1971-03-30

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House
Ottawa
30 March 1971
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Roland A. Ritchie, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 30th of March, at 5.30 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant, Louis-Fremont Trudeau Brigadier General
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-13, an act to amend the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth, fifth and sixth reports of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs-Mr. Cullen.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement with respect to dairy policy for the year starting April 1, 1971. The Canadian Dairy Commission has been authorized to pay subsidy on manufacturing milk and cream, under its quota system, at the same rate as in the year just ending. This is $1.25 per 100 pounds of milk testing 3.5 per cent butterfat, or 35.71 cents per pound of butterfat.
The prices at which the commission offers to purchase major dairy products in support of Canadian prices will, for the present, remain at existing levels. It will be recalled that the prices for skim milk powder and Cheddar cheese were each advanced four cents per pound on February 8 last, bringing the present rates to 24 cents per pound for powder and 51 cents for cheese. The butter support price continues at 65 cents per pound.
While actual prices received by producers from the market are a matter of provincial jurisdiction, these changes will mean that in the forthcoming dairy year there will be a significant increase in market prices to producers for industrial milk compared with those in effect at the start of this dairy year. There is a holdback from payments to producers toward the cost of disposing of surplus dairy products which have to be exported.
There was a change in this procedure during the past year with the adoption in Ontario and Quebec of a system of market-sharing quotas for all producers supplying milk for manufacturing use. With that change the Commission paid producers in those provinces the full rate of subsidy and a levy was made from the market payment and remitted to the commission.
This arrangement will continue during the coming year. In provinces where producers are now under market-sharing quotas, or at any time during the year when other provinces may come under the system, producers will receive subsidy at the full rate for the quantity of milk or cream for which they are eligible. This, of course, is conditional on a levy being taken from the market payment by the provincial board and remitted to the commission. In provinces not under market-sharing quotas there will continue to be a levy or holdback from the subsidy payments.
The major surplus Canadian dairy product is skim milk powder. The cost of disposing of surpluses, and the rate of levy necessary to finance that cost, is related primarily to the price which can be secured for skim milk powder exports.
Starting a year ago there has been a marked improvement in that price from the levels which prevailed previously. It is difficult for the commission at this time to estimate the price which will prevail for skim milk powder exports during the coming year and, in consequence, its costs of disposing of surpluses and the rate of levy from producer payments necessary to finance them.
It will be at least a month, and probably more, before this situation is clarified.
In the meantime, the rates of levy or holdback from producer payments will, with one exception, continue at present levels. The only change, for the present, is that the levy of 1 cent per pound of butterfat on cream

March 30, 1971
Dairy Policy 1971
deliveries by a producer up to his quota will be discontinued.
The commission, however, may later adjust these rates when it is better able to estimate its costs of surplus disposal for the coming year.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of this announcement well before the House opened. Those dairy producers who have been holding their collective breath waiting for this announcement may now let their breath out slowly because there will not be much of a change as a result of this announcement. Certainly there will be no help to counteract the increased costs which they are experiencing every year.
It is evident that there has never been as much dissatisfaction among dairy farmers in this country as there is at the present time. A few years back we had overproduction in Canada. Now production in relation to needs is just about holding its own in all provinces outside of Ontario and Quebec, or central Canada. We may soon be depending on imports. Have the powers that be no knowledge of how long it takes to establish a dairy business and the cost involved? The farmers may well end up in a position of deficit production shortly. It is evident that the prime object seems to be to get the government out of paying subsidies, with sufficient production only a secondary aim.
The past year has shown an increase in the disappearance of dairy surpluses in North America and western Europe. This tendency to decline began about the middle of 1969. Prices are therefore strengthening. There has also been a general decline in the number of dairy cows as well as in the number of producers. The average production per cow is up which shows increased efficiency in production. This is something the government is always talking about, especially the Department of Agriculture.
Since the Canadian Dairy Commission began operating in 1967 the number of registered producers has dropped by approximately 50 per cent. This means that the other half is no longer in business. Half of the former producers no longer have an income from the dairy business.
If the government insists on cheap food, subsidies must be paid. In fact, they may have to be increased; yet the government estimates a decrease for sustaining the dairy industry in the future.
In the recent agreement between Quebec and Ontario and the Canadian Dairy Commission fines were imposed-there is no other word for these holdbacks-of $2.40 per hundred on manufacturing milk for overproduction and 50.28 cents per pound of butterfat. The same deal is now proposed for Alberta. I understand that two or more preliminary meetings have been held in Alberta in this regard. Under this agreement the Canadian Dairy Commission can fine even fluid milk shippers for then-surplus or overproduction. With this type of agreement there is no way their surplus production can be reached by the Canadian Dairy Commission. These fines can put a producer in a straitjacket. He must hold his production to a certain level at all times. Anyone knows that cows refuse to co-operate, thus making this almost impossible.

