Denison Mines, to preserve a degree of Canadian ownership. I therefore wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the following motion:
In view of the announcement that negotiations are in progress for the purchase of Home Oil Company Limited of Calgary, Alberta, by Ashland Oil Incorporated, of Ashland, Kentucky, this House urges the government to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent the takeover of the largest remaining Canadian-owned oil producer.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. Under Standing Order 43, is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the hon. member's motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I am happy to see him looking so well on his return from Halifax. Has the minister had conversations with the executive of the Home Oil Company and the alleged prospective purchaser of control of that company? If so, can he indicate very briefly the nature of the conversations?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind words. I want to assure him that while in Halifax I paid his respects to the people of Nova Scotia. With regard to the question, Mr. Speaker, I have had conversations over a period of some weeks both with the potential buyers, the Ashland Company, and with the president of the Home Oil Company with regard to the purported sale. I have urged upon them the desirability of maintaining a majority Canadian ownership and Canadian control in this company. To date the president of the Home Oil Company has clearly displayed his very keen interest as a Canadian citizen in maintaining a majority interest in Canadian ownership. Under the laws that exist, I will, to the best of my ability, continue to maintain the position that this major Canadian oil company should be retained as a Canadian company.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am sure that Mr. Brown is anxious to maintain control of this company in Canada, but is the government making any proposals to assist in the retention of the control of this important independent oil company in Canada?


John James Greene: We can only operate under the law as it exists, Mr. Speaker, and within the law as it exists we will do everything possible to assure the maintenance of this company as a Canadian company. I am assured that

February 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
both the potential American buyer and Mr. Brown, the president of Home Oil, are very much aware of the government's concern that this company be maintained as a Canadian company.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I remind the minister that there are ways of accomplishing things other than by issuing orders. Does the minister now realize that some of the proposals in the white paper on tax reform make it very difficult for independent oil companies to operate successfully and face the future with confidence?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands.


Mr. Woolliams:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, it seems that Your Honour jumped the gun a little soon. The minister was about to reply and I would like to hear his reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps it is the hon. member who has jumped the gun. I suggest to the hon. member with respect, in the same way in which he commented on the Chair's reaction, that that is hardly a point of order. It was my impression that the Leader of the Opposition was satisfied to let the matter rest, having made his comment. His question was more in the nature of comment, argument or debate. I would not think the Leader of the Opposition would insist that the Chair fracture the rules to allow the minister to reply. In any event, the Chair has recognized the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since Mr. Atkins, the President of Ashland Oil, has said he is negotiating to secure a controlling interest and not a minority interest in Home Oil, can the minister tell the House whether he has received any assurance either from Mr. Atkins of Ashland Oil or from Mr. Brown of Home Oil that a Canadian majority interest will be retained in this transaction now being negotiated?


John James Greene: I have no legal undertakings or anything as strong as that, but certainly Mr. Brown, the president of Home Oil, has indicated very clearly his desire that this company be retained as a majority Canadian company. Mr. Atkins, president of Ashland, has also indicated to me that he fully understands the representations I have made to him as to the desire of the government that this company be continued as a Canadian company and as to the political sensitivity of the Canadian people in this regard, and he is making every attempt to assure that this be enabled although again, as I have said, I have no legal undertakings in that regard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the minister's statement a few moments ago that he can only operate within the law, may I ask the hon. gentleman whether the government is prepared to exercise the same powers with respect to Home Oil Company
remaining in Canadian hands as were exercised by the government with respect to Denison Mines in order to maintain a measure of Canadian ownership in each of these industries?


John James Greene: I cannot speak for the government in that regard at this time. That would be a matter for the government to decide. However, I am sure that the very positive decision taken by the government at the time of the Denison situation is very much in the minds of the potential United States buyer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since this is of great importance and there is not much value in discussing it after the transaction has been completed, will the minister undertake to report back to the House as to the success of his negotiations with these two companies and indicate whether or not he has been able to persuade the Canadian company to retain a majority interest and Ashland Oil Incorporated to be satisfied with a minority interest?


John James Greene: I quite appreciate the very great importance of this question to the Canadian people and to this House, and I certainly undertake to keep hon. members apprised of developments as I am aware of them and as I feel that within the sensitivities of my relationship with the buyer and seller I am able to do so.



FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF CANADIAN COMPANIES- INQUIRY AS TO REPORT

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I have a related question for the Minister of National Revenue. Can the hon. gentleman tell us the date by which it is expected a report will be received from the working group set up under the minister's chairmanship to examine the whole area of the operations of multinational corporations so that the government's policy in this regard can be clearly delineated, if not understood?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: I am
not in a position at this time to give the hon. member the information he is seeking.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Following the refusal of Quebec to take part in other discussions on social security because its ideas are diametrically at variance with those of the federal government, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether Ottawa intends to disregard the Quebec claims and to thrust its views, especially on the guaranteed income program and on the whole social security program?

February 2, 1971


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the hon. member refers to a refusal to discuss or to a dead-lock. On the contrary, this matter will be discussed at the federal-provincial conference next week.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is it the position of the government that the problems of unemployment and the unemployed are being met this winter by the existence of the unemployment insurance program, as was suggested by the right hon. gentleman outside the House yesterday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The
answer is no, Mr. Speaker, and the suggestion is not one that I made.


John Howard Lundrigan: Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to clear up the statement he made outside the House yesterday because it certainly communicated exactly that impression to all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the positive need for amendment of the unemployment insurance regulations, will the Prime Minister give consideration to bringing in immediate amendments in order to help the many thousands of people who are unemployed and fail to qualify for assistance because their benefits are exhausted or because they do not qualify under the present regulations? I ask this question particularly in view of the fact that the unemployment insurance fund has jumped to a figure of almost half a billion dollars.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that this question has been asked a number of times in the past few days, but I recognize that the matter is one of importance and interest to all hon. members on both sides of the House. Perhaps the Prime Minister or someone else on behalf of the government might be allowed to reply.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North has a supplementary so perhaps both supple-mentaries might be answered at the same time.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Since most large cities
Inquiries of the Ministry
in Canada are showing an increase in welfare costs of 30 per cent or more this year over last year, which is an intolerable burden for the cities, is the government giving consideration to providing special assistance to the cities and provinces to meet these greatly increased costs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, any increase in municipal or provincial expenditures also means an increase in expenditure for the federal government since we match their expenditure to the extent of 50 per cent.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I repeat my question to the Prime Minister. As there are many thousands of Canadians who fail to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits under the existing regulations or who have exhausted their benefits, will the government give consideration to bringing forward immediately amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to enable these people to qualify and take advantage of the almost half a billion dollars now in the unemployment insurance fund?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of unemployment insurance has been before the House in the form of a white paper and I am surprised that the hon. member has not made suggestions at the right place. As far as the government is concerned, we will be introducing legislation shortly on this matter.


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the fact that the answer to that question is no, could I ask the right hon. gentleman whether it is the policy of the government that people who are desirous of work but unable to find employment should resort to welfare or the dole?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that this question is hardly in order. I do not think that in its present form it is acceptable.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the unemployment insurance fund, I understand, in September amounted to some $450 million, has steadily increased, has now reached the figure of $470 million and is still increasing, can the Prime Minister advise what plans he has to enable those who are unemployed to obtain some benefit from this money which seems to be out of their reach at this particular time as a result of the government's attitude?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the use of this fund will be dealt with when we introduce the legislation to revise the unemployment insurance scheme.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister what these people who cannot get work or unemployment insurance are expected to do in the meantime?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition I

February 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
would ask that the Prime Minister now answer the question posed by the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer given by the Prime Minister in regard to the federal government sharing the costs, and he was correct in what he said, but may I ask the right hon. gentleman whether the government is giving any consideration to increasing the percentage of its share of the costs to 60 per cent or two-thirds rather than one-half?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister in respect of distressing reports of escalating military activity across the frontiers of Laos. Can he advise whether the government has any information in respect of these widespread reports that might be of interest to the people and the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not understand where the increasing military activity was.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The reports indicate it is across the frontiers of Laos in Indo-China, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Were you not aware of it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not aware of it, Mr. Speaker, but I will refer the question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question similar to one I asked yesterday. When he meets with the premiers will there be discussion of financial assistance to the provinces and cities because of increasing unemployment in the larger urban centres of Canada, particularly in light of the fact that the Minister of Justice said in Winnipeg yesterday this subject was on the agenda?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if it is on the agenda it obviously will be discussed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister's attitude in regard to unemployment in Canada is the same as his attitude toward Members of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask him
whether he has had time since his return, after being away for a few weeks, to determine whether the subject of unemployment is on the agenda?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have communicated with the provinces and submitted to them a final agenda. Until they agree to it, it is not customary to make the agenda public.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister said yesterday it was not on the agenda, although during an intellectual spasm at that time said he thought the problem was serious, will it be on the agenda?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In view of a statement attributed to him, can he say that NORAD is now regarded as a very effective means of protecting Canadian sovereignty against United States incursions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might find some other way to ask the question. I would think it sounds very much like an academic question, and in those terms it should not be asked at this time.



INQUIRY RESPECTING CONTINUANCE OF MILITARY COLLEGES

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Defence. In light of the very favourable role that military colleges play in connection with our armed forces, can he now indicate to the House and the people of Canada, particularly those in the armed forces, what his reaction is to the suggestion contained in the youth report to the Secretary of State regarding the closing down of military colleges in Canada?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, I cannot really respond to speculation as to what may or may not be in the report.


J. Michael Forrestall: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, as I did not intend to arouse the ire of the minister. Can he indicate whether any consideration is being given by his department or the government to closing down our military colleges?

February 2, 1971


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Not at the moment, Mr. Speaker.



OPPORTUNITY FOR PROMOTION OF ENGLISH-SPEAKING MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES WHO FAIL TO PASS SECOND LANGUAGE TEST

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether any English-speaking members of the Canadian forces will be denied the opportunity to qualify for promotion if they fail to achieve a certain minimum score on a language aptitude test, notwithstanding that in all other respects they now qualify for promotion?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to make a further examination, but my impression would be that there would be no difficulty in this regard.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Will any English-speaking members of the Canadian armed forces be denied the opportunity to qualify for promotion if they fail to admit willingness to serve in a Francophone environment, notwithstanding the fact that in all other respects they now qualify for promotion?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Again I would think not, Mr. Speaker, but if the hon. member has a specific question in mind I would be glad to hear it and obtain the exact facts.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, in the course of his investigations will the minister determine the source of the policy behind the directive sent to certain regiments in western Canada in respect of ineligibility for promotion if members fail to acquiesce or indicate their willingness to serve at Valcar-tier in a bilingual capacity?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to do so. The hon. member seems to have some particular information and I would be glad to have his assistance in pursuing this inquiry.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In light of the statement by Mr. Noel Doucette, President of the Union of Nova Scotia Indians, that 90 per cent of the Indians are unemployed, would the minister bring forward any potential projects planned for the reserves, with particular reference to the construction of new houses which I realize the minister knows are urgently required?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have already advised the House that I asked the officials of my department to implement immediately the housing programs on all reserves and I shall inquire to see whether there is a special problem in Nova Scotia.
I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member for Churchill and advise him that, on the contrary, there has not been-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I first might inquire whether there is a supplementary to the question asked originally by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


Robert Muir: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Would the minister be good enough to report back when he gets his findings?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to report to the House.
Now I would like to answer the question I was asked previously-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker;: It was my intention to recognize the hon. minister for that reason.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.



CUTBACK IN HOUSING CONSTRUCTION ON CLANDEBOYE AND FISHER RIVER RESERVES

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the other day the hon. member for Churchill asked me if there had been budget cuts about the housing program in some reserves of northern Manitoba. I am now pleased to inform him that, on the contrary, there has been a $100,000 increase in the 1971-72 budget


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not aware of the fact that the chiefs in the Fisher River-Clandeboye districts have been advised quite recently there will be a cutback in the housing program in these areas?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would be most surprised if they had been advised, Mr. Speaker, because there has been an increase in the amounts of money granted. However, hon. members will realize that the costs of construction may have increased a little, which means that we may not build more houses but there will be more money available this year.
2980

February 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



COMBINES


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can he indicate to the House whether he or officials of the Combines Investigation Branch are presently investigating the apparent collusion of automobile insurance companies in raising their rates across Canada substantially and in Manitoba by some 30 per cent?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if there is collusion, as I have made clear in the House before it can be taken that the Director of Investigation and Research of the Combines Investigation Branch will enforce the Combines Investigation Act as it is now written.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, can the minister say when he will be introducing the revised combines legislation and whether service industries such as insurance will be subject to the provisions of the Act?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we are working on the revision now, as the House knows, and I would hope to introduce the bill as soon as it is drafted. It would be improper, of course, for me to say now what the provisions of that legislation will be. They will be made known when the legislation is read the first time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can he inform the House whether Canada has taken or is taking steps toward recognition of the new government of Uganda?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, I
cannot inform the House, but I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be happy to answer when he is in the House.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the Prime Minister has had any communication with Mr. Obote since leaving Singapore?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker; there has been no communication with Mr. Obote since I left Singapore.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in an attempt to clear up a misunderstanding. About a week and a half ago the minister informed me no decision had been taken in respect of the establishment of a solid link with the Lennox Island Indian Reserve. It is my understanding that the people of the Lennox Island Indian Reserve were informed that such a decision would in fact be taken and that construction would start this spring. Can the minister clear up this confusion now? If not, would he be prepared to make a statement on motions in the near future?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I shall inquire, Mr. Speaker, and answer the hon. member tomorrow.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether he is aware that old age pensioners 70 and over, many of whom suffer from chronic illness, are being asked for the first time by officials of the government to fill out what to them are very complex tax returns? Will the minister explain why this harassing action is being taken against these people?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is not the purpose of the department to harass old age pensioners or Canadians generally. If the hon. member would care to give me particulars of the cases in question, I would be glad to have them looked into.
* * [DOT]



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is somewhat related to one asked a few moments ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. Can the minister say whether his department is

February 2, 1971

investigating, plans to investigate, or is in consultation with the provinces in respect of the complaints about the high cost and low quality of car repairs in Canada?


Hon.   Ron. Basford@Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: Mr. Speaker, we have examined a number of aspects of that situation and I know a number of provinces have also done so. I am not aware, however, of any communication from any province with regard to this matter.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on January 18 last I asked a question of the Minister of Supply and Services through the Acting Prime Minister. It is reported in Hansard at pages 2487 and 2488. The question referred to the problem of the lay-off of employees of the Canadian Arsenals plant at Mississauga. Is the minister in a position to answer that question?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the government is considering the sale of the Canadian Arsenals plant at Long Branch. I believe the hon. member's chief concern, as revealed in his question, is the position of employees in the event of a sale. I can tell him I have been advised by officials of Canadian Arsenals that every consideration will be given to the interests of the employees in the event of a sale. I might say further that if a sale is made it will be to a commercial user who will, of course, have use for the plant's facilities, and therefore I would expect that a sale would lead not to a decrease, but to an increase in the employment opportunities in the area.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. The minister was good enough to indicate that he would look into whether or not a plant pathologist could be obtained to deal specifically with diseases of tree fruits and in greenhouses in Ontario. Can he give us any information in this regard?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Only to reaffirm to the hon. member that we are attempting to obtain a suitable person to carry on that work. I will communicate the detail to him privately.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



SECURING OF TANKS STORED IN GERMANY AS REPLACEMENTS

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. As it now has been discovered that there are some 5,000 battle tanks mothballed principally in Germany, is any effort being made by the Canadian government to secure some of these tanks to replace those presently being used by our forces in Europe, which the minister said will soon be worn out?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, prior to any such effort we would have to decide whether we intend to continue to perform that role in Europe or perform one that is more consistent with the force structure in Canada.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Solicitor General.
Has he been informed by the Quebec Minister of Justice of the identity of the people who have received compensation following the enforcement of the War Measures Act and of the nature of such compensation?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all aware of the facts, but I will be pleased to ask the Quebec Minister of Justice for information which I will pass on to the hon. member.


Martial Asselin: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In line with his answer, could the minister inquire as he indicated and table the requested information in the House?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be informed in the most convenient way.
 * * '*
[English\



PUBLIC SERVICE


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the memorandum entitled "Special Recruitment of Francophones in the Public Service" which the President of the Treasury Board tabled in the House, saying that it was issued without his knowledge or consent. Since this memorandum seems to
2982

February 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
violate the whole merit principle of the Public Service Employment Act, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he knew about this memorandum and whether it was issued with his authority?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no agreement on my part that it violates in any way the merit principle. On the contrary, as the President of the Treasury Board said in his statement to the press, it is the intention of the government to seek to hire something like 1,250 university graduates in the Public Service next year. That 250 of them should be Francophone does not seem to indicate that there would be any violation of the merit system. It seems to me rather lower than the proportion that the B and B Commission tends to recommend as Francophone members of the Public Service.


Robert Simpson: What about bilingualism?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What have you got to say?


Robert Simpson: What about bilingualism?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I had not finished the answer. The question asked was whether I had knowledge of the memorandum. The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since the question of bilingualism in the Public Service is not the question at issue but rather the matter of authorizing the expenditure of money and taking steps to bring people into the Public Service through the back door rather than through the front door, I want to ask the Prime Minister if he knows who did authorize the issuance of this memorandum and, if he does not, would he undertake to find out?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the memorandum was issued pursuant to a decision of cabinet last November.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: Order, please. I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition but the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond seeks the floor on a question of privilege.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I rise on a question of privilege. It is based on the answer just given that this memorandum was put out by direction or decision of the cabinet. In that case, it is time this House called on quite a few members of the government to resign because they told the House otherwise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister arising out of his answer that it was intended to hire 1,250 persons in a particular category, of whom 250 would be Franco-
[Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) .1
phones. Am I to conclude from this that the other 1,000 positions may be filled only by Anglophones?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. I will come to the hon. member for Calgary North in just a moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Prime Minister to clarify his answer. The President of the Treasury Board and the Acting Prime Minister both said they had no knowledge of this memorandum. The Prime Minister now says this step was taken as a result of a decision by cabinet last November. If the cabinet authorized this memorandum, may I ask the Prime Minister how it is that ministers in his cabinet did not know anything about it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is because the memorandum itself was not seen or authorized by the cabinet.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Make up your mind.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My mind is made up.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, when the President of the Treasury Board said, and I am paraphrasing him, that this was not approved by cabinet, at that time so far as his conscience was concerned was he telling the truth in the House of Commons as a member of the cabinet?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is quite simply yes. I was telling the truth. If the hon. gentleman will refer to Hansard, page 2753, he will find I made reference to a lack of comprehension, which apparently still persists.


