1971-01-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Clermont.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) gave assurance that a memorandum from the Public Service Commission with respect to a proposal to recruit French-speaking Canadians into the Public Service would be tabled in the House. Under Standing Order 41 I should like to table this document in both languages.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister how long this statement is and whether he would consider reading it to the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the question is in order. I am not sure whether it is a point of order, but perhaps the minister might respond to the hon. member's question.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Would the minister make a statement on motions?
* *
*




Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rose a moment ago but I was awaiting any developments that might take place. I rise to ask leave of the House-


An hon. Member:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -to present a motion under Standing Order 43. I make the earnest plea to my hon. friends opposite that before they say no they give the matter serious consideration. I have drafted a
motion which I have made as inoffensive as I possibly can. It is a motion that does not prejudge the issue in any way. It meets the suggestion that has been made by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) and others on that side of the House that the question alluded to in the document just tabled should somehow come before one of our standing committees. Therefore I earnestly plead with the government that unanimous consent be given to a motion which simply proposes that the annual report of the Public Service Commission be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. My motion asks for nothing else. The committee could then call the chairman of that commission, the President of the Treasury Board and others. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather):
s (2:10 p.m.)
That the report of the Public Service Commission of Canada, tabled in the House on June 3, 1970, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey, has proposed a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 which requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has suggested that we give this proposal serious consideration. If he is serious in that regard I would be happy to give it careful consideration, but I cannot do so in 30 seconds. If he wants to let the motion stand until tomorrow, we will consider it before then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to agree that the motion stand until this time tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board who was not in the House yesterday. The Acting Prime Minister suggested

January 26, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
then that the minister would be very happy to answer these questions today.


An hon. Member:: Smile, Bud.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board, who has asserted there was nothing secret about the program to hire Francophone university graduates, whether he has any explanation to give for the note on the memorandum of the Public Service Commission of Canada which states:
This information is confidential and no official announcement will be made.
If this matter was not secret would the minister also explain why there was no discussion with the Public Service Alliance on a matter of such basic importance to the alliance and the Public Service?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this matter was discussed yesterday to some degree. This note reflects a misunderstanding as to what the memorandum represents. The first paragraph, if the hon. member will read it, makes it quite clear that this is conditional. It states:
The basis of the survey was a request as to how many additional Francophone graduates you could gainfully employ should the salary costs be covered from funds outside your budgeted programs.
This is in the nature of what I may describe generally as a feasibility study. In trying to determine what is feasible and what is not, I think this can be most usefully done in private by the officials rather than in a public way which would lead inevitably to expectations that might not in the event be justified. The confidentiality referred to here is in relation to this particular program under gestation, if indeed such a program eventually were approved by the government.


Mr. Diefenbaker;: In frustration.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I might say that this memorandum outlining a procedure for increasing the proportion of Francophones in the Public Service is not an approved program. It will not be a program approved by the government until it has been submitted to the Treasury Board and approved-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize for interrupting the minister, but I do not think he should make a statement at this time unless he wants to revert to motions. I appreciate that he is trying to reply to the question as completely as possible, and that is very much in order.


Some hon. Members:: Revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps at this point the Leader of the Opposition, if he has a supplementary question, might be allowed to ask it.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Revert to motions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the President of the Treasury Board wishes to revert to

motions so he can make a full statement, but I assume he does not since the offer was made to him previously. I have a supplementary question. The memorandum definitely refers to aspects of "the program", which suggests that in fact there is a program. May I ask the President of the Treasury Board a question relating to his assertion that this program was simply a normal extension of the efforts of the government to increase the number of Francophones in the Public Service. Does the President of the Treasury Board know of any previous instances in which the Public Service Commission confined appointments to persons of a specified racial origin?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubts about that question. The Leader of the Opposition is asking the minister whether he knows of previous instances in which this policy was followed. I am not prepared to recognize that the question is in order.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the purpose of my question is to elucidate how this can be considered a normal extension of the government's policy. Can the President of the Treasury Board tell the House of previous instances in which such a policy has been applied?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister might try to reply in some way. I certainly do not wish to be obstructive on a matter which hon. members appear to consider very important, but when the Leader of the Opposition seeks information concerning whether a situation has applied in the past that is not a proper question for the question period. The Leader of the Opposition has perhaps qualified the question and in this sense the President of the Treasury Board may wish to reply.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to co-operate with the Chair and I will put the question in a different way. I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether, in his opinion, it is consistent with the acts of this Parliament for the filling of positions to be confined to persons of a certain racial origin as distinguished from the question of language specifications? Is it the position of the government that specifying racial origin as a prerequisite for filling positions, as distinct from competence in language, is consistent with the legislation of this Parliament concerning the Public Service?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid we are getting into semantic problems here because I am not sure that Francophone indicates or connotes a racial origin.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would find it difficult, therefore, to indicate occasions on which the Public Service had simply sought out people of a particular racial origin in the past. They have not and, indeed, the law precludes this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
January 26, 1971


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: What is being sought here, as was recommended by the Royal Commission on Biculturalism and Bilingualism, is a higher proportion of those with a French-speaking background in the Public Service in Canada in relation to the current and past overwhelming majority of those with an English-speaking background.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see there are many sup-plementaries. We have 40 minutes. We will start by recognizing the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.



PROGRAM FOR HIRING OF FRANCOPHONE UNIVERSITY


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might get the minister away from a study of semantics and ask him a straight question. Was he familiar with the contents of this memorandum prior to its disclosure or was it issued without his knowledge and consent?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I was not familiar with the contents and it was issued without my knowledge. I would suggest that endeavours to conduct a feasibility study should not require the consent of the President of the Treasury Board.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the minister is President of the Treasury Board, may I ask whether the Public Service Commission, or whoever was responsible for formulating this memorandum, had authority to say that $2 million would be made available for the purposes stated in the memorandum without the President of the Treasury Board having given his prior consent?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The memorandum, as I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, is couched, at least in the opening phrases, in the conditional tense, as it should be. Perhaps there is a greater element of certainty in subsequent paragraphs which I do not think is warranted inasmuch as there is no approved program. Indeed, it has not yet been definitely ascertained that this proposal is feasible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
ask the minister, then, who is responsible for initiating this feasibility study and drafting this memorandum for distribution to the various departments without the knowledge and consent of the President of the Treasury Board?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think it is well known that the government has indicated its desire to see a higher proportion than at present or in the past of Francophones in the Public Service.


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question.


An hon. Member:: Who did it?
Inquiries o/ the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think that this situation will be helped very much if the minister is not allowed to answer the question.


Mr. Greene:: You want to play politics.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Who
took the initiative?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do not want to engage in some form of dialectics but I do want-


Mr. Hees:: Just answer the question.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -the lack of comprehension to be cleared up. It is well known that the government has expressed its intention and desire to increase the proportion of Francophones in the Public Service.


George Harris Hees: You said that before.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 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 is part of an exploration of possible means of achieving this purpose.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: By
whom?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It has long been the instruction of the government to proceed in this direction. The precise details of programs, their gestation, the examination of ways and means which would be feasible, are done, as they should be done, by those who are familiar in the field-the officials. They propose ways and means for approval by the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


Mr. Lundrigan:: My question is not a supplementary but a related question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I gather there are supplementary questions. Perhaps I might go to the hon. member's related question in a moment.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: I have a brief supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board. Would he mind giving us the government's official definition of the word "Francophone"?


An hon. Member:: Good question.


John James Greene: Can't you afford a dictionary?


Mr. Speaker:: I have the impression that perhaps it might be time to go on to another question, but the Chair has infinite patience this afternoon.

January 26, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



PROGRAM FOR HIRING OF FRANCOPHONE UNIVERSITY GRADUATES-RESPONSIBILITY FOR AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF MONEY

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: have a supplementary question for the minister and I hope he does not have to struggle with this one. Who, outside of the Treasury Board has the authority to authorize the $2 million?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It
is only the parliament of Canada that can authorize the $2 million.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate that five or six members are rising on supplementary questions. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.



PROGRAM FOR HIRING OF FRANCOPHONE UNIVERSITY


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board is based on the answer the Acting Prime Minister gave me yesterday when he said yes to my question as to whether we would be given a reconciliation between the statement made by the President of the Treasury Board, in which he denied the existence of a program, and the fact that a copy of the memorandum has now been tabled.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the only problem there is to try to reconcile the words "memorandum" and "program". There is a memorandum which is before the House. There is no program, and there will not be a program until such time as formal approval has been given to a proposal. This is a step in the gestation of a proposal, and until it becomes approved it is not a program.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did the minister know of the existence of the memorandum when he was interviewed about this matter over the weekend?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Regrettably no, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



PROGRAM FOR HIRING OF FRANCOPHONE UNIVERSITY GRADUATES-CONSULTATION WITH LANGUAGE COMMISSIONER

Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Champlain
wish to ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister if the Official Languages Commissioner has been consulted and has told the government what he thinks about it.
{English]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! I am not sure whether this question was heard.

I am not sure that the Acting Prime Minister or any other minister has heard the question put by the hon. member for Champlain. Would the hon. member ask his question again?


René Matte: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.
I would merely like the minister to tell the House whether the Commissioner of Languages has made recommendations to the government in this regard.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge. I would think that this would tend to fall a little outside his particular jurisdiction as he is concerned with the use of French within the Public Service, not the means by which it is achieved.



PROGRAM FOR HIRING OF FRANCOPHONE UNIVERSITY GRADUATES-SPECIAL EFFORTS TO HIRE NATIVE INDIANS

Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board. It arises out of the answer he gave to the Leader of the Opposition. Does this mean that special efforts on the part of the Public Service Commission to hire native Indians have been abandoned?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker, by no means.



PROGRAM FOR HIRING OF FRANCOPHONE UNIVERSITY GRADUATES-ASSURANCE THAT CONTINGENCY VOTE WILL NOT BE USED WITHOUT ADVISING HOUSE

Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. Would the minister give the House the assurance that the money for this program would not be taken from the contingency vote, No. 5, without first advising the House?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: most certainly can give that assurance, Mr. Speaker.



PROGRAM FOR HIRING OF FRANCOPHONE UNIVERSITY GRADUATES-GRANT TO TRAINING SCHOOL IN FRANCE -UNEMPLOYMENT IN CANADA

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on this subject. It has to do with the training of Francophones. Has the government come to the conclusion that there are not enough people speaking the French language in Canada and that it has become necessary to go outside of Canada and, by a $1 million grant, establish a public service training school in Bordeaux, France, to graduate Francophones who will be given an opportunity to work in Canada? Did the minister know about that? Is he aware of that fact, and is there not enough unemployment here without going abroad and spending a million dollars?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[Mr. Speaker.)
January 26, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the first part of the question is in order. Of course, the latter part might be somewhat argumentative. The minister may be allowed to reply to the first part of the right hon. gentleman's supplementary question.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that the government has been supporting the establishment of an institution in Bordeaux, France, to serve the whole of the Francophonespeaking world. I may add that I know of the right hon. gentleman's interest in promoting Francophone aspirations and that he would be the first to support them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that last observation deserves an answer and I rise on a question of privilege. I point out that I was the first person in Canada to fight in the courts for French language rights in the province of Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman has made his observation and perhaps he might ask his supplementary question now.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to put the truth before the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently he is not aware of it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the House that the Chair has been very lenient about these many sup-plementaries. I wish to advise the House immediately that I do not propose to allow any supplementaries on the subject after we have heard the right hon. gentleman's supplementary. I shall stand firm on that decision.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, without any gratuitous observations, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs answer the question? Are there not enough unemployed French Canadians in Canada who could qualify for these positions? Instead of going abroad and spending $1 million in France could we not employ Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have already ruled that the question is argumentative and is not in order.


John George Diefenbaker: The truth of my remarks is evident.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry MANPOWER



ISSUANCE OF DIRECTIVE TO OFFICES REGARDING RELEASE OF UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES

['Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider that. I hope to be in a position to report to the House and, more particularly, to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on this and other matters about the middle of next month, when I gather that the estimates will be available before the committee.']
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister which concerns another memorandum. Can the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether the government or any department of government has issued an order or directive to all Canada Manpower offices across the nation that they are not to release their unemployment figures? If so, can he indicate what the reason was for that directive?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not aware of any such order. I shall make inquiries.


John Howard Lundrigan: Will the Acting Prime Minister undertake to inform the House tomorrow of the reason for the directive and the purpose behind it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who will be here tomorrow I believe, and can answer the question.



Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the government giving consideration to granting diplomatic recognition to the new military regime in Uganda, and would the minister care to make a statement on this maiter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we are following developments closely in Uganda. The situation at the moment is unclear and until there is some further clarification we do not intend to act.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, has the Secretary of State for External Affairs any information on the safety of Canadians in Uganda? We have heard about the regrettable loss of two lives.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There are approximately 300 Canadians living in Uganda. According to preliminary reports of casualties, as hon. members know, two members of the White Fathers Order have been killed. We have made inquiries from the British High Commissioner's office there, and he assures us that at the moment there is no danger to Canadians in Uganda. The two who were killed were killed purely by accident. They happened to be on the spot but were not involved in any way in the uprising. We are keeping the situation under close observation, and if there are any adverse developments we shall consider whether further action needs be taken.
2756

January 26, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I should like to put my question to his Parliamentary Secretary.
Could he tell us whether the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is in a position to grant a substantial subsidy to the citizens of Maniwaki who have organized a co-operative in order to purchase the Sogefor plants?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has looked very closely at the problems encountered by Sogefor. There are a number of problems involving markets and supplies of timber. I suggest to the hon. member that any request for special, financial assistance to the company should be directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.


Gérard Laprise: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which is precisely the one I discussed at the time of adjournment last night. Nevertheless I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if in the course of his present travels the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will try and find outlets for the production of these plants.
* *
*
regard to equipment. I shall be glad to consider his suggestion.
I have examined the question of rents, which the hon. member was kind enough to bring to my attention last week. I find that it is being considered in conjunction with the general question of housing for members of the Armed Forces which the hon. member for Malpeque was kind enough to bring forward about a month ago. I hope within several weeks to be able to make a statement comprehensive of all aspects of this question of accommodation.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to rental increases for married quarters, could the minister not hurry up his consideration of the matter since the personnel concerned have been advised already of increases in rentals effective April 1 which will more than offset the last increases in pay?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, we have a little way to go to April 1, but it seems to me that the most sensible thing is to make a general statement with regard to both rental and housing policy.


Mr. Forresiall:: Mr. Speaker, in making a general statement, I wonder if the minister would advise the House of the present status of the DDH program and the extent to which there is a growing urgency with regard to refunding that program?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider that. I hope to be in a position to report to the House and, more particularly, to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on this and other matters about the middle of next month, when I gather that the estimates will be available before the committee.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. While he is on his feet, perhaps he might also give some indication with respect to the question of rents which I asked him about earlier. Can he indicate to the House and country when we may expect his white paper on defence policy? In preparing the white paper, has he given consideration to dividing it into two parts, one part that would deal specifically with the need for funding for new weapons systems and replacement systems and the other with the more general question of defence policy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the timetable I have set for internal purposes and which I hope to meet would mean that it would be available for the House about Easter. With respect to the hon. member's suggestion, I shall reflect on it. It seems to me that the question of the actual policy should come first and, closely related to that, should come the question of equipment and arrangements with



TRANSPORT


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It relates to earlier questions about the safety of snowmobiles. Since the decision of a coroner's jury last week in North Bay, Ontario, laid the blame for a snowmobile accident jointly on an inadequate braking and steering system and the inexperience of snowmobilers, is the minister now prepared to table in the House a list of basic safety specifications that his department considers to be essential with regard to the production and sale of snow machines in this country?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If I understood the hon. gentleman's question correctly, there are some ten regulations that have been gazetted. The other day I indicated I was not sure if they had been but I have learned that they were. It

January 26, 1971

would be quite easy for me to table them in the House or make them available to the hon. member.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the lack of experience of many people in the use of these machines, is the minister or his department preparing to make available some kind of national training or safety manual that snowmobilers could use?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, at this very moment exhaustive tests are being carried out in the vicinity of Ottawa on some 15 different makes of snowmobiles so that our officials and the experts may have in the field knowledge of any additional regulations that may be required. If the data that is acquired on this basis is of use, I am sure that we would be more than pleased to make it public, yes.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister inform the House whether companies purchasing $50 tickets in blocks of ten for the Liberal fund raising banquet to be held in Toronto on March 3 are charging these tickets off as tax deductible expenses?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question might be placed on the Order Paper.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
George Harris Hees: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister with reference to the statement made yesterday by Mr. Rogers Morton, President Nixon's choice to become Secretary of the Interior, when appearing before a Senate hearing, that "the United States should study a proposal to import Canadian water." Is the Acting Prime Minister aware of this proposal and, if so, what is it?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Sir. I thank the hon. gentleman for bringing it to my attention.


George Harris Hees: Would the Acting Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State of the United States what this proposal is and report to the House tomorrow?


Mitchell William Sharp: As far as I know, if Mr. Rogers wanted to make a serious proposal to me he would do so. He has not done so, so I do not really think this represents any serious negotiation between Canada and the United States.
2757
Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My question is directed to the minister responsible for the Post Office. It arises from his announcement concerning an assured mail delivery program. Now that the minister has decided to restore the quality of service once enjoyed by Canadians, is this assured delivery to be limited to the cities and communities outlined in his announcement or will it be gradually extended to other important communities such as Charlottetown and Brandon?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, from Toronto the assured mail program will cover the 24 centres which are mentioned in the announcement. The assured mail program is directly related to the communications between different centres, and we have chosen the centres that can have next-day delivery.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure we shall have time during the remaining few minutes to hear supplementaries about all these important centres across Canada, but for the moment we might hear further about Brandon-Souris.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In light of the minister's answer perhaps I could direct this question to the Minister of Transport. Is it the minister's intention to deal with our urgent air service piroblem so that we, too, might be assured of this improved quality of service?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think the question is rather broad, but I assume the hon. gentleman is only concerned about his own community.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Western Manitoba.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 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. Perhaps the best thing the hon. member could do would be to induce more of his friends and supporters to fly by air.


John George Diefenbaker: Fly by air?


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: May I
ask the Postmaster General when he intends to reinstate air mail service to western Saskatchewan?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I will look into that.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether in line with his inten-

January 26, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
tion to provide improved mail service from one point to the next, that is, a 24-hour service, any thought has been given to providing direct service from computer centres where unemployment insurance cards are processed to regional offices on a trial basis to see whether this idea would work?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: We
shall consider that suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the minister's announcement of assured one-day delivery and the fact that Prince Edward Island has been omitted from these arrangements. Is this omission to be permanent? When can the people of Prince Edward Island expect the same service as is being provided to the rest of the country? In the meantime would the department be prepared to provide a subsidy to help cover the cost of transporting night letters and the like?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister without Portfolio):: should like to point out that the cities and centres which will not be getting the 24-hour service from Toronto will not be losing anything they already have; the new proposals will not alter the service that these places are already getting. Hon. members should understand that if we are to guarantee this service we want to make sure we can provide it, and the only way we can do this is if we know there are planes flying from Toronto at certain times.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Is the minister aware that there is direct mail service from Montreal that might make use of this service?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Ontario dairies have just announced that the price of milk will go up 4 cents for three-quart jugs and we can expect that Quebec dairies will follow suit. May I ask the minister whether this increase, in his opinion, stems from an imminent shortage of milk or from other causes?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: The hon. member is talking about the pricing arrangements for fluid milk, and these do not come under the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Agriculture or of the Canadian Dairy Commission.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Did either the office of the Prime Minister or the office of the Secretary of State originate the so-called Francophone memorandum?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
[DOT] * *



WELFARE


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: In the
absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare may I direct my question to his Parliamentary Secretary. In light of the announcement by the minister's office that a special $10,000 grant has been made to the greater Victoria low income group of Victoria, British Columbia, toward a day-care centre for the children of women on welfare engaged in part-time employment, will the minister give consideration to making a similar grant to the Black United Front of Sydney which is attempting to establish a similar program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that his question is in the form of a representation or suggestion to the minister, and he must assume that it will be considered by the government.


Robert Muir: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with this government I find I cannot assume anything. Since the government can find money for tom fools and others, surely it can find money for the good people of the Black United Front-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's point of order is an additional representation.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: My question is directed to the minister who answers in the House on behalf of the National Capital Commission. Would the minister commend the chairman of the commission for his initiative in making ice available to skaters of this area on the Rideau Canal?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
January 26, 1971



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: have a question for the Minister of Transport. Bearing in mind the fact that we have been waiting quite some time now for an air policy, more particularly for a regional air policy affecting small airports, can the hon. gentleman tell us when we may expect a final statement in this regard?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: have indicated to the House on previous occasions that I do not anticipate making what might be described as a major statement with regard to new regional air policy. We are in the process of refining and making certain changes in the existing policy in consultation with the regional carriers. Some changes are already in effect. Talks are continuing, and I would expect to see evidence of these changes in this program rather than in any one policy statement.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport, bearing in mind that the minister expressed his thoughts concerning regional airport expansion in terms that his answer could not be decisive until such time as a decision had been reached with respect to the international airport in Ontario. Can the minister now advise us whether the sites he has been looking at have been reduced in number and can he give us at least some indication when he intends to express the new policy?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No,
Mr. Speaker, I regret I cannot. Talks are still going on. I seem to have the impression from discussing the matter with officials both of the federal government and of the Ontario government that there appears to be no legal way in which four major, large sites could be announced with the absolute assurance that there would indeed not be some land speculation. Therefore, it has been necessary to explore alternative means of accomplishing the same objective, that is, giving the parties concerned an opportunity to comment before a firm decision is arrived at.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, is the minister now indicating to the House that he is still considering four sites? Perhaps the minister will tell the House whether the number of sites has been reduced in terms of practicality and feasibility.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, essentially what we are looking for is the most appropriate site to meet the aviation needs of southwestern Ontario which will at the same time meet the environmental needs and other objectives stated by various groups. As I have said repeatedly, there is no specific site. All we hoped to do
Inquiries of the Ministry
was to be able to say that there were a number of alternatives. Let me repeat that neither the government of the province of Ontario nor the federal government has been able to find a sure-fire method of avoiding land speculation. What we are hoping to do now is to find some other avenue which would not identify -


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has the minister's department been able to locate the source of mercury pollution which has been affecting dogfish off the British Columbia coast?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: No, Mr. Speaker. This may be a natural background phenomenon.