Dairy farmers must wonder why their industry has been singled out to be the only Canadian industry under complete state control.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in effect the statement says there will be no change in the direction of dairy policy. That policy is mainly one by which the government is withdrawing support for the industry or reducing it to the minimum. I think this policy will fit in very well with the farm adjustment policy being worked out by the minister and his colleagues which seeks to remove an increasing number of farmers from agriculture. This adjustment program will adjust a number of farmers out of agriculture. I believe the dairy policy will fit into this program very well, to the dissatisfaction of the farmers. It is said that the dairy program will depend on what the export price is for powdered milk, which is an unknown factor.
The last time the minister made an announcement on dairy policy he said that an agreement had been reached between the dairy producers in Quebec and Ontario. Not more than two weeks later we had an urgent plea from the dairy producers in Quebec to appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture to state their case and their dissatisfaction. At that time I asked them how they could expect the committee to do for them what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) had already refused to do.
This is the situation in which we find ourselves. I would not be surprised if we again have the dairy producers asking to appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture as a result of this statement.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, as it happens, I had planned to put a question related to the dairy policy to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). I would have done so yesterday, but as he was absent and the new dairy year is fast drawing near I had hoped that he would inform us today of the new dairy policy for 1971-72.
Hon. members will remember that on February 17, 1971, the House instructed the Committee on Agriculture to inquire into Vote No. 30 related to the Canadian Dairy Commission and to report in due course to the House. As the Committee on Agriculture has unfortunately not examined this vote so far, I quite understand why today the Minister of Agriculture has announced no major changes in dairy policy for the coming year.
I expected, however, that the increase in production costs for dairy products as well as other products, would have been taken into account, and that some improvements would have been made that would have been more beneficial to those who are really involved in milk production, especially industrial milk, so that they could obtain a higher income and fairer prices.
Obviously, I am aware of the current difficulties of the Canadian government; I realize also that it is not always an easy task to accept the most legitimate requests from farm organizations, such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. But one should well understand that it will
March 30, 1971

Request for Seal Hunt Study
be necessary at some point to react more favourably if we are to establish a dairy industry that will be in a position to compete with products from elsewhere.
The minister is certainly aware that member countries of the European Common Market voted recently on the adoption of a budget of over $3 billion to subsidize the production of farm products, in order to allow producers to produce more efficiently and at lower cost.
If Canada is to remain on the international market, it will have some day to adopt policies to foster a decrease in production costs while enabling producers to earn a living decently.
Furthermore, a surplus is said to exist. Yes surely, there is a surplus, if the objective is set according to present consumer demand. It is obvious that the people's purchasing power is rapidly decreasing month after month as the rate of unemployment is increasing. There is no doubt then that demand in decreasing gradually. It is clear that the people would need a national market on which to dispose of a greater production, if it had a purchasing power to match its actual needs.
Then, there have been proposals during the past couple of years to the effect that by means of agreements the federal and provincial governments could generate a policy to help dispose of a given volume of dairy products in schools, hospitals, homes for senior citizens, etc.
This policy is presently established in the United States and in quite a forceful manner, as the President of the United States has just authorized doubling this year's budget to supply dairy products in schools, hospitals and homes.
This has promoted the consumption on the national market, and allowed United States milk producers to dispose more easily of their production and to have more profitable farms.
I repeat that the minister, his advisers and the government should further study these suggestions in order to find the means of carrying out this objective of helping the dairy industry of Canada, especially in the provinces with the higher volume, to continue its progress and establish research facilities towards diversification of its production for greater use of milk.
In any event, I offer the minister my co-operation and that of my colleagues so that we may continue to work together in order to find solutions that will ensure the survival of the milk producers because many of them have now gone bankrupt.
During the weekend, I witnessed typical cases which are really touching. As a matter of fact, I met people who had made capital expenditures to remain in the dairy industry and who, due to the increase of quota costs, are today under the obligation of recapitalizing or going bankrupt.
Therefore, I should like to invite the minister not to wait for the next dairy year to announce again an increase in the prices of industrial milk, but to do it, as is mentioned in the statement, within the limit of a month or two, which is what we hope for.