Some hon. Members:: Where?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I said:
It is well known that the government has expressed its intention and desire to increase the proportion of Francophones in the Public Service. To this end it is willing and has declared its willingness to devote additional resources toward the accomplishment of this purpose if satisfactory means are proposed to achieve this. The process we are looking at here-
That is this celebrated memorandum.
-is part of an exploration of possible means of achieving this purpose.
I repeat again that it is the declared intention of the government to raise the proportion of Francophones in the Public Service. The government has declared its intention to devote additional resources to this end, up to $2 million if need be, if a feasible method of accomplishing this purpose can be found. The memorandum to which the hon. gentleman from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands refers is the beginning of the process of finding an
February 2, 1971

acceptable means of increasing this proportion, which would cost about $2 million.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the minister's statement correctly, the cabinet approved the hiring of additional Francophones but this memorandum was sent out without the cabinet's knowledge. This document, which violates the merit principle in the Public Service Employment Act, was sent out without the Prime Minister's consent. May I now ask him whether the government intends to take any action with reference to this violation contained in the memorandum which was sent out without the consent of any minister, including the Prime Minister?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the imagined offence is. I have tried to explain. We are looking at a part of the process of endeavouring to find a feasible plan to give effect to the government's intention. It is inevitable that in this process all courses of action will be explored, some of which will be good and some of which will be bad. The bad ones I hope we will not accept; the good ones I hope we will. I look forward to the not too distant future when we will have a good and feasible plan which will be consonant both with the merit principle and the expressed intention of the government to increase the proportion of Francophones in the Public Service.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's statement that the government is seeking for a plan, may I ask him if he has read the second last paragraph in the memorandum which says that to "help speed up the implementation of the program, it is proposed to hold a preliminary meeting" on such and such a date? Is this not a program already, a program on which a telephone survey had already been conducted, and a plan which had been put into effect by the Public Service Commission without the knowledge of the government?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that a man who has headed a government, albeit in another place, should be so unaware of the processes of government. I have explained to him that until such time as a so-called program receives the formal approval of the Treasury Board it is not a program, and this proposal which is being canvassed and explored had not been submitted to and consequently had not received the approval of the Treasury Board.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I seek some clarification from the Prime Minister. When he said a few moments ago that the intention was to employ 250 Francophone Canadians out of a total of 1,250, did he imply or mean to imply or to suggest that the other 1,000 would be Anglophones? May I ask him in all sincerity to explain what he meant in order to prevent further misunderstanding?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, it was foreseen that the government would need about 1,250 university graduates in the coming year. According to the way
Inquiries of the Ministry
these processes have operated in the past, everyone knows that of the requirements of the government the overwhelming majority of them have been Anglophone rather than Francophone. It was in order to try to redress this imbalance, which has perhaps been the result of lack of policies in the past, that the government wanted to ensure that there would be at least a minimum of 250 who would be Francophones. If there can be more, well and good, but obviously, because of the way the administration has operated in the past, they did not come automatically. We never had the proper percentage. In order to permit the government to implement effectively its policies of bilingualism, we must spend a little more to make sure that we have at least this minimum of one-quarter which, as the hon. member knows, does not even correspond to the percentage of Francophone people in the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister which, if answered, will I think allay some of the confusion and misunderstanding relating to the government's policies in the development of Canada. With respect to its attitudes and its policies, is the government basing these matters on the fact that Canada is a bicultural country or a multicultural country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is a multicultural country but a bilingual one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period
expired a few moments ago, but perhaps we might recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for one more supplementary.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, may I add to my answer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Prime Minister could add to his reply when replying to the hon. member's supplementary question.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple and direct question which I think will clarify what has taken place this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which is it, a feasibility study not yet approved by Treasury Board, as described by the President of the Treasury Board, or a firm project approved by cabinet last November? Which is it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, last November the cabinet authorized the expenditure of an additional $2 million if a feasible plan could be found. In order to find such a feasible plan-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is the House interested in the answer or not, or are members trying to make political yards? That seems to me a rather narrow approach to the question.

February 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: One could never accuse the Prime Minister of that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As a result, the cabinet took this decision. That decision was communicated to the Public Service Commission and the Public Service Commission went about trying to devise a plan which would produce the results sought.
To add to my previous answer, I said that this is a bilingual country, but the specification was Francophone and they might be of any racial origin.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The President of the Treasury Board on January 26 said: "It will not be a program approved by the government until it has been submitted to the Treasury Board and approved." Now the Prime Minister says that it was approved in November.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Some people have been asleep at the switch.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Go on; let us have another answer like that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is hardly a question of privilege. It is a point of discussion. There will be other opportunities to discuss this matter. There will be another question period tomorrow, and I suggest to hon. members that the matter might be pursued then.


Mr. Bell:: No doubt it will be aired on television.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. I ask the Prime Minister to explain why he said that this matter was decided in cabinet in November when only last week we were informed that the government, after trying to find who was responsible for the memorandum, had not been able to do so. I therefore suggest that this nonsense about a November cabinet decision is just that, nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a question of privilege. It is further questioning. As I said, there will be another question period tomorrow and hon. members may then be given an opportunity to pursue the matter if they are not satisfied with the information they have received. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, February 1, 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. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, just before the debate ended yesterday, I had mentioned-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if hon. members would allow the hon. member who has the floor a chance to make his remarks. Perhaps the conversations going on might be pursued outside the House or behind the curtains. They are somewhat embarrassing for hon. members who want to listen to the hon. member and, as well, for the hon. member who is trying to make a speech.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, members who rise immediately after the question period run into this sort of situation almost every day. Last evening, when concluding my remarks, I mentioned that the question of the control of our environment ought to transcend any sensitivity about the constitution, about what might be said at the meetings of premiers and the like. What is involved here, quite apart from the environment, is life itself. Every day we become aware of new substances polluting our environment. Every day we learn of additional chemicals and poisons.
The notable case brought to our attention in the last few days is the discovery of a higher than tolerable level of mercury in swordfish. Many of these swordfish live in midocean. Earlier on the west coast, we discovered that catches of dogfish, destined for Europe, contained a higher than tolerable level of mercury. The fish were condemned. There are many other species of fish which feed on the bottom of the ocean. They could, likewise, contain levels of mercury or pesticides which, if consumed by humans, would be injurious. Such chemicals are so injurious to the fish life in the oceans. It is true that, politically, Canada cannot exercise jurisdiction beyond its boundaries anad beyond its territorial seas. It is true that, if we take some action, we may be able to influence indirectly other countries about controlling the environment within their jurisdictions. Certainly, Canada ought to pursue the course it has pursued in some instances.
For instance, to indicate our concern we passed a bill to permit us to exercise some control over the environment in the Arctic. In that case, the government did not hesitate to bring forward legislation extending our sea boundaries 100 nautical miles out from our land. Indeed, we were concerned about international law and international concepts of law, but we said that our decision could not be challenged in international courts. Surely, even if it may not be practical or even desirable to extend our jurisdiction for such purposes out into the ocean, to the extent that we can exercise such jurisdiction we should take definitive measures to protect life and to protect ourselves.
The ocean produces 70 per cent of the oxygen which we breathe. Scientific studies have shown that because of pesticides, other chemicals, tons of junk and billions of gallons of other materials being poured into our oceans,

February 2, 1971

which are considered inexhaustible cesspools, the process of producing oxygen is being destroyed. The very minute organisms in the oceans that produce 70 per cent of our oxygen are being killed by pollutants being dumped daily into the oceans. Who knows how long it will be before these organisms are all destroyed?
We are participating in a world-wide program of destroying the production of oxygen. It will not be too much longer before there is no oxygen left, and that will mean the end of all forms of life. Possibly we cannot do a great deal in view of our position and the relative amount of pollutants we pour into the oceans. However, we can do something. We must do something concrete and forceful about this situation in order to convince other members of the United Nations to adopt the same course.
Studies have shown that DDT and similar pesticides have almost an interminable life. Photoplankton in the ocean are the basis for protein-producing organisms that capture sunlight. Through a process of photosynthesis, they produce protein for the animal life in the ocean. These are being destroyed by the billions of gallons of chemicals and effluent being poured into our waterways by municipalities and industry which eventually reach the oceans.
Another matter that should be of concern to the government is air pollution. All the government has done to date is to make a simple declaration in the bill presently before us. There is no point repeating the fact that in the United States automobiles produce 60 per cent of the air pollution. When the emission from automobiles is combined with rocket fuels, insecticides and smoke from industrial plants and incinerators, oxygen is destroyed. This affects human life, and in particular, can cause impairment of the mother's foetus.
The government does not recognize the serious situation with regard to sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and ash in our air. I do not know what the constitutional position is with regard to control over the air. The government should not introduce a verbal declaration of its concern without indicating what it intends to do about air pollution. If the government follows the same course with regard to air pollution as it did with regard to water pollution under the Canada Water Act, that will not be good enough. It will simply mean another set of standards relating to air that will only come into effect if there is agreement with the provinces. The verbal concern expressed by statute or regulatory form will be meaningless unless agreement is reached with those areas that have the constitutional jurisdiction to deal with these matters.
A conference will be held between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the provinces. This will provide an opportunity for the government to take immediate action. Differences of opinion about the constitution should be brushed aside and the provinces should agree to give the federal government authority to deal with environmental matters. Because the problem is national in scope, there should be a national approach rather than a piecemeal approach by the provinces.
Government Organization Act, 1970
Another area of conflict about which the government does not seem to be seriously concerned is the matter of population. Scientists and biologists have predicted the world population for 1975, 1980 and the year 2000. As a companion measure to the control of the environment and ceasing to pollute our air, land, water, foodstuffs and the like, there must be a world-wide program to limit population growth. If our population doubles by the year 2000, our pollution problems will also double. There is also the problem of the multiplication factor which presently exists with regard to pollution.
Although the government states that it is concerned about the environment, the Department of National Health and Welfare is not concerned about birth control, family planning, and a zero population increase. The department has not recognized this as a matter of tremendous concern. Increased population will contribute to a possible elimination of life within the next two, three or four generations. Even a government that does not care about unemployment should be shaken out of its lethargy on this matter. The government should do more than present a well drafted bill in the hope that the publicity and propaganda machine will lead Canadians to believe that something is really being done.
The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) is very presentable. He is adept at making statements when interviewed over television. One of his pet phrases with regard to pollution is that industry must keep its pollutants within the plant gate. Industry must recycle the water which it uses. The pulp and paper industry cannot be permitted to dump effluents into any body of water. It must have a closed circuit water system. The only water lost as a result of industrial production should be by absorption or evaporation. Neither the minister nor the government have taken any steps to require any industry in Canada to meet these requirements. It is just a declaration and a bit of propaganda. How can anyone believe a government which says it intends to do something and then does not do it? How can we believe anything which the government says about the environment?
Although the department of fisheries has full authority and jurisdiction, there has been no concrete activity to prevent pollution of our environment. It is the only federal department which has full authority. It is true that the department has taken some action which has resulted in pulpmill companies appearing before the courts. A pulp company in my constituency was fined $3,000 for having contravened the Fisheries Act, but that did not stop the pollution. It is true that the company is preparing a plan to present to the department of fisheries. However, that plan does not include a provision to contain their water system within the plant gates, use the same water over again and reclaim the chemicals in it. There is no requirement of that sort. All the $3,000 fine, or whatever it is, amounts to, is a licence to continue to pollute the waters outside the plant. And this case can be duplicated thousands of times across Canada.
Much as I hope that somebody in this government will recognize the need to take concrete action to preserve our

February 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 environment, and much as I consider this to be probably the most valuable thing with which we can concern ourselves at this time, I am afraid the bill before us does nothing but provide a bit of window dressing; it looks to me as though government policy on pollution control has got into the hands of the speech writers and not into the hands of the cabinet itself.
We are being asked by this legislation to approve the enlargement of the cabinet. We know that this Parliament does not operate in accordance with the rules of democracy. It has not done so for many years. It operates more under the rules of a dictatorship. When decisions are made in Parliament they are made, as everybody here knows, on the basis of party alone. All the Liberals vote one way, and that is that. The concept of democracy, of a person casting a ballot in Parliament according to the dictates of his conscience, just does not fit. It has no place in the system. If the Liberal party does make decisions they are certainly not made in parliament; they are made in back rooms, in secret, in some confidential place where the public cannot see what is happening. This is bad enough in terms of our democratic structure. It is bad enough that no freedom is permitted to the great bulk of the members of this House because they happen to belong to the government party. It is bad enough that the interests of the constituents who elected them to Parliament are not fully represented. It is bad enough that the rules of Parliament are such that power is concentrated in the hands of the cabinet.
I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Perrault) has a very long interest in this matter because he used to say precisely the same things as I am saying now when he was a free member in the legislature in Victoria dealing with Premier Bennett.


Mr. Perrault:: You read my speeches, did you? Perhaps you learnt something.


Frank Howard: No. I was not able to do that because there is no Hansard in the legislature in Victoria.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He did
not know that.


Frank Howard: What I have been saying may be unpalatable, but it is a fact of life. The general public does not always realize this. They think there is a tremendous amount of freedom in Parliament. They do not know that Parliament operates under the authority of one person, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). That is the case not only with the present Prime Minister but with all of his predecessors I have known. In effect, it is one man rule, except when it completely disintegrates as it did prior to 1962, but that was a unique situation peculiar to the construction of the cabinet at that time. Basically, a political party under the authority of whoever happens to be prime minister, controls Parliament. Parliament does not influence the government. I know that people in the country get rather fed up with the situation. Why is it, they ask, that all we do in Parliament is debate.
For example with regard to the serious unemployment situation which exists at the present time, they ask: why is it that all you do is ask for emergency debates, and then debate the subject? The simple answer is that this is the only course available to an opposition. There is no authority in the rules which permits a member of the opposition to move a motion giving any direction to the government unless by unanimous consent, and it only takes one person to disagree-usually the Prime Minister-to prevent any such motion being put. This is the structure which has been built up over the years to consolidate authority in the hands of one person and give him a dictatorial position. It is bad enough when there is someone in office as prime minister who is incompetent and inept. But when you have a person in office who is an authoritarian, who has a dictatorship concept as to the way in which things should be run, who is rigid in his make-up-as he has said himself in his writings-the matter becomes much more serious.
What the bill before us seeks to do, as others have pointed out, is to give further authority to the Prime Minister which will prevent Parliament from operating even in the limited way in which it is operated at present, and further remove from Parliament one of its opportunities to influence government activities and purposes. Not only does the Prime Minister desire this additional authority, as though he did not possess power enough already; not only does he wish to add to the dictatorial status of his office, but he seeks even further power to control other people should there happen to be one or two in the Liberal party who might wish to show an independent spirit, to depart from the structure or to contend against the government.
The number of cabinet ministers now permitted under the Salaries Act, excluding the leader of the government in the Senate, is 25. The bill before us seeks to establish, in addition, five ministers of stage, making a total of 30. It also seeks to establish posts for a number of parliamentary secretaries, but not more than the number of ministers who are in the cabinet. I assume that these, together with the 25 under the Salaries Act and the five ministers of state, would make a total of 60 posts within the government structure to which a salary is attached. This arrangement permits the Prime Minister to say to another 60: If you do not behave yourselves you will never get into this inner circle. So, he has already got 120 members of the Liberal party tied up with the prospect that if they do not behave according to his satisfaction they cannot expect to remain in, or enter, this inner circle. What little independence may have beat within their breasts would be subdued by the prospect that they would never be appointed a parliamentary secretary or cabinet minister.
In addition, there are the posts of Whip and Deputy Whip which are power posts-two more people the Prime Minister can control. There is the deputy to yourself, Mr. Speaker, and there are the chairmen of the committees, 25, more or less, depending upon the number of special committees, who also occupy positions of power controlled by the Prime Minister. We all know that if the

February 2, 1971

chairman of a committee operates properly, catches the eye of the Prime Minister and makes sure that the will of the government is done in that committee, he has a chance of being elevated to the ministry. The effect of all this is that the Prime Minister is, in a very real sense, in a position to exercise control over all but two members of the Liberal party. He can either ignore them on the grounds that two people do not matter, or he can hold out the prospect that they may become ministers without portfolio.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Or they could go to the Senate.


Frank Howard: The Senate is a bonus. I did exclude that, but in order to get into the Senate you first have to get into the cabinet and prove your incompetence at that level. Usually it is not a direct step from the Commons into the Senate.


Philip Bernard Rynard: How about judgeships?


Frank Howard: My friend says, what about judges. I think I have made my point in speaking just of those who happen to be in Parliament and the positions that are available within the parliamentary structure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is
nobody left.


Frank Howard: No, there is no one left; no one with an independent mind or an independent thought. The only independent thought from which we might have benefited might have come from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Perrault), but I see he is leaving.
Seriously, Mr. Speaker, the purpose and intent of this bill is not government reorganization, but government organization of the dictatorship concept. There is no idea here that Parliament shall have any degree of supremacy or authority in this nation. There is no concept within the government structure or within the bill itself of Parliament having any influence, authority or control over what the government does. Through a process of consolidation, governmental power is to be retained within the hands of the Prime Minister. The bill will give him whatever additional authority he needs to keep his own boys in line or to pay them off for having remained in line, and this runs absolutely contrary to our concept of democracy. It is true that we go to the polls on election day, a day when we have true democracy. Individual citizens have the right, without anyone peering over their shoulder, to vote in the way they see fit. But this is also where democracy ends under the present parliamentary structure and under the Prime Minister that we have today.
As I have said, there is one feature of the bill that might have some value, the creation of a department of the environment. Even though this appears to be window dressing, there would be a great tendency to vote for the bill in view of this concept alone because it is headed in
Government Organization Act, 1970
the right direction. However, the other parts of the bill make the total package completely unacceptable.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am going to deal first with the general concept of pollution, then with what is taking place under this bill by the government joining the subject of pollution with a variety of other proposals that are unacceptable. It is an obvious endeavour to bring about a vote on the whole bill so that those who vote against the bill will be misinterpreted as voting against action against pollution. As far as I am concerned, Sir, I am not going to be deluded in any way in this regard. This bill is political effrontery. It is designed to deceive the people of Canada and to place members of this House of Commons in a position which, if there were any regard for the House, the government would never have undertaken to do.
I am going to make reference later to some of the hon. gentlemen opposite who now sit in a state of deep concern. I was not here this afternoon during the incident that happened. I am never around when controversial matters are raised, and therefore I missed the scene.


Mr. Francis:: Then, you don't know what happened.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member would have
received honourable mention even without his interruption. As I say, I missed what took place this afternoon and I wondered what had happened when I returned and saw the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) dancing a political jig in trying to raise some support from the House Leader for the frightful position in which he now finds himself. He ended up, of all places, in a seat with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Let me tell him that, having regard to some of his performances recently, I very much doubt that it will be for very long that he will hold the position of chief whip. Certainly, no one has been placed in a more embarrassing position than he was this afternoon. And I say that with deep concern for him and his welfare, Mr. Speaker.
Last night he had an interview with the press, wherein he stated that he would not be associated with any stand that I took on the Francophone situation. In effect, he said that it did not take place.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa West on a question of privilege.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, since the right hon. member referred to me, I think he should do me the courtesy of making his reference precise. I very carefully dissociated myself from a general attack on Francophones, which is what I understood the hon. member himself was doing. I made it very clear it was that from which I was dissociating myself.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member was reported in the press as saying that he did not associate himself with me, and as a result of his interpolation I am reminded of a remark made in the House of Commons by Winston

February 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 Churchill. Apparently as a boy his mother denied him the right to enter a side show at a circus which was advertised as having therein a person with a jellyfish backbone. Finally, Churchill said: "All through the intervening years I felt very badly about the way in which my mother interfered with me seeing that boneless wonder and now what do I see today? I see the Prime Minister of my country occupying the position of that individual in the sideshow". As a result of what happened this afternoon the hon. member, who has had a lot of difficulty climbing the greasy pole of the chief whip, finds himself in a disagreeable position to say the least, the discomfiture of which I can only hope will not result in the decomposition of his chief whipship.
He has now apparently had an assurance that he will not be interfered with, because there is a smile on his face which was not there a few minutes ago as he talked with the House Leader of the Liberal party. I see he also had the assistance and advice of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner). I did not intend to bring him into this but he has propelled himself forward; and having been Deputy Speaker he is able to speak to the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) with authority.
I support the setting up of a ministry of environment. I go further than that and say that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) is a minister who has shown a regard for Parliament in that he answers questions concerning his department without evasion. He has a few colleagues who have a similar regard for the House; there is the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans), the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), and one or two others. Those ministers understand Parliament, as does the Government Leader of the House. These men are examples from day to day of the manner in which questions should be answered in the House. There are others, who represent the majority, who regard this place as a forum in which they can exercise their histrionic capacities for evasion, and they do so regularly.
I support that part of the bill which has to do with the subject of environmental control, although in point of fact what is revealed in the bill is really meaningless. I cannot bifurcate my vote and will not, under any circumstance, be bamboozled into voting in favour of this bill because I want action taken on pollution thereby giving approval of actions which will pollute Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: This resolution was in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the bill was introduced by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), neither of whom are here now. What are they doing?


An hon. Member:: Playing with orang-outangs.