HOUSING


Mr. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing.
Would he tell the House if the government intends to accede to the request of the Asbestos authorities asking that the federal government purchase land and build low-rental housing on it, in order to deal with the crisis facing that locality following last week's landslide?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take that question as nolice. The details have not been brought to my attention, but I will try to reply to the hon. member later.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



WELFARE


Robert Muir: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys is rising on a point of order.


Robert Muir: I shall try to outline to Your Honour my point of order. In view of the fact that a major portion of this afternoon's question period was devoted to questions pertaining to a $2 mil-

January 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 lion allotment or grant to a certain group in this country-it may be a good or bad thing; I am not disputing that-I should like to point out that I raised a question relating to a grant from the government on behalf of the black people involved in the Black United Front at Sydney, Nova Scotia, in order to set up a day-care centre, something they are working at very hard.
If Your Honour would explain to me why that question was out of order and a reply not allowed, I would appreciate it. Surely to heaven a small group like this can get a grant from the federal government, or are the black people different from other groups to which the government gives grants?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will have noted that the Chair did not suggest that the matter was not important; it is obviously important. The hon. member has raised the question on previous occasions. I suggest to him that the question asked today was in the form of a representation. He subsequently raised a point of order and again I suggested he was making a representation. I would again suggest to him that the point of order he is now raising is in the form of a submission to the government.
I recognize the importance of this matter. If the question period was taken up to some extent with one particular subject matter, that cannot be the responsibility of the Chair. After a while I did try to suggest to hon. members that we might go on to another subject. If the hon. member has been penalized thereby, I am sorry. Perhaps the question might be raised tomorrow.


Robert Muir: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is always another day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 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. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants is rising on a point of order.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, my point of order concerns the motion that this bill be read a second time and referred to committee of the whole. I suggest that the motion not be put because the bill contains at least seven distinct proposals or principles; least, I will argue that

it does, though the number may be less depending on one's attitude to the various sections of the bill. Be that as it may, I suggest to Your Honour that there is more than one proposal or principle involved in this bill, and therefore, having regard to the very ancient privilege of the House that members should not be asked to give simple answers to what are, in effect, several questions intermingled together, I ask Your Honour to take the position of ordering that the bill be divided when the vote comes so that hon. members have a chance tc make a decision on each proposal.
To lay the foundation for my argument, may I first note that there are these separate provisions in Bill C-207. The first part, clauses 2 to 7, creates a Department of the Environment. The second part, clauses 8 to 11, amends two acts: the Government Organization Act of 1966, and the Resources and Technical Surveys Act. The third part, clause 12, amends the National Research Council Act. The fourth part, clauses 13 to 24, creates ministries and ministers of state. The fifth part of the bill, clause 25, amends the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, otherwise known as "answering the prayers of the hungry". The sixth part, clause 26, amends the Post Office Act. The seventh part, clause 27, amends the Public Service Superannuation Act. The eighth part, clause 28, amends the Salaries Act. Finally, part nine, clauses 29 to 34, contains general and transitional provisions, and these may be apportioned variously among the other parts.
If we were to pass Bill C-207 and it became an act of this parliament, there would have to be ten separate entries made in the index of statutes passed this session. There would have to be nine consequential amendments to seven additional statutes that are amended by schedule B of this measure, and these would also have to be indexed separately. I am suggesting we have a measure here that covers the waterfront.
To recapitulate in a slightly different way, we are being asked to create a new department; we are being asked to vary administrative duties of some existing departments; we are being asked to create ministers of the Crown who will formulate and develop government policy and, as well as providing for these salaried ministers, we are being asked to provide for additional salaried Parliamentary Secretaries. Distinct from those matters, we are also asked to vote yea or nay, without hearing witnesses, on behalf of those affected on the question of the retirement rights and obligations of public servants. I think you would agree that is a most unusual step.
These are propositions contained in the measure, some of which deal with people within my vision, or who would be within my vision if we had full attendance here, and others who are outside this House. I suggest that this does strike at the right of parliamentarians to decide questions with a simple yes or no, without having to consider very complicated questions which cannot be answered very simply. This is absolutely impossible. There is a solution which would enable us to avoid this situation. I suggest it is found in a precedent established in this House by a ruling of Mr. Speaker Macnaughton on the flag resolution and also in English practice. I will
January 26, 1971

refer briefly to both. Many members of the House are familiar with the ruling of Mr. Speaker Macnaughton. It is to be found in Votes and Proceedings of Monday, June 15, 1964, oddly enough, right after a return to a question asked by Mr. Fisher dealing with the future of the Bonaventure.
The future of the "Bonnie" has been decided, but we still have this ruling by Mr. Speaker Macnaughton which I think is a guide to us in respect of this difficult motion. I am sure Your Honour is familiar with this ruling which appears at pages 427 to 431 of the Votes and Proceedings of that date. The decision of Mr. Speaker Macnaughton reads:
I must come to the conclusion that the motion before the House contains two propositions-
The problem was relatively simple because there were only two, but I suggest there may be as many as seven involved here. Mr. Speaker Macnaughton went on to say: -and since strong objections have been made to the effect that these two propositions should not be considered together, it is my duty to divide them as follows:-
Then, he divided the two resolutions.
I was not in the House at that time, but I gather that this method of dividing these important questions was satisfactory to the members who were here. They could at least make up their minds much more easily than we can when we are dealing with this omnibus measure. I hope it will not be argued that we are not dealing with the question of principle but with the question of whether the bill should go to the committee, because many members of this House regard the second reading stage as one involving the principle. We are going to be faced with a problem somewhere along the line as to how one can cast a simple yes or no vote on a bill containing as many as seven different and distinct propositions.
I should like also to refer Your Honour to the British Hansard, for June 6, 1917 when that House was dealing with a bill concerning the "Representation of the People". The Speaker of the British House was dealing with the question of whether or not a motion should be divided. He quoted earlier authorities. One of the latest references to earlier decisions in the British House seems to indicate that members were jealous of their tradition of ensuring that they were not faced with complicated questions. The Speaker in 1917 quoted an earlier ruling of Mr. Speaker Peel of July 26, 1894, who laid down the following principle:
-that an Instruction for the division of a Bill was only possible "when that Bill was divided into parts, or else, comprising more than one subject matter, lends itself to such division into parts."
I am suggesting, Sir, that the measure before us does lend itself to division into several parts. Which ones will be the subject of dispute during the debate that follows, I have no idea, but I suppose some people would like the setting up of the environmental department but might quarrel with the idea that the old Department of Fisheries be swallowed up by it. Some people might think there should be more Parliamentary Secretaries, and I know there are a number of members around with eyes shining
Government Organization Act, 1970
with anticipation, but others may think this question should be thoroughly examined. If I had any very strong objection, I would say that the creation of these ministries for example, is very basic. Only time and the debate will tell which of these seven propositions we face will exercise members who will vote yes or no, and those which will not exercise the members. I could also mention the part in respect of civil servants, which is in my view a basic part. These are the things that bother me.
I gather from reading the ruling of Mr. Speaker Macnaughton, and the history of the rulings that led up to it, that the Speaker would be guided by a sizeable number of people voicing an objection to being presented with a simple yes or no vote on a complicated question. I want to make it clear in asking for your ruling that there be a division, that I am not voicing only my objection. I speak for the members of the Official Opposition. They endorse my position that there should be this division, and they ask you, through me, that when a disposition of this motion is made Your Honour divide the questions. Then, we will not be faced with the problem of going through intellectual gymnastics in trying to decide which parts to vote against because they are objectionable and which parts to support. I think the precedents I have pointed to are sufficient, so I rest my case. I would ask that Your Honour give it respectful consideration.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make two comments on the argument which has been so ably made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. It is true that he raises some issues which are relevant as we begin consideration of this bill. It may be of some assistance to the House to realize that the over-all theme of the bill is to improve and make more efficient the organization of government. All the propositions which are, in the words of my hon. friend, contained in the bill, are directed, at least in the mind of the government, to improving and making more efficient the organization of government. All the items the House is asked to deal with in the bill are relevant to the over-all theme.
I would argue that during this session we have dealt with bills which contained several propositions. We have dealt with bills in this session which have amended several other acts. One which comes to mind immediately is the omnibus loans bill which included loan guarantees for fishermen, farmers and others. Those three were dealt with at the same time. Yesterday, we dealt with the second reading of the textile legislation and I believe one could find quite a number of propositions in that particular bill. Mr. Speaker, I would also mention that on previous occasions we have had before us similar government organization bills in which new departments have been created, so at such times essentially the same kind of legislation has been considered. There is, therefore, ample precedent. I do not see any difficulty from that point of view, but I now come to the crux of the argument made by the hon. member, namely, that there are several principles in this bill.

January 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
The authorities, of course, always refer to the principle of the bill on second reading. Presumably, one could argue that the over-all principle of this bill is to ask the House to approve a scheme of improved organization of government. That would be the single principle, but there are other principles as well. Mr. Speaker Michener did rule on this point at one time when he was confronted with a bill which made him ask the question, can a bill which raises several principles, come before the House for second reading. I recall very clearly the ruling but I have not had an opportunity to find it. He ruled that on second reading the House could indeed be involved with a bill which contained one or several principles. I would argue that this ruling is relevant here if my hon. friend's argument that there must be one principle and one proposition is to be pressed. I think that both precedent and that particular ruling would assist in clarifying the point.
I shall conclude by saying that the House, in looking at this bill on second reading, presumably must balance the principles and consider whether those principles each hon. member can support are more important than those he may not be able to support. In other words, we would have to be guided by that consideration as we all are in looking at any bill. An hon. member could give support over-all to the bill on second reading and then, when it reaches the committee of the whole stage, he would have an opportunity to say yes or no to each particular proposition. The House is not at any particular point being denied an opportunity to judge every single proposition in the bill, because that is the purpose of the committee stage. Hon. members will be able to determine their attitude in respect of the Department of the Environment, in respect of the Ministries and the Ministers of State and in respect of the Public Service Superannuation and they can say yes or no. So, no opportunity is denied members to decide on each of these so-called propositions.
I shall simply summarize, Mr. Speaker, by saying the over-all theme or over-all principle of the bill is the improved organization of the government and that each of these so-called propositions is directed to that policy objective. In the past, we have had bills which have included changes in various departments. We have had bills which included various propositions. Indeed, we have a ruling of Mr. Speaker Michener that on second reading the House could be asked to deal with a bill which contained several principles. Finally, the members of the House will be given an opportunity to say yes or no to each of the so-called propositions when each clause is called during the committee of the whole stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) for raising this point of order. It is one to which I believe Your Honour will have to give very serious consideration. I shall not have the time of the House to produce all the citations, partly because I do not have them in front of me and partly because I am sure I produced them all in the debate
which led to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Macnaughton to which reference has already been made. At the outset I may say, in terms of dealing with precedents, that there is one difficulty we have in that the ruling of Mr. Speaker Macnaughton was in respect of a resolution, whereas this is in respect of the second reading of a bill. I admit that before we start. However, I believe the principle which has been enunciated by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants still stands, namely, that Parliament should have the right to make a decision on a principle standing by itself.
I should like to answer directly the main argument used by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEac-hen). Before doing so, may I say that the reply of the President of the Privy Council to this point demonstrates how serious the matter is. The Government House Leader says we have often done this. He pointed out that a while ago we had before us a bill which amended three loans acts and that on various occasions we have had before us what are called omnibus bills. This is exactly the point. This is the reason I believe it is exceedingly important that this point of order has been raised at this time. In this bill I believe we have a glaring example of how far a government can go when it starts to operate under the umbrella of an omnibus bill. This bill not only has the nine or 10 parts, each of which is separate from the other, but also has schedules and in some of the items in the schedules there is not just a list of departments which have been moved around but actual amendments to statutes which are not referred to in any of the nine parts of the bill itself.
You know, Mr. Speaker, one must not place ideas in the government's head because those ideas might be picked up. However, it is not a very giant step from this to one bill which would include the work of the whole session. The government could bring us here and while we were debating the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne a huge omnibus bill could be brought in for the improvement of life in Canada. There would be about 14 parts in the bill covering the many things the government had in mind, as well as a schedule containing all the little details, and before we knew it we would have the work of a complete session introduced in one bill. Perhaps I am carrying this a little far, but of course one does this in making a point, and with this government even the absurd is not impossible. So, I say that in terms of the operation of Parliament this point of order is very important. How far can a government go in combining a host of different subjects into one bill and ask Parliament to vote on them en bloc without any regard for the individual points?
Now Sir, the chief argument that the President of the Privy Council used to try to offset the case made by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants was that the House is not being denied the right to make a decision on each of the individual parts of the bill. I challenge that statement. The Committee of the Whole may have the chance to make a decision by a standing vote which is not recorded-no names are put down-on each individual
[Mr. MacEachen.l
January 26, 1971

part of the bill. But the Committee of the Whole is not the House. In fact, Your Honour frequently has to draw our attention to that. You are not unaware, as the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, of what goes on around here. However, as Mr. Speaker, you are aware only of what goes on in the House, not of what goes on in the Committee of the Whole.
Under our new rules, when a bill goes to a standing committee and comes back for the report stage, we can of course cope with this problem by putting down report stage amendments. In fact, I have frequently defended the establishing of that new process as one of the best things we have done around here. It is now possible for a bill that has gone to a standing committee to come back here and become subject to report stage amendments which are debated in the House with Mr. Speaker in the Chair and to have recorded votes on each amendment. As a result, the House can make a decision on every individual point. If this bill were being sent to a standing committee instead of being dealt with by Committee of the Whole House, that would apply. When the bill came back at the report stage, members could pick out the parts with which they disagreed and put down the appropriate amendment. The House could then make its decision.
However, the motion calls for this bill to go to Committee of the Whole House, and our rule is quite clear. When a bill is reported from Committee of the Whole House, there is no debate and no amendments are allowed at that point. So, the House itself will have no chance whatsoever, despite the assurance of the President of the Privy Council, to vote on the individual propositions either at second or third reading.
I submit that because of this situation, very serious consideration will have to be given to it. Your Honour has been working pretty diligently from your seat up there on high and you may have a ruling by the time this debate is over. On the other hand, you may like to take it under consideration. The point made by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants carries weight when he says that a lot depends on how considerable the opposition is to this section or that. He quoted Mr. Speaker Macnaughton on that point, and it may be that Your Honour may wish to reserve your judgment.
The heart of the appeal that is being made is that the House should have the right to vote separately on these different individual propositions, and notwithstanding the assertion made by the President of the Privy Council, that right is not given to us on the one vote on second reading. It will not be given to us on the one vote on third reading, and we do not get a chance to vote at the report stage on this bill. Therefore, I say that this right is being denied.
Another argument of the President of the Privy Council is that there is one principle involved, that this bill is to improve the organization of the government of Canada. That is a nice play on words, and we have had a fair amount of that today. But in general terms, surely that principle applies only to the setting up of new departments and to shoving or pushing the ministers
Government Organization Act, 1970
around a bit. When you get down to the question of Parliamentary Secretaries, to the amendment of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, or to amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act, surely you are getting a long way from the broad general principle of reorganizing the government of Canada. I do not think that a case can be made for the assertion that this is just one general proposition. It is a mixed bag of nine parts, with at least seven or eight different propositions in those nine parts, plus all the individual items that are set out in the schedules. I think this is a most unsatisfactory way to deal with the business before us.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to take part in this most important debate.
I commend the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) for raising a point of order, so as to show, once more, the embarassment where the hon. members find themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the arguments of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and, from the way he talks, one quickly understands that for the government it has become a matter of fact and that, more and more, motions or bills will be moved that will bear on a whole series of separate proposals.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss briefly a particular point. The President of the Privy Council bases himself on the principle that more and more, in the past, the Chair has accepted the principle of omnibus bills, that is bills which contained several different proposals.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my own group, I want to say that the principle of omnibus bills has become for the government a weapon which allows it to handle in its own way the vote of each and every government and opposition member. This principle has become a weapon against democracy and the voting freedom of Parliament members.
Mr. Speaker, one may wonder about the meaning of the vote cast by a member since the right to vote in this House is one of the reasons why we have been elected. Now, the basic quality of a member's vote is that it is freely cast.
Secondly, his vote must be enlightened, that is to say, the member must be in a position to understand easily what it is about.
Let us remember the last omnibus bill containing some hundred amendments to the Criminal Code, and which raised for us a problem of conscience. At that time we either had to vote for the whole bill or to reject it.
It will be alleged that it is still possible for a member to object to a part of the bill he does not approve at the report stage, at the second reading stage or at the committee stage. But, Mr. Speaker, on second reading, the vote is not taken on that, but on the principle of the bill. If the practice of introducing omnibus bills is carried
2764

January 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
on, members of Parliament will hardly have anything else to do but to press on a button to indicate whether they are for or against a bill depending on its title.
Mr. Speaker, the government thinks that because legislation is introduced it will succeed in solving a given problem. As far as the opposition is concerned, it does not seem a good way to do it. And the trouble does not come from the fact that sometimes the opposition will disagree with the government, but, as the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants said a while ago, from the fact that a member may be for five proposals and against the seven others, whereas another supports three proposals and opposes the nine others. A member be in favour of the 12 proposals and likewise he can be against them all.
If the Chair accepts the principle of omnibus bills, whatever their content, only members in favour of the whole bill or those opposed to the whole bill can truly exercise their right to vote in a free and enlightened way. This is riding rough-shod over the enlightened and free vote of all members in favour of some proposals and opposed to others.
If a thorough statistical study were to be undertaken, it would be found that throughout the House extremely few members are either in favour of or against the whole omnibus bill. I voice again our concern that omnibus bills, that I would term package deals and take it or leave it propositions, are used by the government to deprive members of their right to vote freely. Hence, a member is placed in such a position that he actually cannot vote according to his conscience. If he is in favour of certain social measures, it does not necessarily mean that he would be in favour of 50 other proposals included in the bill. Under this procedure, the member is forced to vote for or against a bill as a whole under the pretext of speeding up the proceedings.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the time has not come to establish at this stage whether it is better to speed up the proceedings to the limit, or to respect the stand and the views of the various members on each proposal contained in a bill.
As far as we are concerned, we strongly object to the principle of omnibus bills which trample on the rights and freedom of members and also on the authority of Parliament, which can easily dispose of motions, as can often be seen.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to page 56 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. I have little experience of parliamentary procedure, but nevertheless I wish to quote paragraph (10) of Standing Order 58, which reads in part as follows:
-the Speaker... shall put forthwith successively, without debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of any item of business relating to interim supply, main estimates, and supplementary of final estimates-
So, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why at this stage you could not raise and put all the questions contained in the

omnibus bill so that the business of the House might be expedited to the great satisfaction of the government.
Mr. Speaker, you may smile at this little example because it is so simple, but it certainly would be normal, especially as we are aware of your concern for the protection of members' rights. If it is abnormal to move a motion to cover all those financial matters, we suggest that a bad procedure is being perpetuated because then we keep supporting the government when it introduces omnibus bills that may contain from 10 to 200 different proposals.
Mr. Speaker, the argument of the President of the Privy Council has no validity whatever, for it is utterly preposterous to talk about a "reorganization of the government". If it had any validity, one could in the same bill introduce a motion on every department and Crown corporation and all the Chair would have to say is: "It is true, these various elements are related because they all have to do with the government."
Mr. Speaker, I maintain that this is an instrument in the hands of this government to trample democracy and participation, as well as the freedom of each member.
I hope to be forgiven for this argumentation which is more or less in order. I merely wanted to base it on good common sense which, I submit, is too often trampled on in this chamber.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, some 15 or 20 minutes ago I thought I had a number of fresh arguments to advance, but the last two speakers have pretty well covered the ground which I had hoped to cover. Having listened to them, and more particularly to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), I am more than ever convinced that my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) is correct.
It seems to me that the minister, in effect, is asking Parliament to say that the end justifies the means. He says that the purpose of this bill is the efficient re-organization of the government, and therefore everything can be locked into the same bag. I put it to him that his argument is ridiculous because we could take every measure that comes before the House dealing with matters of trade, whether sponsored by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), lump them into one bill, and say that they were for the more efficient prosecution of the trade of Canada. In other words, during a whole session we might have perhaps only half a dozen omnibus bills. I see the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) benignly nodding his head. That is just the attitude I find so repugnant, the attitude that the end would justify the means.
I find it exceedingly difficult to see how one can ask the House to pronounce itself, on second reading, on a ministry to be set up to deal with environmental control, which I am sure meets with general approval in the
January 26, 1971

House, and at the same time on the question of the early retirement of certain civil servants, which happens to be fitted into this omnibus bill. The relationship between those two questions is absolutely non-existent. There is no connection between the early retirement of senior civil servants and the creation of this new ministry. Yet we are being asked to decide on these two questions in single recorded votes, both on second reading and third reading. That is a denial of fairness. I must add my voice to those who protest most vehemently against our being asked to consider second reading of a bill of this kind.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up the time of the House with arguments that have already been so well presented, particularly by my colleague the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). As a matter of fact, the latter advanced some arguments that I was going to present, and I agree thoroughly with what he said. I would just like to add that I do not think he went far enough.
The question of what items should be within a single piece of legislation, as Your Honour well knows, has been a problem for a great many years. Shortly after I first came to the House in 1954, the government of the day presented a series of amendments to the Criminal Code and, although contained in one bill, they seemed to involve a great many unrelated principles. Of course at that time there was an opportunity for a member to express his views in the House on second reading but there was no opportunity-and I think this is important-to have a recorded vote on specific amendments, as there is under our new procedures. At that time, technically speaking, while the proposed amendments came under the same umbrella, inasmuch as they dealt with the criminal law of Canada, I repeat that they dealt with a number of different principles.
When the latest amendments to the Criminal Code were considered a couple of years ago there was, of course, under our new rules an opportunity for hon. members on the report stage, after the bill had been referred to special committees of this House, to express their views on the different principles involved. These principles involved such things as gambling, lotteries, abortion, sex offences and the like. However, as has been pointed out, in with this bill we are dealing with a whole series of apparently unrelated principles. We are being asked at this time to vote on them en bloc. It is like saying to us, "Do not throw out the baby with the bath water; surely, you do not want to vote against the whole bill just because of one small objection you have to one aspect of the bill?" The implication in that argument is that every member of the House is in complete agreement with almost every clause of the bill, and that is manifestly not so. I am sure Your Honour recognize5 that.
In that connection, Your Honour, may I say that I think it is the right and privilege of every member of this House to make known his position on certain matters.
Government Organization Act, 1970 That is one of the reasons our constituents sent us down here. On matters of public importance, and particularly of moral importance, that come before this House, a member has the right to have his vote recorded. If this bill is considered in committee of the whole, there will be no opportunity whatsoever for a member's vote, to be recorded so that his constituents will know how he voted. Under those circumstances our parliamentary system provides no opportunity for recording the votes of elected representatives, on certain subjects. It has been said, "Of course, the people can read Hansard." It is not always easy for constituents to get hold of copies of Hansard, particularly since nowadays there are such large constituencies. I think it is only fair and proper that a member's position on any particular clause of the bill, especially a bill containing a number of unrelated items such as this bill, should be recorded.
This leads me to the final point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker. I have already indicated on many occasions in this House when successive governments have been in power, and when a question has arisen about the sort of legislation which may be presented to the House, that I object to an umbrella bill which introduces a whole lot of unrelated principles.