DISRUPTION OF MOVEMENT FROM PRAIRIES TO VANCOUVER-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I seek leave to move a motion concerning the real and apprehended disruption of grain movement from the Prairies to the ships now waiting in Vancouver and those due to arrive in Vancouver over the next three weeks. In this crisis, Mr. Speaker, I propose to move, with the unanimous consent of the House, seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), the following motion:
That this House, in view of the crisis now existing and impending in grain movement from the Prairies to aboard ship at Vancouver and the resulting anticipated failure of Canada to meet her export grain commitments, urges the government to take immediate and extraordinary measures to get western grain moving and loaded at Vancouver.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Mackenzie. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 this motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.
[DOT]*H	*	*



FISHERIES


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It concerns the appointment of a government task force to investigate and study all aspects of the seal industry in Canadian waters, particularly the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Labrador waters, with a view to reducing the annual seal quota. The terms of reference contain no reference to the value of the seal hunt to the citizens of the Maritimes, Newfoundland and the Gaspe as a source of income and employment. The task force includes no member from those areas. The recommendations to be made by the task force are conditioned by the statement by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) that it may be necessary to launch a campaign to have "the ladies stop buying fur seal coats."
I therefore move, with the consent of the House, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That this House instructs the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry to inquire into the necessity for the appointment by the government of a task force to inquire into the seal industry in the Atlantic region and, in particular, to inquire into the rationale of having the task force composed entirely of persons from other than the Atlantic area.

March 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member requires unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member's motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Darimouih-Halifax East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to give us the date for the publication of his white paper? Can the minister also indicate whether he is giving any consideration to the suggestion that it be produced in two stages, one dealing with policy and one dealing with weaponry and weapons systems?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that it will be available to the public and the House at approximately the end of May. With regard to the second suggestion, I think he will find that the two aspects of the matter have been melded together.



STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS OPPOSING PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-STUDIES OF ECONOMIC IMPACT

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of a statement made to the press by the Minister of Communications in which he said that he is completely opposed to the building of an oil pipeline through Canada. He said that it would be a disaster which would create severe economic dislocation in the country and lead to a kind of industrial suicide. As this statement completely contradicts statements made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the statement made by the Minister of Communications represents government policy?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the text of such a statement but I understand it was given in reply to an interview. At this
time all I can say is that the various ministers who have commented on this subject have done so from the particular point of view of their department and their knowledge of the Canadian economy and government. All have said that no decision would be made without taking into account all considerations relative to the common good of Canada. I assume that the Minister of Communications was merely pointing out another dimension of this very complex problem.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that the Minister of Communications has raised some very serious questions about the economic impact of a pipeline being built through Canada, may I ask the Prime Minister if the government has had any studies made of the economic impact of the construction of such a pipeline? If so, have such studies been passed on to the two ministers who have been publicly inviting American companies to apply for the construction of a pipeline?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that studies have been made in the sense that they would have been completed, but certainly this aspect, this dimension, of the problem is one which I drew to the attention of the minister mainly involved in co-ordinating all studies for the Canadian government. The results of all these inquiries and studies will be brought before cabinet before a decision is made on any one particular aspect.