John George Diefenbaker: While we cannot hear them, we can very easily imagine.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They are getting their stories straight.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a sad picture. This afternoon we witnessed an example of what has been stated over and over again by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the deception of Parliament by members of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) asked a question this afternoon in connection with the $2 million Francophone expenditure program or plan. We have been asking about that regularly in recent days, trying to find out the origination of this and the circumstances connected therewith. The President of the Treasury Board said he did not know anything about it. As I recall it, although not having reviewed Hansard in respect of questions asked during the last week he said that the situation was that such a measure was unknown to him, and, it was apparently unknown to other ministers because they supported him by their applause.
As I recall, the President of the Treasury Board said there was no program or plan and that the ephemeral, non-existent program had not been before Cabinet. Profumo was not required to leave the House of Commons in 1963 because of his extramural activities; he went out because he deceived Parliament. The President of the Treasury Board said he did not know anything about this plan. The Prime Minister today said it was passed by the Cabinet in November. Where was the President of the Treasury Board? I should like him to be present at this time. He is absent and I feel sure he is not receiving the warm reception the orang-outangs got in Borneo.
This situation has to be cleared up. There has been a deception of Parliament. I have watched the members of the Cabinet because I like to look at the beauty and pulchritude that is there. I watched them as he contended that he knew nothing of such a program and one and all of those who were present showed a reaction in support of what was said by the President of the Treasury Board; that is, he knew nothing about it and it had not been before the Cabinet. To what degradation has this Parliament been reduced. Hidden was the order or the declaration. Even their chief party whip was not enlightened and he has been saying ever since the matter came up in the House that all was well as there was no such plan. I should like to hear him make his alibi tomorrow.


An hon. Member:: Will you come and listen?


John George Diefenbaker: You cannot laugh it off because I heard him say on television, speaking as the chief Whip for the Liberal party, there is nothing to this matter. When a man with that authority behind him speaks, one must understand even the gods must be silent.
February 2, 1971

The time has come for this matter to be cleared up. We cannot ask for the production of a Cabinet minute. How was the Minute concealed from the other colleagues in the Cabinet? Surely this government has not arrived at the point where the Prime Minister simply says, this is what the cabinet is going to do and that is a Cabinet minute. Where was the $2 million coming from? That was revealed the other day, when it was said that there are always accounts from which it could be procured. What has happened in this instance reveals the dangerous position in which our democracy is in this country. The government can find $2 million and we would never know about it. We would never know about it if it had not been for Peter Riley of CTV who found out about it, and then was ridiculed for having something that was non-existent. Today the Prime Minister has given his prime ministerial blessing to those who made the assertion that there was a Francophone plan. What were they hiding? If it was all above board and proper, why hide it. I say to the government, that is the three ministers and one hopeful who are present-he is now giving advice having recently returned from his safari across the country on the constitutional question-where is this Parliament going? Parliament has been deceived and deluded by this government. Is it any wonder that in 1963 the Prime Minister uttered certain words which I think ought to be placed on Hansard. He said that the Liberals were a bunch of idiots.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: How true.


John James Greene: We have learned a lot since then.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman certainly knows how green his valley is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: These are the Prime Minister's words. He said that we have to put up with some bums in the Liberal party and, after the election of 1968, he added that some of the bums were beaten in that election. Is there not an opportunity here for self-identification? Under no circumstances should those who qualify for that description ever become ministers of state. Speaking again of various Liberals of that day he said: "All lousy idiots, for crying out loud." He added that among the old guard, there was the same brutal cynicism. How right he is. What happened today in this House of Commons has not been exceeded since 1931 or 1932 when Mr. Mackenzie King walked in the valley of humiliation. Mention was made by the previous speaker of the fact that with all these jobs created under this bill, there will be a high degree of obedience to what the master says. The Prime Minister, as reported in Cite Libre of April 1963, referred to the "autocracy of the Liberal structure and the cowardice of its members." What of today? Is there anyone who dares be independent now? The sun will not shine for those who dare to
Government Organization Act, 1970 disagree. I have more quotations for the edification of those who desire to hear them but I shall pass on, Sir.
Today is a black Tuesday in parliamentary history. The Prime Minister says this program was passed in November, and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) contended last week that it was never before cabinet. Is it any wonder the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) inquired as to who was telling the truth. This bill, in its present form, is a patently transparent attempt to reduce the House of Commons to a decorative nullity. What manner of trick is this? The Prime Minister has been pushing Canada along the road towards being an imitation of or a creature like the House of Representatives of the United States. This bill is to reform the organization of government. Last week the President of the United States stated that reform in organization is necessary. One of his suggestions was to reduce the membership in his cabinet from 12 to 9. At the very same time the government of Canada is asking us to multiply cabinet positions and parliamentary secretaryships to a degree that would make even rabbits blush.
What has been revealed today is an amazing confirmation of that which this Opposition repeatedly has placed before this House. I have seen the Prime Minister thumb his nose at members of the Opposition. I have heard him refer to Members of the House of Commons as bums, and he said the rest of us were nobodys. I have been here for over 30 years. I am 75 years of age, not one or two years younger or older.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: February 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 relieve unemployment in the government ranks. This is a serious matter. This is a serious course that is being followed. It is another step in the direction of a deliberate and calculated degredation of parliament. They are getting away with anything. The other day one of the members said outside the House, "Anything we want to do we get away with." An exception was the Auditor General. When strong objection was raised all across the country the government ran, and evacuated the position it had taken.
What of the institutions of our parliamentary system? Why this multiplicity of ministers? Does it mean that quantity makes for quality? Mr. Speaker, this is the greatest political gravy train in Canadian history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I note the smile on the face of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto). He is a man who, whatever his adversity may be and the hopelessness of joining this select group, smiles, and debates in a way that I always appreciate hearing. The other hon. members sit and wait. There is to be $10,000 a year for ministers without portfolio. There can be ten ministers of state, five for a two-year period. In keeping with the way in which ministers today play this game of revolving responsibilities in the House they can have ten for two-year periods, and ministers of state are to get $15,000.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In addition to their parliamentary salary.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. We are all entitled to that, even those of us who sit in opposition. At present we have the largest cabinet in the history of Canada, with 29 ministers, and now there are to be additions to that number. Sir, this is a shocking example of contempt, with more than a half million Canadians unemployed. "We have nothing for you now," is the answer from the government of Canada to those who call for help.
Today the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) asked whether or not legislation would be brought in and made effective now, not on July 1, in connection with qualifications for unemployment insurance, and the answer was in the negative. What happened today in this House means that this Parliament is discredited and made a mockery of, a counterfeit, and a travesty of what it should be.
Who are going to get appointed? I feel sorry for the parliamentary aides who were given exit permits. I mean that sincerely. They were becoming experienced, and then they were sent on their way. Who will be appointed? If I can give a suggestion to those who want to, I would say it will be those who practice obsequious cringing and servile flunkeyism who will have the necessary qualifications. I offer this suggestion to hon. members opposite as advice.
Now, let me mention a few examples of the way in which things are hidden, and I must hasten because my time is limited. What about the directive that went out from an official of the Manpower and Immigration Department? The Minister of Manpower and Immigration
(Mr. Lang) said he did not know anything about it. That in no way relieves him or any minister of responsibility. This government hides information it does not want Parliament to know. I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker. I think it was in the month of April I found out that a Treasury order had been passed for the expenditure of $190,000 for letter writers to answer criticisms of the White Paper. I do not know by how much that has been increased since. Some $200 a day was to be made available to chartered accountants. The Prime Minister said he did not know anything about that Treasury order. His memory today was no better concerning the cabinet minute in November, to which I made allusion earlier.
The President of the Treasury Board criticized me. I never was so frightened in my life. He announced outside the House-he did not announce it here-but on the television forum that he was going to get to the bottom of the matter and those who released the information to me-and I too-were going to be proceeded against. He asked, where did it come from? In his eyes the offence was that it was revealed, and not the fact that $190,000 hard cash, taken out of the Canadian taxpayers' pockets, was going to be used for political purposes to explain the unexplainable in the white paper.
The other day the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) gave a good answer when he was asked about the directive issued by the Department of Manpower. He was asked, where did it come from and he replied, "Do you think I want to add to the unemployment ranks?" Apparently over everyone hangs the threat of the government, this intimidation.
Canadians are asking for a reduction in taxation. Questions are asked by the Leader of the Opposition and by other members of the House. They asked the government, "What are you going to do?" The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), in effect, has said that if the government had the opportunity of doing again what they did earlier, they would not follow the course that has been followed. In other words, the government knows that they were wrong. In December, the government produced a budget, Sir, and increased taxation for 1971 by a 3 per cent surtax. All over the nation demands have been made for the government to recognize the proposition put forward by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, namely that taxes must be reduced. Some little changes were made in the budget that provided some eyewash for the Canadian economy; and when we criticize them they say, "You wait." As the Prime Minister said in effect the day before yesterday, anyone who talks about unemployment is talking nonsense.
A revelation took place here today that is the greatest condemnation that any government could have visited on it, namely the revelation that it would, in the House of Commons, deceive and dare to conceal. In what a terrible predicament that put the bashful President of the Treasury Board. I feel sorry for him; and if there were any way in which condolences could be conveyed, that would be done.

February 2, 1971


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Answers given to many questions asked in this House bear little resemblance to the facts. We are being fooled day by day. What has happened to Parliament? I know that some of my colleagues were all for rules changes. The rules were to be changed; committees were to be set up. I said, "If you do this, you are going to place Parliament in a straitjacket; and that is where it is. Your Honour is not at fault. Your Honour must take the rules as they are. Standing Order 43 today is a joke because, on every matter on which a motion is made, those sitting opposite say, "No". Consent is not given. The doors are closed. It is a bigger joke when members ask for the production of papers.


An hon. Member:: The government transfers these questions for debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Instead of having a vote, as was the case in the past, the government transfers these matters for debate. What does this mean? It means the motion is buried, without embalming. In other words, the thing is no more, gone. The people opposite are making a gigantic farce of Parliament.
I have been here, as I have said, a long while. I saw Mackenzie King in action and he was often condemned; but Mackenzie King trusted Parliament. He listened to the views of Parliament when legislation was brought in and changes were suggested. Colonel Ralston, Chubby Power and other great parliamentarians like Ernest Lapointe would agree to changes. That does not apply to the government today. They say in effect, "This is what you will do. You can talk, but we are not going to change." That is the reason, sir, that Parliament today is losing its prestige and significance. There is nothing we in the opposition can do; there is nothing left for us to do. That supine majority that bows before the Prime Minister in obeisance and adoration sees dangling before it these wonderful prizes. Where has independence gone?
I shall conclude with a very serious appeal. In this institution, as I mentioned earlier, some ministers understand Parliament. I hope that they will stand up and save this institution from the obloquy with which it has been visited by this government, a government that seems determined to carry out the views of Machiavelli. The Prime Minister was once asked, "Who is your favourite politician?" He said, "Machiavelli". The next time I speak I shall quote from Machiavelli, because the comparison is tremendously revealing.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-207 which is now before us may be related to Bill C-211 entitled "An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1971" of which section 2 reads in part as follows, and I quote:
2. From and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, there may be paid ... and being the aggregate of:
(a)	the total of the amounts ... as contained in Schedule A
$261,312,756.00;
(b)	the total of the amounts ... as contained in Schedule B

Government Organization Act, 1970
These sums of money are especially intended to allow the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to fulfill the promises he made to some hon. members of his party, before the last electoral campaign, in order to convince them to run for re-election.
It was necessary to promise to some of these gentlemen parliamentary secretaryships and to others opportunities for being appointed to a position inside the cabinet. Promises were made so they would decide to run for re-election. And now the time has come for the Prime Minister to carry out his promises.
Bill C-207 will enable the Prime Minister to carry out his election promises but, in order to swing it, a lot of things have been carefully included in this bill; those provisions are not bad in themselves, but they are more or less relevant to the problem under consideration. This new omnibus ill tends to implement the Prime Minister's promises or those of the Liberal organization.
As for the Liberal candidates who took the risk of running, their act of bravery will be rewarded, because the bill will allow almost everyone of them to get a position created under this bill which provides for most interesting remunerations. This is the most important point: five new ministers will be appointed; they will also be paid as such. Sixteen Liberal members, at least, will be appointed Parliamentary Secretaries, which will bring them an allowance of $4,000 in addition to their indemnity. Remuneration is also provided for all the committee chairmen.
Thanks to this new bill, I trust all Liberals will be happy because they will be able to get additional remuneration. I trust that with all this consideration on the part of the Prime Minister, we will hear no more about dissatisfaction within the Liberal party; and that all the Liberal members will be obedient, faithful, and follow religiously the orders of their big chief. I am convinced that disputes within the Liberal caucus will cease for a while.
This bill provides for the setting up of a department of the environment; that makes me laugh because, at the same time as just about everyone is being rewarded in the Liberal party, a pollution department is being created. Some wits might say: Pollution is created, first; then, a department is set up to fight it. There are several types of pollution: water, air, noise, scenic, political and financial.
As a rule, up until now, water and air pollution have been most talked about, but the most important one, which Creditistes have always fought, is financial pollution. Despite good intentions to fight all kinds of pollution, if there is no war against financial pollution, all other forms will remain.
To eliminate water and air pollution, to fight noise, to preserve our landscapes, money is needed. The Department of the Environment created by this bill will spend public funds to create commissions for the study of problems. In order to fight the various kinds of pollution, finance will have to serve municipalities and provinces, so they will be able to take the physical, necessary and

February 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 essential means to lead an efficient war against pollution where it exists.
The primary function of government is to fight the worst kind of pollutions, that is financial pollution and to make available to provinces and public bodies interest-free loans granted by the Bank of Canada, in order to enable those organizations to take the necessary steps, according to their jurisdiction, and fight pollution.
The government is already polluted by its election funds. It cannot fight financial pollution, because it proceeds therefrom. This is why I have more or less confidence in the establishment of the proposed Department of the Environment.
It is already compromised and will have to be satisfied with finding out the deplorable effects of every kind of pollution. As usual, it will leave the task of solving the problem of pollution to private industry or to others. It will be able to give lessons to everyone on pollution, but it will not act, because it is already polluted.
On Saturday, our Prime Minister came back to Canada, and yesterday, he was in the House for the first time, after an absence of over 25 days, following a trip to Asia.
A few months ago, he said on television: Enough of this nonsense. And today, after several trips to almost every country in the world since 1968, particularly when we see how our Prime Minister behaves in foreign countries, we have to admit that the nonsense is not yet over.
The supreme talent of our great traveller is to bring with him many publicity people who are very well looked after and travel in his own plane. In fact they are shown so much consideration during these long and frequent trips that it is very difficult for them to publish anything but praise for our great traveller when he returns from his long and costly trips.
I would like to give you here the list of all those who accompanied the Right Hon. Prime Minister on his trip to the East. There were forty-five of them. They are Messrs. J.E. Walker, former Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, R.G. Robertson, Secretary to the Cabinet, A.E. Ritchie, Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, Ivan L. Head, special assistant to the Prime Minister; Romeo Leblanc, press secretary to the Prime Minister; J.L. Gray, President of Atomic Energy of Canada; D.D. Tansley, vice-president in charge of operations, Canadian International Development Agency; A.G. Kniewasser, assistant deputy-minister, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce; the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), physician to take care of the sick on the trip; Gordon Gibson, special assistant to the Prime Minister; John Gongos, RCMP inspector; H. Stewart, Director, Administration Division, Privy Council Office; R.V. Gorham, Eastern Division, Department of External Affairs; A. Donnelly, assistant press secretary to the Prime Minister; V. Chapman, assistant in some capacity or other to the Prime Minister; Captain R. Godfray, in charge of luggage; Miss Cecile Viau, private secretary to
[Mr. Rondeau*}
the Prime Minister; Miss Annette Walls, secretary to the Clerk of the Privy Council; Miss Therese Brazeau, secretary to the Prime Minister; and Mr. Y. Rivet, communications agent, Department of External Affairs, that is 21 persons to serve the Prime Minister, plus 24 others: newspapermen, radio or television reporters. I have a full list of those people, but it would take too long to read it. Altogether 45 people-a regular foot-ball club-accompanied our great traveller. That represents more than the whole Canadians hockey team travelling to win the Stanley Cup, more than the world football champions.
Our Prime Minister is acting big, as representative of 21 million Canadians. Perhaps he takes himself for his great friend Mao Tse-tung who is at the head of the Chinese Communist government and represents over 800 million Chinese.
With such an escort, Mr. Speaker, with such a team of information jugglers accompanying him, striving to boost his popularity abroad, the Prime Minister liberally distributes Canadian taxpayers' money which he enjoys taking out of their pockets through application of white paper recommendations, resulting in permanent unemployment for thousands and increasing the burden of Canadians.
For instance, during this last trip, our Prime Minister has handed out gifts in all directions, wherever he set foot on the ground. The local press has fostered his publicity by proclaiming him a great friend of their countries unaware that here in Canada the unemployed and the poor were being driven deeper every day to despair. The international vision of our big chief has been well entertained to compensate for a continuous devaluation of his public image here in the minds of Canadians because it is becoming more obvious now and ever since 1968 that this man was brought to power through misleading publicity. In fact, the national image of our great leader is deteriorating and this in the eyes of the Canadian population is tentatively offset by an attempt at popularizing a kind of international superman picture.
Like the frog that wished to be as big as the bull and busted, our great Prime Minister left for Asia twenty-five days ago accompanied by a publicity team which was anxious to present him as the saviour of the Commonwealth, the man who would pull England back into the rank with his diplomatic touch and his athletic prowess, and convince her of the necessity of ending all arms sales to Rhodesia if the Commonwealth was to be saved, its existence being threatened, according to the newspapers.
The conference has now ended and England-


Mr. Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, the hon. member for Levis on a point of order.
February 2, 1971


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a brief question?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Yes, if it is a brief one.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, if, as the hon. member said, the Prime Minister of Canada went to visit foreign countries, because his popularity was decreasing in Canada, I wonder whether he and his leader are not making trips to western Canada for the very reason that their own popularity is decreasing in Quebec-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making a speech rather than asking a question.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member for Levis rose. This will enable him to remain in the eyes of his constituents, which he dearly needs, for his interventions in this House have been few and far between.
I see no objection, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that our Prime Minister travels the country or that other members tour Canada to ascertain the problems facing us, for we, as parliamentarians, are here to run the country and pass legislation. Cross-country tours for informational purposes are therefore in order, but it is abnormal that one should spend 60 per cent of one's time abroad as has been the unfortunate case with the right hon. Prime Minister since 1968 who has been trying to solve the neighbours' problems instead of looking in his own backyard.
This conference is now a thing of the past and Britain continues to sell arms to South Africa. May I say in passing that the right hon. gentleman busted his political balloon during the conference since he supported the British position he disapproved prior to his departure for Singapore.
During his 25-day trip, in consultation with the experts who accompanied him, he has done some sort of a political somersault, for he has already proved indeed that he could practically walk on his head-


Walter Cyril Deakon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know what all this talk has to do with the organization bill. Is it on the subject, or not?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is questioning the relevancy of the remarks of the hon. member who now has the floor. It seems to me the hon. member for Shefford is, generally speaking, within the relevancy of the debate. He has been speaking about the travels of the Prime Minister within the framework of the organization of government. In this debate so far, I think we have granted fairly wide latitude in the matter of relevance as long as the subject matter related generally to government organization.
Government Organization Act, 1970 [Translation]


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, we are considering the organization of the government in general and when we talk about the Prime Minister's trips, I realize that it may hurt some members of this House. Be it as it may, this regards the organization of the government, because we are asked today to vote various amounts of money that were not provided for in the estimates, as a reward for some members on the government side and in order to keep some promises that our Prime Minister made.
In the meantime, our businessmen and Canadians in general are worrying, and rightly so, about the economic situation which is deteriorating day by day. The number of unemployed is increasing at an alarming rate.
The Prime Minister claims that unemployment is nonsense, and that those who speak of it are talking nonsense. The number of unemployed continues to increase at an extraordinary rate while our great traveller, the Prime Minister, turns political somersaults by day and performs-we noticed during his last trip

Asiatic dances during the erotic hours of night in Chinese discotheques.
Our Prime Minister seems concerned about the economic situation in Canada; yet he neglects to solve Canadian problems. His last trip enabled him to-


Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker,-


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Mercier, who was promoted "whippet" a few days ago, to make the most of his qualities from time to time in the House-


Prosper Boulanger: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [English]
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether the translation is getting to you correctly, but what the hon. member for Shefford is saying right now, is that 60 per cent of the time the Prime Minister is away from the House. That is not in order. He is telling falsehoods.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: The Chair has, I think, allowed throughout the speeches of all hon. members a latitude which I believe to be in order and in keeping with the very general nature of the bill before us, a measure dealing with government reorganization. I would hesitate at this stage to indicate that a narrower interpretation should be placed upon the rule of relevancy.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not hold it against the hon. member for Mercier. On the contrary, I congratulate him on his appointment as "whippet", and I hope the government will take into consideration the few interventions he makes in good faith, I believe, in the House.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon.
member a question?
Could he give me the definition of the term "whippet" if it is in his dictionary?