An hon. Member:: The Tories did that.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Arguments have been presented on this point. For instance, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) may express the view that this is really a bill to improve the organization of government. Yet, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) so aptly put it, you could include almost everything in such a bill and call it an act to improve the quality of life in Canada. I submit that a set of principles or guidelines will have to be laid down. I do not think anyone in this House wants to place an unnecessary burden on Your Honour or whoever may in future succeed Your Honour. Nevertheless, somehow guidelines will have to be laid down. These matters have come before this House time and again. Unless guidelines are laid down to prevent governments, either the present government or any other, from trying to do this kind of thing, this House will become nothing but a mockery and a joke. I suggest, respectfully, that Your Honour might defer a decision in this matter for a day or so, and then lay down for the present occasion as well as for future occasions a set of guidelines that ought to be followed in such cases.
I realize, being a pragmatic person, that a certain amount of discretion must always be left to Your Honour, or to your eventual successor. That will be necessary. It seems to me that some sort of guidelines will have to be laid down to indicate that the parts, of any omnibus bill that is presented to the House must bear some closer relationships than is apparent in this case. In other words, the principles of the bill, to refer to Mr. Speaker Michener's decision alluded to by the President of the Privy Council, must themselves be related. I hope that to avoid difficulties not only on this occasion but in future, Your Honour will lay down some guide-
23786-34i

January 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 lines. I hope, when this kind oi legislation is presented to the House in future, it will be necessary for it to fall within the ambit of certain guidelines. I hope Your Honour might be able to do this.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the arguments which have been advanced. It seems to me that the main burden of the argument that has been made is that members of the House must, when the Speaker is in the chair, be provided with an opportunity of voting, if not on all the details, at least on all the separate propositions contained within any bill. If that is valid, Mr. Speaker, then I suggest there is no purpose for the committee of the whole; and, if you want to take the argument to ridiculous lengths, there is probably no purpose for the standing committees of the House, either. If hon. members opposite wish to argue that all the details or different propositions of any bill must be the subject of a separate vote, with Mr. Speaker in the chair-I am not arguing as to the purpose for which members might wish to have their votes recorded-then, of course, there would be no reason for the committee to take under consideration bills of this nature, or any other nature.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is competent for either standing committees of this House, or indeed, the committee of the whole of this House, to amend any clause of this or any other bill. To be more specific, Mr. Speaker, the amending capability enables such committees to delete completely any clause from this or any other bill. This has been the practice for a very long period of time, Mr. Speaker. So, when any member argues that he does not have an opportunity to disagree with this or that individual provision of this bill or indicate that he supports other parts of the bill, I submit that his argument is not valid.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Nobody has argued that point.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I suggest, further, that every member of the House is also a member of the committee of the whole, and that the opportunity of disagreeing or agreeing is not denied to him. It is a novel argument, I suggest, that every disagreement with respect to certain provisions within a bill ought to be the subject of a recorded vote. The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) supports that argument. He says he wants to advise his constituents how he voted on any of the separate propositions of the bill.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: My constituents want to know how you vote. I do not know if that holds true for the minister's constituents.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That has not been the practice of this House, either in the committee of the whole or with regard to standing committees. Hon. members have known for a long time that the total numbers of those for or against a proposition only have been recorded.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Could the minister elaborate on that point?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Citation 389 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, page 279, reads in part:
A motion opposing the second reading of a Bill must not anticipate amendments which may be moved in Committee. Alterations which may be affected by amending the clauses of the Bill cannot be moved on the second reading.
I know that it is not intended to move amendments to the motion at present. I have quoted that citation only to give credence to our rules, and to the precedents for our rules, which provide that there is an opportunity in the committee of the whole and in standing committees for amendments of substance to be moved.
I think that if the arguments against our proceeding with the bill at this time hinge on the point that hon. members will not have an opportunity to vote on each separate proposition in the bill, I can only say that these arguments, if acceded to, would be a new departure and not in keeping with the practice over a long period.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, even though I have sat in the House for a limited time, I have the nerve to say that I listened with amazement to the minister who just spoke. My first experience with an omnibus bill was the bill dealing with the Criminal Code amendments relating to homosexuality, abortion and other matters. I listened to that debate in my early days in this House. I sat here perplexed and frustrated because the procedure leaves individual members, particularly on the opposition side, in a precarious position. I am not too interested in members sitting on the government side because I know how they think and how they vote.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I know because of the pattern of the record. I hope the minister is not trying to convince me that this procedure is correct and that it is, in truth, participatory democracy. A member on this side may be in favour of some parts of the bill and unalterably opposed to others. Nevertheless, to be credible and to show involvement in the work of the House he has to vote either directly for or against the bill as a whole. I do not want the minister to shake his head when he knows what happened in connection with that omnibus bill. I hope he is not serious when he says it does not really matter. It is one thing for people over there, where members are like sheep who follow a leader, and another thing for those who sit on opposition benches and wish to become involved with certain principles which they find either offensive or in keeping with their own ideas.


Mr. Speaker:: I note that the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) wishes to take part in the debate. Evidently, I will allow him to do so, but I would suggest to hon. members that I have heard the argument for and against the point of procedure raised by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) a moment ago and I will soon be ready to make a ruling, taking into account all the points raised during the debate. Moreover, each of the members who wished to take part in the discussion

January 26, 1971

has had the opportunity to do so without any intervention from the Chair. I think that in all fairness, the hon. member for Abitibi should enjoy the same privilege. The House will be interested in hearing him, I am sure; but if hon. members agree with me, after having heard the hon. member for Abitibi, I will give hon. members an opportunity to hear my own views in this connection


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend speaking at length on this matter. I know that many things have been said for and against omnibus bills. As far as I am concerned, I am opposed to this type of proceeding which places members in rather tricky situations. One part of an omnibus bill may be easily acceptable to us while another may leave doubts in our minds.
We can recall the omnibus bill to amend the Criminal Code and also a similar bill introducted in 1966 or 1967 concerning an increase in old age security pensions from $65 to $75. Everyone agreed on this point, but the bill also included a provision to increase taxes in order to replenish the old age security fund, which many opposed. It was therefore necessary to approve or reject both provisions as a whole. In consequence our position was untenable.
According to the government, this type of bill is introduced in order to facilitate consideration of it. I suggest that it is not so. If the bill on government re-organization had been studied in stages, if the case of each department had been examined, it could have been determined which ones need to be organized or re-organized. Certain provisions could have been adopted in five minutes, ten at the most. For the others, a little more time would have been needed, but on the whole all members would have been able to express their views on each provision, and that is not the case now.
I believe that the government should stop introducing bills of this sort and should instead submit very specific bills so that we may express our views clearly and frankly.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) as well as his colleagues who have wanted to make their views known and thus enable the Chair to benefit from their long experience in order to make a decision and to humbly express its opinion on the matter.

The point raised by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) is one of very great importance. I think I may say that when this bill was introduced in the House and given first reading, I raised my eyebrows and wondered whether the established procedures were being followed. Because of that, I have been thinking about the situation, and even before the point was raised by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants I gave the matter serious thought wondering whether we were proceeding in the right direction.
There is no doubt in my mind that there is considerable substance in the point raised by the hon. member in the first instance. I am also quite impressed by the argu-
Government Organization Act, 1970
ment advanced by other hon. members in support of his objection. I think that, in a way, he has a legitimate grievance or complaint.
My problem is, of course, whether he can advance a legitimate procedural argument, and this is where I find some difficulty. As the House knows, the Chair has to be guided to a considerable extent by precedents established over a number of years. During the hour or so this debate has been going on, the learned gentlemen at the table have obtained for me, at my request, certain precedents showing that similar points have been raised in the past. This is not the first time we have had before us a measure of the kind which have been called omnibus bills. On many occasions objections have been raised very strongly by hon. members. I would not like to go into all the details but, briefly, if hon. members will allow me, on April 2, 1953 the House had before it an amendment to the National Defence Act. Mr. Brown of St. John's West raised the point:
I have no doubt the minister can explain why this resolution covers two or three acts. Is it customary to do that?
As members will see, the point was being raised in 1953, and I am sure it was raised even before that. The Minister of National Defence at that time, Mr. Brooke Claxton, claimed that this was what had been done in the past and, as was done today, suggested this had long been the practice of the House. In any event, nothing was done, and the bill was presented to the House unchanged. It was voted upon in its original form.
The question was brought up again; the same bill was subjected to the same objection. The objection of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was reported at length in Hansard on December 10, 1953, at page 797. His words are preserved there for posterity and perhaps I should repeat them for the benefit of double posterity, if that exists.
This procedure places the members of the house in the situation of being faced with a resolution which deals with eight different matters. Naturally there are eight different principles involved under ordinary circumstances. As far as I can see from casual examination, most of these things are matters which perhaps everyone in the committee would agree with. When we hear more about them, that may not be so. In any event, it might very well be that amongst those eight amendments is one with which we would disagree violently and therefore feel called upon to vote against the resolution or particularly, after we have the bill and have the information, to vote against the bill because of that one matter.
This is the argument which was advanced in 1953 by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well put!


Mr. Speaker:: The argument was well put, as it was well put today by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others. I said that I did not want to go into the details of the few precedents I have before me of more recent vintage. However, reference was made to the Veterans Benefit Act of 1954, and again the same argument was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Then, jumping a decade or so we go to 1964, when the late, respected and beloved member for Digby-

January 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
Annapolis-Kings, the Hon. George C. Nowlan, raised the same point. He said, as reported at page 9086 of Hansard for October 15 of that year:
As the minister has told us, we are dealing here with the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, the Trust Companies Act and the Loan Companies Act. Quite a melange.
Perhaps hon. members might have wanted to say the same thing about the bill now before the House. There is no question, without going further into the details, that this is a long established practice. We have had this type of omnibus bill before the House on many occasions. The President of the Privy Council and the Minister of Agriculture have quite rightly argued their case that this is long established practice and that the government has followed past practice. That is their argument and it has fo be respected. Certainly, the Chair must take that into account because of the importance of precedent in our system.
However, where do we stop? Where is the point of no return? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I believe the hon. member for Edmonton West, said that we might reach the point where we would have only one bill, a bill at the start of the session for the improvement of the quality of life in Canada which would include every single proposed piece of legislation for the session. That would be an omnibus bill with a capital "O" and a capital "B". But would it be acceptable legislation? There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint.
At the same time, having now reached second reading and having had this bill before us for some time, I doubt whether we should take the very drastic and extreme position, as I suggest to hon. members it would be, of saying that this bill is not acceptable to the House, that it should not be put by the government and that it should not be considered by hon. members. In my view it should be the responsibility of the Chair, when such bill is introduced and given first reading, to take the initiative and raise the matter for consideration of the House by way of a point of order, as I have taken the liberty of doing with a number of private members' bills. When those bill came before the House for first reading I entered a caveat about them and gave hon. members an opportunity of expressing their views. At any rate, some of those bills were refused by the Chair.
At that point, it is much easier for the government to go back to the legislative mill, to the judicial luminaries of the Department of Justice, where these bills are prepared for the consideration of Parliament. If I may say so, I think that even those very learned gentlemen should take into account the fact that this aspect of legislation is of interest to all hon. members, of interest I am sure to the government, and certainly of interest to the Chair, namely, that there must be a point where an omnibus bill becomes more than an omnibus bill and is not acceptable from a procedural standpoint.
One or two hon. members have argued that there would not be an opportunity for members to express

their views by way of a vote on individual parts of the bill or individual clauses. That is perhaps not entirely correct. I am not here referring to the committee of the whole; I have made that distinction before now. For hon. members to express their view in committee of the whole on a particular clause of the bill is not the same as being given an opportunity to express their views on a clause of the bill by way of a recorded vote.
The House must note that there is a third reading stage of a bill. When a bill comes to the House for third reading, there is not one clause or one part of the bill that cannot be brought into question by way of an amendment proposing that the particular clause or section be referred back to committee. I think this gives every hon. member an opportunity to vote either for or against, or to express his views in the House either for or against, a particular clause or part of the bill, and to do so by way of a recorded vote. Accordingly there still is a measure of protection afforded hon. members.
Having said this, I would have to rule-if I must rule-that the government has followed the practice that has been accepted in the past, rightly or wrongly, but that we may have reached the point where we are going too far and that omnibus bills seek to take in too much. All hon. members should be alerted to this difficulty of which the Chair is fully conscious. When another omnibus bill is proposed to the House, it should be scrutinized at first reading stage, when hon. members will be given the opportunity of expressing their view, and the Chair can express its view, either that the bill goes too far or that it is acceptable from a procedural standpoint.
I think that this discussion has been a valuable one, certainly as far as the Chair is concerned, and I thank hon. members for the views that they have expressed. Certainly, I am very impressed by them and propose to take them into account when the circumstances warrant an examination of the point of order in the future.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am always first to stand and say that I appreciate the wisdom and experience of the Speaker. In view of the preamble to your ruling, so properly given, and in view of the fact you have indicated that an omnibus bill might encompass all matters related to the improvement of the quality of life of all Canadians, it seems to me it would be proper and justifiable to reach the conclusion that Mr. Speaker has perhaps chastised the government lightly but firmly.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that is hardly a point of order; it is more a point of disorder.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief point of order which is perhaps more in the nature of a question. At some future date, perhaps after this legislation has gone through the House with whatever the result, I wonder if Your Honour might give consideration to giving the House your views on the set of principles which should be applied to omnibus bills.
January 26, 1971


Mr. Skoreyko:: Mr. Speaker, I have the same point of order. I, too, entirely concur with the views expressed by members of the House and, indeed, with your ruling. I think it is important at this juncture to point out, if I may, that according to the precedents cited, at no time has an omnibus bill been presented to the House giving carte blanche to the government to appoint ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and the like. That is an important point which I think should be taken into consideration in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that at this point we are resuming the debate we were having a moment ago. Perhaps hon. members might have expressed these views while we were considering the point of order, so that additional arguments might have been advanced for the consideration of the government and the guidance of the Chair. However, the motion has now been put and the Chair recognizes the President of the Treasury Board.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of the bill sponsored by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I should like to make it clear that I do not intend to go into detail regarding each clause of this bill, because this can be done after the motion for second reading has been passed. Hon. members may wish to raise questions of a general nature relating to the bill; I shall try to answer them. It is my intention to deal with the principle on which the provisions of this bill are based.
In essence, the government organization bill deals with the constant challenge facing Parliament and the government to be as efficient as possible in doing those things which are in the interest of the Canadian people and society. This challenge is imposed upon us by the rapid changes taking place today, and our response in this regard must be positive. Both Parliament and the government must be flexible; both must adapt their procedures and structures; and in the final analysis, the test is whether they are continuing to respond effectively to the needs of the society and of the world with which they must deal.
The government is determined to meet the challenge of change by continually enhancing its capacity to deal effectively with all those matters that are vital to the welfare of Canadians. If enacted, the bill before us, will better equip the government to develop and implement new policies to serve Canadians in a variety of fields: amongst them, the fight against pollution. At the same time it will provide for greater accountability of the executive to Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to turn to Part I of the government organization bill, the Department of the Environment Act.
I believe that very few Canadians need to be convinced that the challenge posed by a deteriorating environment, which faces all people and particularly those living in
Government Organization Act, 1970
industrialized nations such as Canada, is one that raises the very issue of human survival itself.
This fundamental issue was clearly recognized by hon. members through their initiative some months ago, to call for the establishment of a Special Committee on Environmental Pollution, which has been ably chaired by the member from Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson). I have no doubt that if Parliament approves the proposal to establish a Department of the Environment, the new minister and his officials will follow with keen interest the proceedings of this Special Committee.
A principal objective of the proposed minister of the environment and of his department would be to ensure that Canadians, both now and in the future, would be able to enjoy a natural environment of high quality. It would be their task to see that acceptable levels of environmental quality are set and where they have been transgressed, that efforts are made to restore these levels and to prevent undesirable changes in the future.
These statements are easy to make, Mr. Speaker, but in a society where many have only recently become aware of and concerned about the problems of environmental quality, a new understanding of and new perspectives on these problems must be developed so that we can come to a general agreement on the sort of balance that should be struck between the quality of our natural environment and the pursuit of those activities which often result in pollution of the environment. The new minister must help Canadians understand the causes and effects of environmental change and their implications, so that the activities of our community can be directed to achieve desirable levels of environmental quality.
Part I of the Government Organization Bill outlines the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of the Environment and lists the statutes for which he is to be responsible. In addition to the minister's general responsibility for renewable resources and for environmental quality, his responsibilities will include those recently transferred to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry by order in council pursuant to the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act. While as a general rule it is important to separate within the administration of public affairs, the exploitation interest from the conservation interest, this rule should not apply in a strict sense-it is important to make a distinction particularly where the resources in question are renewable. Fish, wildlife, crops and trees must have a clean environment if they are to flourish, and they often provide our first indicators of environmental deterioration. Those who are involved in the field of renewable resources have a keen understanding of the importance of conservation and high levels of environmental quality.
In fisheries and forestry for example, there is a keen awareness of the importance of conservation and of the maintenance of environmental quality to continuing commercial success. Therefore, the addition of new emphasis on conservation will not detract from but augment the traditional role of the federal government in relation to those who are engaged in the fisheries business and forestry business. Accordingly, I am confident that the

January 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 new department will serve the interests of those engaged in fisheries and forestry operations even more effectively than they have in the past.
The renewable resources elements of the new department will be in partnership with the new environmental quality activities of the federal government which were recently transferred to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. The water sector of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, one of the recent transfers, is concerned both with the quality of water and with the management of water as a resource. These two responsibilities are, for all practical purposes, inseparable. This was the conclusion last summer when the House passed the Canada Water Act which embodies the concept of integrated management for water.
The minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) will retain his responsibilities for all energy matters, including the generation of hydro-electric power. The new Department of the Environment will, however, continue to provide the bulk of the water surveys and related information required by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in its activities concerning the development of hydro-electric power.
Certain important water pollution monitoring and control activities of the Department of National Health and Welfare have also been transferred the the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and will form part of the new department.
The bulk of the air pollution programs of the Department of National Health and Welfare have likewise been transferred to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, since these have assumed the brunt of the federal government's fight against air pollution.
The transfer of the Meteorological Branch of the Department of Transport to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry will complement these air pollution programs. Thereby forming the nucleus of the new department's concerns for atmospheric quality. There is, of course, a close inter-relationship between concern for water and for atmospheric matters.
I would like to enlarge upon some aspects of the role of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources now that its former responsibilities for water have been transferred from the minister of that department to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis). An increasing emphasis must be placed on the development of our energy and mineral resources. These are likely to be two of the most important areas of national interest in the 70's; they are keys to the future. Powerful states and great societies will be mightily concerned about them, as we who have them so richly in our inheritance, must also be. It is with this understanding that the responsibilities of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for the development of comprehensive and coordinated policies in these areas have become substantially greater in the last year or so.
I am sure that I do not have to remind the House, Mr. Speaker, of the recent successful efforts directed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) which will result in greater access for Canadian oil to the U.S. markets. Efforts of this kind, which the Government has accelerated in the last year or so, must be based on full and clear understanding of the energy and mineral resources of Canada and the implications for the well-being of Canadians of their exploitation and marketing, as well as of the impact on the quality of the environment.
Parts II and III of the bill, Mr. Speaker, deal with matters consequential on the establishment of the Department of Environment, as well as a few other matters which do not affect the principle of this bill.
Accordingly, I will move on to Part IV, the Ministries and Ministers of State Act. The warp and woof of our ministerial system is very complex. Strands of history and tradition are interwoven with elementary political principles and the basic values of our society to form a continuously evolving fabric. One does not tamper with this system except with very good reason and after the most careful consideration.
Situated at the interface between Crown and Parliament or, as those educated in the American tradition might say, between the executive and the legislature, the ministerial system is in many respects the essential characteristic of our form of government. As such, its development is rightly very much of concern to Parliament generally, and to this House in particular. One of the reasons, then, for bringing forward in the form of legislation the changes envisaged by this bill, is that doing so affords an opportunity for us to talk about the ministerial system, to review how it has evolved in recent years and how it may evolve in the future.
A good point of departure for such a discussion is perhaps an obeisance to the fundamental constitutional principle that it is the Crown's business to organize itself for the administration of the affairs of state, and Parliament's business to guide and supervise that administration by grants to or withdrawals from the executive of duties, powers and functions and of the funds with which to exercise them. Hon. members will immediately recognize that these statements are clearly very great simplifications, one might even say over-simplifications, but it is necessary to be somewhat rudimentary in order that we never lose sight of the basic principles and concepts on which that system is built.
How the Crown organizes itself and how Parliament, in effect, supervises that organization differs considerably as between Great Britain and Canada. We, of course, are rooted in British traditions and have the great advantage of being able to look from time to time at parliamentary institutions in Britain and elsewhere in the world for refreshment, stimulation and occasional correction. None the less, it is hardly surprising that having had our own independent legislatures for over 200 years and this Parliament for over 100 years, we now have many independent ways of our own, customs and conventions that are clearly uniquely Canadian.
Of Great Britain's ministerial system one can really say that the Crown may organize itself as it sees fit.