An hon. Member:: What did he say?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister if the two ministers who have publicly invited American companies to make application for the construction of a pipeline did so before the cabinet had reached any decision with respect to the economic impact that such a program would have?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The premise of the question is not correct, Mr. Speaker. No member of this government officially invited any American construction of such a pipeline. When the hon. member quoted some aspects of this matter the other day he himself had to say that any so-called invitation would be conditional upon a decision reached by the Canadian government and that every aspect of interest to the Canadian public would be looked into before any decision was made, let alone an invitation.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Post Office.
Can he tell us what is the normal delay required at the Postage Stamp Division to approve a stamp and also if he intends to see that the one recently sponsored by the CNTU is accepted?

March 30, 1971



LABOUR RELATIONS


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to address to the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of the series of slowdowns in grain movement because of inadequate facilities, the non-availability of certain grades of grain, and labour strikes on the west coast, is the government considering specific emergency measures to move grain at this time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this problem was raised in the House in the past few days. No further decision has been taken by the government since replies were given to the question.


Stanley James Korchinski: Has the government charged a special task force to consider making recommendations for emergency action?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not the government, Mr. Speaker.



DISPUTE BETWEEN RAILWAYS AND LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS-POSSIBILITY OF PROLONGED STRIKE

Stanley James Korchinski: I have a question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. In light of the economic effects of slowdowns by railway employees on government attempts to combat unemployment, is the minister satisfied that the position of the negotiations has reached such a point at the moment that we will not have a prolonged strike?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot attempt to assess with any accuracy whether or not we are in for a long strike. I know that at this very moment negotiations are taking place in Montreal between the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the union representing the striking engineers on the west coast, and the CPR and the CNR.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I directed a question to the House Leader on Friday and he indicated he would ask the Minister of Labour to make a statement to the House. Can the Minister of Labour tell the House now if he has indications that those workers who are booking off and are on slowdowns and so on are prepared to go back to work or are going back to work today or tomorrow to relieve the situation?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the workers in Vancouver will be meeting at two o'clock Vancouver time and my parliamentary secretary will be present at that meeting. My discussions by long distance last night were fairly fruitful. I can only hope the meeting this afternoon will indicate a return to work on the part of the members.
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



ALLEGED LACK OF PROPER GRADES AT WESTERN TERMINALS TO LOAD SHIPS-PAYMENT OF DEMURRAGE CHARGES BY GOVERNMENT

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that there have not been the proper grades of grain in position at the western terminals and thus many ships are waiting for grain cargoes in the harbour, will the Prime Minister consider paying the demurrage charges from the federal treasury rather than taking them from the receipts of the grain producers?


An hon. Member:: Good question!


An hon. Member:: He doesn't know the answer.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mouniain):: have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the gravity of the situation facing our economy with the current railway shutdown, will the Prime Minister move at once to convene an emergency committee meeting made up of the responsible ministers within his cabinet for the purpose of finding an immediate solution to this very serious problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the way in which the government orgamzes its committees to deal with this matter I do not think is important to discuss in the House, but the hon. member may want to know that there is a group of ministers which meets on grain problems.



DISPUTE BETWEEN RAILWAYS AND LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS-SUGGESTED MEETING BETWEEN MINISTER AND LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS IN VANCOUVER

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the seriousness of this issue to the west coast and to all of Canada, will the minister, if requested by the engineers, travel to Vancouver to meet with the union?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: In view of the seriousness of the situation, Mr. Speaker, I would request the hon. gentleman to let the negotiating team in Montreal pursue its work without premature and undue interference on my part.



HOLDING OF INCREASED AMOUNT IN EXPORT POSITION TO OFFSET EFFECTS OF STRIKES

Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister be prepared to recommend to the

March 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
minister in charge of the Wheat Board that in future more grain be kept in export position so that strikes will not affect us as adversely and so that grain will be available to be moved when ships come in?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's supplementary appears to be a suggestion which he has to assume will be taken into account in the future.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Would he tell the House whether the government will initiate a new withdrawal from Europe and bring to an end the presence of our forces in Europe?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this matter, surely, has been quite well canvassed in the question period during the past number of days.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What did the minister do?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I announced at that time that the Prices and Incomes Commission is conducting an investigation into those charges. I also pointed out that the banks are not subject to the Combines Investigation Act, which I am sure the right hon. gentleman knows. In so far as there is any ministerial responsibility for the behaviour of the banks, it rests with the Minister of Finance.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is the old game of alibi that this government plays. I ask the minister, in view of his interest in the subject of inflation, did he get in touch with and communicate with the Minister of Finance and point out this situation to him in order to protect Canadians against what is apparently an inordinate and unjustifiable increase?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker, there will not be any change.