February 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at the position the hon. member takes, if he cannot find out by himself how to define his functions here. I cannot tell him everything he has to do.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I have another question to ask.
He is not very good at telling the truth-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the question asked by the hon. member for Mercier may have been outside the bounds of relevancy. I will ask the hon. member who has the floor to continue his remarks and to keep them within the confines of the bill under consideration.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member for Mercier to kindly ask his superiors, who have appointed him, to define his position, so that he might learn the nature of it.
Mr. Speaker, during his recent trip to Asia, our Prime Minister has once again played Santa Claus, for he has distributed loans to certain countries.
He will soon be telling Canadians-once again-that they must tighten their belts, and that they will have to make sacrifices. He will tell them: Tighten your belts so as to pay for the gifts that I have just distributed in Asiatic countries which, in turn, have given me very nice publicity as an international Superman.
I have no time, today, to give out the list of the interest free loans granted since 1968 to more than 50 countries, but I would like however to bring two of these to the attention of the House. During his recent trips, the Prime Minister has granted an interest free gift-loan of $94 million to Ceylon, payable in 50 years. He has furthermore granted an interest free loan of $4.5 million to Indonesia, payable in 50 years, with a 10 year period of grace, if that country so wishes.
The Prime Minister of Ceylon, Mrs Sirimavo Banda-ranaike-having received the gift-loan from the Prime Minister of Canada-paid all respects and gave all praises that might be delivered to a head of state.
It can't be helped: our Prime Minister is fond of reverences and compliments.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker- [English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member please resume his seat. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, will my hon. friend allow me a question?
[Mr. Boulanger.!


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I will not tolerate any questions.


Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will not allow me to put a question. Would he be afraid of that question?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: By no means.


Gilles Marceau: My question is this: Is my hon. friend aware that money loaned by Canada is used to buy machinery in Canada and that it is not an outright gift? Is he aware that such loans are used not only to develop countries but also to help this country? Is my hon. friend aware of these facts? If he were, would he still state that these loans which help both Canada and Ceylon are harmful?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the member for Lapointe make those remarks. I believe he learned about this matter recently, for we have known for quite some time that this money is used to buy Canadian products. This is even worse, Mr. Speaker.
If this money is used to buy Canadian products-and we have nothing against that-we do say that the same gifts that we offer to the Indonesians or the Cingalise should be given to the people of Quebec, of New Brunswick, of Nova Scotia, of the western provinces; Canadians should be entitled to the same interest-free loans for the purpose of buying Canadian products. This would benefit the economy and make it possible to raise the standard of living of Canadian people and it would also enable them to pay only once for the public services they use.
The hon. member for Lapointe approves of the fact that interest-free loans are granted to foreigners; if those same loans were granted to the Province of Quebec, we could build schools, CEGEPs, technical schools or help public developments through the construction of bridges, roads, including the East-West expressway in Montreal, and enable all Canadians to pay only once for those roads, those bridges and those schools.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: That is exactly what we are doing.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: The hon. member for Levis says: "That is exactly what we are doing". This is absolutely untrue. At present, the Quebec-Hydro-


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I said yes, and it is true. In fact, I have the means to prove it, as indeed it is all so well here in this House-

February 2, 1971


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Has the hon. member a point of order? If so, I should like to hear it.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: So do I; I want to raise a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question of privilege I will hear it.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to forget that here in the House we are entitled to the truth. He seems to forget that we not only promote Canadian industries by loans, but that we also give them grants. That is more than loans without interests, it is in fact giving away money.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member has a point of debate rather than a question of privilege.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to you that I am getting tired of being interrupted by members who never take in the House the opportunity to say what they think, who enjoy throwing sand in the works and making statements that are more or less relevant.
I know that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is giving incentives to some industries. However, I am not aware that the federal government has made interest free loans to municipalities in the province of Quebec or in any other province of Canada. That is what we are talking about. We are not discussing the merits of the decision made by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to subsidize industry. We do not criticize, but if Canada is giving interest free loans to other countries, we ought to do the same for the Canadian provinces.
Mr. Speaker, granting an interest-free loan to another country-although Canada never received one-amounts to a gift. The right hon. Prime Minister has made such gifts during his last trip. This reminds me of the time when Indian chiefs were receiving gifts designed to keep them quiet so that they could be more readily exploited afterwards. Was it really necessary to keep some Commonwealth countries-such as England-quiet because of arm sales to Rhodesia? Did several countries threaten to wreck the Commonwealth?
Did those gifts-loans granted by our Prime Minister help save the Commonwealth? Did the profits made by British arms merchants and manufacturers keep quiet
Government Organization Act, 1970 several angry countries who still believe that it is necessary to kill in order to live?
Has the old saying "Money talks" been able once again to save the Commonwealth? History will tell perhaps but too late, unfortunately, for we Canadians shall have to pick up the tab for those gifts which we cannot really afford for ourselves.
To date we do not know, apart from what has been said about it, whether the Commonwealth is really in danger. We know, however, that England will keep selling arms with the approval of our Prime Minister, though he did oppose this move before he left for Asia. Who has won the battle? The political experts, before the Prime Minister left, or the British financial experts?
And while men will kill each other with English weapons, we Canadians will grant loans without interest to others so that arms dealers be paid and that those who wish to live out of war be well financed.
Some wish to fight, and some dealers or manufacturers from England have arms to sell or profits to make. But we Canadians pay them handsomely so that the English can sell their arms and be paid and that Asiatic belligerents be financed in order to be able to kill one another.
When the Creditistes ask for loans without interest from the Bank of Canada in order to finance waterworks or other projects which we need everywhere in Canada, politicians committed to finance, like those we heard a few moments ago, say that it is impossible because it would entail too much money, which would do nothing but contribute to inflation. Unfortunately we see a bunch of fools without money who are afraid of inflation, who are afraid of having too much money and who shout parrot-like: That would make too much money.
When the Creditistes wish to obtain interest-free loans from the Bank of Canada in order to finance the construction of waterworks for instance, or to carry out any other project necessary and workable involving public expenses, they say this would lead to inflation. But is it not known that when we build a bridge costing $1 million and that we have to pay $3 million in interest and $1 million on the capital, we create inflation because we pay in taxes four bridges, three in interest paid to finance and one to reimburse the capital, while the whole project could be financed without interest through the Bank of Canada?
When our Prime Minister grants gift-loans to Ceylon or Indonesia, as he did during his last trip, and as he has done for several countries in the world almost each week since 1968, no one asks questions. Nor do hon. members opposite. Where will the Prime Minister get almost $100 million, the amount he agreed to loan over the last three weeks? However, when members of the Ralliement credi-tiste request equivalent treatment for the provinces, public bodies or school boards, the hon. members on government side laugh.
Bill C-207 is an omnibus bill which is mainly intended to carry out the election promises made by the Prime Minister who, in order to get candidates during the last

February 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 election campaign, had promised jobs, additional salaries and rewards. The time has come for rewards and this is why we cannot, Mr. Speaker, approve this bill unreservedly, though we are against pollution. Besides, we said repeatedly in this House that it should have been checked years ago. But the present government merely studied the problem and referred it to the provinces which lack the monetary and financial means necessary to face their responsibilities, because presently, the Constitution grants them responsibilities in areas such as education, public utilities and others.
However, the federal government kept for itself all monetary powers, and because it does not put any funds at the disposal of the provinces to enable them to carry out their responsibilities, for the past 100 years, there has been perpetual conflict, as the provinces are at daggers drawn with the federal government. They want to carry out their duties, but the federal government, on the other hand, is hindering their progress by not supplying them and public agencies with the money needed for this. For that reason, we have had for years and whatever party is in power, perpetual conflict between the provincial governments and the federal government and between municipalities and school boards and the provincial governments.
We are members of the House of Commons, that is responsible for the financial administration of the country, but our hands are tied because of the supremacy of high finance. Why? Because governments that are elected through election funds are the first victims of the financial pollution of such electoral funds.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there has been a good deal of lively and scintillating debate on this bill this afternoon. If by way of contrast I enter it in a low key, I am none the less serious about two or three things I think ought to be said at the second reading stage.
Because there are to my knowledge many public servants who have worked for this country a good many years who would like the opportunity to retire early, as is provided in this legislation, I should like to see the bill passed and put on the statute books as quickly as possible. On the other hand, because in the same field, namely that of public service superannuation, there are provisions which I think are most unfair and could be used in an unfair and dictatorial manner over some of our public servants, I should like to see the bill set aside.
If I may jump ahead in my thoughts and offer a similar couplet, may I say that because of the provision in this bill for the establishment of a department of the environment, I should like to see the bill passed tonight, between government and parliament I think it should be torn and kicked out of the House as was done in the United Kingdom parliament once in respect of an iniquitous piece of legislation.
It is mainly in respect of those two phases of the matter that I should like to make a few remarks at this time. I return, therefore, to the superannuation question. It is true that this bill will make it possible for quite a number of civil servants to retire with an immediate pension even though they have not reached the usual retirement age of 60 or 65.
Under this bill a letter carrier, for example, who has been working for the Post Office for 30 years, and who is now 55 and rather tired of carrying the mail around, would be able to retire with an immediate pension equal to 60 per cent of his average salary during his six best years. Likewise, anyone 55 years of age and over, but not yet 60, would be able to claim the benefits of this bill and retire early with an immediate pension.
There is also provision for retirement between the ages of 50 and 55. The several formulae set out in respect of this matter make it clear that if one retires earlier than the age of 55, even though he has passed aged 50, he would not get what otherwise would have been a full pension, but one reduced by a certain percentage for each year he is short of age 55 or each year he is short of a certain number of years of service.
In so far as there are public servants who would like to do this, even though the pension they might get would be quite low, this is a privilege or an opportunity being offered to them which quite a few might wish to accept, although I suspect there will be more advantage taken of the provision to retire at age 55 than there will be of the provision to retire below that age, because at age 55 at least one can get a full pension for the number of years he has worked up to that point. For those who retire below age 55 the reduction formula stares them in the face, and the prospect is not so inviting.
At any rate, in so far as the rights offered to our public servants by Part VII of this bill are put on a voluntary basis so that the public servants concerned may avail themselves of them if they wish to, this is good. That is the reason I say from that side of the coin I should like to see this bill on the statute books as soon as possible, for there are many public servants who are in fact waiting for it. I can understand this just from reading the legislation, but I can also say I have received a fair amount of correspondence from public servants in their middle fifties who are looking forward to availing themselves of the privileges of this legislation.
However, the other side of the coin, in so far as the superannuation portion of this bill is concerned, is in my view a rather ugly one. The other side of the coin is that the government may avail itself of the provisions of this Part VII and compulsorily retire people at age 55 on the pension they would get, or even down to age 50 on the reduced pensions provided by this legislation. I know the government will say it is fair to have it both ways. If you give a free right of retirement to the individual, should you not give a free right to the employer to retire that individual even if it is against his will? This is like the equity between one horse and one rabbit.

February 2, 1971

May I point out that the so-called free right to retire accorded to the individual public servant is not completely free. He has to meet the conditions set out in the legislation. He has to be 55 or over in order to get an immediate pension equal to 2 per cent times the number of years he has been in the service, times the average salary of his six best years. If a public servant is between 50 and 55 he has to meet the further condition of having a certain minimum number of years service, and he has to subject his early retirement pension to a reduction formula.
I have tried to understand the various formulae in the legislation and I believe I do understand them. I admit I am picking out for purposes of my illustration the minimum one. As I understand this, a public servant who is 50 years of age and has 20 years of service can retire or can be retired at that point and receive an immediate pension. But, by the formula set out in this bill, that immediate pension is cut in half from what it would be for 20 years of service so that instead of receiving 20 times 2 or a 40 per cent pension he would receive half that or a 20 per cent pension. I submit it is all right to give a public servant the privilege at age 50, if he desires it, to leave the public service and go out on a pension equal to 20 per cent of the average of his six best years. That is his choice and he must meet the conditions in order to receive such a pension. One of the conditions is that he must accept the reduction in his pension rate.
But, Mr. Speaker, the government would be in a position to say-and this is why I use the word "ugly"-to a public servant who is 50 years of age and who has worked for the government and the people of Canada for 20 years: You are out; you are retired and our hands are clean because we are putting you on an immediate pension; you do not have to wait until you are 60 or 65 years of age, you get it now.
What is that pension? It is 20 per cent of the average salary he has had for his best six years. It is just talk these days to say that such a person is therefore free to go out, obtain any other kind of job he wishes and build up another pension. There is such a thing in this country today as unemployment. We ought to be aware of it from the efforts made on the floor of this House to make the government aware of it. We are aware of the fact that it hits certain groups very severely. One of these groups is the people over 40 or 45 years of age.
I say that to retire a person today at age 50 on a pension equal to 20 per cent of his average salary over his best six years is a mean and ugly thing to do. Yet, that is what is being made possible by this legislation. I know someone on the government side might defend this position, if he has the gall or nerve to do it, by saying that the government can do this now. The government can dismiss a public servant at age 50 on no immediate pension. The government can dismiss such a person and the best that person has to look forward to is a deferred
Government Organization Act, 1970 pension when he reaches age 60. We have the notion that because that is the situation, because a public servant who can be fired by the government today at any age has only a deferred pension to look forward to, there is a little bit of inhibition working here; that is, that the government is a little reluctant to fire people and turn them out in the cold without any pension at all. Under this legislation the government will lose that inhibition and be able to say, with all the pride and virtue it is able to present, that it is not turning these 50 year olds out in the cold because it is placing them on an immediate pension.
Because I think my working out of the formula is correct, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that a public servant at age 50 who has had 20 years service can be retired at this point on a pension of only 20 per cent of the average salary he has enjoyed over his six best years. So, Mr. Speaker, I say this is unfair. I usually read with interest what organizations of employees say about matters of this kind and when they say things with which I agree I do not hesitate to quote them. Sometimes, I am a little disappointed. I believe the Public Service Alliance has missed the point on this. I saw its publication of a few days ago in which the Public Service Alliance greeted without qualification this right of public servants to retire early. I repeat that I am with the Public Service Alliance to the extent that in so far as this is a voluntary right, it is something to be greeted. But what about the position of the 50 year old or even the 55 year old who is right in the midst of trying to get his sons and daughters through college, who is trying to pay off the mortgage on his home and who has made plans to retire at age 60 or age 65, for whom there is no old age or Canada Pension Plan benefit until age 65? The government might say to that person that he must go.
Now do not tell me, Sir, that this government would not do such a thing. It did it in the last year or so, even when these immediate pensions were not available and when the best to be offered was a deferred pension arrangement. So, I see this business of placing this weapon in the hands of the employer as being mean, ugly, and despicable. I wish the organizations which are prepared, as I am, to welcome the voluntary side of it would take another look at this side. I said earlier that the President of the Treasury Board probably will say it should work both ways, and that if the employee has the right to make his choice the government should have the right to make its choice. The employee must make his choice within certain conditions and his whole life is at stake. He knows what his plans are and can make his choice in the light of those plans, but the government does not have to meet any condition at all. It does not have to offer any alternative. The government can say to the person who is placed in these circumstances that before this legislation came in he could have been fired anyway, without a deferred pension, and now because he can be retired immediately with a 20 per cent pension, out he goes, whether he likes it or not.
I think this is an ugly situation and one at which we might look a little further at eight o'clock.

February 2, 1971
Scientific Research Animals Protection Act



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 Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale): Air Transport-Manitoba-Restoration of Class A Regional Service; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Sokberg)-Canadian National Railways-Discontinuance of Dining Car Service-Ottawa-Montreal; the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)-Social Security- Guaranteed Annual Income-Old Age Pension Cost of Living Bonus-Changes in Canada Pension Plan.
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 public bills, private bills and notices of motions.
I understand the first order standing in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is to stand. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Winona Grace MacInnis: that Bill C-19, for the Protection and Humane Treatment of Animals used in Scientific Research, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill standing in my name is very easily explained. Its purpose is to provide legislative machinery to assure humane treatment for live animals used in scientific research for which grants are provided by the government of Canada. It is the intent of this bill to cover all phases of protection for animals used in such research, including general policy, the conditions in which animals are kept while on the premises, and the sources of supply where such animals are purchased.
Clause 2 of the bill, which is the main operative clause, reads as follows:
No grant for scientific research involving live animals shall be made by or through any department or agency of the Government of Canada unless the applicant has a certificate of registration or a licence issued by the Minister of Agriculture on recommendation of the Canadian Council on Animal Care or an equivalent body so designated.
I would point out that Bill C-140, standing in the name of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Groos), has been on the Order Paper for the last three years, and my bill was

intended to be supplementary to his, underlining some of the points covered in Bill C-140. The only reason that mine appears ahead of his is the luck of the draw held to determine the position that a private member's bill will have on the Order Paper.
This afternoon I speak for a great many people across Canada. For years a growing number of Canadians have been deeply concerned about conditions surrounding experimentation on animals for medical and scientific purposes. They are concerned about unnecessary cruelty, and repetitive experiments. Above all, they are concerned because Canada has no legislation to protect animals used for scientific purposes.
For years some hon. members have been trying to get this situation changed. My colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), has placed innumerable resolutions on the Order Paper trying to have this whole matter referred to committee for study. As I have said, the hon. member for Victoria has had a bill on the Order Paper for three years, and this is the second year for my bill.
Other countries are far ahead of us in the provision of such legislation. For example, in Britain legislation was passed in 1876, and recently that country conducted a far reaching study resulting in the Littlewood Report which it is hoped will be embodied in new legislation before long. Denmark has had legislation governing experimentation on animals since 1953, and the United States has had such legislation since 1965. I ask the question: why not Canada?
People may argue that this is a provincial matter, and I reply that the scope of my bill is not provincial. It is strictly federal. The bulk of medical research grants to Canadian universities comes from the federal government, and virtually all universities, either directly or indirectly through their research staff, receive grants from the federal government for this purpose. Therefore, the federal government has the right and the duty to withhold grants for medical research from the universities until or unless certain standards and conditions are met. I would point out that those sections of the Criminal Code designed to prevent cruelty to animals are ineffective so far as the protection of laboratory animals is concerned because humane inspectors do not have the right to enter research laboratories, and provincial inspectors are not able to carry out the provisions of the Criminal Code. For this reason federal legislation is necessary.
There is a precedent for such federal legislation. The Meat Inspection Act contains a provision that humane slaughtering methods must be used in packing houses that come under federal inspection. I suggest that protection in what amounts to the scientific slaughtering of laboratory animals is equally necessary. What has been done to investigate the situation respecting laboratory animals? The Council for Laboratory Animals, based in Vancouver, made a submission to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) as late as January of this year regarding the use of animals in scientific research. All hon. members have received copies of this submission, but I
February 2, 1971