January 26, 1971______________________COMMONS DEBATES______________________________________2771
Ministerial offices and departments are established entirely by prerogative acts. Parliament's supervision is exercised partly by stipulations in terms of the numbers of Members of Parliament that may comprise the ministry at any one time, partly in terms of the allocation of supply and partly by subjecting transfers to new ministers to the liability of potential annulment by negative resolution within a given number of days following tabling of the relevant Order in Council. Within this framework, I think it can safely be said that the government of the day may advise Her Majesty, and Her Majesty may deem it appropriate, to organize her ministry and her public service in any way she wishes.
We in Canada have a somewhat more restrictive tradition. Fundamentally, of course, the prerogative vested in the Crown to establish ministerial offices and fill them remains as untarnished here as it ever was. The office of the President of the Privy Council, and that of the first minister, are examples of offices created under the prerogative. Following Confederation, there was for a time the office of the Secretary of State for the Provinces and there is no reason that this could not be reinstituted or other secretaries of state established. Likewise, a minister for this and for that. But notwithstanding all of this, as a general rule, the Crown in Canada has accepted limitations on its power to organize itself for affairs of state which are not known in Great Britain. Largely as a result of our colonial past, ministries and departments of government have been established by legislation as well as being subject to constant reconfirmation by votes of supply. Even if the Crown established a host of new ministers and departments under the prerogative, it could not pay one of them a penny without the authority of this House and of Parliament. When the Public Service in its broadest sense included no more than a few thousand officials and the activities of the public sector trespassed no more than a few percentage points on the gross national product, when at the turn of the century life was somewhat slower and ministers, officials and members could take their tea on Thursday afternoons in front of fireplaces in their offices, one can understand that delays in organization were almost as inconsequential as the endless metaphysical debates about the jurisdictions of ministers. But the circumstances of today do not admit of delays and jurisdictional uncertainties of the dimensions of the past and so, clearly, we must regard as wholly unsatisfactory a system that admits of such delays and uncertainties. Today, jurisdictions must be clear, and actions must be swift. Above all, a government which disposes of an annual budget of one-sixth of the gross national product, and which employs hundreds of thousands of people must be subject to clear direction and close supervision by the elected representatives of the people and, from amongst them, the Ministers of the Crown.
I have mentioned that in days of yore it was the general rule that governments gave effect to their organizational proposals one by one as urgent demands upon the time of the House permitted. Under these circumstances, the implementation of government initiatives, however vital, and even the simple acts of housekeep-
Government Organization Act, 1970 ing-routine but of enormous consequences in terms of dollar amounts-had to be postponed and sometimes even put over from year to year.
It was in the face of this relentless and often inevitable tendency that governments began some years ago to make greater and greater use of the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, and in this connection, of ministers without portfolio. Duties, powers and functions have in the past been transferred in great numbers to and from ministers without portfolio and efforts have been been made with more or less success to transfer to ministers without portfolio the control and supervision of portions, if not of the public service properly speaking, at least of employees of the Crown corporation and agencies. We thus arrived at a situation where ministers without portfolio in fact had portfolios. A complicated situation became further complicated, and jurisdictional lines already confused became further confused.
This created a problem for Parliament, and for this House in particular, because the accountability of the government to Parliament was much more confused, diluted and imprecise than it should have been. In other words, Parliament was the weaker as the result of a ministerial system which had failed to keep pace with the demands placed upon it.
Partly to alleviate this situation, the previous prime minister introduced the technique of the government organization bill and that has, to an extent, ameliorated the situation. It has not, however, solved the problem of delay or put in place a ministerial structure sufficiently varied and flexible to cope with contemporary demands of complex issues and big government. Nor has it solved the problem of a prime minister in allocating manageable responsibilities to ministers and defining them with precision. It is to resolve these problems that we propose what in the current government organization bill is identified as the ministries and ministers of state act.
This legislation would identify two kinds of ministers in addition to the departmental ministers and ministers without portfolio with which we are all familiar. I say "identify" rather than "establish" because we already have the kind of ministers described in the bill and all we are now doing is putting names to what already largely exists. The ministerial structure described in the bill flows from an analysis of what governments have been doing under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act and under the prerogative in relation to ministers without portfolio. This analysis leads to the identification first of the departmental minister, such as the secretary of state or the minister of national defence, who is the subject of departmental legislation. At the other extreme, there is the minister without portfolio whose title suggests a freedom from particular administrative responsibilities to take up a roving commission that would give his colleagues in cabinet a source of advice and judgment.
In between the departmental minister and the minister without portfolio, circumstances have clearly demonstrated a requirement for a kind of minister for a designated

January 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 purpose who, while clothed with the rank and status of a departmental minister and supported by a staff of public servants, would be charged with a particular mission, usually of a policy nature, generally of short, or at least not necessarily of permanent, duration.
Finally, there is the fourth kind of minister: the minister who is assigned primarily to assist another minister and who would be called a minister of state. A minister of state might assist a minister with particularly heavy responsibilities or with a specific responsibility requiring special attention. Ministers of state would be able to receive powers, duties and functions from other ministers, and would be responsible to Parliament directly in accounting for the manner in which they exercised them.
The possibility of transferring powers, duties and functions to a minister without portfolio has not been precluded. The clear intention is, however, that this position would be used for the purposes its title suggests, and that in the future a prime minister would no longer feel compelled to assign to ministers without portfolio responsibilities which would be much more appropriate to other categories of ministers.
I may endeavour to summarize. With the enactment of the ministries and ministers of state act, there would be four categories of ministers of the Crown. Ministers in all four categories would be appointed on the advice of the prime minister by commission under the Great Seal of Canada, to serve at pleasure, and be responsible to Parliament as members of the government of the day and for any responsibility which might be assigned to them by law or otherwise.
Departmental ministers would occupy an office created by statute to which are attached powers, duties and functions defined by statute; have supervision and control over a portion of the public service known as a department; be limited in number by the number of statutory ministerial offices; have salaries provided for bytitle in the Salaries Act; and seek appropriations on their own from Parliament to cover the cost of the activities for which they are responsible.
Ministers of state for designated purposes would occupy an office created by proclamation on the advice of the prime minister; be limited in number by statute to five; be charged with responsibilities for developing new and comprehensive policies in areas where the development of such policies is of particular urgency and importance; have a mandate effectively determined by the prime minister which would be of such duration as to enable them to come to grips with the policy problems assigned to them; receive powers, duties and functions and exercise supervision and control of relevant elements of the public service; and seek parliamentary appropriations independently of any minister to cover the cost of their staff and operations. They would have a "secretary" who would have the status and authority of a deputy head for the purpose of the Financial Administration Act and the Public Service Employment Act, and would preside over ministries which would eventually either become parts of new or existing departments or whose existence would be terminated.
Ministers of state would be appointed to assist a departmental minister in the discharge of his responsibilities; receive powers, duties and functions; be limited in number by the appropriations that Parliament is willing to pass to cover their salaries and expenses; and receive the same salary as a minister without portfolio provided for them in the estimates of the minister with whom they were to be associated. Finally, ministers without portfolio would have responsibilities assigned by the prime minister, and would not normally exercise statutory powers, duties and functions.
We do not believe, of course, that the provisions of the ministries and ministers of state act will provide the best of all possible worlds, but we do believe that they constitute a solid and most important advance. In designing them, we have tried to adhere to the genius of our system of government. We have not thought it wise to try to recast completely the ministerial system. Neither have we felt it wise to open up the increasingly obvious distinction among departmental ministers, that is, the distinction between those concerned primarily with operations, those concerned primarily with policy, and those concerned primarily with control. These are all products of history as well as of reason.
Decision making is, after all, a political as well as an administrative process. Whereas logic and measurement can certainly be promoted to high place in considering the administrative process, one should think twice before putting them in a position of dominance over the hundreds of years of history from which we have distilled the experience with human nature which is, in so many ways, the essence of our political process.
It will be said by some that the ministries and ministers of state act will significantly enlarge the administration. Particularly will this be the complaint when the House deals with part V of the government organization bill, which is an amendment to the Parliamentary Secretaries Act. We would not at all accept this allegation, Mr. Speaker. After the government organization bill has passed, statutory offices would exist for 26 departmental ministers in addition to the Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council. There would be provision for the appointment of not more than five Ministers of State for designated purposes, and subject to the requirements of the Crown and Parliament's agreement to appropriate the necessary moneys, it would be possible to name a number of Ministers of State and Ministers without Portfolio.
The government does not envisage the appointment of all five of the Ministries of State, but it will ensure that the ministers, of all categories, and the Parliamentary Secretaries who may be appointed will be in a much better position than now to advise, develop and direct policy, and to control a government employment of half a million public servants.
In the last election there was a prevalent demand for greater sensitivity in government, to be accompanied at the same time by more government activity and less

January 26, 1971

government intrusion or, at least, less "big" government. As 1 implied earlier, Mr. Speaker, the best answer to this apparent riddle lies in the strengthening of parliamentary institutions and in this context, among other things, in an increase in the number of Members of Parliament acting within the public service to develop policy, and generally to provide a nexus between the people and the public service.
The primary concern should not be that cabinets are too large but rather that too few ministers are charged with so many urgent matters that they have to abdicate the task of policy development, or at least its control, entirely to experts who do not have to be directly responsive to changing popular feelings. It is well to remember that however big a cabinet, all ministers are accountable to Parliament individually. Distribute all the burdens of government across a smaller ministry, and you generalize the grasp that each minister has over his larger area of responsibility-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Did you say grasp or graft?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Grasp.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wasn't sure.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -and necessarily make more nebulous the substance of his reporting to the House.
One human being endowed with no more than 24 hours in a day can comprehend only so much, and the more you put on his plate the more general his comprehension, and so his accountability of it is likely to be. Thus, it is not a bad thing if we move towards somewhat larger ministries since Parliament benefits from the greater precision that enlargement allows. Particularly is this so in the type of situation that in the past has had to be dealt with by transfers to Departmental Ministers or Ministers without Portfolio, but which in the future will be open to the use of Ministers of State.
Previously, and as things now stand, the undertaking of a special mission of policy development was added to all the other departmental duties a minister might have. Under the Ministries and Ministers of State Act, it will not be necessary to detract from one area of public concern in order to come to grips with another, and hon. members will know the special missions above and beyond a minister's departmental responsibilities that the government has identified, and they will have directly accountable to them the ministers who have been charged with these missions.
It is also in line with the concept of enlarging the interface between those who administer public affairs and Parliament, and particularly this House, that the government proposes Part V of the Government Organization Bill, the amendment of the Parliamentary Secretaries Act. There is clearly a need to provide ministers with assistants in discharging their manifold responsibilities, and nowhere more so than in relation to Parliament. This has been the purpose of our system of Parliamentary Secretaries and it has proven to be beneficial not
Government Organization Act, 1970 only to ministers but to hon. members in providing them with a continuously available means of access to departmental information and services. The existing provisions of the Parliamentary Secretaries Act are that there cannot be more than 16 parliamentary secretaries appointed to assist ministers at any one time.
It has been many years, however, since the number of ministers with departmental responsibilities has been anywhere near 16, and at the same time the need for parliamentary assistants has enormously increased as a direct consequence of the development of the committee system and other government efforts to enhance the role aud authority of Members of Parliament. The Government Organization Bill proposes that there could be as many Parliamentary Secretaries as there are ministers with departmental responsibilities or with major portfolios.
Section 4 of the Salaries Act lists the offices of these ministers, and so the government organization bill provides that the number of Parliamentary Secretaries should not at any one time exceed the number of ministers who hold offices for which salaries are provided in section 4 of the Salaries Act.

Mr. Speaker, I should now like to turn to Part VI, concerning amendments to the Post Office Act.
In addition to some of the major changes that I have just described, Mr. Speaker, the reform and reorganization of the machinery of government often calls for a certain amount of fine tuning in the light of experience. The House will recall the announcement of the appointment of the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote) as Minister without Portfolio to assist the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) with his responsibilities for postal matters. The simultaneous and urgent requirement both for reform of the Post Office as well as for the development of major new policies in telecommunications, prompted this move.
The House will also recall that when the Department of Communications was established by the Organization Act in 1969, this act included an amendment to the Post Office Act providing that "the Minister of Communications is the Postmaster General". It continues to be the government's view that mail is an important mode of communication and that postal affairs must always be closely coordinated with other modes of communication. Given the importance and urgency of formulating and implementing new policies for improved telecommunications and improved postal service for all Canadians, it has become imperative that the responsibilities for communications and postal affairs should be evenly shared by two ministers. Hon. members are aware, Mr. Speaker, of the studies being made at this time on the structure of postal and telecommunication services.
Accordingly, Part VI of the Government Organization Bill includes a section to amend the Post Office Act, to provide that the Minister of Communications would be the Postmaster General unless a Member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada were appointed to the office of

January 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
Postmaster General by appointment by Commission under the Great Seal of Canada.
So far, Mr. Speaker, I have talked almost exclusively about structures and institutions and now I would like to deal with the question of personnel which is the subject of Part VII.
At present, it is impossible for a public servant to retire before age 60 without losing a substantial portion of the pension that he could receive at that age. This has created particular hardships for certain categories of employees such as air traffic controllers, aircraft pilots, certain National Film Board technicians and penitentiary guards, where the requirements of their work are such that, normally, continued employment after the age of 60 may be beyond an individual's capacity or may be held to be too exacting at that age. In other cases, public servants who might wish to take up a second career in their later years may hesitate doing so because of the severe reduction in their pension if they left the public service before age 60.
In a sense, these people are locked in by our present superannuation arrangements which do not provide for retirement before age 60, except on health grounds, without accepting an actuarial reduction in pension. Since many of these public servants have talents and experience of rather unique character which might well be of value to other sectors of society, the government believes it to be in the public interest to make possible a greater degree of mobility between the public and private sectors than has existed in the past, by lowering the age at which voluntary retirement can be sought, without loss of pension.
Not only will improved and more flexible early retirement provisions work to the benefit of individual employees, but they should aslo provide a firmer basis for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the public service.
There may well be a number of specific cases where individuals, after many years of useful public service, are no longer capable of meeting the changing requirements of their jobs. Situations like this can arise from a variety of circumstances including the unusually high pressures and tensions of executive employment as well as the failure do adapt to change. The existing retirement provisions do not enable the government to deal with cases like these in anything but very harsh terms, if at all, but the new provisions will enable the government to release such individuals from the public service without undue hardship to the persons involved. These new provisions should also enable the government to exact the high standards of performance required in a dynamic public service.
Since it is particularly important at the apex of responsibility in the public service that the public is served by the best people available at the height of their career, special provisions should be provided for those who occupy the positions of deputy minister or its equivalent.
In the public sector, provisions for early retirement are also becoming more common. The Civil Service Superannuation Plan of one province, for example, has just been amended to provide a full pension for public servants at age 55 with 32 years of service. In the United States, federal servants may retire on a full annuity at age 55 once they have 30 years of service to their credit.
The proposals in the Government Organization Bill are in line with these provisions.
Mr. Speaker, there remain Parts VIII and IX of the Bill, but since these do not relate to the principle of the Bill but to matters which are consequential upon earlier parts which I have discussed, or which are transitional, I do not intend to deal with them at this stage. The schedules to the Bill list the acts for which the Minister of the Environment would be responsible and provide for further consequential amendments and so here again, I will not comment on them.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to review the main elements of the bill. The enactment of the Department of the Environment Act will greatly facilitate the mounting of a concerted attack by the federal government of the problems of pollution.
The enactment of the Ministries and Ministers of State Act and the amendment to the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, will enable the administration and the executive to come to grips much more effectively than in the past with the myriad responsibilities facing the government of Canada now, and with many other responsibilities that we know will fall to the government in the future. The enactment of this piece of legislation will also enhance and make clear the accountability of the Executive to Parliament-a particularly important provision in a period where the responsibilities that fall to the Executive appear to grow without an end in sight.
Finally, the amendments to the Superannuation Act will provide a new basis for the development of improved personnel policies which this government has regarded as a key to better management of public affairs.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for the cooperation of hon. Members in giving this bill careful consideration and speedy passage.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, first, on behalf of hon. members, may I thank the minister for dealing with points of principle and leaving some of the details until later. I, myself, will concentrate on two or three subjects, instead of trying to cover the whole waterfront. It is unlikely that I shall spend much time in dealing with the fact that astronomic observatories are to be taken from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and put under the National Research Council. I think the appropriate place for the observatories would be under the authority of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) so that the government could keep in some kind of touch with rising unemployment.


Mr. Gilbert:: Very good.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.

January 26, 1971



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 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 Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-External Affairs-Sale of arms by France to South Africa-Canadian position; the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte)-Indian Affairs- National Parks-Quebec-Development of park in St. Maurice Valley-Construction of ski centre in Saint Gerard; the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchin-ski)-Indian Affairs-Special funds to assist Indians and Metis.
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 MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Private Members' Public Bills:
October 20, 1970-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965 (Financing of private members' public bills).-Mr. Baldwin.
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the sponsor of the bill, who is away on parliamentary business, perhaps there could be agreement to allowing this item to stand without losing its position on the order paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed? Shall the item referred to by the hon. member stand and retain its position on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CRIMINAL CODE


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: that Bill C-16,
to amend the Criminal Code (Abolition of Corporal Punishment) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length on this bill. It is my great hope that, in a few minutes, hon. members on both sides of the House will be disposed to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, where it can be dealt with in detail and from which it can be returned to the House for third reading. I think I should indicate clearly at the outset that the subject is corporal punishment. I find that
Criminal Code
when this term is used people often think in terms of capital punishment and are somewhat confused about the subject generally, not because they do not understand what is meant when one talks about whipping and flogging but because the more polite term, corporal punishment, is not as familiar to them.
It is probably true to say that corporal punishment has not been the experience of most Members of this House, at least not in their adult years, and presumably it is not an experience which most of us will ever be obliged to undergo. Yet, it is an experience to which certain of our fellow citizens have been subjected, administered as it is under federal statute and in federal institutions. It should, therefore, be very much our concern to take note of the form of state-instituted violence as it is still practiced in this country, particularly since so many hon. members have put on record their strong opposition to the use of violence to resolve problem situations.
In these circumstances it is disturbing to consider that violence is still being exercised in this country-not often, but on occasion, as a certain form of punishment in connection with what is termed justice. To assist in the realization of what this means I should like to quote one description, which was given a few years ago, of the experience of one man who underwent corporal punishment in one of our institutions. This is from an article which was printed some time ago in the Toronto Star, documenting on a question and answer basis the experience of this one individual. The extract reads as follows:
Q. Could you tell us about the strapping and what happened at the time?
A. As to the machine, you mean?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, at the time you go before you get strapped you go up before superintendent there.
Q. Well, yes?
A. And he sentences you to be strapped and you go down to the first floor and they take you down to the machine. When you get there you are examined by a doctor for heart to see if you are physically fit to stand the strapping. Then you are taken and strapped with the machine-what they call the machine. Your hands are handcuffed and your legs are cuffed and also your ankles are cuffed. There is a kidney belt which goes around your kidneys and one around your thighs and there is very little movement you can make while in the machine. Then they blindfold you and pull your shirt over your head and you don't know when you are going to get strapped. Everyone scrapes their feet on the sand floor and you can't hear it coming-it's impossible. The way I understand it, they wait until you relax before they give it to you.
Q. Are you standing erect in the machine?
A. Yes, you are standing on your feet. You are bent over in a leaning position over a crossbar that goes across your middle. While the actual strapping is being administered, there is a doctor there that takes your pulse all the time you are in the machine and afterwards all the officers leave the room and you are taken out of the machine and the blindfold is taken off. If there is further punishment after that like the hole, you are taken directly from the strapping room to the hole.
This description of what might be called a civilized approach to violence surely seems offensive and shocking to the general public as well as to members of this