Henry P. Latulippe: I want to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Would the hon. minister say also what will turn out of our accession, in 1957, to the North American Air Defence Command Agreement which was renewed in 1967 and is going to expire in a short time?


Mr. Speaker:: I must suggest to the hon. member that his question is quite general in nature and it seems to me that, normally, if the hon. minister would wish to answer it, he should do so by means of a statement on motions. I suggest this to the hon. member as well as to the hon. minister concerned.
* *
*



FINANCE


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It has to do with the fact that the chartered banks of Canada will be introducing charges effective on Thursday, which day, significantly, is April 1, which include a 33 per cent increase in charges on current accounts, a 27 per cent increase in the cost of writing personal cheques and an increase of 33 per cent for paying utility bills through bank branches. This matter was brought to the minister's attention some time ago and to the government's attention. What did the minister do in order to prevent this seriously inflationary action on the part of the banks, especially in view of the fact that their profits have been tremendously high during the last couple of years?


An hon. Member:: Usurious increase.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman led the government which revised the Combines Investigation Act. I would have thought that he would have included banking services within the act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: As I indicated in my previous answer, ministerial responsibility for the conduct of banks and the administration of the Bank Act rests with the Minister of Finance. He made it clear to the House that he would not approach the banks on what was, under the act, a business decision on their part.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that the attitude of the minister toward inflation today? The government is always blaming labour. Is it not about time that the responsibility was shared?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
* *
*



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Keith Hymmen (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of the important event this forenoon of his signing with officials of the West German government a convention on social security, can the minister advise the

March 30, 1971

House how soon pension cheques might be available to Canadians of German origin?


Mr. Maclnnis:: Why not? He gave you the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, may I indicate that pension cheques will not be made available to Canadians of German descent until the convention that was signed today is ratified both by the West German parliament and the parliament of Canada.
With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I think the House will be more than happy to recognize in the gallery known experts from West Germany including Professor Jantz, Dr. Schwartz and Mr. Strenger, who have been of invaluable assistance in breaking ground on this matter which we consider to be a new first so far as Canada is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Even though the minister cannot say on what date the cheques will start coming, can he indicate what will be the effective date so far as the convention itself is concerned?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe the effective date, and I ought to check this, is almost the present day. As I indicated to the House, Mr. Speaker, the whole matter is subject to ratification by both parliaments. We hope that this can be completed some time within the next six or seven months.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Si. George's-Si. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, based on evidence heard, that the seal hunt should be continued, and in view of evidence from the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies and other organizations supporting the present government policy on the seal fishery, can the Prime Minister tell the House why it has been found necessary to appoint another task force at public expense?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is clearly not in order. Unless the hon. member rephrases the question, I think the Chair will have to go to the next questioner. The hon. member has asked the government why it was found necessary to appoint a task force. That is certainly not the type of question that can be asked at this time. If the hon. member seeks information, he should ask the question directly and not in the terms in which it has just been put.
Inquiries of the Ministry SEAL HUNT-APPOINTMENT OF TASK FORCE-ANNOUNCEMENT OUTSIDE HOUSE


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister if it is now government policy for ministers to make major statements outside the House announcing the appointment of task forces while Parliament is sitting, thereby depriving the members of the House of the opportunity of reacting?


An hon. Member:: The hon. member is reacting.