would wager that a very small percentage of them have read it through. Therefore, I am going to summarize some of the points contained in it. In part, it reads:
It is now seven years since the Council for Laboratory Animals first drew the federal government's attention to the unsatisfactory treatment of research animals in Canada.
During the last three years considerable progress has been made in improving the housing and husbandry of laboratory animals in Canadian universities. The Canadian Council on Animal Care, set up by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada in 1966 with National Research Council financing, has ben active in encouraging the universities to upgrade the 70 per cent of animal facilities which were rated as inadequate at the time of the original survey. Animal care committees have ben established at most universities, and steps taken to raise the standards of training of laboratory technicians responsible for the animals.
The Canadian Council on Animal Care has not, however, been given the responsibility of reviewing experimental procedures and this represents a major gap in the protection afforded to laboratory animals. The medical journals report considerable numbers of Canadian experiments involving pain or stress to animals each year, some of which appear, on the face of it, to be of doubtful value in relation to the suffering involved.
I have a dozen documented examples of this. Here is one titled, "Conflict and Conditioned Aversive Stimuli in the Developments of Experimental Neuroses," and I read:
Method: 30 cats used. Cats placed in metal box with floor bars (electrified) % inch apart. A squeeze partition employed to note cat's response to constriction. Cats trained to open food container and eat (after 24 hours starving). Then two cats placed together to test "dominance in feeding.'' After training, shocks given on removing food cover or when food entered mouth.
Some of the "neurotic behavior" noted:
Violently resists entry to cage, agitated pacing and tremors, seeks escape, crouching in corner, violently resists approach to food, hissing, clawing, arching back, persistent violent combat with partner cat, rejects all food, panic, maximum fear of signal, panic reaction to constriction etc.
This is one of the lesser forms of torture recorded in various medical journals. I maintain that the Council for Laboratory Animals is perfectly justified in saying:
We believe that, just as the private individual is required under the Criminal Code to justify the infliction of suffering on an animal, so the scientist should be ready to justify painful experiments before a competent body. We suggest, therefore, that the staff of the Canadian Council on Animal Care be expanded to include a small, but highly qualified, inspectorate of medical and veterinary scientists who would review proposals for experiments approved by University Animal Care Committees and the subsequent reports of these experiments.
The Council goes on to outline the degree of such inspection, and suggest exactly the sort of thing that is proposed in my bill:
We suggest that the federal government take steps:
(1)	to provide permanent funding for the inspectorate of the Canadian Council on Animal Care in order to ensure its continuity and
(2)	to make the inspectorate responsible to the Minister of Agriculture rather than to the institutions whose facilities it is required to supervise.
It would be impossible to over-emphasize the importance of this second point. It is not a good idea, as I have
Scientific Research Animals Protection Act suggested, for a conflict of interest to obtain wherein the inspectorate is responsible, as is the case now, to the very colleges and universities that it seeks to supervise. It is far better that the council on animal care should be made, as proposed in this bill and in that of the hon. member for Victoria the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, who is in no way responsible to the universities and colleges of Canada. That, I submit, is a good principle to adopt in legislation.
I realize that in the recent press communique of the association of universities and colleges of Canada it is claimed that a great deal has already been done in the matter of voluntary controls. Undoubtedly, this is true. Nevertheless, I submit that voluntary controls are not enough, partly because of the conflict of interest I have mentioned and partly because legislation is the only way of making sure that animals in the hands of sadistic, thoughtless or careless people shall not be subject to unnecessary cruelty. Therefore, our reliance on the effectiveness of voluntary controls in this matter is quite insufficient. The council for laboratory animals emphasized this point in a pamphlet that it submitted to the prime minister some years ago. It said that education and persuasion do not go far enough; that what we need and must have, in addition, is an outside policing of those institutions using animals for experimental purposes. We must have legislation. We must have the framework to protect, so far as possible, helpless creatures from unnecessary cruelty at the hands of anyone using them.
May I point out that across Canada there are about half a million helpless animals used every year for experimental purposes. The amount of cruelty perpetrated on those animals is beyond belief and quite beyond the imagination. May I also say to those people who think that the present system is not good enough, that increasing attention is being given in other countries to the substitution of nonsentient materials, or of other methods, in place of animals in testing and experimentation, and to a reduction in the number of animals used through better methodology. A number of practical alternatives to the use of animals have been developed in recent years. These include the use of tissue and organ cultures, chick embryos, chemicals, chromatography, radio-immuno assays, mathematical models and the computer, etc. In medical education, sophisticated audiovisual aids can largely replace the living animal.
But since I was taught in my childhood that often the best is the enemy of the good, so I believe that to make a plea right now for anti-vivisection would be to take away emphasis from that which I believe we most need, legislative controls, legislative standards and legislative prohibitions against the unnecessary cruelty that goes on behind the scenes in our scientific laboratories from coast to coast. I welcome the work which has been done voluntarily and which has improved the situation to a certain extent. Yet I emphasize again, Mr. Speaker, that the only way we can control this experimentation and be sure that these voiceless and helpless creatures are receiving proper attention in our medical laboratories and in university laboratories, is to bring forward effective legislation. It must be legislation which will make these colleges

February 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 and universities subject to the animal care people who, in turn, shall be responsible, under this legislation, to the Minister of Agriculture.
I commend my bill to this House, hoping very much that this time the "talker-outers" will be absent and will allow this legislation that is long overdue to be placed on our statute books.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Will all those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Will all those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, there are not enough members on this side of the House to stand up with me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion (Mrs. Maclnnis) negatived.


Mr. Mahoney:: Mr. Speaker, may we call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is it the wish of hon. members that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Since it has been called six o'clock, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at eight o'clock this evening.
At 5.22 p.m. 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.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when I commenced my remarks on Bill C-207 just before five o'clock I indicated that my concern about this bill is that it has too many cases of the good and the bad, too many coins that are beautiful on one side and ugly on the other. I believe in my remarks before five o'clock I pinpointed the two examples of this that bother me most. I am prepared to confine my remarks to those two examples. The first is in the field of public service superannuation. Before five o'clock I said most of what I wanted to say on this point. However, there are a few more words that should be added.
I pointed out this afternoon that this is a clear case of a coin that is beautiful on one side and ugly on the other. The beautiful part is that the possibility of early retirement is extended. This is something that our society will have to face before long. Public servants who have a certain number of years to their credit and have attained a certain age may, if they wish, retire and receive a pension beginning at the moment of retirement even if they are only between 50 and 55 years of age. In so far as this bill permits public servants to avail themselves of this privilege, it is good and I welcome it. I want to see this provision on our statute books.
The other side of that coin is that part VII of the bill gives the government, as employer, the right to retire-in more realistic language, the right to fire-public servants and put them on pension between age 50 and 55 whether they want to retire or not. I am not impressed by the argument that this is a matter of equality, or that it is a two-way street which makes it possible to have the initiative on either side. You do not equate one lone employee, trying to sort out his finances and his old age security, against the weight and power of an organization as large as the government of Canada. It is not fair to say that because an employee has the right to retire at an early date if he wishes, the Canadian government has the right to force him to retire even if he does not want to do so.
I pointed out before five o'clock, and admitted I was taking the minimal case I could work out from the formula contained in the bill, that it would be possible for the government to force into retirement a public servant who was 50 years of age and who had 20 years of service, on a pension of only 20 per cent of his average salary during his six best years. To require a public servant to retire at age 50 on a pension of only 20 per cent of his salary, whether he wants to retire or not, is-pardon me for repeating the word-ugly. I do not like it and I do not think it should be in this legislation.
In the same area, the government provides in the bill before us what has already been described as a special privilege for those who attain the rank of deputy minister or deputy head: this is a phrase which I assume will include a secretary to a minister of state where that minister has been given, by proclamation, a department over which to preside. If such a deputy head has been in the public service for ten years and chooses to leave, or is turned out, he is given the privilege of continuing to

February 2, 1971

contribute to the public service superannuation fund until the age of 60, at which time he can draw the full pension available to him on the basis of the number of years during which he has paid into the fund.
This is clearly a case of special privilege for a very select few. The only defence I can see anyone trying to put forward from the government side is that the government might want to possess machinery by which it can bring in deputy heads and turn them out again. I cannot understand why the government should want an arrangement of that kind. It will not be much of an inducement to an outstanding person to come in and undertake this type of job if he knows he can be turned out very readily. So this is a special privilege available to no one else. I can think of scores of cases where people have asked for the right to continue to pay into pension funds so they could build up their pension, but this is usually not allowed. Yet an exception is made for this select group whose number we can probably count on our fingers and toes.
I should like to make a comparison between the special privilege for such deputy heads and the treatment accorded ordinary individuals in the public service who retire at the age of 50. Take the case of a postal employee, a clerk, an employee of the House of Commons who at the age of 50 has been in the public service for 20 years. He can be forcibly retired on a pension of only 20 per cent of the average salary of his six best years. But a deputy head who at age 50, let us say, has spent only 10 years in the public service can go out into private business or industry, continue to contribute for the following ten years and become qualified at the age of 60 for a 40 per cent pension on the basis of ten years service but 20 years contribution to the fund. So the hardworking public servant who spent 20 years in the public service up to the age of 50 goes out with a 20 per cent pension, while the deputy head with only 10 years in the service gets 40 per cent at the age of 60. If that is not turning things upside down, if that is not being unfair to those at the bottom of the ladder and being unduly generous to those at the top, I do not know what is. These are examples of ugliness on one side of the superannuation coin which detract from the attractiveness of the other side of the coin. I earnestly hope that when we get into committee of the whole and reach part VII we can persuade the government to get fair play and justice written into this aspect of the measure.
I said there were two examples of coins which are beautiful on one side and ugly on the other about which I intended to speak. My second point has to do with the fact that on one hand this bill sets up a badly needed new department, the department of the environment, which I would say is welcomed by every member of this House. We shall have to assess what the department achieves when it gets going, but the rumours are that the minister who really has shown his concern in this area is to be the new minister of the environment and I think that even on the opposition side we can welcome the appointment of that minister and the establishment of this department.
Government Organization Act, 1970
It might be said, in criticism, that this step should have been taken long ago. But it has been taken now; we welcome it and it is good. I wish it could take effect right away. But instead of presenting the House with a simple proposition along those lines, something we could all welcome with enthusiasm, the government has put forward this ministry of state garbage.


Mr. Otto:: Now, now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon.
member for York East (Mr. Otto) says now, now. What puzzles me is that we are trying to clear up pollution on one hand, yet we are bringing in pollution on the other. If the hon. member for York East, who is one of the two Liberals who will not get one of these new jobs, would prefer that the government has given us pollution instead of this garbage, I do not mind.
I listened to the explanation the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) gave for the proposition concerning the five ministries of state. I shall not rehash what he said or try to put it into my own words, but it is clear that what is being presented is a blank cheque to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) by which he can create and dissolve departments at will without coming to Parliament at all. The only limitation is that there can be only five of these ministries at a time; I hope there is no need for us to anticipate a cabinet even larger than the 32 or 33 ministers we shall have under this legislation, not counting ministers without portfolio.
So the Prime Minister will have five slots that he can play with, five new departments that he can create. After all, this is what they are. Just to say that they are ministers of state does not tell the whole story. Under the legislation the Prime Minister can appoint a minister of state, make him head of a departmental establishment, give him a secretary of state and all the civil servants he needs to go with his new office. These new appointees will be called ministers of state of this, that or the other and they will be just as much ministers as those who are named in the Salaries Act: they will have all their rights and privileges; they will be members of the cabinet.
Between the things that the Prime Minister can do under this bill by way of proclamation and the things that he can do under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, this will probably be the last time a government will have to come to Parliament for legislation to approve the restructuring of departments of government. The line that the President of the Treasury Board gave us was that this was efficiency. I agree. It is efficiency gone mad, technocracy gone mad. I happen to think that it is important to make governments responsible to Parliament, and you do not maintain that responsibility when you increase the actions that the Prime Minister can take on his own.
Let me tell the President of the Treasury Board, in case he is thinking of interrupting me to ask a question, that I am aware that he said Parliament will have the

February 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 final say because the estimates have to be brought to Parliament.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The Appropriation Acts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, the Appropriation Acts. I will put on all the sackcloth and ashes that I should put on in saying that I went along with most, although not all, of the changes that we made to our rules of procedure during the last two or three years. Some of them I went along with enthusiastically, some I went along with reluctantly-but I went along with them. One of the changes that I went along with was the elimination of committee of supply and the institution of this new regime for handling estimates. May I be permitted to make the defensive statement that I think that most of the changes we made were good, particularly the way we now handle legislation. I think we improved our treatment of legislation tremendously. I think the committee system, as far as committees handling legislation is concerned, is also a great improvement over the former system. But as far as the handling of money is concerned, Parliament now has no control over the government's spending power.
When the House debates appropriations, we find that at a quarter to ten in the evening of a fixed day Mr. Speaker stops the debate and we then take a few votes. Unless some of us have put down motions to take votes on particular items, we just take the one vote. Technically, the President of the Treasury Board is correct; it is Parliament that votes the money. But this system has become just about the supreme farce of this institution. I am not saying that we should go back to the old committee of supply system, because that had become pretty farcical too. But we have not yet solved the problem and it is a problem that we must solve in terms of procedure.
I had the privilege, as did other hon. members, of talking to some of the new interns at the beginning of this session, and I threw out to them a challenge. I tried to tell them what we had done and then I said, "I hope that in the time that you are here you can come up with the answer to the problem of parliamentary control over finance". That is my answer to the point made by the President of the Treasury Board that Parliament does have control because we vote on appropriations bills. I suggest that does not mean a thing.
The fact is that once we have passed this bill, the whole business of structuring government, the kind of departments we have and the authority that is given to them will become a matter of proclamation. I am not referring to just the first proclamation that appoints ministers of state of this, that or the other, but to the several proclamations in respect of various duties. No president has the power the Prime Minister will have. He will sit over there, or in his office, and run the whole show.
I do not want to detract for one moment from the good fun we have had in this debate, particularly this afternoon. The bill is being condemned because it will create all these new positions for the boys, with additional salaries for parliamentary secretaries, additional salaries

for ministers of state, and so on. There has been some good fun in that regard. But I also think there is some seriousness to it. I do not want to name him, but I have had letters from an outstanding political scientist in this country who is wondering whether we are not shooting right through the whole independence of Parliament principle by putting so many people on the government payroll.
As I say, I think this criticism of additional appointments has been serious. But I am a little afraid that with all the attention we have paid to this particular question, and with all the natural defences that are raised by members on the other side, we are rather obscuring the main point; we are missing what is mainly wrong with this bill. The thing that is mainly wrong with it is that it divorces the government, the executive, still further from parliamentary control. I suppose one would have to admit that this has been going on down through the years. I have not the time, even if I wanted to take it, to cite some of the things I have seen over the years, but I have seen far too much of this sort of thing since the present Prime Minister came to power.
Some hon. members on the other side may think it is a minor point that ministers no longer have to be in the House five days a week to answer questions, as used to be the case. This was not brought about by a change in the rules. It was not done by consent of the House or by direction from the Chair. It was not done by statute. This was done on the fiat of the Prime Minister, who told his ministers, "Two days a week you do not need to be in the House at all. You are on the roster for three days, and if you are absent, then that is just too bad for the House". We have become used to this proposition, but it is an instance of removing government from the control of Parliament. I have already mentioned our treatment of the estimates. Perhaps we are all to blame; we participated in the changing of the rules. But perhaps we will have to make more changes, because the way the matter stands at present we just do not control the purse-strings at all. Parliament is presented with a fait accompli. True, we can vote yes or no; but with a government majority the vote is always yes, and that is it. We are now presented with a great big appropriations bill that has everything in it from the salaries of our page boys to the huge expenses of the Department of National Defence. All this is in the one item, the good with the bad. How can we vote against the main appropriations bill? The government has extended this principle until, as I say, we no longer have parliamentary control over spending.
There is also the growing practice of introducing omnibus bills. This is demonstrated by the present bill. I hope Your Honour does not mind if I join with others in recalling your phrase about your own raised eyebrows when you saw the bill. The bill has nine different parts and covers a myriad subjects. Not only does it include many items which will make it difficult to know how to vote, but in addition to all the provisions of the bill there are two schedules. A number of items contained in schedule B, in particular, are in themselves little bills that amend statutes here, there and all over the place.
February 2, 1971

The commissioners who revise our statutes will have a wonderful time when they And that this bill may be cited as something or other and in four or five places says that this part may be cited as another bill. It is a terrible mess. Again let me say that what is wrong with this measure is that it removes parliamentary control of the government. We are given an omnibus document just like the omnibus appropriations bills and we do not get down at all to details.
I agree with the proposition I read in an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal during the last week or so about the point of order we debated when this bill was first called. We would be foolish, as Members of Parliament, to go the other way and say that every last item and every last detail must be contained in a separate bill. Surely what we need is a government with a sense of its responsibility to Parliament, one that puts things before us in reasonable proportion. That is not the case with this bill and it is not the case with many pieces of legislation that are brought before us.
We have had all these experiences in respect of the question period, the estimates and omnibus bills of this type. Now we have, in the name of efficiency, in the name of technocracy and in the name of expediency the plea that once and for all we do away with the necessity of the government having to come to Parliament to restructure its affairs. Its affairs are not its affairs; they are Parliament's affairs and they are the affairs of the people of Canada. I think this is very important.
I said when I started that there had been many lively and scintillating speeches today, that I would not try to match that approach but that I was deadly serious, and I am. I do not think it represents good government, I do not think it leads to a good relationship with Parliament, and I do not think it is good for the running of the country for the government to bring in a bill like this which puts the good and the bad together. I refer to the arrangement for public servants who want to retire, coupled with the dictatorial right to push people out in the cold with inadequate pensions whether they want to retire or not. Likewise, I do not think it is good to lessen the control of Parliament over the affairs of government. The members of the government are here for a period of time because the people of Canada put them here by the way they voted. They put them here to run the store. But they do not own it and they should not act the way they are in respect of Bill C-207.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, this bill has already been described in many ways. One of the polite terms applied to it was that it is a grab-bag. I think this description is about as appropriate for this bill as it is for the government's policies as a whole. Here we have a situation where the government is putting forward one or two good proposals and then filling the bill with a lot of junk, much of which is harmful, and attempting to bull it through the House of Commons and Parliament. An indication of the arrogance of the government lies not only in the stuff it piles
Government Organization Act, 1970 into the bill but in the fact that so far at least it has not even bothered to reply to the serious and earnest criticisms put forward. The government sits in silence and simply counts upon its troops to force the bill through the House regardless of criticism.


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister is laughing.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Events that took place in this House this afternoon have again shown how this government intends to act at the cabinet level and how it intends to deal with Parliament and the country. I shall have further comments to make on this matter in the course of my remarks on the bill. Let me remind the government that the mere fact of setting up a structure is no guarantee of effective action. This bill has many faces, some pleasant, some progressive, some that I think represent honest attempts at improvement, but others much less than that. We can, for example, readily support the principle of creating a federal department of the environment. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, virtually every member of the House has been for some time asking for such a department. But structures are no guarantee of effective action.
With regard to pollution, I notice there is no mention in this bill of any mechanism for co-operation between the federal government and the provinces. This would appear to be for the government's convenience; it would seem to be the kind of omission that could serve as an escape-hatch. The Lord knows that this government is making a habit of using escape-hatches these days. At least the first part of the bill dealing with pollution, even though indirectly, does deal with a matter of substance. Pollution control is one of the great challenges facing us, and the creation of a structure which might permit action in this field is certainly of importance.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spoke this evening about some of the compulsory retirement features of the bill. I thoroughly agree with him that it is nonsense to suggest it is simply reciprocal to allow the government the right to retire a man simply because the man is given the privilege of retiring. The change providing for compulsory retirement hardly seems consistent with the kind of security of career which Parliament has been trying to establish over the years.
As to the provisions of Bill C-207 in general, once we leave pollution and the question of retirement-which was discussed so ably by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-we enter the realm of forms and structures, leaving substance far behind. In this way I think the bill symbolizes the attitude of the government, because it is a government which feels much more at home dealing with structures and forms which it can manipulate than it does in dealing with the substance of problems. This opinion regarding the attitude of the government of the day is not confined to the members of my party. I noticed that the president of the Young Liberals of Canada, speaking generally of Canadian political parties, including his own, in Halifax said that they should spend much less time on structures and more on issues.