January 26, 1971
Criminal Code
House. In this enlightened era of the 'seventies, these details must come as a shock to all those who believe we have travelled some distance in our understanding of how to deal with those who commit criminal offences. On the other hand, we may feel that the kind of program which has been described is only of limited interest. Yet more than one psychologist and observer of the human scene has suggested that the exercise of corporal punishment, as instituted under statutory authority in this country, people get a vicarious, masochistic pleasure from knowing that some person is being dealt with in this barbaric fashion. It may be true, and it is certainly true according to statistics, that there are not many people in our country today who will have to face a sentence of corporal punishment in the year 1971. However, if even one person must undergo this kind of barbaric sentence without any objection from any of us, what does it say about our society generally?
1 am impressed by the fact that in 1956 a committee of the House of Commons met to consider questions related to capital punishment, lotteries and corporal punishment, and made certain far-reaching recommendations. It is of interest that since that day Parliament has substantially changed the law with respect to both capital punishment and lotteries, but it has yet to act on the recommendations of that committee with regard to corporal punishment. Let me read just one of the recommendations which was contained in the report of that committee.
The Committee kept two considerations in mind throughout its inquiry into corporal punishment as a part of the sentence of the court. The first was whether it deters those subjected to it from further crime and, secondly, whether it deters the public generally to a greater extent than other methods of punishment. The evidence did not justify the view that it will exercise any special reformative or deterrent influence on individuals upon whom it is administered and, on the whole, it appears to have the contrary effect. The Committee concluded that the existence of corporal punishment affords no unique deterrence to crime. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that corporal punishment be abolished for any of the offences for which it is presently prescribed in the Criminal Code.
It seems passing strange that we should be able to act in connection with many other matters during the past 15 years and yet have failed to take the necessary action to remove from the statutes of this country authority for the administration of corporal punishment. It is to be noted that in the United Kingdom, which is often held up as an example to this House, corporal punishment was abolished as far back as 1948, nearly 25 years ago. Since that time, studies have been carried out to establish whether there is any relationship between the non-use of corporal punishment and the records of crime, and it has been conclusively found that there is no relationship. Indeed, it might well be that the abolition of corporal punishment has had a positive effect on the level of violent crime in Britain.
It seems to me the time is long past when Parliament should act on this subject. As long ago as March 18, 1968, I introduced a bill to this end and argued that it should be acted upon either as separate legislation or along with appropriate amendments to the Criminal Code. Unfortunately, the then minister of justice, now the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his successor have not yet taken action to end a method of punishment which is retrograde and out of harmony with the changes which have been made in our Criminal Code.
Why have we not taken steps to abolish corporal punishment? Presumably one must take account of the argument which is still being used by those who contend that the institutional use of whipping or flogging has a positive value. In the first instance, there are many people who would say that there is a definite deterrent, that the very fact it is known that for specific crimes a person will suffer the sentence of being whipped or flogged will in some way deter him from the acts that he is about to enter upon.
The argument of deterrence is a well worn one and is often used, but it is not one that has ever been, in my experience, reasoned or thought out at length. It presumes, in the first instance, the kind of rational preconsideration of some violent or anti-social act. It presumes that the person who is going to commit some particularly offensive crime-and the provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to corporal punishment refer, in the main, to crimes of a moral nature respecting the violation of a child or some form of sexual offence-would take into account during the time of determination to commit this kind of offence that indeed he might suffer corporal punishment as a penalty. I suggest this proposition makes some very great and really hard to accept assumptions. I think that if one were able to penetrate the minds-the sick minds, for the most part-of those who contemplate such events, we would find that anything that might act as a deterrent would primarily be related to the fear of being caught.
In this regard let me refer to the report of a review of corporal punishment in Great Britain published by the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders and presented by the British Home Secretary to parliament in 1960. I quote from the report:
It was clearly concluded that corporal punishment was not an especially effective deterrent Immediately before Its abolition, and they-
That is, the statistics.
-show that its abolition did not result in an increase in the offences for which it was previously imposed.
Having had some 12 years experience with the non-use and non-application of corporal punishment, it is their conclusion that the deterrent value of such punishment is impossible to prove. I think the fact that the courts of this country have generally dispensed with the use of corporal punishment is the result of the experience of the judiciary that it no longer makes any sense whatever in the name of justice to sentence offenders to this form of punishment.
Others would argue that there is an aspect to this punishment that allows for the reform of the individual and that perhaps the particularly difficult criminal, the offender who has not been handled successfully in any

January 26, 1971

other way, can best be dealt with by the exercise of this form of punishment. But what have the studies shown? They have shown very convincingly that healthy people, people who have a positive and healthy outlook on life, when sentenced to corporal punishment suffer the least in terms of long term effects. Yet the people who are sick, the people who commit the kind of offences for which corporal punishment is prescribed as a sentence, when the sentence is passed experience not only a prolongation of their sickness, but their sickness is made a good deal worse. In effect, the rehabilitation program is severely retarded, if not totally set back altogether. There is therefore no convincing argument that the use of corporal punishment for the reform of the offender is effective.
There is a final element to this which I think must be very carefully considered. It is the basic element of which, all too often, we lose sight. I refer to whether or not in having corporal punishment available for use we are protecting society. I wonder whether we have really looked at this question and closely examined those people who have been unfortunate enough to have experienced a sentence of corporal punishment.
Those who have interviewed a number of people who have indeed been whipped or flogged have found that in almost every case the hostility and hatred that this punishment has engendered in these individuals is most difficult to relieve. In many instances, when these individuals go back into society they carry with them into public life a most deep-set and dangerous hostility to the general citizenry. If by the execution of corporal punishment in our federal institutions this is indeed the result, then we have not only not protected society but we may have even endangered it the more. If we have indeed sent people back to society from our federal institutions seething with hatred and hostility as a result of these acts, then we have only ourselves to blame.
I think we must also state that generally, in cases where the state sanctions this form of institutional violence, it must make it more difficult to object, as surely it must object, to the casual and instant violence that bursts out in society from time to time. How credible is it for any government or department of government to be totally opposed to the kind of violent acts that all too frequently occur in our society when in fact that same government and department have reserved unto themselves a form of violence that no one of us can readily accept?
Some hon. members may wonder why I choose to raise this matter so strenuously in this House. I do so because it is my impression that the only place where corporal punishment continues to be sanctioned on a regular basis is in federal institutions. I have attempted in a preliminary way to find out to what degree corporal punishment is used in provincial institutions, and I have found that it is not used at all, to my knowledge, in this province. Indeed, I am gathering the impression that corporal punishment is seldom, if ever, used provincially. But what is being made obvious to me is that in federal statutes and in federal institutions the use of corporal punishment is still provided for and permitted. Surely, this is the place
Criminal Code
where we should give leadership. Surely, this is the place where we simply should not be following the pack. One can only hope that in this particular instance we might follow the action the government of Great Britain took in 1948, or the action taken by other provinces since then, even the action of the House of Commons committee in 1956.
At the very least, this government should make sure that before this Parliament reaches the stage of dissolution it will have taken some action to abolish the use of corporal punishment in federal institutions. Not only do I think that this is the government's duty; it is something that must be done. I urge all members of this House, having expressed their views, perhaps somewhat briefly during the next few minutes, to allow this bill to go to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so that the committee can effectively implement the action recommended.


Mr. Hogarth:: Would the hon. member permit a question before he resumes his seat?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: The hon. member is obviously very knowledgeable on this subject, and has gone into it very ably and in some detail. I support the bill entirely, but the one thing I cannot understand is why he merely seeks to abolish corporal punishment as it is provided for in the Criminal Code but does not prohibit its use under the Penitentiaries Act. It is my understanding that the prison officials in this country are hold-outs against the abolition of corporal punishment for the sole reason that they find it very effective within the institutions. I do not know on how many occasions it is used, but I think that is one point of view. Being knowledgeable of this situation, why did the hon. member not go further? Is he prepared to retain that aspect of corporal punishment?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have that question and to have any assistance I can get in drafting this bill. I think this is a useful suggestion that could well be implemented by way of an amendment at the committee stage. Certainly, my aim was to be consistent. Since the principal use of corporal punishment, as the hon. member has pointed out to me, is in federal institutions and penitentiaries, I wanted to make sure that that point was included in the amendment to any statute. I would support the suggestion that has just been made by the hon. member for New Westminster.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapoinie):: Mr. Speaker, it is assuredly a most happy occasion to discuss in this House a bill from an opposition member and dealing with a truly important subject.
It is true that corporal punishment exists only in relatively rare cases which amount to nine sections of the Criminal Code, but it involves a far more important

January 26, 1971
Criminal Code
principle and this is what I would especially like to discuss during my allotted time.
May I say, at the outset, that I will refrain as much as possible from citing an exaggerated number of statistics because I think that their usefulness is considerably restricted. They can indicate some trends, but I believe that great caution must be exercised in their use, for hon. members know pertinently that people with different opinions can use statistics to make their point.
Mr. Speaker, I think the Canadian Criminal Code should be amended so as to abolish corporal punishment, as it is indicated in the bill proposed by my hon. friend.
I am happy to outline here the main facts and considerations that lead me to believe that abolition of corporal punishment would be in the best interest of Canada. I am convinced that before the prescriptions of criminal law can be determined in detail, the purpose of the legislation must be clearly defined in the light of the philosophy governing the treatment of delinquents.
I also think that in the years that followed the original drafting of the Canadian Criminal Code, the changes that occurred in our social morals and in the judgment of behaviour were significant enough to require a new definition of the object of our justice system.
In general, countries of the civilized world recognize that corporal punishment of delinquents is in itself indefensible. As an indication of the revengeful feelings of society, it must face individualized justice systems, aimed at the efficient protection of society through methods of delinquents rehabilitation.
It must be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that such a change in attitude did not stem from a feeling of disgust for the psychic pressures that may have been inflicted upon the delinquent as a penalty. Modern thinking in that field has evolved, especially as a result of the findings of society with regard to the legal penal system, and a better understanding of the causes of human behaviour, and more particularly abnormal behaviour. This enlarged field of knowledge, mostly the result of research in social science, has been useful in the study and therapeutics of mental illness throughout the civilized world. More recently, a good part of it has been used to some extent in the treatment of delinquents.
We cannot ignore the verdict of history which has repeatedly led to the conclusion that crime seems to have developed to a larger extent when and where punishment was most severe.
The high rate of relapse in our country and the increase in cases of degenerate conduct among discharged delinquents have led responsible persons to conclude that our jails are schools of crime. Since a generation, the study of social sciences and research in that area have succeeded in giving to mankind a pertinent knowledge of the cause and meaning of human behaviour from which it is possible to draw conclusions on the propriety of a social or antisocial behaviour.
Although there are still in that field many unknown factors which are subjected to experiments and studies,
there is a sufficient number of data, the accuracy of which has been shown and which remains pertinent in any consideration of the delinquent, so that criminal law can take them into account.
The delinquent is not solely responsible for his criminal conduct. I recognize that all human behaviour stems from motives which urge the individual to try and satisfy some often unconscious needs. It is recognized that this concept is not as simple as were the more ancient and naive interpretations of behaviour, which admitted the innate presence of a demon that could only be expelled through physical mutilation.
Having admitted that behaviour is influenced by the interaction of inherent individual characteristics and by the individual's experience in his surrounding and in the prevailing cultural environment, it was deduced that the possibility of changing the behaviour may exist, through a modification of the conditions which determine it.
Since the system of justice administration aims at protecting the collectivity against violation of its laws, and that vindictive punishment does not seem to have afforded such an effective protection to society, and also as the possibility of modifying the delinquent's attitude and behaviour so that his crimes will end or become less frequent, it seems to me that criminal law should not practise social vengeance but improve the protection of society in submitting the delinquent to treatments which, according to medical science, are most likely to ensure his rehabilitation.
It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that the abolition of corporal punishment would eliminate from the Canadian judiciary system certain provisions which, in spite of the intentions of the court, are nothing else but means of revenge which do not contribute in any way to the rehabilitation of the delinquent.
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity, as soon as I heard that I would have to speak on the legislative proposal submitted by my hon. friend, of doing a bit of research on statute law, and I have discovered principles that I consider fundamental and which I shall endeavour to define and to summarize briefly.

I am respectfully of opinion that there are three principles of criminal justice requiring earnest consideration in the determination of punishment, viz., deterrence, reformation and retribution.
The governing principle of deterrence is, within reason and common sense, that the emotion of fear should be brought into play so that the offender may be made afraid to offend again and also so that others who may have contemplated oifending will be restrained by the same controlling emotion. Society must be reasonably assured that the punishment meted out to one will not actually encourage others, and when some form of crime has become widespread the element of deterrence must look more to the restraining of others than to the actual offender before the Court.
Reformation is the most hopeful element in the question of punishment in most cases, and it is in that direction that the efforts of those concerned with criminal justice will be more and more directed. But reformation, too, has its distinct limitations. It has been found in England that many who have passed
[Mr. Marceau.j
January 26, 1971

through all the stages of binding over to keep the peace, probation, approved school, and prison, have yet become habitual criminals. They appear to be beyond all human reformative agencies.
The underlying and governing idea in the desire for retribution is in no way an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, but rather that the community is anxious to express it repudiation of the crime committed and to establish and assert the welfare of the community against the evil in its midst.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a brief summary of my views on this matter. I think the time has come for our modern society to have enough confidence in the individual who, in spite of his errors, has a right to rehabilitation. In my view, those who, at the same time that they advocate individual liberty and civil rights, speak out for abolition of corporal punishment, deserve our support.
For my part, I must say I cannot deal with the matter without a certain degree of emotion as for many years I was a defense attorney. I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I am showing partisanship when enthusiastically advocating the abolition of corporal punishment except in the case of some extremely serious offenses, when it has been established that corporal punishment is the only possible solution.
I remember, Mr. Speaker, that in my youth, when my father deemed the usual normal means to be inadequate, manu militari, or a spanking, as it is known to us, often solved the problem. Evidently, that is perhaps why I went to the bad and am now a member of the House of Commons. However, I must say that in such pleasant company, both that of government members and that of opposition members, I have no complaints.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to thank the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) for his concern and his progressive thinking with regard to this important matter. When I heard him describe the vivid and horrible detail of what happens to a young man when the broad strap is applied to him it made me feel ashamed to be a Canadian when this law is on the statute books. The hon. member could have gone into more detail with regard to the effect of the cat-o'-nine-tails when it is inflicted on a young man. It takes a person days and sometimes weeks to recover from the welts on his back. He could have told us that the strap is perforated so that the soft flesh on a man's buttocks is drawn up and torn with each stroke. This is the type of law we have.
The hon. member for Egmont suggests that this bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I am inclined to disagree with him because we have had studies on this matter and have gone into the matter in detail. When I think of some of the studies there have been on this matter, it would seem that it is now time for action. Back in November of 1968 when the Commissioner of Penitentiaries was before the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs I asked him certain questions. These questions are recorded in the report of
Criminal Code
the Ouimet committee which came out in March 1969. In 1968, as recorded in the Ouimet committee's report, these are the questions I asked and the replies by the Commissioner of Penitentiaries at that time:


John Gilbert: Mr. Commissioner, I would like to direct other questions to you with regard to corporal punishment-


Mr. MacLeod:: -As far as institutional corporal punishment is concerned, it cannot now be imposed in an institution without the specific approval of the Commissioner of Penitentiaries. Of course, we have very elaborate regulations governing the manner in which it is to be imposed. No more than ten officers can be present. The prison psychiatrist or medical doctor must be there; the warden or deputy warden must be there. The punishment can be stopped at any time by the doctor or the psychiatrist or the warden or deputy warden. Of course, the only problem with making rules about corporal punishment is that the more humane you try to make them, the less humane the operation looks in the end result. My own feeling is that the tendency is for it to go into disuse as a possible prison punishment and, of course, when that happens then presumably the regulations in the act will reflect the practice.


John Gilbert: In other words, you would not have any objection if I brought forth an amendment to repeal that particular section?


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: I would not, no. As a judicial punishment, it is remarkable that it is reserved under the Criminal Code for offences that involve the use of violence or the threat of violence by the offender. Our people seem to think that it may have a useful short-term benefit if it is imposed on an offender, but ultimately society reaps more violence from him than it inflicted upon him.
The Ouimet committee states:
The committee agrees with this view. We are of the opinion that corporal punishment is contrary to modern prison philosophy and practice and we recommend its abolition.
Mr. Speaker, that is in respect of corporal punishment in Canadian penitentiaries as a disciplinary measure. It is pointed out in the Ouimet report that from January to October 15, 1968, there was only one case of infliction of corporal punishment. In 1967 there were 19 cases, and in 1966 there were 32 cases. So one can see that the practice is falling into disuse. The hon. member for Egmont said he found there has been no practice of corporal punishment in provincial institutions. The Ouimet report states that Manitoba is the only province or territory which has used corporal punishment as a prison disciplinary measure in recent years.
The report also states that it still appears in prison regulations in British Columbia and Newfoundland but has not been used in those provinces for some decades. So there we have it. It is not being applied in provincial institutions and yet it is applied in federal institutions. We also have the words of the former Commissioner of Penitentiaries with regard to his proposed abolition of it.
Mr. Speaker, as a result of that interview with the commissioner I brought forth a bill which is exactly the same as the bill now before us. That bill was brought forth in December of 1968, two years ago. From that time until now there has been no action. I wonder why we have had no results. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has done very little with regard to this important matter other than bring forth the omnibus bill on the Criminal

January 26, 1971
Criminal Code
Code and, last week, the bail bill. He appears to be tidbitting with regard to essential reforms of the criminal law. Surely he can bring forth a mini-bill covering such matters as the abolition of corporal punishment, the abolition of vagrancy as a charge, the right to counsel, uniformity of sentencing procedures and legislation with regard to dangerous offenders. All these matters have been dealt with in the Ouimet report and they have been dealt with in committee. It is high time we had legislation.
I hope that the Minister of Justice will not wait for the Law Reform Commission to bring forth its report concerning these matters. We have had so much study on these matters that it is time we had action. I hope the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) will exert his influence on the Minister of Justice to adopt this measure to abolish corporal punishment. He is quite right that an amendment to the Penitentiary Act is required to give it more strength.
It is very easy for me to speak for the abolition of corporal punishment. Perhaps because of my background and experience in the law I have tremendous abhorrence for the infliction of corporal punishment. Just before I spoke this afternoon I was contacted by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg) who, as a former RCMP officer, wanted to participate in the debate. He said he supported 100 per cent the bill put forth by the hon. member for Egmont. It is his experience as an RCMP officer that the infliction of any type of corporal punishment is wrong in principle and in practice. He said that the only type of punishment with which he would agree would be punishment inflicted by a mother or a father, because that has love as its basis. These are the views of the hon. member, and he made them part of his maiden speech back in 1958. Thus far there has been no action. Not only do I support the hon. member for Pembina but I support other experts, because it is very easy for us to become emotional on this subject, as I am partly because of my experience, my Irish background and my emotional nature.
I direct hon. members' attention to an expert on this subject, Mr. A. M. Kirkpatrick, executive director of the John Howard Society. In an article in the Canadian Welfare magazine of July and August, 1968, he said that the Criminal Code provides for sentencing by the court to whipping for rape and attempted rape, sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 14, indecent assault on a female, incest, indecent assault on a male, choking or using drugs on a victim who attempts to resist the commission of an offence, robbery and armed burglary. Juvenile offenders under the age of 16 years and females are not subject to corporal punishment. He goes on to say as follows:
Most of the offences listed above are sexual offences presumably carried out during an emotionally aroused state or as a result of a disordered mind. Corporal punishment would not be considered appropriate in the treatment of mentally disturbed persons and therefore should not be considered in sex offences which are manifestly psychological in derivation.
This is the view of Mr. Kirkpatrick. He says that in respect of most offenders there is no deterrent value
in whipping for these offences. With regard to the argument-this is one of the arguments put forth by the hon. member for Egmont-on the salutary effect of whipping for these offences, he says:
The view is often expressed that corporal punishment would have a salutory effect on youths who have persisted in their criminal activities despite reasonable efforts to change their behaviour by probation or reformatory treatment. The United Kingdom departmental committee on corporal punishment in 1938 recommended abolition of caning young offenders. In 1948 this recommendation came into effect. By this time caning had in any event become obsolete as a method of treatment or punishment as it had been found to be ineffective.
Corporal punishment is regarded by the recipient not as treatment but as retribution which breeds violence and perpetuates hostility. The use of corporal punishment on young offenders would reinforce the view so many of them have that they are not wanted and have no place in society and would further add to the hostile and aggressive behaviour they have developed through home and environmental experiences. Any positive efforts made toward their reform and rehabilitation would be rendered more difficult by such reinforcement of negative behaviour patterns.
Then he sets forth the concept with regard to criminal law as follows:
The common objective of all concerned in this whole process should be the protection of society by the rehabilitation of the offender. But no one can rehabilitate another person. Opportunities and inducements may be provided but the desire to change must come from within the individual. The use of fear aroused by physical punishment is based on a concept of wilfulness and may have some immediate value while the threat is imminent but has little permanent effect in the reintegration of character which is essential for life in the free society in which the offender has already demonstrated failure to adapt.
He also points out that corporal punishment breeds a great deal of bitterness.
In April, 1955, the counsel to the committee interviewed in the offices of the John Howard Society of Ontario a number of men who had been strapped in the institutions. A verbatim report of these interviews was made and revealed general hatred by the recipient of the officers involved in his strapping, a determination to get even when released from the institution, and an attitude of greater caution in the institution in infringing rules without getting caught. These interviews revealed that the strap had not been a deterrent as most of these men had experienced it several times and most had returned to prison on sentences subsequent to their having been strapped.
Some of our institutions house intractable human beings whose hostility and aggression create serious problems of disciplinary control. Newer methods are proving that it is wiser not to counter such hostility by unnecessary force which breeds bitterness; but rather to divert it by work and training programs, by the loss of "good time", and by the creation of privileges which may be withdrawn. Such might be short leaves for home visits and work-out opportunities. Sanctions may be progressively increased with minor penalties achieving great results in the prison setting. Basic to such methods is the individualizing of the inmate and getting at the causes of his incorrigibility. All penal institutions are by nature self-contained social units in which grave abuses of human life and personality have occurred in the past. This must be avoided in any progressive penal system.
With the changing approach to penology now being made in the penitentiary system, the development of an educational, vocational, religious and cultural program should provide a basic undergirding for a more positive meaning to life in the institutions. The provision of amenities and the anticipated inauguration of short-term leaves for family visiting offer vastly

January 26, 1971

increased privileges which may be withdrawn. The developing emphasis of the psycho-social approach being made by professional personnel through individual and group therapy and medical sedation should enable changed attitudes to the treatment of disturbed inmates in episodic aggressive outbreaks of hostile behaviour. The reduction of the size of the population in the institutions should contribute to better staff-inmate relationships and a permeation of the inmate subculture. The development of medical corrections centres should make possible the removal of disturbed inmates from the general institutions into a milieu specifically designed to cope with their behaviour.
I could not agree more with Mr. A. M. Kirkpatrick, executive director of the John Howard Society of Ontario.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Disagree?