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry made a major statement in the city of Vancouver announcing the appointment of a task force to study a subject that had already been studied very extensively by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry of this House. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that that statement ought to have been made in the House. According to the roster, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry is supposed to be in the House today but he is not here. Thus we are being deprived of the opportunity of directing questions to the minister on this very important statement of government policy.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
ROLE OF CANADIAN CONSUMER COUNCII______LOW-INCOME

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of opinions expressed today by Professor Jacob Ziegel, lately a member of the Canadian Consumer Council, that that body, costing the taxpayers roughly $100,000 a year, is largely ineffective because it has neither clearly defined guidelines nor structure, does the minister, at the beginning of its third year, plan a reassessment of its role, if any, in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I announced last week the appointment of a new chairman and the reappointment or appointment of members of the council. I have discussed at length with the new chairman the purpose of the council and the working procedures of the council, and I foresee a very useful period and role for the council in the two years ahead.


Winona Grace MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the recent list of appointments to the Canadian Consumer Council fails to contain the names of any representatives of low-income consumers, does the minister intend to supplement this list with the names of such appointees? If not, why not?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think that the people on the council are a group of people who can fulfil the purpose of the council and are good appointments.

March 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



CONSULTATION WITH CANADIAN CONSUMER COUNCIL ON PACKAGING AND LABELLING BILL

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of statements that have been published questioning the very usefulness of the Consumer Council, may I ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he or his officials, when drafting the packaging and labelling bill, consulted in any way with the Consumer Council or received any representation from them?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker. We consulted with the Consumers Association of Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


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



FISHERIES


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Canadian government has now seen fit to pay a great deal of attention to the American and European people who are against one aspect of our marine resources, I wonder if the Prime Minister can indicate that a definitive statement will be forthcoming and that a definite stand will be taken by the government on the harvesting, raping and exploitation of our marine resources by foreign nationals which is almost destroying the capability of our fishermen in the Atlantic region at the present time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will draw the representation and allegation to the attention of the various ministers involved. I wonder if I might be allowed to answer a question asked me yesterday by the right hon. member for Prince Albert?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might first allow the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate a supplementary. The Chair will recognize the Prime Minister in a moment.


John Howard Lundrigan: The Prime Minister referred to drawing to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries my representation and allegation, which is certainly not a fair comment. Perhaps he could take time off from his sugaring-off contest one of these days-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat.



DISCREPANCY BETWEEN BLUES AND HANSARD IN ANSWER BY PRIME MINISTER

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member for Prince Albert

asked me to look into the matter of an alleged discrepancy between what I said in the House and what was actually contained in the official transcript in Hansard. I have looked into this matter following my undertaking and I have been assured that no one in my office-nor, indeed, myself-made or suggested any change in Hansard. I am also told that what I said in the House was actually, as my memory prompted me to say yesterday, what is recorded in Hansard.


John George Diefenbaker: I suggest to the Prime Minister that the whole thing could be cleared up by tabling the blues. It would be seen if they were tabled that the Prime Minister has changed it or somebody changed it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair is prepared to take the responsibility in connection with this matter. I might say I have received a preliminary report which substantiates the statement just made by the right hon. Prime Minister. Particular reference was made to the taped proceedings of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


John George Diefenbaker: A prospective appointee, Mr. Speaker. Does this mean that from now on the blues are not accepted as to what is said in this House? I saw the blues, and there was a very pronounced change made between the blues and Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I really do not think there is much point in going into the matter very deeply. The right hon. gentleman was, I suggest, justified in raising the matter, and the Prime Minister said he thought, from memory, he had made a certain statement. The right hon. gentleman was right. The blues came out in one way but I am advised by the Hansard staff that they are the ones who made a mistake, that a check was made by our officials of the tape, and that they take full responsibility for the correction which they themselves made to the blues.
So I suggest to both right hon. gentlemen that they are both right. The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert was right. The blues came out in the way he suggested. The Prime Minister was right that what he said he had said is actually what he had said. So everyone is vindicated.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Max Salfsman (Waterloo):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It has to do with the question I asked him on March 26 regarding the possible prosecution in the United States of Canadian businessmen who are associated with the Canadian pulp
March 30, 1971

and paper industry and their reluctance to go to the United States for fear of becoming subject to United States anti-combines legislation. The minister undertook to look into the matter and report to the House this week. Has he yet had an opportunity to check the statements made by Mr. Fowler and other people in the pulp and paper industry and is he prepared to report to the House on the matter?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: My colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has kindly consented to answer this question.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have seen the comments made by Mr. Fowler. We are familiar with the investigation in the United States pursuant to the terms of an agreement entered into by the Attorney General of the United States and myself which was tabled in the House on November 5, 1969. We have no indication that the United States authorities were either endeavouring to apply their laws extraterritorially or that the United States courts were exceeding their jurisdiction. If anyone has information that this is not correct his complaint should be taken up with myself. I have received no such complaints.