February 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
He went on to criticize the national Liberal party for being unresponsive to the problem of youth unemployment. If my hon. friends opposite will not listen to me, I hope they will at least heed one of the younger voices within their own party.
We in Canada are faced with the crucial and terrible issue of unemployment. This was emphasized by the president of the Young Liberals of Canada. We are at a time when it is obvious to the people of Canada, even if it is not obvious to this government, that the first priority must be to act promptly to help people, to help dissipate the uncertainty that exists, to act to restore confidence and, in short, to act to get the economy moving again. But what does the government do? It presents us with this kind of bill to restructure the organization of government.
Ever since this government came into power it has been telling us and the Canadian people that it is clearing the decks for action, that it has been clearing the decks for action. Ever since the election of 1968, it has been sweeping away the deadwood and getting itself organized. This is the government which talks about action and about preparing for action, but in terms of effective steps toward economic progress it never gets any further. I say that what needs to be reorganized is not so much the structure of government but, rather, the priorities of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The main problem this bill will solve for the government concerns the necessity for this or any other government in the future to come before Parliament with regard to any reorganization of Parliament or any change of parliamentary responsibility. Under the proposals contained in this bill there will no longer be any need to consult Parliament. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre emphasized this matter and referred to the emphasis the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) placed upon the need of the government to come before Parliament on questions of supply. Since I have been in this House, supply has been a farce.
Before the adoption of the recently changed rules even when we were in committee of the whole there was a limit, under the rules, in respect of supply and I observed very quickly that whereas in the legislature where I had been, a minister had to answer questions in order to get his estimates through the House, here a minister could answer a question if he chose but the embarrassing questions were never answered when time was up and supply was voted. So do not let the President of the Treasury Board try to suggest to us on this side of the House that supply will give members of the opposition or the people of the country any meaningful opportunity to check the vast powers the government is seeking in this legislation.
This bill will certainly make things much easier for hon. gentlemen opposite. But I would remind them that what this or any government does in terms of organization is not simply a matter of internal interest to them alone. Whatever measures governments take are of interest to Parliament and to the Canadian people. I am, therefore, totally opposed to any move that would lessen parliamentary supervision which, after all, is one of the major roles of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This government already has downgraded Parliament more than enough. I say it is time to cry halt, and we on this side of the House intend to do so. Even before this bill we saw on several occasions the contempt this government has for Parliament and for the people of Canada. The most recent example came to a head today when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made it perfectly clear that members of his cabinet, and not the least of them, last week abused the confidence of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Last week the President of the Treasury Board and the Acting Prime Minister made statements in this House clearly intended to deny the existence of a secret $2 million government program to hire unemployed Francophone students for the federal civil service. Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking at the moment of the desirability of such a program; I have already declared my support for the principle of attracting more Frenchspeaking Canadians to the federal public service. But I must say I was shocked as I watched a replay of the interview with the President of the Treasury Board when he was first asked about this program and denied its existence or, at least, to be perfectly fair to him, said he could not believe any program would exist that would give any such preference.
I must say, Sir, as I said before, that I have some concern about any element of discrimination in such a program. However, what I am emphasizing tonight is not the substance of this program but the manner in which it was approached and the manner in which it was hidden. I am speaking of the methods used by the government to achieve this goal and the attempts of members of the cabinet to mislead the House.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am not interested in verbal quibbling. I do not doubt there was a good deal of verbal cunning displayed last week by various members of the government. But whatever the cunning, whatever the mentally crossed fingers and whatever the intellectual acrobatics by ministers, members of this House and the people of this country were given to understand that all talk of a specific $2 million program was false. That was the impression given, and I believe this was the impression the government or those speaking for the government at the time intended to be given.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister today, outside this House, said that in his review of last week's proceedings

February 2, 1971

all the opposition questions related to whether or not members of his cabinet had seen the secret memorandum. That is not true. It was the answers of the ministers that related to this point, and not the questions put to the ministers. As if it were not bad enough for ministers of the Crown to use these tactics for purposes of evasion, the Prime Minister himself now contributes further to the smokescreen with his statement of today. What needs reorganizing is this government's approach to integrity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In this bill the government proposes the creation of up to five ministers of state who will be responsible from time to time for dealing with special situations as they arise. In other words, I suppose we can say that these will be ministers of state for contingencies. From the way in which this government handles contingencies, they could probably more aptly be called ministers of the status quo; their main role undoubtedly will be to maintain the status quo in the face of any situations which arise. It is a measure of the government's foresight that it is able to foretell that there will never be more than five extraordinary situations at a time which will demand the undivided attention of a minister. Never fear, however, because there will still be ordinary ministers of state and ministers without portfolio constantly on the watch for trouble from any direction- trouble, that is, for the government and its image.
Under the new system this will be an awesome government in size if in nothing else. There will be superministers. There will be first-class, second-class ministers and subministers; and I have not even mentioned the Parliamentary Secretaries yet. In sheer quantitative terms this will surely be a government to remember. This will be a multi-tiered government, and we shall all shed a few tears when we think of what it will cost the Canadian taxpayers who will have to pay the bonus of additional cabinet salaries to support it.
But in government and elsewhere it is not sheer bigness that solves problems. Evidently, however, there are more important things for this government than solving problems-jobs for the boys, for example. We know, or at least we hear, that there has been some resentment among hon. members opposite about parliamentary secretaryships. I suppose the sort of proposal contained in this bill is one solution to that kind of problem. Independent observers have calculated that under the proposals in this bill, during a normal four-year parliamentary term no fewer than 138 members on the government side of the House could be patronized in one way or another. That is something we would have to call a bonanza for obedient backbenchers. Mr. Speaker, there are more important things to do in this country today than to work out systems of parliamentary patronage for government members.
What needs re-organizing is the government's approach to appropriate action for these times. Whether the gov-
Government Organization Act, 1970 ernment realizes it or not, the use of the pork-barrel by government is no longer acceptable in Canadian politics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What does this bill do about the legitimate, the real, the urgent problems of the Canadian people? For example, what does it do about mass unemployment? The answer is, nothing. I call on the government to face up to its responsibilities to the Canadian people. I call on this government to take immediate action to meet the grave economic problems that face us. I call on this government to act now to get the economy moving ahead vigorously. That is the challenge this House must face. The Canadian people are fed up with waiting. They are fed up with constant organization and reorganization that leads nowhere. They are fed up with sterile structure-building, of which the present bill in many of its aspects is another example. They are fed up with confusion, with incompetence and with evasion. They want action now.
What needs re-organization is the government of this country and I am confident that when they get the chance, the Canadian people will look after that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to express my views on the bill before us, especially as regards new departments.
I heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) saying a few minutes ago that he did not think any member would oppose this bill. I beg to differ on this point because ever since we have been here, we have been flooded with new departments and the situation has not improved for that.
The problem of the pension plan mentioned by the member for Winnipeg North Centre will not be settled by way of new ministries. This has not put a single penny into anybody's pocket, quite the contrary, this has resulted in the country sinking deeper into debt, in citizens being taxed more heavily and having to carry a heavier burden.
The government reaches abundantly into the taxpayer's income to establish new departments, in order to determine whether there are any problems in Canada. We know the problems, we know that the smell is bad in Canada, that pollution is everywhere, we know that the departments are polluted and that our leaders have pollution in their heads.
The situation is not settled; on the contrary, the problem is getting worse. We know what is to be done in Canada. The provinces know what they have to do to deal with pollution. The municipalities know that they must build filtration plants, but they have no money to do so. Is a new department going to solve the problem?
It is up to the Minister of Finance to solve the problem, with all the other people responsible for it. It is up to us

February 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 to solve this problem which is essentially a matter of economy rather than of pollution.
Everybody knows that the engineers, the materials and the technical facilities of all sorts needed to fight pollution are available; but it is also a fact that it is impossible to find the money needed for that purpose.
This is the aspect of the problem that has to be dealt with in order to be in a position to set things right and get rid of all these obnoxious problems.
In fact, the problems are nothing new; they have existed for a long time. Pollution has been a subject of discussion in this House for years but very seldom have we taken effective control measures.
This government should provide the required credits at reasonable interest rates and finance these projects while entrusting their implementation to the provinces and the municipalities which would readily assume their responsibilities.
That, Mr. Speaker, is where we should turn for a solution to the economic problem we have long been studying. We never solved it, we always went on polluting. As time passes, there is more and more stench, more and more pollution, the debts and the taxes of citizens increase: one tax after another, one levy after another, to pay administration expenses of departments which have never solved anything. There are enough people idle in the Department of Finance. If they are capable of doing something, they are unable to do so because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) does not meet the wishes and requests of other departments.
If we want to give the matter serious consideration, as men who know what they have to do and where they are going, we will find the solution.
Mr. Speaker, once more it is the financial system which is old-fashioned, which is extremely polluted and more and more governments are granting powers to financiers who further pollute our economy.
Our present system is good for a small group of people who get rich at the expense of the rest. When one considers capitalization one sees that the big institutions are building up reserve funds, all kinds of reserve funds, secret and semisecret. They try to disguise their maneuvres. Indeed they have put in billions and do not want to let one cent out because their investments yield interests of 10, 12, 15 or 20 per cent. This is exploitation of the people and administration is so carried out as to keep that pollution, that exploitation which kills all citizens and makes all people equal, except the small number who benefit from this. This is where the problem lies and as long as it remains unsolved, it is useless to create new departments.
Mr. Speaker, everyone is complaining about pollution, air pollution, water pollution, food and soil pollution, intellectual and sexual pollution, educational pollution and finally, spiritual pollution. Everything is polluted.
Let us say that there is a little truth in all that, but also a lot of fake. The only pollution that ought to be feared, Mr. Speaker, is that of the mind, of the intelli-

gence, and particularly, the pollution of ministers' intelligence, they who control the Canadian economy, who have control over persons, families, corporations, in short over all components of our country.
I say once again that the greatest pollution, the one which creates the greatest unrest in this country, is the pollution of minds, which is the source of all pollution to be seen in nature. Let us look at it more closely.
In January 1971, an article published in Montreal's La Presse dealt with pollution. The Chairman of the Bank of Montreal, one of the most influential figures in the Canadian economy for years, the one who perhaps knows it best, the director of several large Canadian companies, cautioned the public against hasty adoption of our ill-advised legislation. In fact, this is what he said, and I quote:
Canadians will have to give up affluence to pay the cost of fighting pollution.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we shall have to tighten our belts a little more in front of this enormous affluence, this tremendous technical progress while refraining from touching this affluence in order to solve the problem of pollution.
If we are able today to get to the moon to find out if grass grows on it, we are surely able to solve the pollution problem which is far from being comparable to a trip to the moon.
Big words are always needed to focus public attention on imaginary problems and prevent the people from enjoying the benefits of their production.
In Canada, there is talk about inflation, about unemployment, and about poverty. There is also talk about pollution, to bore the people with imaginary problems, with the bogey-men who scare children, while millionaires, multimillionaires, presidents, directors and shareholders of large banks and corporations gorge themselves and grow fatter every year reaping 40 per cent of what is left of the production of all Canadian citizens.
Mr. Speaker, the main government departments here in Ottawa are docile puppets putting on a show for a Parliament which is dumbfounded by pollution. Their ignorance, pretended or real, is reported in all the papers the next day and the public is kept uninformed on possible administrative reforms. Yet it would suffice to reinstate a favourable national economic balance for the benefit of all Canadian citizens without exception.
This is where we must intervene, Mr. Speaker. It is in the human and economic field that we must labour with the human being as the foundation of our endeavours so that all Canadians may benefit by this immense progress.
I feel that if Canadians have been capable of polluting themselves, they are indeed capable of depolluting themselves.
The President of the Bank of Montreal, Mr. Arnold Hart, director of several of the most important companies in Canada, recommended, in an article which was published in La Presse of January 26, 1971, that we forgo affluence to pay the cost of pollution, and cautioned us against passing ill-advised legislation. And all members
February 2, 1971

agree with him and say that we must tighten our belts in the midst of affluence, when we do not know what to do with such affluence, when we can afford to pay unemployment insurance benefits to close to two thirds of the people, at the expense of those still working, without touching however those who accumulate millions taken from the workers who pay for those who are unemployed.
Despite all that, in 1970, we succeeded in capitalizing a surplus of about $34 billion. Certainly, there are materials to solve the problem of pollution. They are not lacking. Nobody here is afraid of not having enough materials to clean up pollution.
The government has no engineers, it does not have the technology required to solve this problem, but all members fear that the financial means may not be sufficient.
If it is physically possible to build a country, to accumulate surpluses, it is certainly easy and physically feasible to finance the economy when it is prosperous and when there is affluence everywhere. Workers are laid off because there are too many products. There are even huge stocks.
We must therefore assume our responsibilities. The establishment of a new department with very little funds will not solve the problem. Taxes will have to be increased to create new worries for taxpayers. They will be told: Pay more; empty your pocket; you have not done enough yet. As for us we will continue to ask for more. Happen what may, the problem of pollution will continue to exist. Our environment will become so much polluted that we will be crushed by pollution.
Recently, Mr. G. Arnold Hart stated and I quote:
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.
What will the new department demand in order to solve the problem of pollution? We might be compelled to close 25 or 30 per cent of existing industries for that purpose.
The means suggested are poverty, hunger and hardship. Everything is extremely polluted. This is the main problem we have to cope with.
Long enough has it been smelly in our country and our departments; let us spray some perfume in there and allow Canadian citizens to freely enjoy pure air, abundance, and additional well-being in this affluent country where there is everything necessary to organize sound economy and plentiful production, and purify our water resources.
First of all, we must cleanse our already polluted minds, bent on remaining in their present condition. Some people put their noses on manure and think it sells good. I, for one, consider that it does not smell good. I am unable to get used to it.
Government Organization Act, 1970
Since other hon. members have dealt with the technical aspects of pollution, I shall not mention them. However, I should like to ask the government to put aside its policy for the creation of these many departments which will prove unable to settle anything whatsoever.
The government has only thing to do, namely put the financial system at the disposal of the provinces and municipalities. They should be allowed to discharge their responsibilities. The government must look after financial matters, and forget about the rest. The departments have nothing to do in that connection, because the municipalities and the provinces are able to fully and totally discharge their responsibilities. They know what they want and where they are heading, but they have no money. It belongs to the federal government to provide the provinces and municipalities with the necessary tools to enable them to do the job. As Churchill said during the last war: "Give us the tools and we will do the job." Tools must be given to the provinces and municipalities, and they will do the job. The government should not bother about the rest.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member wishes to put a question to the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) before he sits down, if the hon. member for Compton is ready to answer a question.


Henry P. Latulippe: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


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


Albert Béchard: The hon. member said a few moments ago that everybody knew the extent of pollution and that everybody knew this and that and those, and that the government was responsible for action in this field. He finished his speech by saying: Give us the tools and we will do the job.
Does the hon. member know that for some time the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been helping municipalities to fight pollution by granting loans for building sewage treatment plants and that the corporation is lending substantial amounts of money and does he know that municipalities recognize this fact?


Henry P. Latulippe: I have known this for a long time, but if adequate action had been taken, pollution would have been checked, at least partly. But the situation is worse than ever. It is not by lending money to municipalities at interest rates of 8, 10 or 12 per cent that the problem will be solved. Higher interest rates mean more trouble for municipalities. The deeper they get into debt, the more difficulty they will have to get out of it. They get bogged deeper and deeper.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable attention and a great deal of interest-

February 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


An hon. Member:: It's the first time.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would be pleased if hon. members would do the same.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I apologize to the minister; I should have brought to the attention of the House that if the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think it might be useful, before the government organization bill goes to committee of the whole for examination, if I reviewed some of the principal issues which have been raised, in the hope that I will be able to answer some of the questions of principle involved and clear up some of the misunderstandings about what is admittedly a complex bill. In this way I hope the discussion in committee of the whole will be facilitated for all concerned. I do not intend to go into detail in my remarks because there will be ample opportunity to consider the details of the bill in committee of the whole.
It will be recalled that at the outset of this debate some hon. members wondered whether it was correct procedure to include in one bill several matters of principle. After some discussion, Your Honour ruled that there was no procedural impropriety in the introduction of Bill C-207. I clearly do not want to open the issue on which Your Honour made a ruling, but I think I should explain the view of the government on the need and desirability of government organization bills. Adjustments in the machinery of government have been considerably more frequent in the past ten years than in bygone years, because of the accelerated rate at which demands upon the government have grown. In moving second reading of Bill C-207 I explained that as demands on the government have grown, new responsibilities have had to be tagged on to ministers already overloaded, and transfers of powers and elements of the public service have had to be made in a patchwork manner in an attempt to keep up with these demands.
The introduction of bills relating to the organization of government has not only permitted new adjustments in the machinery of government but also a consolidation of many of the adjustments which had to be made on an urgent basis to meet demands at an earlier time and requiring immediate action. Government organization bills, therefore, provide Parliament with a broad and unique perspective of the nature and scope of many of the issues relating to the function of the machinery of government that cannot be provided if organizational measures are introduced on a piecemeal or single-thought basis. There is also the related consideration that certain statutes such as the Salaries Act and the Financial Administration Act generally have to be amended in the course of reorganization of government. The amendment of these statutes often relates, as it does in the case of Bill C-207, to several parts of the bill, hence the logic of bringing them together in a single bill.
No government organization bill is a complete picture of all the implications of changes in the machinery of government, but it gives a much clearer picture than if the government were to submit for the approval of Parliament individual proposals for changing the organization of government. Of course, this may have to be done from time to time, but in such circumstances Parliament cannot be given as clear a view of the context of these changes as when a government organization bill is introduced. I will come back to this point later.
Several hon. members said they could see no connection between the provisions of Bill C-207 relating to the early retirement of public servants and to government organization. However, in my view perhaps nothing is more important for proper functioning in respect of government organization than good personnel and, hence, good personnel policies. The provision in the government organization bill pertaining to early retirement is an important basis for personnel policy consistent with trends elsewhere in Canada.
Before making a few brief comments on questions that were raised regarding the establishment of a department of the environment, I wish to commend hon. members who spoke on this part of the bill for the insight and understanding they displayed on the problems of environmental quality and pollution. I was particularly impressed with the observations of several members. In the final analysis, the quality of our environment will depend upon the values of our society. If our society is to be characterized by high consumption and the consequent creation of uncontrolled and vast amounts of waste, a lack of concern for aesthetics, and so on, we will never effectively come to grips with the fight against pollution and the fight for preservation of our environment. However, from an organizational point of view the implication of this observation is that in the final analysis a minister of the environment must be concerned with the quality of life. There is no doubt he will share this concern with us all. This gets to the essence of the question.
Every minister, and indeed all of us, must be concerned about the quality of life and the condition of our environment. However, the government organization bill provides that one minister will have, in addition to having specific responsibilities relating to renewable resources, air, soil and water, a general watching brief on the quality of our environment. He will naturally be concerned, for example, if oil from ships pollutes our waters. But it will not necessarily be his responsibility to lay down specifications for the construction of ships and for rules regarding their navigation so as to avoid oil spills. This is appropriately a responsibility of the Minister of Transport. In other words, the department of the environment, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) pointed out to this House some months ago, will not be a superagency with all the operating responsibilities relating to environmental quality and pollution control which are the proper concern of the government of Canada. It will, however, provide the focal point for environmental policy.
Hon. members have proposed that the administration of our national parks and other activities related to environmental concern should be made the responsibility of