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I just heard one of the members in the front row comment that he could not disagree more. He represents the old, reactionary view-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, take off your halo.


John Gilbert: -with regard to the treatment of young people and that type of approach to criminal law. Mr. John R. Seeley, a Canadian sociologist now associated with the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions at Santa Barbara, California, has also set forth what the hon. member for Egmont said, that the men who inflict this type of punishment obtain a psychomasochistic experience. Surely it is time that this was prohibited. I also quote Mr. J. D. Griffin, the general director of the Canadian Mental Health Association, who suggests its abolition.
I introduced an amendment to the omnibus bill which was introduced by the Minister of Justice, dealing with the abolition of corporal punishment. I presented it in committee and it was ruled out. I also presented it at the report stage and it received the same treatment. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if we were to poll all hon. members of this House they would agree it is high time this regressive measure were taken off the Canadian statute books. I have never experienced a more barbaric, anachronistic measure.
We do not need any further study. We have had the committee; we have had the Ouimet report. Now it is time for the Minister of Justice, who lost a great deal of his progressive image when he invoked the War Measures Act-


An hon. Member:: That isn't true.


John Gilbert: -to regain some of his prestige, some of his progressive spirit by bringing forth a measure which would not only abolish corporal punishment but would abolish the crime of vagrancy, provide for uniformity of sentencing, and legislate with regard to dangerous offenders. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to hon. members to show their finer instincts and to bring forth legislation in this regard which is in harmony with the social views of today. I hope the hon. member for New Westminster will exert all his power and pressure in
Criminal Code
favour of this bill and will not become the Reagan of the west by being against such an important measure.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member who has just spoken I wish to point out that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has publicly announced that corporal punishment will be abolished. I recognize that this step has been a long time coming, but I assure the hon. member that I have done everything I can and used all the power of a single backbencher to get that bill before the House. However, I think it only fair to state that the House is very occupied with a great many things and, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), there is not a high incidence of use of corporal punishment: thus, there are perhaps one or two measures which could take precedence over its abolition.
The bail reform bill which is now before the House is one of the most important and progressive pieces of criminal law legislation that I have seen for some time. I would ask the hon. member to be patient because I assure him, according to what the Minister of Justice has said, that there is a minor omnibus bill coming in which will bring about long-needed reform in the criminal law. I believe he will find that many of the reforms in it are in keeping with his ideas.
I am certain the minister would not want to delay the matter further by referring these new suggestions to the Law Reform Commission. I look forward to seeing them before the House in due course.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: By all means.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Since time will run out in a
minute or two, and since the hon. member has indicated that there is general disposition on the part of the House to deal with this matter quickly, would it not save the time of the House and of the committee if the matter were referred to committee? Then this item could be passed and we could get on with the other items mentioned by the hon. member.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, I was just going to point out that the Parliamentary Secretary is in the chamber. Since the minister has announced that we are going to abolish corporal punishment, and since this bill takes the matter half way, I was about to suggest that we refer the bill to committee right now and assist the minister a little in this regard. However, the only matter that concerns me is that if one looks at the schedule of business that is before the justice committee this year it will be seen that it is absolutely impossible to get down to this particular bill. Therefore, we might as well wait until the omnibus bill comes in, which can be considered in a comprehensive way by the House without being restricted just to private members' hour. I am in favour of the abolition of corporal punishment and of capital punishment and I am only sorry their abolition has not come before the House sooner.

January 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 [Translation]


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, what I have in mind is not as cruel as my hon. friends of the opposition might think. If at six o'clock I am not finished with my remarks, it will not mean that I am necessarily opposed to Bill C-16 introduced by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). Indeed, as was said by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth), the Minister of Justice has repeatedly stated, I believe, that he was for the abolition of corporal punishment and that a bill to this effect would soon be introduced.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) did ask a while ago the hon. member for New Westminster when the minister intended to introduce this bill. May I inform him that if his party had not delayed to such an extent consideration of Bill C-181 last fall, we might have been in a position to pass this legislation in the very near future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The time allotted to the consideration of private members' Business has expired and I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Drury (for Mr. Trudeau) 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 a committee of the whole.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, before five o'clock I said that I wanted to deal with a few minor points before reaching the substantive part of my remarks in connection with Bill C-207. The second point I wish to make, and admittedly it is a detail, concerns some of the translation of the bill. If expert advice is correct, it would seem that if one were to adopt the English language version of the bill it would be quite simple to develop Fundy tidal power, whereas if one were to adopt the French language version that would be much more difficult. I am sure the government does not intend to develop Fundy tidal power and therefore it
does not matter which language version of the bill one chooses to look at. But it is a point worth noting. Once again we have before us, so to speak, two bills. On the basis of expert advice it seems that the legislation as drafted in either of the two languages may be construed somewhat differently on this point.
I do not intend to cover the waterfront in my speech. For one thing, as a backbencher it would be presumptuous of me to cover the many proposals put forward in the bill. My colleagues will be joining me and will be making specific contributions. For example, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) will deal with the demise of the Department of Fisheries, that honoured and ancient department, under this legislation. His colleague and my colleague who represents an adjoining riding, the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) will deal with the pollution authority to be established by the bill. The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) will deal with costs. Before the debate is over other members of the Progressive Conservative Party will make contributions. My contribution will be to sketch things out in a general way on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and perhaps to concentrate more specifically on areas that have caused me and my colleagues the greatest concern.
Unquestionably, as was argued earlier today, there are a great many elements to this bill, some of them laudable and easily supported, some questionable and others that probably ought not to be supported at all. Hence arises our concern about the omnibus feature of the bill. It reminds me of the concoction depicted in A1 Capp's cartoon series, "Lil Abner," as kickapoo joy juice, which is made by melting together and mixing almost all ingredients under the sun, some of them tasteful and others not quite so tasteful. The prize part of the kickapoo joy juice legislation which we are considering concerns the department of the environment. I think that is the chief jewel the government can display in the showcase so far as this legislation is concerned.
May I say, first of all, that there is some advantage in having the battle against pollution directed by a single minister. The direction of this battle has up to now been spread among several ministers. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has some part of it. His role will probably continue. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) is also involved in the battle, but he uses it as an excuse to thump his chest over the issue of sovereignty. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) is in it. His department contains the greatest number of experts in the fight against pollution. These experts are to be transferred to the new department of the environment.
I am sure that my colleague from South Shore, who will follow me in the debate, will deal with the demise of the Department of Fisheries in his usual capable manner. I was going to say "exhaustive manner" but I would not want anyone to misunderstand the use of the word "exhaustive" in connection with the speech of the hon. member for South Shore. The subject will be covered and no stone will be left unturned. I hope that describes

January 26, 1971

adequately the type of speech that my colleague for South Shore will make.
As I say, there is perhaps an advantage in taking some of the cooks away from the pollution broth and putting one minister to work on it, but we in the official opposition, largely through the speeches and work of the hon. member for South Western Nova, will seek to strengthen the provisions in this omnibus bill. One thing that is obviously needed is money. We have all sorts of programs with glittering titles going around in the pollution field, but when you look at them you realize there is nothing with which to make the programs work. I hope the minister of this new department will be given money with which to work in the field of pollution. The suspicion grows in my mind that by setting up a new department and by putting an old department within it, the money from the old department may mislead the public into thinking that a new war on pollution will be waged, whereas nothing will be done about it at all. That will be a matter for my hon. friend from South Western Nova to develop.
There is some satisfaction on our side that this approach is being taken by the government, that is, the establishment of one department. This is something we have suggested. The first position paper put out last year under the auspices of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) dealt with the question of pollution and one of the policies set forth in it advocated the following:
Stepping up the flow of interdepartmental, federal-provincial and international activity and co-operation by creating a Department of Resources and Environmental Management through which all major environmental federal statutes will be administered, and which will become the central core of the federal anti-pollution program.
That day may have come. We hope it has come with the establishment of the department of the environment. Let there be no misunderstanding about this, though: we want not only a department of the environment; we want a body that will get in and do battle with pollution. We shall not be satisfied if we simply engage in a semantic exercise which does not tackle one of the great problems confronting Canadians today.
As I say, my hon. friend from South Shore will be dealing with the swallowing up of the Department of Fisheries by the new department, lamenting, I suspect, the loss of identify of one of the long-established departments of government and pointing out that many fisheries problems are still without solution affecting both inshore and offshore fishermen whose fishing grounds are raked by those vacuums of the sea, the great foreign trawlers. It seems odd that in a measure which creates five ministers of state there should be no room, apparently, for a minister of fisheries, one of our time-honoured Canadian posts. This seems strange to me, especially when there are a multitude of fisheries questions crying out for solution and when we consider that the new minister of the environment will have his hands full fighting the pollution battle and little time to spend dealing with fisheries questions.
Government Organization Act, 1970
I suspect, too, that the new minister of the environment, the present Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, will find himself in a strange position. Part of his attention should be given to the question of the output of renewable resources. At the same time, he is expected to deal with pollution. It seems to me there is some conflict between production on the one hand and control of pollution on the other, so the poor gentleman may develop schizophrenia regarding his duties.
I have mentioned that it is Conservative policy to develop a federal department whose main concern would be environmental control and management. May I point out to the minister-I am sure this will be followed up by my hon. friend from South Western Nova-that there is no power which will give the department of the environment authority to enter into agreements with the provinces. The bill speaks of dealing between the federal government and the provincial governments, it is true, but it does not go so far as to enable agreements to be made between them, as I understand the legislation. I believe the new minister may co-operate with the provinces or agencies thereof as set forth in clause 6(b). This, to us, is another weakness of this measure.
Another portion of the bill provides for the setting up of ministers of state. We have considerable reservations about this part of the legislation. I assume, for example, that a ministerial post could have been established to oversee the operations of Information Canada if the necessary authority were there at the time Information Canada was established. Under the legislation the governor in council would be empowered to appoint the ministers and to assign duties to them.
It is true Parliament gets on the scene when it comes to voting the minister money to carry out his work, but that is something like holding a post mortem; the corpse is laid out before you and you are simply asked to approve what was done or put the best possible face on what went wrong. You do not have the opportunity in such a set-up to say, "This is a good thing and should be encouraged", or "This is a bad thing and should never have been allowed to get off the ground."
My hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who is away on parliamentary duties at the present time, will I am sure be speaking later on the rather intricate relationships between the Crown, ministerial appointments and Parliament in general. I am sure this will be part of the topic he will tackle.
Then we come to the question of appointments not only of ministers of state but of Parliamentary Secretaries, whose number is to be increased. It is calculated, believe it or not, that in the run of a four-year Parliament 138 members supporting the government could have a paid position of some kind with the exception of committees chairmen. This is almost 90 per cent of the strength of the present crowd supporting the government of the day. This is a figure that makes the mind reel. Twenty-eight of these would be members of the cabinet. Ten would be ministers of state, five being appointed for each of the two-year periods in a Parliament lasting four years. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has already

January 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 introduced the idea of appointing Parliamentary Secretaries on a two-year basis, and 28 of these could be appointed for each two-year period, making 56 altogether. There would be two Deputy Speakers, one for each two-year period, and there would be two Deputy Chairmen of committee of the whole House. On the basis of assuming a change every two years, there would be a whip and assistant whip, each for a two-year period, and 18 chairmen of committees, or 36 over four years.
These are maximum figures. One assumes that the Prime Minister of the day would not make all these appointments, but even if he made a number it is obvious there would be titles enough, and in most cases emoluments enough, for more than 100 members of the governing party in a four-year term. Certainly this is one way to develop prime ministerial patronage.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Jardine McCleave: You must wait for the Prime Minister to get back. I cannot help you.


Mr. Otto:: There is always room for a backbencher.


Robert Jardine McCleave: There speaks an honest backbencher. Fate has not been very kind to him, but he is always in there pitching and one knows that he exists.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: And he always speaks right.


Robert Jardine McCleave: My colleague points out a further virtue of his, namely, that he always speaks right no matter what he says. I suggest there is a large element of prime ministerial patronage in the proposed set-up. Members on this side get hungry, too. I would not have said that but my banker thought I should speak out, and he does have some influence on me. There are members on this side with responsibilities and difficulties, too. We work just as hard but are somewhat down on our luck in a war on poverty that has been solved so successfully for one crowd but not the other. As I say, this proposal has enormous potential for patronage in the hands of one man and I do not think it will be accepted very easily by Canadians who at the moment, at least, seem to be in some sort of mood for political change. I know this has happened at all levels in Nova Scotia and recently in New Brunswick, and it threatens to happen in other provinces simply because people are concerned about what seems to be lack of sufficient regard for the tax dollar by people who have been elected. These people will not be happy at the vast increase in titles on Parliament Hill.
The only exception I make to this is my approval of the salary to be paid to the minister now in charge of the Post Office. I do not think anybody on the opposition side would say this is not justice. It is justice. He took on a miserable job. He had to clean the stables and solve the difficulties created by another person who was getting full ministerial salary, whereas the present minister is only at the level of Minister without Portfolio. That is
unjust and I am cheered to see that the bill will right at least that injustice. One other point I should like to make about the increase in the number of those around the Prime Minister, ministers of state, extra Parliamentary Secretaries and the like, is that at least this means there will be almost twice as many people to share the burden of forgetting.
I come now to the provision of the bill dealing with the Public Service of Canada and the question of early retirement from the public service. This provision is so different from the rest that I wondered why it was included in the first place. It did cross my mind that perhaps this section of the bill was more connected with the reorganization of the government than we first imagined, and that it would open up a vast senior level of the public service of Canada for appointments by the government. While there has been talk about people retiring, from my reading of the legislation there might also be the retirement of people; that is to say, showing them the door at an early age, as well as people themselves stepping over to open it and to march out into retirement. This is a question that will occupy us very much when we study the meaning of the legislation.
If I am correct in assuming that there may be a danger in this regard of forcing out people below normal retirement age, then we are opening up a very substantial question indeed, because it would mean that the government could, in effect, sweep aside top level public servants and replace them with government hirelings. If that is the case-and there is some suspicion on this side that this is exactly what the Prime Minister is aiming to do-this step will be resisted.
Be that as it may, there is one part of the legislation that is absolutely abhorrent. It is that the early retirement proposals can be imposed through inaction in committee of the whole House with nobody being given the opportunity to appear on behalf of civil service associations to express their view on this measure. I think this is wrong. I remember a couple of years ago being a member of a joint parliamentary committee of which the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) was co-chairman. That committee dealt for a substantial period of time with some very important changes to legislation dealing with the public service of Canada. I say that this issue is as important as any that we dealt with at that time. I say, further, that public service associations and others should be given an opportunity to appear and express their views. I know the Public Service Alliance has endorsed the idea in principle, and that I understand. There is still a pretty good point to be made, that one has to study the ramifications to find out whether these associations are speaking for their memberships or, as often happens on the Ottawa scene, whether the statements are being made for a few in the name of man's.
Finally, Sir, I am generally surprised by the bill and I question again the horrendous form in which it is presented to us. I do not intend to scout the point of order I raised this afternoon, which was dealt with so capably by members on all sides and by the ruling of Mr. Speaker. I

January 26, 1971

would point out that then we have a bill in which there are contained parliamentary enactments and the removal of clauses, replaced by other clauses in various schedules to the bill, we are really being asked to give away a great deal as parliamentarians. I think it is absolutely abhorrent to the notion of what Parliament is all about to bring in that sort of measure for consideration in this chamber.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard):
That all the words after "That" be left out and the following substituted therefor:
"Bill C-207 be not now read a second time but the subject matter of part I and schedule A to the bill be referred to the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution, the subject matter of the long title to the bill, clause 1 and parts II and III be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, the subject matter of parts IV, V and VIII be referred to a committee of the whole, the subject matter of part VII be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and the subject matters of part IX and schedule B to the bill be referred to each said committee for consideration of so much of the said subject matters as relates and is necessarily incidental to or consequential upon that subject matter hereinbefore first referred to that committee."
It would take a caravan of Philadelphia lawyers to lead one through a labyrinth like that, but this simply illustrates the problem we are up against in dealing with Bill C-207 which covers the waterfront and has a format which is offensive to the simple minds of those of the legal profession because of its complicated and labyrinth-ic meanderings. I am not in support of simply trying to make the best of a very bad piece of legislation; therefore I move that amendment to the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will appreciate that it might be a little difficult for the Chair to accept the amendment in its present form. The hon. member, by his comments, has indicated that he has some doubt as to the procedural acceptability of his amendment as drafted. If the hon. member would like to offer comments to indicate to the Chair that the amendment as drafted is acceptable, then of course a ruling will be made.
The hon. member knows it is in order to suggest that the subject matter of a bill be referred to a standing committee, but I suggest that to go behind a motion which is before the House which at the second reading stage of a bill, and to divide it in an indirect way, is not acceptable procedure. If the hon. member has other advice for the Chair, I would be pleased to hear it.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I did not make myself as clear as I intended. I did not have any doubt about the amendment I moved; I was simply pointing out that it appeared to be in a very awkward form because of the difficulty of dealing with the many points in the bill we are considering.