February 2, 1971

the new minister. There is no doubt that many of these suggestions have a good deal of logic. However, in the case of the national parks, their primary purpose is recreational rather than ecological and this makes it currently appropriate to let parks and parks policy remain the responsibility of a minister who would have more time to devote to this important area.
Another point I wished to refer to was the suggestion that, in effect, a department of the environment already exists in the newly expanded Department of Fisheries and Forestry and that provisions in the government organization bill relating to the department of the environment were of little significance. I think this is a rather superficial reading, particularly of clause 5 of the government organization bill. Clause 5 not only confirms the transfer of responsibilities made by virtue of Order in Council P.C.1970-2047 pursuant to the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, but gives the minister a broad, residual responsibility relating to environmental quality. It is important to note that the responsibilities of a minister are not simply to administer the legislation which has been assigned to him; ministers' responsibilities are much more vast than that.
The department of the environment cannot be a "department of everything". Acknowledging that it might be desirable for a minister of the environment to exercise a great variety of responsibilities, all of which impinge in some way on the environment, one must at some point make a judgment as to precisely what responsibilities he must have, to be effective. In the case of the national parks, the act and long-standing policy dedicates them for the "benefit, education and enjoyment of all Canadians". Thus, while environmental concerns rank high in the administration of national parks, it is not essential at this time for the minister of the environment to have control of their administration to lead the fight against pollution and for the enhancement of environmental quality. Indeed, it is largely because of the excellence of parks administration, and the careful attention paid to conservation and environmental concerns in the pursuit of their primary objective, that it was decided not to transfer them to the new department. Close co-ordination of policies on the one hand and policies related to the environment on the other will, however, be ensured and the ministers and officials concerned have already begun in this regard.
Statutory authority of ministers can never hope to cover all the matters with which they must be concerned. Partly for this reason, clause 5 provides that 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," and then there follows a specific enumeration which includes, "the protection and enhancement of the quality of the natural environment, including water, air and soil quality". In other words, the responsibilities of the minister as outlined in the government reorganization bill go well beyond the responsibilities transferred to him him by the order in council I have mentioned. It will be the responsibility of the minister of
Government Organization Act, 1970 the environment to be concerned with any matters relating to the quality of the environment. What specific action the government takes is another matter. It may be that the minister himself will have to take on new and additional responsibilities, or it may mean that one of his colleagues will be asked to do so. If these new responsibilities require statutory authority then, of course, parliamentary approval will be sought.
The final point I would like to raise with respect to the department of the environment is the question of what is going to happen to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. Several hon. members have expressed their concern over this matter and have suggested that fisheries matters will be given a low priority with the creation of the new department. This is a completely unwarranted assumption. Some hon. members suggested that the fishery service would be swallowed-up in the new organization. The fear was also expressed that the proposed minister of the environment would not have the time to devote to fisheries matters. These fears are understandable and pose a challenge to the new minister. However, the circumstances also offer considerable advantage to those renewable resource programs in the new department.
One of the most troublesome aspects today in all renewable resource program areas in the threat of pollution. At both the provincial and federal levels, ministers responsible for renewable resource programs are being plagued by pollution threats affecting land, sea and air. By being able to influence directly the management of both renewable resource programs, such as fisheries development, and all those polluting influences that threaten these life-sustaining resources, the minister will be in a good position to safeguard the quality of the habitat of marine life. Undoubtedly, the new minister will face a major management challenge in his new department. However, the size and complexity of this new agency is not such that it stands in a class by itself. I am confident that the Canadian fishery service will benefit greatly as a vital component of the new department. It will be clearly identified and sufficiently autonomous to guarantee an increased rather than a decreased vitality in fisheries development in this country.
In my view, some of the most important observations on the government organization bill were those relating to ministers and ministries of state. One observation frequently made was that the executive was being aggrandized at the expense of Parliament, and such remarks were often accompanied by suggestions that parliamentary committees should be strengthened. As I mentioned in my earlier speech, a fundamental reason for establishing ministers and ministries of state is to strengthen Parliament by enhancing the accountability of ministers to this House. In essence, the provisions of Bill C-207 relating to ministers and ministries of state will serve to sharpen the focus of responsibility as between ministers and hence will facilitate their accountability to Parliament.
This government, then, accepts fully the premise that Parliament, and this House in particular, should be

February 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 strengthened as an institution. It may well be that one of the ways in which Parliament can be strengthened would be by reviewing the role of parliamentary committees to determine whether we should go even further than we have in strengthening them. I think we should allow ourselves time to reflect on the changes we have made so far, before going further, but we should clearly not ignore this question. In any event, the role of parliamentary committees is not a matter to be included in a government organization bill; it is a matter for this House and for Parliament in general. There can be no doubt that every Member of Parliament should be able to play a meaningful role in this institution and to take his job seriously, but in most respects what is done in this regard requires no special legislative authority.
The point was made that the manner in which ministries of state are to be established will, in fact, reduce Parliament's control over the executive. As I observed in my remarks when I opened this debate, it has been the custom in Canada, unlike in Great Britain, to have departments of government established by legislation. Ministries of state, however, will not be departments. They will not usually have any significant operational responsibilities. In other words, they will not manage programs. They will be relatively small in size and in most instances of a temporary nature. Their fundamental purpose will be to enable the government to assign responsibility to a minister for the development of policy in an area where the development of such policy is urgently required, and to equip him with suitable staff resources to discharge this responsibility.
If in addition to obtaining parliamentary approval of the budget of a ministry of state, the government also had to obtain prior approval for the very existence of a ministry of state, the fundamental purpose of quick response to urgent problems would, I submit, be completely lost. I do not think there is anything unreasonable in this proposal. Indeed, an arrangement of this kind is clearly essential in any modern government. I believe the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) was particularly concerned about this matter and it surprised me somewhat that he should appear to be unaware of the legislation that has been enacted in his home province to give the executive virtually unlimited authority, without recourse to legislation, to organize itself as it sees fit. The authority obtained recently by the Manitoba government in this regard is far more sweeping than the authority currently being sought by this government.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from one section of Manitoba's Executive Government Organization Act to illustrate the extraordinary nature of the powers of the Lieutenant Governor in Council in respect of government organization in that province. I quote:
Notwithstanding any act of the legislature the Lieutenant Governor in Council may determine the organization of executive government and of the various departments thereof, and for that purpose may
(a)	establish, vary, or disestablish any department;
(b)	determine or vary the duties and functions of any department and transfer any duties and functions from one department to another;
(c)	determine or change the name of any department.
Although the legislation passed by the Manitoba government, where the hon. member for Selkirk was only recently executive assistant to the Premier, is clearly very far reaching, several other provinces have legislation that gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council far greater flexibility to organize machinery of government than is the case at the present time with the Governor in Council. Concluding my observation on this part of the bill, Mr. Speaker, if one has any doubt whether the potential number of cabinet ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries in Canada would be excessive after the enactment of Bill C-207, I would refer them to the situation in the United Kingdom where the total number of ministers, both of the cabinet and not of the cabinet, and parliamentary assistants is vastly greater than what is proposed here.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Surely that is a completely different situation.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In conclusion, let me revert to part VII of the bill relating to early retirement, to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made special reference. Hon. members will appreciate, I hope, that deputy heads-that is, deputy heads and chief executive officers of boards, commissions, corporations and other portions of the public service who are appointed by the Governor in Council-by the very nature of their appointments do not and should not enjoy security of tenure of office. In view of the lack of safeguards regarding tenure of office which are enjoyed by the great majority of public service employees, the government concluded that the least that could be done was to ensure that the pension prospects and related benefit protection should not be abruptly curtailed but should be extendable to age 60 if the retiring deputy head so desired.
The purpose of new section 11A of the Public Service Superannuation Act is to make it possible for a deputy head to continue to be a contributor under the Public Service Superannuation Act if, after ceasing to hold that office, he does not continue to be employed in the public service of Canada until attaining the age of 60. The ordinary public service employee who is given leave of absence to go on assignment with international organizations or to serve on a full-time basis with staff associations, for example, is permitted to continue to contribute under the Public Service Superannuation Act by paying both his own and the government's matching contribution to the superannuation account, presently 14 per cent of his last salary.
This is what is intended under this legislation when a former deputy head has elected to continue to contribute in accordance with its provisions. On making his election, he will indicate if he wants to continue to do so up to age 60, but it will be open to him to terminate that arrangement earlier if he so desires. The new regulations con-

February 2, 1971

templated by this legislation will be of general application and not open to individual discrimination. However, it might well be that his combination of age and service would make it possible for him to request the application of the early retirement provisions proposed in the previous section of this bill. This would also be possible.
Finally, I should like to deal with a point made by some hon. members, more particularly by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who argued that the passage of this bill would represent the final abdication of control by Parliament over the executive. I suggest that perhaps this is rather too apocalyptic in view of what is a sensible bill. The hon. member has failed to take into account the real essence of what really should be parliamentary control. It should be based on knowledge and on ability to apply knowledge as a process of control, rather than merely a dead hand based or founded on ignorance. To meet this objective the government has proposed a number of measures that are designed specifically to place in the hands of Parliament more knowledge and information than has ever been the case in the past. There has been provided to Parliament-I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre agreed with this-a new and much more illuminating form of estimates, so that now out of the estimates it is possible to get information whereas in the past one merely got a series of numbers.
There has also been provided to both sides of the House sources of research for the provision of more knowledge and information to members. I think all hon. members will agree that this is a step in the right direction. But acknowledgement should be had of these steps when setting them against endeavours on the part of the government to increase its accountability to Parliament; and it is in terms of accountability that real, effective control can be exercised.
There is one further point I should deal with, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre expressed the view that with the disappearance of the committee of supply, control over the estimates was thereby effectively lost. I have had some experience in committee of supply, and it was quite clear that this was a control based not on knowledge or intelligence but on an erosion of the respective wills of members on either side of the House. With a system for reference of adequate estimates for study in detail to a much greater extent than is possible in an examination of estimates in the Nova Scotia Legislature for instance, I think we have enhanced and will continue to enhance the kind of framework in which Members of Parliament and Parliament itself, through knowledge, can establish effective control over the executive. This is the kind of control which is needed, desirable and appropriate. It will be control based on knowledge and real information rather than on cumbersome procedures which merely delay rather than control.
I hope hon. members will recognize the steps which have been taken and accept the fact that the govern-
Government Organization Act, 1970
ment will welcome, as I have indicated, further steps in this direction.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a question about one of the fundamental points I raised yesterday, with which he has failed to deal. It relates to the ability of the Governor in Council to transfer funds allocated in an appropriation bill for a certain purpose to another function, such as a ministry of state. This apparently may be done by order in council. I have in mind the effects of clause 16.
Can the minister tell me what effective control Parliament will have, having in mind knowledge of order in council and what can be done by Parliament? Will he explain how he can reconcile this attempt to transfer funds, if that is to be the case, with the requirements and regulations contained in the BNA Act, the Financial Administration Act and appropriation bills?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to get around the BNA Act, the Financial Administration Act or appropriation bills.


An hon. Member:: You just don't know how to get around much any more.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The government is not proposing a technique to do this. The hon. gentleman who asked the question is aware of the existence and operation of the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act. I think he will find that clause 16 provides no greater extension of powers than is contained in that act, and we have lived with it for many years.
In so far as the transfer of funds is concerned, Parliament does appropriate moneys for specific purposes and programs, and the executive does not have the right, nor does it seek it, without the approval of Parliament to transfer funds voted for one program to another program. In view of the act to which I have just referred, all clause 16 will allow is that the agency administering or directing the program may be transferred from the authority of one minister to another. The purpose for which the money has been voted cannot be changed without subsequent authority of Parliament.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a further question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister still has some time left. I do not want to prevent hon. members asking questions, but I respectfully point out that such questions might appropriately be asked at the next stage of our proceedings. However, I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With the greatest deference, Your Honour, I think an hon. member should be allowed to decide whether a question is appropriate at this or at the next stage.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 2, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister whether his thinking is that we would have to follow the procedure he has suggested, in view of clause 29 of this bill. Apparently this House is being asked to give permission to have funds allocated to an agency, along with its duties, transferred to the minister of the environment or reallocated to that department when and as the Governor in Council may decide. I suggest that the ruling of the Chair last year in connection with Bill S-3 absolutely precludes such transfer. Perhaps the minister would explain clause 29 to the House in order that we may better understand the thinking of the government.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I must confess that I did not understand the entire question, particularly the reference to Bill S-3. When we come to clause 29 I will endeavour to deal with it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Honey in the chair.
Russell Clayton Honey: Hon. members may agree that since clauses 1 and 2 are short title clauses, in accordance with section 1 of Standing Order 75 the committee should now proceed to the consideration of clause 3 of the bill. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 3-Department of the Environment-Department established.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I think the course adopted is technically correct, but I think it also points out the dilemma I referred to earlier when I raised the point of order that a bill having so many things in it would be extremely difficult for the House to consider and, now, for this committee to consider. Let me now deal with the division we face in respect of the creation of the department of the environment. I will do so on the presumption that the discussion will be on the clause the Chair has called.
It is difficult to deal with some of the points raised by the President of the Treasury Board at this time while

they are fresh in the public's mind. If we had a regular clause 1 debate we might be able to impress these points on the minds of the members of the press gallery who are present. For one thing, Sir, to confuse a Unitarian government such as exists in the United Kingdom with a federal system such as we have in Canada is like trying to equate oranges-I hate to say this about the Canadian government-with lemons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, obviously that was a fitting remark in a debate such as this. After all, the original scenario comes from the gang responsible for having horses on the payroll, and now we have the great sequel-the Grits will have their own gravy train. This is the best I can do this evening, but I advise the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that my best this evening eclipses anything the minister has been able to do for a number of years.
The point I want to make about this clause arises from a problem that has hit pretty hard the fishing industry in my province and which I presume will be hitting other industries as the department of the environment swings into operation. The problem has been presented to the House by the hon. member for South Shore and the hon. member for South Western Nova. It concerns the fact that because of mercury pollution, the swordfish industry in eastern Canada has been pretty well laid flat on its back. When questions are raised in the House, the minister points out that some assistance will be given in the way of retraining these fishermen, I presume to catch other types of fish, and that an effort will be made to find employment for them in other directions.
This may seem to be the solution to a substantial problem, but I suggest it ignores two very fundamental facts. I bring these to the attention of the President of the Treasury Board, his colleague from Nova Scotia who is with him, and the new minister of the environment. First, I would point out that these people have lost their livelihood through no fault of their own. They had nothing to do, except in a very small and inconsequential way, with any mercury pollution of the swordfishery. So they have by happenstance come upon this problem.
The serious thing is that nothing that has been suggested as a remedy takes into account the fact that swordfishing boats are of a specific types; they are large and have their own special equipment. In short, they represent a substantial capital investment. The people who are thrown out of the swordfishery are to be given some help through retraining and the like, but this would not seem to be as helpful as other methods might be. Through no fault of their own they are in very serious difficulty.
I think in committee we might give consideration to the problem of what happens when pollution controls, standards and measurements have the effect of taking dozens or hundreds of people and suddenly knocking them out of work and placing them in the position of
February 2, 1971

having to ask for help from everybody else. I do not quarrel with the idea of giving them help, but so many people are asking for it now that it is becoming a serious problem because our resources are stretched thin. However, we can see this happening to people involved in swordfishing. We can see it happening, after hearing the statement of the minister, to people working in paper plants. It could also happen when we become involved in the purification of our air. It could happen to any number of plants, I suggest, that are now polluting the atmosphere, particularly in cities such as Toronto and Montreal.
So we have a question of principle here. I do not think it has been raised so far in this debate. It is coming up to ten o'clock, and although I do not believe we will have an answer to this question tonight I thought it important enough to be raised at the earliest opportunity. I refer specifically to the swordfishery, but also generally to people who through no fault of their own will find themselves in the same situation. I hope the President of the Treasury Board, when he is considering with his colleagues the points we have raised in the debate and those we will raise in the next day or so, will give some consideration to the problem I have raised on behalf of the people in the swordfishing industry of Nova Scotia.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Harding:: Mr. Chairman, it is about half a minute to ten o'clock. If it is desired that I continue until ten o'clock, that is fine with me. We are on clause 3 of the bill, which is to set up the department of the environment. There are several points I should like to raise in this connection. The first is that if we are to establish a department of the environment, why do we not cover the whole environmental field instead of just one small portion of it? This is one of the basic points I should like to leave with the government and the minister who will be in charge of this new department.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps before we proceed to the adjournment debate the House Leader would indicate, for the benefit of all members, the program the government anticipates placing before the House for the remainder of this week or for as long as he can announce it.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we propose to continue with committee of the whole stage of the government organization bill, and following that the CDC bill and the bail reform bill. If it is possible to slip in other items between these, we will call the Export Development Act bill, the omnibus loans bill, the Canada-New
23786-49}
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Zealand trade agreement bill and the Canada-Jamaica tax agreement bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just to be realistic about the matter, can the President of the Privy Council tell us if it is the intention to stay in committee of the whole until we finish this bill, particularly if it continues through Thursday and Friday of this week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it would be the present plan to continue with this bill until we complete it, but I thought the Acting House Leader of the official opposition asked about more than the present bill and inquired what would come after it.


John Angus MacLean: That is right. But am I correct in assuming the House Leader means that the present bill will not be interrupted to consider the CDC bill, that is, before committee of the whole stage is finished?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the plan. But if the bill were kept in committee of the whole for an unduly long period, it might be necessary to revise the schedule.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked two questions for the purpose of clarifying the government's regional air policy. I have been encouraged to pursue the matter at this time because in his reply the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) indicated that so far as the regional air policy affecting western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan is concerned, it is under review and it is anticipated that there will be an upgrading of this service along the lines that existed from the time it was first inaugurated in the early part of the 1950s.
It is just a year ago that the ATC authorized the downgrading of this part of the regional air service affecting western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan. At that time the link provided for under the charter of the air company authorized to perform this service, TransAir, was discontinued between Winnipeg, Brandon and Regina. Since that time there has been a further downgrading and TransAir is no longer providing daily air service between Winnipeg and Regina.
Now that the minister and the department are in the throes of reconsideration, I raise the matter to review briefly the vital importance of regional air policy to the general program of regional economic development in all parts of Canada. We have been passing through a communications and transportation revolution. Railway ser-

February 2, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion vice is disappearing rapidly, and the end of that process is not yet in sight. To compensate for the loss of adequate rail service, the regional air policy was inaugurated. In the initial stages it was provided in this region by Trans-Canada Air Lines, later Air Canada. Then around 1960 Air Canada authorized TransAir to carry on this service with a subsidy or service development grant. In one respect Air Canada is still obligated to provide this service because in the first instance it was merely a lease arrangement.
The real crisis came when the government withdrew the subsidy from TransAir in 1968. As a result of that loss of support the private carrier applied to withdraw from several of its route obligations, with the results that I have already indicated. It is obvious, if you trace the development of this service over the past 15 years, that the Department of Transport intended that this part of Canada, along with other parts, should be provided with adequate air service. A considerable sum of money, up to $2 million, has been spent on a new runway. A new terminal building costing $200,000 was completed just one year ago to provide for a constantly improving service. This new terminal, of course, will stand derelict until a reasonable and just solution can be reached by the minister and there is restoration of an adequate service that is so urgently needed.
I think it is essential for the minister to recognize, as he considers this problem, that until traffic has been built up on this western lateral of the TransAir service, a subsidy or grant in aid ought to be made available. This would not be the only air service in Canada that is subsidized. I have figures before me relating to the early part of the 1960s and showing that Air Canada service is subsidized to many points in Canada. For example, the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal run was subsidized to the tune of $2.25 million. The Air Canada Montreal-Atlantic region run was subsidized to the tune of $2.5 million. So this would not be an isolated instance of subsidy. If granted, it would be recognition of the fact that in this day and age adequate air service is necessary for industrial progress and development.
I wish to mention another aspect of the problem. One reason TransAir has found it increasingly difficult to operate in the black is the unfair competition of Air Canada, particularly on the Winnipeg-Regina stretch of the western lateral. Every time TransAir tried to adjust its schedule so that it could provide the best service for intervening points like Regina, Swift Current, Brandon and Winnipeg, that service was bracketed by Air Canada. I think Air Canada ought to be required to conform to the regional air policy laid down by the government, under which it is to provide the best possible air transport service to all parts of Canada.
There is one other aspect of the matter, Mr. Speaker. TransAir has been given some lucrative routes into Winnipeg, Thunder Bay and Toronto. It asked to withdraw from the Kenora-Dryden-Thunder Bay service, but because it was allowed to continue on to Toronto that service is continuing. I have flown that route from time to time. If anyone says that too few passengers are generated on the Regina-Brandon-Winnipeg run, I can

advise the minister that there are even fewer generated at such points as Kenora and Dryden, yet those points are provided with class I service. All we are asking for in western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan is equity so that we may be able to benefit from the general regional development program of the government.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond this evening on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) to the questions raised by the hon. member from Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). The House is not unfamiliar with this subject; I recall several questions over the past few weeks which were put by the hon. member to the Minister of Transport. On the aspect of providing additional passenger service to Brandon, it appears to me that the real essence of the situation can be found in the minister's answer to the hon. member during the question period of January 26, as reported at page 2757 of Hansard as follows:
I think he is as well aware as I am that level of usage is one of the determining factors. We are doing our best to put the kind of aircraft into that service that will accommodate the people who are offering their patronage.
The hon. member, Mr. Speaker, has raised some additional points which I will bring to the minister's attention. At the same time, these representations might be referred to the Canadian Transport Commission in the event that a further application to serve Brandon is filed with the commission.
In response to a related question asked by the hon. member on January 22 about the possibility of the minister visiting Brandon, I am informed that His Worship Mayor Wilton has extended a kind invitation to the minister to officially open the new air terminal building. The minister has accepted the invitation and has agreed with the mayor that he will visit Brandon early in the coming spring. Specific arrangements will be made in the weeks ahead.