Mr. Speaker:: Because I have serious reservations about the amendment, perhaps I should have another look at it. I should think if the hon. member simply moved that the subject matter be referred to a committee, there would be no difficulty. I doubt very much that the detailed amendment moved by the hon. member is acceptable, but
Government Organization Act, 1970
I will have a second look at it and make a ruling in a few minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when Your Honour says you will be giving a ruling in a few minutes, does that mean that if there is any argument it should be made to you now?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. I was hoping that anyone having any views to express for the guidance of the Chair would put them forward now. Obviously it would be better to hear procedural argument before we proceed with the next speaker who will, I believe address himself to the substance of the motion before the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the amendment comes as a surprise to me, and I use that word in two senses; first, I did not know it was coming and, second, it is a unique and novel amendment. In fact, I think the hon. member deserves a medal of some kind for having drafted it. However facetious that is, it is not to be taken as lack of sympathy for the amendment. Recently we have had two or three attempts to move reasoned amendments, the gist of which were to refer the subject matters of bills to certain entities. There is still on the Order Paper a motion for second reading of the young offenders bill and an amendment thereto which would refer the subject matter to a special committee to be appointed under the Inquiries Act.
A few days later when another member sought to move an identical amendment to another bill-I forget which one it was for the moment but it does not matter-Mr. Speaker was in the Chair and ruled it out of order on the ground that the entity to which the subject matter was to be referred did not exist. When we pointed out that this was on all fours with the proposal regarding the young offenders bill, the response from the Chair was that there was unanimous consent in that case for the reference to be made to a body yet to be appointed.
The point I am making in this regard, Mr. Speaker, is that the Chair does seem to have agreed that it is in order, as a reasoned amendment, that the subject matter be referred. I think that the sum and substance of the last two incidents makes it clear that the Chair feels that the body to which reference is made must exist. We accept that. That is precisely what the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) is doing. He is seeking to move that the subject matter of the bill be referred to bodies that exist.
The only problem that seems to arise in Your Honour's mind relates to the plural nature of this reference. If the hon. member were moving that the subject matter of the entire bill be referred to one standing committee, or one entity that existed, I take it Your Honour would have no objection. What seems to bother you, Sir, is that the hon. member is referring it to several different committees. Your Honour suggests that that bothers you because it seems to be an indirect way of dividing the bill.
I think the ruling Your Honour will make will depend upon your interpretation, almost, of the motivation of the hon. member. Is his prime purpose to divide the bill? If so, Your Honour has good precedent for ruling it out. Or

January 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
is his prime purpose to refer the subject matter of the bill in order that they may be dealt with elsewhere? I think it is clear, not just from the way the hon. member spoke but from the wording of his amendment, that he is not seeking to divide the bill. We accepted Your Honour's ruling earlier that that cannot be done. The primary purpose of this amendment is to refer the subject matter of the bill to extensions of this House, to appropriate committees which could deal with these various propositions.
Your Honour, in your remarks earlier today, admitted there were many different propositions, if not principles, in this bill and you sympathized with our complaint about having to deal with it in omnibus form. We have accepted the ruling you made that it is one bill and cannot be divided. However, I would argue that this amendment should not be thrown out on the ground that it is an attempt to divide the bill, because I do not think that is what it is. I believe it should be accepted as a straightforward attempt to have the subject matter of the bill referred to committees which could appropriately study its various portions. I would hope that Your Honour's ruling would be in favour of the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for his contribution. The time he took to express his views regarding the procedural point raised by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) has given me a little more time to think about the matter and has convinced me further that the amendment is not procedurally in order. I am not suggesting this is an indirect attempt to divide the bill and that the amendment should be rejected on that basis. At the same time, I am not accepting the suggestion of the hon. member that this should be accepted as a reasoned amendment. It is not a reasoned amendment. It is largely a deviation or a change from the old-established form of amendment which provides that the subject matter of a bill or a motion before the House be referred to a special committee or a standing committee.
What I believe is objectionable from a procedural standpoint in connection with the proposed amendment is that it goes into the details of the bill. I suggest that this cannot be done in the form of an amendment to refer the bill before the House, which is for second reading, to different entities or different bodies. There is more to the matter than determining the body to which the subject matter is to be referred. I fully agree with the suggestion made by hon. members that the committees to which it is proposed to refer the several parts of the bill do exist; but as I have said, there is more to the point than that.
My difficulty in accepting the hon. member's proposed motion is that it goes behind the bill and seeks to touch the different parts of the bill by way of an amendment which normally should not be put forward in this form. The hon. member, in the course of this long debate-I assume it will not finish tonight or tomorrow and that we will be considering the bill for some time-may have an opportunity, with the assistance of some of his colleagues, to propose an amendment which would be more procedurally acceptable to the Chair.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the legislation now before the House is such a mixed bag that one cannot do more than touch on some aspects of it in an opening speech. Some of my colleagues, however, will deal with specific sections of the legislation and in committee of the whole we will be in a position to deal with it in more detail.
Since this bill is in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) I expected the right hon. gentleman would have been here to introduce it, or that it would have been left until he was here at which time he would have indicated the main thrust of government policies inherent in government reorganization. The fact that the bill has been introduced by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), not the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp), the House leader and certainly not the Prime Minister himself, indicates to my mind that either this bill is largely window-dressing or that its real purpose is to provide for changes in superannuation for senior civil servants. I hope that before this legislation is disposed of at this stage of the debate, the Prime Minister-who will probably have returned by that time-will have entered the debate to outline the government's rationale behind the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, if government reorganization is to be of any value it should have a specific purpose with clearly defined objectives. I listened in vain this afternoon to the statement of the President of the Treasury Board for some statement of purpose. There was no delineation of the government's goals and objectives in the statement made by the minister. The fact is that the government is obsessed with the means rather than the ends. Canada today is being led by technocrats, when it needs statesmen. The government is like a giant machine with a weak motor; they keep adding pulleys and belts which only add to the burden of an already overworked motor.
The government is obsessed with administrative procedures because it lacks any clearcut objectives. A mere reshuffling of responsibilities among various ministers and the moving of certain responsibilities from one department to another will not guarantee results unless there are clearcut policies to be enunciated, and we have heard none today. Efficient government administration of course is essential, but administration is only a tool which is designed to bring about clearcut results. Without goals, administration becomes merely a bureaucratic nightmare.
The government loves this technocratic jargon about input and output, but the fact is that the input has been fuzzy and the output has consisted mainly of rhetoric contained in white papers and in ignored reports of parliamentary committees. Bureaucratic rhetoric and technocratic jargon are no substitute for clearly stated policies and specifically defined objectives. This legislation, like so much of the government's activities, is designed to give the impression of movement while standing still. The Prime Minister has become the great illusionist. The public are invited to see the action and be where the action is, whether it is riding elephants or modelling the latest fashion in sartorial elegance. In the meantime, the ship of state is going nowhere and never
January 26, 1971

leaves the harbour. It is like a training ship-all bustle and activity but the ship never puts to sea.


Mr. Boulanger:: Tell us something new. This is old.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Nothing has changed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This government likes to give the impression that it is the latest word in technocracy and efficiency.


An hon. Member:: This is a 1912 speech.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We
have had good examples of it. It was amusing to watch the President of the Treasury Board this afternoon trying to explain how it was that we got rid of the Postmaster General and put the Post Office into the Department of Communications, because the Post Office was part of the communications system, and then trying to explain by some metaphysical contortions why it was necessary to take the Post Office out of Communications, without saying frankly that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) had made such an unholy mess of the Post Office they had to take it out.
When we hear hon. gentlemen opposite talking about efficiency, we have only to consider the snafu of the last few days. Here we have a memorandum from the assistant director of the Public Service Commission sent to the various departments of government, setting forth proposals for a program to hire certain Francophones and intimating that $2 million will be available for this purpose. The President of the Treasury Board does not know anything about it.


Mr. Gibson:: That's what you think.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
say to the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) that I at least have accepted the minister's word.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is more than he has done.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am
sorry to hear that he has not. But no such memo could be sent out to departments of government unless it was with the knowledge and consent of either the President of the Treasury Board or someone in the Prime Minister's office.


Mr. Francis:: Nonsense.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No one
would dare to send out a memo promising departments that $2 million in addition to the regular appropriation would be available unless this had been approved either by the President of the Treasury Board or by someone in the Prime Minister's office. I accept the statement of the President of the Treasury Board that it was done without
Government Organization Act, 1970 his knowledge and consent. When I asked the President of the Treasury Board this afternoon who initiated and authorized this memo and where it came from, he went around and around talking about gestation. There never was a more difficult birth on the floor of the House than the one we watched this afternoon as the minister laboured through an answer.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It was a good argument for abortion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The fact is that he knows who initiated it and is afraid to tell the members of this House. The President of the Treasury Board said this afternoon that this legislation would make the executive more responsible to Parliament, but he did not set out in any particular where the legislation would help make the executive more responsible to Parliament. The fact is that Parliament is more and more losing control of the purse-strings. Under our new system estimates go to committees which do not meet until the session is well under way, and then they are rammed through committee in the last few hours. There are only certain days on which estimates can be debated and we find that when we come to the end of those days many of the estimates have not been dealt with. Money is voted without estimates ever having been discussed. The Crown corporations do not report to committees in many instances. The report of committees that have looked at the estimates are not discussed in the House.


An hon. Member:: What about opposition days?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
report of the Public Accounts Committee is not discussed. The only way in which we can raise in the House the complaints of the Auditor General regarding government mismanagement is to raise the matter on one of the allotted days or by moving a motion under Standing Order 26. I think that Parliament is exercising less and less control over the executive. Instead of hon. members opposite treating this matter so lightly, it might be more advisable for them to take their responsibilities seriously. Members on both sides of the House should take whatever steps are necessary when this legislation is before the House to insist on the type of controls which Parliament should exercise over the executive and over the purse-strings. The mere reorganization of departments will have little value for this country unless we have from the government a clear statement of the policies that lie behind their administrative changes.
Let me give one or two illustrations. For several years we have been asking in the House for a clearcut statement of the government's science policy. The President of the Treasury Board has had some responsibility for science policy. Perhaps after this reorganization a minister of state will be given the responsibility for looking after science policy. If hon. members took the trouble to read the first volume of the report of the Senate Committee on Science Policy, they would see there one of the most damning indictments of the government.
It points out that $1 billion a year which Canada spends on research is, in the main, wasted. It points out
2788

January 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 that because of departmental rivalry and the veto power of Treasury Board, the federal government has muddled along with "a series of limited and isolated science policies, without having an over-all view of what was going on and a global strategy for what had to be done". That is true. It also points out that in the field of research into technology we lag far behind most of the industrial nations of the world, even small nations like Holland, Sweden and France. It points out that increasingly we are becoming dependent upon the research carried out by U.S. corporations, and that Canadian companies are having to rely more and more upon fabricating and processing research conducted by U.S. parent companies. The Committee quite properly point out that this is part of the reason for the foreign domination of our economy.
Mr. Speaker, the real reason for many of the takeovers in Canada has nothing to do with capital. Canada has been an exporter of capital for some years. The minister need not shake his head. If he takes the trouble to read the royal commission report he will find those figures are there. The real reason for many takeovers is that American parent companies are able to supply the technical know-how and apply the results of technological research. It is for that reason they are able to take over Canadian companies and to supply services that Canadian companies have not been able to supply.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I point out that the whole question of a science policy ought to be delineated by the government; the mere moving of some of the branches from one department to another will not give us a science policy. The report of the Senate committee indicates that unless we get a science policy, Canada will be in trouble.
The same is true with respect to the setting up a department of the environment. We all agree that the idea of having one minister responsible for pollution control and for the preservation of our environment is a good one. It is being suggested that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) will probably be appointed to that post. He is a man who has always been deeply concerned about pollution problems. He comes from a part of Canada where we have seen some of the devastating effects of pollution, in particular its effects on 010: fishing industry, and I think the choice of that minister to become head of a department of the environment is a good one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But, Mr. Speaker, the appointment of a minister of the environment will do little to meet the problems of pollution unless the government is prepared to give him the legislative power and the funds with which to discharge his responsibilities. The government knows that the public are distressed and alarmed about the pollution of our air, water and soil. It knows that the public are clamouring for action. So the government has decided that this is a popular issue and that it must do something to appease the public clamour. The government's solution is to appoint a minister to deal with this matter. But, Mr. 
Speaker, the mere establishment of a bureaucracy under one minister will not in itself cope with the problem of increasing pollution.
This afternoon the President of the Treasury Board said that our environment is deteriorating very rapidly. But he did not indicate in his statement, and there is nothing in the legislation which suggests that the minister of the environment will have any power to stop deterioration in our environment.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: You have heard of the Canada Water Act?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Let me
deal with the Canada Water Act. It is illustrative of the inadequate powers which the minister of the environment will have to cope with the problems of water pollution. The President of the Treasury Board ought to know that in the Canada Water Act there are no national standards; there is no central authority. There will be water quality management boards, none of which have yet been set up, but they will have the power to set then-own standards in different areas. As the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry himself said, this could lead to the establishment of pollution havens in those areas that are much less concerned and much less vigilant than other areas.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Like Nanaimo.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
hon. member can speak for his own area.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I am speaking for yours. You know the smell of the pulp mill in Nanaimo.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I know all about the smell of the pulp mill in Nanaimo.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: What can we do about it?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am
perfectly certain that the setting up of water quality management boards, with representatives of some of the polluting companies sitting on the boards, and with no national standards, is not likely to improve the situation.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: You never give the minister credit for the constitutional limitations on his power.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will
deal with that matter in just a moment.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Good.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to point out that these boards will not meet the situation. None of them have been set up yet, and we have no indication that they will be set up. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) has been very skittish about answering questions in this regard. Their composition is ambivalent and their powers are extreme-
January 26, 1971

ly limited. What we need is legislation under the Criminal Code of Canada, making it a criminal offence to pollute the air, the water and the soil of Canada. What we need is a national pollution control commission with power to set national standards, with power to work through local pollution control boards and to see that those standards are enforced. We need a national pollution control fund to provide grants and loans to municipalities and to industry so that the treatment facilities can be installed at the earliest possible time. Unless the government is prepared to put teeth into this legislation, teeth which are notoriously absent from the Canada Water Act, the new minister of the environment will find himself just as helpless and just as ineffectual as has the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in dealing with this job.
May I deal with another department that the minister referred to this afternoon, that is, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: What about the constitutional problem? Tell us about the constitutional problem with regard to pollution control.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member was here when the debate was taking place on the Canada Water Act, he heard this question dealt with very adequately by my colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). No one doubts for a moment that this Parliament has the right to deal with legislation referring to the Criminal Code.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Yes, but that will throw men out of work.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) has the floor and he should be permitted to make his contribution.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, whenever the Liberal party are caught in a jam for doing nothing, their first excuse is the Constitution. When you chase them out of that bomb proof shelter, then they say you are going to throw men out of work. You will not throw men out of work; you will put men to work. If men are employed installing the necessary treatment facilities, that will provide employment. There is no need to put people out of work. Installing sewage treatment facilities and affluent recycling equipment in the factories will put people out of work. The trouble is that hon. gentlemen opposite want to fight pollution with rhetoric and loquacity instead of with action. This is typical Liberal policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If fancy words, task forces and reports would solve problems, hon. gentlemen opposite would have solved them long ago. But whenever they face a problem all they do is trot out excuses. They must have a factory in the Liberal party for manufacturing excuses. Excuses are the only thing they have produced in abundance to date.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Government Organization Act, 1970


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This afternoon the President of the Treasury Board made reference to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, which is referred to in this legislation. Again I insist that setting up and defining the areas of activity for this department will not achieve any worth while results unless we get a clearcut statement of policy. If the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has a policy, it has certainly been kept under wraps. I think we have a right during this debate to hear a statement from the government as to the rationale behind the development of our resources.
Is the sole purpose of denuding ourselves of both renewable and non-renewable resources the supplying to other countries of raw material to feed their factories? If it is, we have only to look at our own financial picture for the last 12 months. In 1970 we broke all records for exports, yet the per capita income of Canadians hardly moved upward. In the last half of the year it declined slightly. With all our production and all our sales overseas, we have not enriched our own people, for the very obvious reason that the price of raw materials on world markets has lagged behind the price of durable goods, and because the primary extraction industries are highly capital-oriented. They have a low labour content; jobs are to be found not in the extraction industries but in the processing and manufacturing industries. Is it the policy of our Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to export our raw materials as soon as possible and in as raw a state as possible, or have we a policy of progressively processing more and more of our raw materials in this country? If we have such a policy, it certainly has not been outlined by this government.
This afternoon the President of the Treasury Board said that we have been able to obtain access for greater amounts of oil to the United States market. Yet we have heard no statement of policy as to the relationship between our gas and oil exports. There has been no clear policy statement as to the energy requirements for Canadian development and growth and what is surplus to our need.
It is rather interesting to note that almost every American who makes a speech, whether it be the Federal Power Commissioner or the Secretary of the Interior, keeps talking about a continental energy policy between Canada and the United States. Yet when I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about this, he says that there is no continental energy policy. The Americans seem to know about this policy, but the Canadians do not. Even when they attended the conference here in Ottawa, the secretary of the interior said, "We are pressing for a continental energy policy between Canada and the United States." It is strange that only the Americans knew about this continental energy policy and that Canadian participants in the discussion have never heard about it. Last Thursday, when I asked the Acting Prime Minister about this continental energy policy, he said there is no such policy. He said, of course, that there is co-ordination between Canada and the United States on energy matters.
2790

January 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
What we want to know is, when does a co-ordinated energy policy become a continental energy policy? Surely the Acting Prime Minister was playing with words. I hope that before this debate is over we shall have a statement from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources setting out government policy on our energy resources. Are we to continue giving away the most accessible energy resources we have, and then be forced to go farther afield to secure energy resources for our own uses, resources that will undoubtedly cost more than those immediately available? These are questions we want answered. If we do not obtain the answers in this debate, we shall expect to obtain them during committee of the whole stage.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Now
may I say a few words about superannuation.


An hon. Member:: Why not speak to the bill?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the
hon. member does not know about the bill, I suggest that he has not read it. The bill deals with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. It deals with the environment and with the matter of superannuation. The trouble with hon. gentlemen opposite is that they have really been sold this bill of goods and the idea that if you tinker around with the machinery it does not matter whether or not you have a policy. We have tried to discover the government's policy. If the government has a policy, we shall expect the ministers to stand up and outline that policy during this debate.
In closing I want to say a few words about the superannuation provisions. We shall deal with them more specifically in committee of the whole. I think there is some merit in allowing superannuation plans to be flexible. But surely the flexibility ought not to apply just to privileged groups in the Public Service. The provision about which we want a great deal more information is the one saying that a deputy minister who has served for ten years or more with the government shall have the right to leave government service, work in industry or elsewhere, continue to make his superannuation contributions, which would be matched by the government, and be eligible for a full pension despite the fact that he may have worked for the government for only a limited number of years prior to his reaching the age of 60.
What is the rationale behind this provision? If a man's services are not satisfactory to industry, they let him go. They may give him one year's salary or even allow him to take a deferred pension. In industry, generally a man is not allowed to leave one firm's employ and continue to pay into that firm's superannuation fund so that he will obtain a pension not only from the employer he has left but from the new employer to whom he has gone. This is a most unusual provision. If some deputy ministers or civil servants are performing services that are no longer satisfactory, then surely the government can dispense with their services. It can give them a separation allowance or a gratuity and allow them a deferred pension.

Why is this special provision being made for deputy ministers only? Of course, some deputy ministers have been former Liberal candidates and Liberal activists. Is this the sweetener that the government is giving to these people to ease their discomfort when it turns out they are administrative mediocrities and political liabilities? Is this provision designed to enable representatives of industry to move with ease from government service to industry and then back to government service without any loss of income security?
The Prime Minister keeps talking about participatory democracy. What the Liberal government has been building over the last few decades is a managerial oligarchy manned and manipulated by the corporate structure. Many of the ministers in this administration and in the Pearson administration were former civil servants-part of the mandarin class that makes policies behind the scenes. Some of these ministers went back into the civil service, like Mr. Pickersgill and Mr. Chevrier. They moved easily back and forth within the inner circle of the power-brokers.
Most of the advisory committees which have been established are, like the advisory committee on oil and gas, made up of representatives from the very industries they are supposed to regulate. The line between the government and the corporate structure is becoming increasingly blurred almost daily. While the Prime Minister makes speeches about participatory democracy, the corporate elite are manipulating the levers of power. They no longer merely advise the government; they are rapidly becoming the government. I think, therefore, that this provision to enable deputy ministers to move from government to industry or from industry back to government, always within this cosy little arrangement, is one which should be looked at very carefully.
The President of the Treasury Board told us this afternoon about the nuts and bolts of administration. I urge the government to use this debate to outline the policies behind this administrative reorganization. What are the goals toward which the government is moving? Let us hear from the man who is to be the new minister of the environment. Let us hear from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Above all, let us hear from the Prime Minister so that we may know the purposes which lie behind this administrative re-shuffle and the aims and objectives the government has in mind in presenting this legislation. We have heard about the administrative changes. We want to know the policy decisions which lie behind the legislation we are asked to consider and we shall insist upon being told what they are either on second reading or in committee of the whole.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on reading Bill C-207 entitled "An act respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto" a member cannot but leap with anger.
A brief study of the administration of the Liberal government since it was elected in 1968 reveals that its
January 26, 1971

sole preoccupation has been to review its policies. To do so, it hires commissioners-inquirers who review the policies of the various services and departments, which finally leads to the publication of white papers. And we know at what rate those task forces, those Royal commissions of inquiry, those organizations and reorganization plans have proliferated.
Now, today, Mr. Speaker, with much fanfare, the government introduces a bill of the package-deal type, containing more than 12 different proposals that, according to the Appendix, are related to more that 15 different acts. Hon. members will have to vote for or against the whole bill as if it were or should be the instrument that will save the nation from the problems it is facing.
The bill seeks to create a Department of the Environment, to make small changes within the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, to create ministries to be headed by Ministers of State who will get $15,000 a year over their normal salary.
When we keep on reading, we find out that the intention is to have as many Parliamentary Secretaries as there are departments and to re-establish the Post Office Department-where there have been five Postmasters General in ten years-to increase pensions while old people are oppressed and the unemployed are told: Starve, tighten your belt, wait till you are 65 years of age to draw your pension.
Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the bill is not only sickening, but shows clearly that the government instead of establishing a just society is endeavouring to establish one where public funds will go to a privileged class, to some all-powerful and greedy officials, at the expense of the public.
This bill becomes the favourite tool or weapon of the government to reward supporters who have become useless or too old.
Mr. Speaker, it is a means like another to keep those individuals from doing their duty and to make them toe the line with the promise that they will be remembered later.
Finally, what changes will the bill bring? We are told, in the first place, that it will create a Department of the Environment. This department, according to the President of the Treasury Board, is to deal with pollution.
But, Mr. Speaker, after hearing his speech, I read a small newspaper article which said much and which appeared in La Presse on January 26, 1971. It is entitled: "No to affluence is the price of pollution control".
May I be allowed, for the information of my hon. colleagues, to quote brief excerpts from it. It says:
"Canadians will have to give up affluence to pay the cost of fighting pollution," said last night the Chairman of the Bank of Montreal, Mr. G. Arnold Hart. However the public must be cautioned against the sudden passing of ill-advised legislation".
The quotation continues as follows:
And that is where the problem lies. According to the banker, any effort to combat pollution will result in economic restraints, but he added that "it is much too easy a temptation to wish the people responsible for pollution to bear the cost of the fight against pollution."
Government Organization Act, 1970
Mr. Speaker, is there anything more absurd than the excerpt I have just read? This banker who enjoys the protection of governments for unduly increasing his profits at the expense of the Canadian population, who can lend 14 times each dollar deposited in his bank, who has enjoyed the protection of governments and who controls them, now tells the Canadian people at the time when the minister announces the establishment of a Department of the Environment that the invoice for this fight against pollution will have to be paid by the population. In turn he repeats after the governments: Tighten your belts, starve, as we do not have the money for this fight.
Mr. Speaker, that banker makes one forget wherein lies the problem. He shifts it completely and tells the public: You will, once again, have to pay the price.
There is no doubt that the problem of pollution in Canada is very serious. Because we have been remiss in the past, we cannot delay further its solution. Nevertheless, with the establishment of this department, the government is trying today to make political capital. Because it is dishonest, because it plays with people's votes, and with their pocketbooks, it does not say how it will meet the costs of this fight.
Government members make bombastic speeches, but they do not explain how the costs of this fight will be met. On the contrary, the government is following the same policy as bankers who say: The people will have to tighten their belts; they will have to pay the bill, to starve and keep on depriving themselves, because governments kotow to high finance.
That is the most absurd situation it is possible to find in a government, namely that the government is in the power of high finance and, at the same time, it distracts the people with a so-called policy of grandeur.
Mr. Speaker, remember where a policy of grandeur, leads to. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) talked about fighting inflation; we saw him on television and we heard him say, with a quiver in his voice, that the only problem in Canada was inflation.
People were told: Tighten your belts, do not raise salaries by more than 6 per cent, deprive yourselves. Older people who were out of work and were not yet entitled to the old age pension were told: Wait until you are 65 years of age. Tighten your belt a little, good times are just around the corner. Young people were told: Go to school, get diplomas, tomorrow you will have a happy society where you will find a place for yourselves.
Mr. Speaker, where do such incisive formulas and this anti-inflationary policy of greatness lead us, with the appointment of agencies like the Prices and Incomes Commission with which to deceive people floundering in the system, when their only concern is to get votes.
That does not solve anything. It is a policy of bandaids on wooden legs and we see today that the fight launched against inflation resulted in uncontrolled and uncontrollable unemployment.
What is the result of this omnibus bill that contains 35 or 40 different provisions which, in the end, settled absolutely nothing? People are amused with these matters

January 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 and bankers are allowed to continue to exploit people, to keep their hold on them as slaves in front of the dollar bill. On all fours in front of the dollar bill, this government does absolutely nothing to change the situation. On the contrary, it protects the magnates of finance, and to give itself the appearance of a responsible, dedicated and well-intentioned government, it introduces a bill to increase the number of parliamentary secretaries and ministers without portfolios, as if there were not already enough of them to deceive the people of this country and produce nothing.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the bill is absolutely unthinkable since it is known that it will not solve the basic problem. There are points I would like to return to more specifically. The following passage occurs on page 9, concerning clause 27 of the bill, and I quote:
(1) The amendments proposed by this subelause would provide improved early retirement benefits for certain categories of persons employed in the Public Service, calculated on the basis of the age, length of pensionable service and circumstances of retirement of such persons.
Mr. Speaker, that is part of the explanatory notes. It will be remembered that when the House discussed old-age pensions quite recently we, of the Ralliement Credi-tiste, asked the government to at least consider the possibility of bringing down the minimum age for payment of old age pensions. We were told: It would cost too much. When the government was asked to allow people over 50 to get their old age pension before the age of 65 so as to enjoy income security and at the same time get out of the labour market overcrowded with unemployed, they answered: That is not good enough, it is a bad measure.
But it seems to be good for civil servants. This means that the government protects a very small part of our society, namely, the civil servants, and does not treat in the same way those who provide the money to pay these civil servants.
The government should at least be fair enough to treat the taxpayers and the civil servants equally instead of favouring one group at the expense of the others. I think that is a sample of an unjust society.
On page 11 of the bill, in the explanatory notes, one can read this:
This amendment would enable a former deputy head to elect to continue to make contributions under the Public Service Superannuation Act after he ceases to be actively employed in the Public Service.
Here is another example of discrimination between workers in the private sector and the civil servants encouraged by the government. If the House accepted this amendment, the government would allow a public servant to retire and keep on contributing to his pension fund as though he were still working, so that in the end he might have more substantial pension.
I am not suggesting that those provisions concerning public servants are bad, but if the government considers them good for public servants, they should be just as good for other Canadian citizens. That is why I wonder about the logic in the government's position. When we propose to ensure decent living conditions and economic

security to the Canadian citizens, the government replies: It would be too expensive, it is not feasible, it is not advisable.
This is another example of how this government is running the country. They claim to be fair, but in fact, they could not care less about the Canadian people.
On page 12 of this bill appears the following explanation, and I quote:
This amendment to the Salaries Act would provide a salary for each Minister of State referred to in clause 19.
Mr. Speaker, clause 28 reads as follows:
5. The salary of each Minister of State, being a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, who presides over a Ministry of State is $15,000 per annum.
-in addition to his regular salary, e (9:40 p.m.)
In order to prove to what extent this legislation is unacceptable, I will quote some statistics. Lately, the government tabled at the request of hon. members the report of the Committee on Parliamentary Salaries and Expenses presided over by Mr. Beaupre. With little or no knowledge of the role of a member of Parliament, this Mr. Beaupre suggested, without any kind of explanation, without demonstrating that a member could deserve it, without any mention at all of the services that a member could render, an increase in salary to $25,000 per year. Several members say that such an action is unacceptable because it does not provide at the same time for increased services.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder what services the Ministers of State will do the Canadian people with the disguised salary increase that the government will give to certain members for performing imaginary duties, unless these are defined for us.
At any event, that $15,000 emolument shown here in the case of a Minister of State is an indirect trick on the part of the government to avoid censure for rewarding certain members, for granting them an increase. Should the government members not agree with that, I invite them to deny it.
I will now bring the discussion on the following point: A Post Office Department will be created under this measure. I have but one word to say about that. We may recall that during the last ten years, the government kept on changing the Postmaster General, almost every moon as the Indians would say. We may recall also the troubles, the problems we had in that department.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Post Office Department is absolutely necessary. But listening to the minister's speech, we might believe that he can solve all problems.
As for me, I am still puzzled and I still say that this is again the icing on the cake, that it does not remove the poison in the cake because it does not solve the problem.
I should like to come back to the creation of the Department of the Environment. It will be tremendously publicized, with special emphasis on the battles it is
January 26, 1971

going to fight, but all things considered, we all know that this will not settle the problem.
What will this department do? It will carry out studies, it will set up royal inquiries and will appoint commissioners to travel throughout Canada and see by themselves that pollution does exist. Anyway, we already know that it will pay fantastic amounts of money and for what result? To set up such bodies as, for instance, the Textile and Clothing Board which will be practically useless. In any case, the already overtaxed Canadians will have to foot the bill.
Besides, no use waiting for the minister's explanations since his masters, namely the bankers, have already answered on his behalf. The Chairman of the Bank of Montreal has already stated: "Let us deny abundance to all Canadians, let us refuse participation by each Canadian to this country's wealth, let Canadians tighten their belt to pay for pollution".
This is why I am quite sorry that the government keeps on, by all kinds of bills-including Bill C-207-creating departments, eliminating some of them, organizing or disorganizing the administration, appointing secretaries and firing them, granting salary increases, and all this merely to inform the population and put a bandaid on a wooden leg without ever solving the basic problem.
The basic issue is economic. As long as money is not tamed, as long as money has not been put at the service of human beings, as long as this government fails to creat the financial tools for financing those various programs-even if they are good-he will not be able to reach its goals.
This government would have the best laws in the world if it could only afford the necessary financial and fiscal policies to implement these programs which, under the present system, will only contribute to an increase in the private and public debt of Canada and will spread poverty in our affluent country.
It is high time the government stopped introducing new legislative measures designed only to change a few names, to shift a few people, to increase a few salaries or to make a favour to a few civil servants. Let it rather tackle the basic problems, review its financial and fiscal policies, consider new opportunites for Canada to set up a system in which money will serve man and not the other way around, as is now the case.
The governement is proposing to set up a new department to fight pollution but they will have to tell us some day how they intend to finance this program.
The only logical solution for the government is to keep on taxing people. In the meantime, we see the right hon. Prime Minister drop four millions without interest in Indonesia, another million and a half here, another million there. In the meantime, the provincial and municipal debts keep piling up, and so does our national debt.
This war on pollution can only be waged with the co-operation of the provincial and municipal governments which cannot afford it since they are already in debt up to their ears. The public debt of Quebec, for instance, rose by 100 per cent within four years while the
Government Organization Act, 1970 public debt of Canada climbed by 40 per cent within three years.
This shows that we are in a serious predicament but we shall not wipe off our debts by plunging head on into new ones.
Mr. Speaker, as members of the Ralliement creditiste, we urge the government to review its positions on money matters and to set up an adequate machinery. The Bank of Canada should serve the Canadian people. The government should take measures aimed at human beings, such as the compensated discount and a national dividend, in order to carry out the only essential reform in Canada, that is an economic reform and respect all Canadian citizens by enabling them to develop normally as they are entitled to.
Finally, I regret that the government should crush the Canadian people, keep ignoring them; at the same time, it messes about changing, setting up, organizing and disorganizing ministries, while distracting the people from the real problem of an economic nature.
I consider that the problem is there and unavoidable. The more we delay coming to grips with it, the more thoughtless bankers, such as Mr. Arnold Hart, will be able to say: The Canadian people will still have to pay. Meanwhile, the banker thrives; he takes advantage of the funds provided by the government. I believe that the war on pollution should start "in the head" of those who make fun of others and only make the problem worse.
Strangely enough, in Canada, the governments protect big finance. A review of the Bank Act takes place every ten years, but nothing is changed; more and more power is given to the banks and to private financial institutions. Thus, the Bank of Canada remains a puppet organization.
Let the Bank of Canada play its full role and, instead of speaking of reorganizing the government as we do in this bill, let us deal with the reorganization of the Bank of Canada, that it might really serve Canadians. Strangely enough, every year a bill on the reorganization of government is introduced in Canada, but no mention is ever made of including the Bank of Canada in this reorganization.
Government members may find my remarks amusing. They may be out of place but, to my mind, this bill is completely off the track. It is not intended to solve any of the problems which now confront Canadians.
This is absolutely ridiculous. It is making fun of Canadian people and still amounts to creating a just society for a small group of men, at the expense of the majority of Canadians.
To conclude my remarks, I can only repeat that as long as the monetary system is not reorganized, all other reorganizations will not solve the problem but on the contrary, they will only be a matter of entertainment for the people and especially the government members.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes available before ten o'clock I should like to speak briefly about two sections of the bill before us. Part VII deals with public service superannuation. This is the

January 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 part which is being followed very closely by many people in the Public Service of Canada today. The bill espouses a new and very important principle, that of voluntary retirement on the part of any employee who has reached the age of 55 and has to his credit not less than 30 years of pensionable service.
It has become clear to me, Mr. Speaker, from the telephone calls and letters I have received in the last few days and weeks that this provision is welcomed and that a number of people are anxious to take advantage of it. Their thinking with regard to the retirement policy has undergone many phases. There was a time when no one thought of retiring at age 55. I suppose in a large number of cases the men and women who are thinking of leaving the public service at that age, after 30 years of contributing to the superannuation scheme, have in mind undertaking another type of activity which will be very useful not only in respect of their mental health but in giving them an opportunity, while they still have the capacity, to do great things and enjoy life to undertake a new kind of career without jeopardizing that which they have built up. I had a call the other day from a gentleman who at 52 years of age had 35 years of pensionable service. He suggested I might consider moving an amendment so that with 35 years of service he could retire at age 52.
Mr. Speaker, I think what we are trying to do now is a good thing. I would not propose at any stage that we try to go beyond the standard which is spelled out. I am aware of a number of very difficult retirement cases. Among the most difficult are those involving contributors to other schemes which have an early retirement age. I think particularly of the armed forces of Canada. I had the case of a gentleman who had retired from the naval service of Canada at age 39. His concern was that he was not permitted under the Superannuation Act to build up many additional years of contribution. He had 20 years of naval service and retired at age 39. He was permitted only to build up another 15 years contribution under the Superannuation Act. He felt this was an injustice. He was willing, capable and, presumably, encouraged by his department to stay on the job and proposed to stay there until at least age 60 if he could improve his pension rights by so doing.
We must bear in mind that in spite of the very good provisions this government has provided for persons who retire, the provisions are still very modest. Persons who retired 15 years ago find they cannot in any way compete with the tremendous increase in the cost of living. I hope that the committee in looking at a number of the technical provisions of part VII will be able to review other cases of hardship which might be brought to their attention in respect of pension schemes. We are anxious to do the right thing; we want to treat our employees fairly. The government of Canada is in this connection breaking new ground and is doing the kind of thing of which I am sure all of us are proud.
I should like to say a word or two about part I of this bill. It creates a Department of the Environment. The gentleman who is to be designated as minister of this
department is presently in the House. He will be the lead-off speaker in the debate tomorrow. He will make a statement which I am sure will be welcomed by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), who said he was looking forward to the remarks of the minister who will be responsible for the department of the environment.
I hope that the minister, who will occupy the new building in the sister city of Hull, on the other side of the Macdonald-Cartier bridge, will take an interest in the immediate environment of the national capital region. As a member representing this area, I have felt from time to time that there is a great deal to be done in our own back yard within the national capital region. A great deal could be done by way of a determined attack upon the polluting factors which have so obviously affected the environment of our great national capital.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is a job to be done on the Ottawa River.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: That is precisely the first place to start. Assistance must be given to the city of Hull in the development of its primary, secondary and tertiary treatment facilities, and to the city of Ottawa in respect of its secondary and tertiary facilities in order that one of the truly magnificent rivers of this continent might be restored to a degree of the purity it knew in years gone by. The fact is that those of us who live in the capital city know that when the wind blows from the east, the kraft mill at Thurso is changing its process, because there is very obviously air pollution.
The fact is that the sulphur-dioxide droplets that form under certain adverse weather conditions have had their eroding effect upon the very stones of these buildings, as anyone who is familiar with maintenance problems could demonstrate and explain quite clearly. But I am confident there is an aroused community conscience, an aroused awareness of pollution problems as well as a contribution by the words which are commonly heard in day-to-day speech, in every issue of every newspaper, on the television screen and wherever we go. We talk today about ecology, about the biosphere and about pollution. These are words which have come into very recent use in our language.
I am confident the minister who will have these responsibilities is one of the most capable persons who could be chosen for the job. There is no question that he has a job to do. I hope he will look at the problems of air pollution, water pollution and even soil pollution, and that the national capital region will be one of the first places to receive his attention. In that way the cities which have not yet developed within this region, the very necessary treatment of human sewage and control of industrial waste, will have the encouragement, inducement and active support of a ministry of this government which I am sure has a very significant role to play in creating the kind of environment in which we hope to live.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is now ten o'clock.

January 26, 1971



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I inquired of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) concerning the apparently well-founded reports of new, large French sales of military aircraft to South Africa. Recalling that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had recently referred to the South African area as a potential Viet Nam, I asked what representations the government had made to the French government on this very important matter.
It was my impression that this country was resolutely opposed to trafficking in military arms; we have heard many proclamations by members of the government along these lines. Certainly the British Prime Minister and government learned by letter and otherwise about our viewing with alarm the proposed sale of military supplies to South Africa under the Simonstown agreement. I do not suggest that strong expression of views within the Commonwealth membership is improper or inappropriate, although the handing of the famous letter from Prime Minister to Prime Minister was something less than thoughtful diplomacy.
But it is not thoughtlessness that I complain about in the minister's answer. I am appalled at the distinction he made when he confessed that this government had not made representations to France against the sale of arms to South Africa. Only to Great Britain had such representations been made. These were made, in the minister's words, on the basis of "trying to avoid a rupture in the Commonwealth". I have no hesitation in proclaiming my belief that the Commonwealth is a valuable international institution, the breakup of which would not be a contributor to world peace. But, surely, trafficking in arms can be judged in a more direct and explicit way than by checking the international membership of the country engaged in this practice. Are we to believe that the sale of naval frigates by Great Britain is a more serious threat to world peace than the sale of 100 Mirage jets by France?
If the Canadian government sincerely believes that arms sales threaten world peace, they should say so, regardless of what state is playing the role of merchant of death. Latest statistics indicate that only the Soviet Union and the United States export more military equipment than France. But not a word, not even a letter, has been exchanged. We read about improving relations between Paris and Ottawa-and if anyone can help the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion cause, our most excellent ambassador can. Canada and France are charter members of the United Nations. We are in the Francophonic organization, and while that body is seized of cultural and technological issues, surely it should allow for freedom of expression on a bilateral basis on a matter of such frightful urgency.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) was in Paris recently. He is a very important minister. Could he not have advised the French government about Canada's long-standing opposition to arms sales? It is hard to believe that this government can give its thoughts no tongue except when conversing with Whitehall. I hope the government will muster its courage and tell France, as it told Britain, that we view military merchandising as a deterrent to peace-making. I would not like it to appear that all the talk in the Far East recently about purity, and all the protestations, are mere hypocrisy. I hope we may soon hear of some consistency in respect of this very grave and frightening matter.


Mr. Andre Ouellei (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, while listening to the hon. member's remarks, I was wondering whether he was giving more importance to the sale of arms to South Africa than to the Commonwealth itself. Perhaps the translation was not accurate. This might be a thought that crossed his mind following a question that he asked also last week concerning the future of the Commonwealth and the possible withdrawal of Canada from it. That question had been transferred by the Speaker for debate at ten o'clock. I came here but the hon. member did not show up. Then, I asked myself if he had not completely forgotten his love affair with the Commonwealth and, listening to him tonight, I am inclined to ask if he has really abandoned all the respect and the love he had for the Commonwealth.
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, in brief I believe the hon. member's question should be dealt with in two ways: on the one hand, there can be no doubt of any kind as to the Canadian government's quite clear and straightforward stand on the sale of arms to South Africa. The Canadian government clearly expressed on several occasions its opposition to such a sale and the minister informed the House, in answer to the hon. member's question, that Canada has repeatedly expressed this point of view at the United Nations.
In regard to apartheid, I clarified the Canadian government's position during a debate at the United Nations General Assembly on December 8 last when I expressed the hope that all member countries, including of course France and all the other countries which sell arms to South Africa, would abide by this embargo.
The second point I would like to deal with concerns the hon. member's question: why did Canada not make direct representations to the French authorities. I wonder why the hon. member blames France rather than other coun-
2796

January 26, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion tries, for France is of course not alone in selling arms to South Africa. And it seems curious to me that the hon. member casts the blame only on France this evening and that he does not ask us why we did not also make direct representations to other countries and why we made some only to Great Britain. Of course, we made some to Great Britain, because the Commonwealth conference was to be held and we feared that the course that the British government was about to follow would blow up the Commonwealth.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, the question directed to the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on January 20, 1971, challenges the responsibility of the minister with respect to the decision made by government experts concerning the access road to the national park in the St. Maurice Valley.
Therefore, it is important and indeed urgent that this matter be cleared up and that the minister dispel our doubts.
The Mauricie daily, Le Nouvelliste, suggested a fortnight ago that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and member for Saint-Maurice, could well be more or less directly involved in a conflict of interests in connection with the access road to the Mauricie national park and to a proposed ski centre.
The minister was roused to indignation and claimed that there were no grounds for these "charges or innuendoes". We take his word for it, but so as to remove any doubt as to his integrity, I think he should give straight answers to the following questions:
Can we establish a relation between the trip to Hawaii, the ski resort in St. Gerard and the entrance to the national park?
Did the minister actually go to Hawaii? Why did he come back. Did he know that two businessmen from the St. Maurice valley were there?
Can the minister say whether he knew about the ski centre in St. Gerard and did he take part in any way in this scheme?
Has the minister frequent contacts with these businessmen?
How can the minister explain that these businessmen are taking options on land in St. Gerard when it is a well-known fact on the one hand that the entrance to the national park could be of benefit to their enterprise and on the other hand that the location of this entrance is not yet publicly known?
Can the minister say whether he knew about the ties between these businessmen who are investing large amounts of money there and the possibility that they may benefit from the location selected for the park entrance location?
Has the minister discussed with Mr. Matteau, for instance, the possibilities as to the location of the national park's entrance?
Has the minister heard of a brief suggesting that the park's entrance be at St. Gerard? Is it true that a departmental officer said to the person who submitted the brief: "Forget it, everything is settled?"
Is the minister in touch with Mr. Guy Suzor?
Finally, which is the most likely entrance location for that national park?
Mr. Speaker, the St. Maurice valley people would like answers to all these questions.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend read Le Nouvelliste a little late, because if he had read it last Tuesday, he would have found out that Le Nouvelliste, in which the same questions were asked, was satisfied with the answers I gave that, first of all, the entrance to the park was not known and would not be for some time, that the ski centre in question is far from the park and, secondly, that the people who wanted to invest money in the St. Maurice Valley had asked me whether the federal government would help them. And I told them that the federal government did not have any program to do so.
But if investors in that project had been Americans, they would have been invited to City Hall for a cocktail and to sign the Golden Book. But since those people were French Canadians who wanted to risk a few dollars for the welfare of the population and to create a few winter jobs, questions were raised.
Mr. Speaker, I answered the following day, in its editorial page, Le Nouvelliste stated in an article entitled:


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Chretien was not long in reacting when he stated that the "charges or innuendoes" contained in the said articles were baseless. The member for Saint-Maurice specified "that no decision had been taken concerning the establishment of a national park in the St. Maurice Valley. Nobody has privileged information in that connection. The decision should be taken by the planners of the National Parks Branch and based on technical considerations."
In addition, the Minister stated that "there was no relation and there will never be any choice made between the establishment of the park and the project of a ski centre in the Saint-Gerard-des-Laurentides area."
That restatement should put an end to the debate. We have no valid and serious reason to question the word of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice. A doubt has been raised and Mr. Chretien answered in all honesty.
Besides, Mr. Jean Chretien has been in politics for about ten years and never have his honesty and integrity been questioned once. Prime Minister Pearson had recognized the qualities and qualifications of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice by appointing him Minister without Portfolio in 1967.
He eventually became Minister of National Revenue.
-The next year, Mr. Trudeau appointed him Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
We must also add that Mr. Jean Chretien has always been dedicated to his constituency and the Mauricie region.

January 26, 1971
[Stage Direction]
Probably much more than the hon. member tor Champlain, Mr. Speaker. And I continue:
It It truly regrettable that he is today somehow a victim of circumstances. We accept without reservation his explanation for he enjoys respectable credibility based on a spotless record.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that I came back before the anticipated date at the request of the House Leader of my party because certain bills concerning my department were to be put before the House.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.13 p.m.
23786-36$
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, January 27, 1971