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

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that this question was asked last night by the hon. member for Notre-Damc-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand). I thought that perhaps the duty man tonight would not be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) and that someone else would give a different type of answer. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary has had an opportunity between last night and tonight to look at the situation.
We have heard a lot about rationalization in the last few days with regard to railways generally. Never did we believe that nationalization of Canadian National Railways would lead to the rationalization of "the public be damned" policy that is being adopted by the CNR. It has been said that in the first half of the century Canada was a child of her waterways and that in the second half she was a child of the railways. Now Canada is to lose that
February 2, 1971

child because the president of the Canadian Transport Commission does not care about public service in this country.
I am sure the questions asked in this House concerning the dining car service on trains 30 and 31 between Ottawa and Montreal and Montreal and Ottawa have led everyone to believe that there is public demand for this service. The chairman of the dining car local tried to get the figures from the CNR as to how many meals are served on that train. He was informed that he should go to the regional vice-president of his organization to find this information. He in turn would apply to the CNR regional vice-president to confirm whether the number of meals on the train was in fact necessary. It seems strange that the figure of $300,000 was quoted last night as the loss on that train without any substantiating facts whatsoever.
Last Thursday morning I rode the train from Ottawa to Montreal. There was a line-up of people waiting for meals. I can visualize what will happen after today when a person leaves the train. I can visualize the public relations image of a bright young businessman stepping off the train at Montreal with a hot meat pie stuck to his black suit. This is exactly the type of situation we are now looking at. Surely somewhere along the line people do count in our transportation system. The president of the CNR and members of the Canadian Transport Commission must realize that railways in Canada have an obligation to provide service to the public. Public interest means something in this day and age. We know that the Canadian Transport Commission could have quashed the ruling to discontinue this dining car service. I wish to read from an article which appeared in the January 29 edition of The Citizen:
A CTC spokesman said today that the commission "has had a good look" at the proposal and feels passenger service won't be adversely affected.
The article continues:
-the CTC could legally quash the change.
A spokesman said as follows:
"We feel discontinuance of dining car service was an admirable move on the part of CN to cut down costs."
It seems strange that the article did not name the CTC spokesman. The words of the CTC spokesman are very familiar with regard to the rationalization we heard about recently on other types of service. If we look at the situation we realize that this train serves the capital of our nation as well as our largest city. It is strange that this service is being discontinued. Many people have suggested that if the railways can cut off the politicians' train without too much of an uproar, they can cut off any train on the continent. This is the policy of the railways; they believe that if they can do this, everything will be fine. I quote from another newspaper article as follows:
Cyrus Eaton, Nova Scotia-born Cleveland industrialist, says that Canada is making a great mistake in allowing the railways to phase out services and lines.
Mr. Eaton, Chairman of the Chesapeake and Ohio railroad company said Canada "has no more important and necessary institutions than the railways."
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Somehow some change will have to be made if we are to be recognized as having a transportation policy in Canada at all. The other day the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) introduced legislation providing pensions for workers laid off as a result of changes in the textile industry. I believe it is high time he took a look at what is happening in the transportation industry and applied similar measures there. We know there will be some 2i people affected by cutting off the dining car service. We also know that this service is used and appreciated. The railways should not be allowed to segregate services and say: We are losing on this and gaining on that. They have a responsibility to the public, and in these circumstances they should be compelled by the Transport Commission to provide reasonable service.
It seems strange that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), having been requested to meet representatives of this organization to discuss the problem, should have failed to do so. I can only say that somewhere along the line we must produce a Minister of Transport who will stand up to the Transport Commission and tell its chairman that the minister is running the show and not him. It is vital that we should know who is really running the transportation system, whether it is the Minister of Transport or the chairman of the CTC.
The travellers using this service say without hesitation that they want it continued. It is the same game that we have seen over and over again. The CNR cuts down a service, within six months probably 50 per cent of the passengers become discouraged, then a further application is placed before the Transport Commission to abandon the route and transportation disappears. Will the Parliamentary Secretary please use a sledgehammer on the CNR to try to get them to reinstate a service which is in the best interest of the people of this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, last evening at this hour I had the opportunity, on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), of providing pertinent information in answer to what would appear to be an identical question. Last night it was to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand); tonight it is to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg).
The information respecting this matter has not altered during the past 24 hours. Without meaning any disrespect to the hon. member or to the trade union officials he quoted as authorities, I think it would not be inappropriate to refer him to last night's proceedings. There is one additional point which might be made clear in view of the hon. member's comments. The number of the employees affected is about 13. They have rights under their contract and can elect to exercise those seniority rights.


John Leroy Skoberg: Where?

February 2, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion



SOCIAL SECURITY-GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME-OLD AGE PENSION COST OF LIVING BONUS-CHANGES IN CANADA PENSION PLAN

Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, November 30, as reported at page 1582 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) whether he would make representations to the provincial governments in connection with the advisability of reducing property taxes in the case of pensioners, as a means of increasing their discretionary income. The minister replied as follows:
This may be a matter which could he discussed at meetings of ministers of both health and welfare, but it seems to me this is an area which lies exclusively within provincial jurisdiction.
The point I wish to make is this. It is obvious to anyone with eyes in his head that pensioners, especially those in receipt of the guaranteed income supplement, are in desperate need of additional income. In my question I was suggesting to the minister a way of providing some of that needed income to pensioners. I suggested it could be supplied through a remission of property taxes. I find it unacceptable for the minister to hide behind the Constitution as a means of avoiding the provision of such needed aid to pensioners.
It is true beyond any doubt that property taxes are a matter for the provinces under our Constitution. But I suggest that that fact need not inhibit the minister suggesting to the provinces that the reduction or elimination of property taxes to pensioners would have worth-while social effects. I also suggest that he need not restrict himself to purely moral suasion in this regard. He has at his disposal the instrument of the Canada Assistance Plan, which I suggest he could properly employ in this respect. Why not offer under the Canada Assistance Plan to pay half the costs which will be incurred by the provinces in the form of lost revenue through the remission of property taxes to pensioners? I speak not only of property taxes paid directly but also of property taxes paid indirectly as one of the component factors of rental fees that are charged.
Some provinces, through home owner grants, now do this or something similar to it in respect of the entire property tax paying population. In saying that this method is employed by some provinces I do not express my concurrence with it as a form of public policy but simply to indicate that that kind of approach is possible. I am suggesting to the minister that the provinces could decide, if he were to place such a plan under the aegis of the Canada Assistance Plan, whether or not to participate in such a program once it was offered, as they do now in the case of other Canada Assistance Plan programs and as they did in the case of medicare and hospitalization.
I realize that the federal and provincial governments do not have bottomless purses, and thus assistance that could be offered in this manner under the Canada Assistance Plan could be tailored to suit financial circumstances. For example, one approach would be to remit all property taxes to pensioners. Another approach would be to remit the health, welfare and education components of
property taxes to pensioners. A third approach would be to remit only the education component of property taxes to pensioners. Another would be to remit to all pensioners their taxes, or to restrict the remission to those pensioners in receipt of the guaranteed income supplement. I am trying to demonstrate that this kind of program is infinitely adjustable. Other approaches will probably readily occur to hon. members.
The point that I insist on making is that the federal government could do something in this regard if it wished. The legislative precedents are there, and I suspect that within the Canada Assistance Plan the legislative authority to so act is already extant. Certainly the need is there. Our pensioners must pay far too high a proportion of their income for accommodation. This is true of people living in rental accommodation as well as those owning their own property. I think it is said that people who have worked in order to purchase a home are now finding property taxes so high that they are unable to keep the home. It is a sad fact that governments seem unwilling to act to prevent them from losing their homes. I am simply saying to the minister that he need not feel that his hands are tied by the Constitution if he really wishes to deal with this problem. I have suggested several approaches to him this evening. I hope he will consider them when they are transmitted to him by whichever parliamentary secretary replies on his behalf.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, since the fiery and sprightly member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) is in his riding on official business with his constituents, he asked me to pass on to the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) the answer he would have given him himself.
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, the government is always prepared to consider any worthwhile and practical system designed to increase the income of needy pensioners, as indeed it did recently by increasing the guaranteed income supplement. As the minister pointed out on November 30th, the hon. member's suggestion falls within a field that comes under provincial jurisdiction.
Whether he likes it or not, there exists in Canada a constitution, and property and property rights come under provincial jurisdiction, as he himself has just recognized.
That, for instance, is why Ontario, facing up to its responsibilities, recently set up a fiscal assistance program to help elderly people; this program applies to all those who, at the end of October 1970, were eligible for the federal guaranteed income supplement. The province has decided to help needy people in future, easing their tax burden, deeming it should start with those whose need is greatest. The authorities therefore decided to include in this class old people receiving a guaranteed income supplement.
These people have been the most affected by the increase in real estate taxes, whether they are owners or tenants, and the Ontario government has judged these
[Mr. Skoberg.l
February 2, 1971

taxes to be among the most unfair to be levied by the different levels of government.
A few years ago, Ontario and Quebec established a tax abatement applicable to all municipal real estate taxes.
Recently, the Ontario government reduced the school tax rates for farmers and has now begun paying up to $100 per month to older persons in order to help them pay their property taxes or their rent.
British Columbia and Saskatchewan have also adopted programs to help persons in need pay their property taxes.
There, Mr. Speaker, is an example of the way in which the different levels of government endeavour, each in its own field, to help needy people to overcome their difficul-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ties. Because of the various budgetary requirements which governments must face, one must admit that, inasmuch as possible, those whose need is greatest should have first priority, and that, I believe, is what the NDP advocates. For that reason, we may have to introduce programs on a selective basis, evaluating a series of needs against another, while at the same time taking into account the various methods and resources through which such needs may be satisfied.
Each level of government must determine its own priorities, in its own field of jurisdiction and according to its means, in dealing with the problems of our modern age.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

February 2, 1971



APPENDIX A

[Stage Direction]
COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT Marlborough House,
London, S.W. 1, Tel. No. 01-839 3411
COMMONWEALTH HEADS' OF GOVERNMENT MEETING SINGAPORE, 14-22 January, 1971

[Stage Direction]
Commonwealth Heads of Government met in Singapore from 14 to 22 January. All Commonwealth countries were represented, seven by their Presidents, seventeen by their Prime Ministers, one by the Vice-President, and six by senior Ministers. The Prime Minister of Singapore was in the Chair.
2.	This was the first Heads' of Government Meeting to be held in Asia. Heads of Government welcomed this and expressed gratitude to the Government of Singapore for the hospitality it had provided.
3.	The Meeting expressed a warm greeting to the Prime Ministers of Tonga, Western Samoa and Fiji whose countries had become members of the Commonwealth during 1970, and particularly welcomed their membership as it brought to Commonwealth consultations additional views of the peoples of the south-west Pacific.
Commonwealth Declaration
4.	Heads of Government approved unanimously and issued a Commonwealth Declaration.
International Affairs
5.	Heads of Government reviewed the world political situation and trends. Views were exchanged on: East-West relations; Chinese representation in the United Nations; the steps required to end the conflict in Indochina; the neutralisation of south-east Asia; the conditions necessary for achieving a durable settlement in the Middle East; the violation of the security and sovereignty of the Republic of Guinea by the military and naval forces of Portugal in conjunction with other elements; the need for general and complete disarmament under effective international control, the cessation of the nuclear arms race and the conclusion of collateral measures with particular attention to nuclear disarmament until general and complete disarmament is achieved; the staging of nuclear weapons tests and the dumping of chemical weapons in the peaceful south-west Pacific area; and the complementary role of regional organisations and such trans-regional groupings as the Commonwealth.
Southern Africa
6.	The Meeting reviewed major developments in southern Africa, including in particular those in South Africa and Namibia (South West Africa), the Portuguese colonies and Rhodesia, and noted that tensions in that region
were likely to increase rather than decrease unless there were fundamental changes in the conditions now prevailing. Earlier discussions on N.I.B.M.R. were recalled. There was unanimous reaffirmation of the importance of the principle that any proposals for settlement must be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole.
7.	The Meeting had before it the report of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee which reviewed the working of economic sanctions over the last two years. Heads of Government authorized the Committee to continue to review the situation.
8.	Heads of Government discussed fully the question of the sale of arms to South Africa.
9.	Heads of Government considered the factors affecting the security of maritime trade routes in the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans, which are of vital importance for a large number of Commonwealth countries. They decided to set up a Study Group, consisting of representatives of Australia, Britain, Canada, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia and Nigeria, with instructions to consider the question further and report to them through the Secretary-General as soon as possible.
10.	Certain Heads of Government stipulated the understandings on which they agreed to support the proposal to set up the Study Group.
The Security of the Indian Ocean
11.	In their discussion of a paper presented by the Prime Minister of Ceylon on the security of the Indian Ocean, Heads of Government agreed on the desirability of ensuring that it remains an area of peace and stability.
Economic Affairs
12.	Heads of Government held a full and frank discussion on the world economic situation and broadly reviewed recent developments and trends. Among the items discussed were: liberalisation of trade and access to markets; the special problems relating to exports of developing countries; the generalised preferences system and the problems connected with it; international commodity problems; high freight rates, inflation and its consequences; debt servicing problems of developing countries; targets for the transfer of resources to developing countries; terms and conditions of assistance, including the untying of aid; supplementary financing; the possibility of a link between Special Drawing Rights and development finance; and, the lending policies of international financial institutions.
February 2, 1971
[Stage Direction]
13.	Heads of Government expressed their satisfaction that agreement was reached on the International Development Strategy for the Second Development Decade at the United Nations General Assembly. They reaffirmed their Governments' resolve to take the measures to translate into reality the goals and objectives of the Decade. In summarising their discussions, they also reaffirmed their conviction that fulfilment of the economic and social aspirations of the peoples of the developing countries was a matter of vital concern not only to the developing nations but to the world at large.
Possible British Entry into the EEC
14.	Heads of Government discussed Britain's possible entry into the European Economic Community and the implications of this for other Commonwealth members. Among the matters discussed were the questions of: the effect of the Common Agricultural Policy on the exports of Britain's traditional suppliers; the need for any enlarged Community to be outward looking; standstill arrangements for those countries which desired or may be offered association or other trading arrangements with an enlarged Community; reverse preferences and their impact on international trading arrangements; the potential advantages and disadvantages for the Commonwealth in the event of Britain's accession; and methods of consultation during negotiations. They welcomed the resolve of the British Government to continue to press during the negotiations for measures to safeguard the interests of Commonwealth countries.
Commonwealth Co-operation for Development
15.	Heads of Government welcomed the establishment of the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation and noted that the way was now open for it to be made operational.
16.	Heads of Government discussed the recommendations embodied in a study on Commonwealth Export Market Development. They decided that these recommendations should be given further consideration at an early meeting of trade and finance officials.
Commonwealth Information Programme
17.	Heads of Government agreed in principle on the proposals submitted to them for a Commonwealth Information Programme.
Commonwealth Co-operation on Youth Questions
18.	Heads of Government noted with approval the Secretariat's activities in the youth field and agreed that such activities be expanded. They noted that a number of related matters would be discussed at the forthcoming Commonwealth Education Conference in Canberra. They decided that a meeting of Ministers concerned with Youth matters be convened as early as possible.
Commonwealth Book Development and Gift Voucher Scheme
19.	Heads of Government approved in principle the establishment of a Commonwealth Book Voucher Scheme.
Special Commonwealth Programme for Assisting the Education of Rhodesian Africans
20.	Heads of Government took note of the development of the programme and supported its continuation.
Commonwealth Foundation
21.	Heads of Government noted the progress of the Commonwealth Foundation and agreed to its proposed expansion.
Comparative Techniques of Government
22.	The Conference agreed that the item on "Comparative Techniques of Government", which was introduced by the Prime Minister of Canada, should be the subject of further discussion at the next meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government. It was proposed that the Secretary-General should facilitate such discussion by arranging for preliminary study of the subject by appropriate officials.
Report of the Commonwealth Secretary-General
23.	Heads of Government took note of the Third Report of the Commonwealth Secretary-General.
3020
[Stage Direction]
February 2, 1971


[Stage Direction]
COMMONWEALTH HEADS' OF GOVERNMENT MEETING SINGAPORE, January 1971
The Commonwealth of Nations is a voluntary association of independent sovereign states, each responsible for its own policies, consulting and co-operating in the common interests of their peoples and in the promotion of international understanding and world peace.
Members of the Commonwealth come from territories in the six continents and five oceans, include peoples of different races, languages and religions, and display every stage of economic development from poor developing nations to wealthy industrialised nations. They encompass a rich variety of cultures, traditions and institutions. Membership of the Commonwealth is compatible with the freedom of member governments to be non-aligned or to belong to any other grouping, association or alliance.
Within this diversity all members of the Commonwealth hold certain principles in common. It is by pursuing these principles that the Commonwealth can continue to influence international society for the benefit of mankind.
WE BELIEVE that international peace and order are essential to the security and prosperity of mankind; we therefore support the United Nations and seek to strengthen its influence for peace in the world, and its efforts to remove the causes of tension between nations.
WE BELIEVE in the liberty of the individual, in equal rights for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief, and in their inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic political processes in framing the society in which they live. We therefore strive to promote in each of our countries those representative institutions and guarantees for personal freedom under the law that are our common heritage.
WE RECOGNISE racial prejudice as a dangerous sickness threatening the healthy development of the human race and racial discrimination as an unmitigated evil of society. Each of us will vigorously combat this evil within our own nation. No country will afford to regimes which practise racial discrimination assistance which in its own judgment directly contributes to the pursuit or consolidation of this evil policy. We oppose all forms of colonial domination
and racial oppression and are committed to the principles of human dignity and equality. We will therefore use all our efforts to foster human equality and dignity everywhere and to further the principles of self-determination and non-racialism.
WE BELIEVE that the wide disparities in wealth now existing between different sections of mankind are too great to be tolerated; they also create world tensions; our aim is their progressive removal; we therefore seek to use our efforts to overcome poverty, ignorance and disease, in raising standards of life and achieving a more equitable international society. To this end our aim is to achieve the freest possible flow of international trade on terms fair and equitable to all, taking into account the special requirements of the developing countries, and to encourage the flow of adequate resources, including governmental and private resources, to the developing countries, bearing in mind the importance of doing this in a true spirit of partnership and of establishing for this purpose in the developing countries conditions which are conducive to sustained investment and growth.
WE BELIEVE that international co-operation is essential to remove the causes of war, promote tolerance, combat injustice and secure development amongst the peoples of the world; we are convinced that the Commonwealth is one of the most fruitful associations for these purposes.
In pursuing these principles the members of the Commonwealth believe that they can provide a constructive example of the multi-national approach which is vital to peace and progress in the modern world. The association is based on consultation, discussion and co-operation. In rejecting coercion as an instrument of policy they recognise that the security of each member state from external aggression is a matter of concern to all members. It provides many channels for continuing exchanges of knowledge and views on professional, cultural, economic, legal and political issues among member states. These relationships we intend to foster and extend for we believe that our multi-national association can expand human understanding and understanding among nations, assist in the elimination of discrimination based on differences of race, colour or creed, maintain and strengthen personal liberty, contribute to the enrichment of life for all, and provide a powerful influence for peace among nations.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 3, 1971