Max Saltsman: Having regard to the provision in our combines legislation which permits exporters to combine for export purposes, and since the United States anticombines legislation takes a somewhat different approach, can the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs tell us whether those responsible in the United States for interpreting combines legislation are in agreement and are prepared to honour a provision of the kind which exists in Canadian anti-combines legislation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The whole purpose of the agreement to which I have referred was to prevent any misunderstanding between our two countries as to the extraterritorial application of United States laws. When we are in the process of revising the combines legislation international considerations will apply and we will try to devise a law which will best protect Canadian interests.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, following that put yesterday by my colleague the hon. member for Bellechasse.
Does the Prime Minister intend to let some underprivileged areas of Canada make use of the same advantages granted to underdeveloped countries, that is interest-free loans repayable over a long period?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have often answered that question indicating to the
Inquiries of the Ministry
hon. member and others that we effectively transfer to provinces and underprivileged areas some much larger amounts than those lent to other countries. For example, we have learned that through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion alone, more than half a billion dollars have been allocated to underprivileged areas of the country and given free, without any interest.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister who has just said that this is in fact being done in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Does it mean that the Prime Minister would not be against interest-free loans to underdeveloped Canadian areas by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in the December budget, we allocated $160 million for assistance to less favoured areas of the country over a very long period and at a very low interest rate.
We have also, through the equalization system and the Minister of Finance, transferred every year to provinces and underdeveloped areas hundreds of millions of dollars that not only do not bear interest but are free. The hon. member should put his remark in the right context.
Indeed, we often grant foreign countries long term loans, but these are not without interest, since it is the Canadian people who pay the interest, because we obviously exempt foreign countries from the payment of interest. That is the reason why we have established a program of assistance to countries less developed, less fortunate than Canada. I think that on this point, we have the support of all hon. members.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that we really have to try and consider some other matters, because we are not moving very quickly this afternoon. I suggest that we should now get on to another subject.

lEnglish]


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: My question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration or for the Secretary of State, but in their absence may I direct it, because of its urgency, to the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration? In light of the fact that as of this morning information regarding the Opportunities for Youth program was not available to groups and municipal authorities either at the Sydney manpower office or at two other offices on Cape Breton Island, would the minister expedite the dispatch of information to these offices immediately?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take notice of the question.


Robert Muir: A supplementary to the right hon. gentleman. In view of the information given in the House

March 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
yesterday by the Minister of Manpower that April 15 is the cut-off date for applications, would the right hon. gentleman not agree that Canada Manpower offices should now be in a position to provide information about this hodge-podge of odds and ends wrapped up in a riddle of bureaucratic confusion?



THE CENSUS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It was recently brought to my attention that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce had indicated that the proper place at which to apply for the job of census taker was the local Manpower offices. It has since been revealed that the local Manpower offices are indicating to people that they should get in touch with their Member of Parliament. Would the Prime Minister would look into this matter and see to it that information is sent to the local Manpower office so that if there is such a program advantage can be taken of it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend refers to Hansard or the sound tape he will see that I did not refer at the time to census takers; I referred to some jobs available to students here in Ottawa after the census is taken, helping to bring all the information collected into shape.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he has received any representations to investigate the feasibility of initiating negotiations with governments of other countries regarding an agreement on reciprocity of pensions similar to the one he signed this morning with the government of West Germany.


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are hoping that this new reciprocal agreement will serve as a precedent for similar agreements with other countries which will be of tangible assistance to many other Canadians.



PRESENCE OF CANCER-CAUSING SUBSTANCE, DEMETHYL-NITROSAMINE, IN FOOD

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Some time ago I asked the
minister a question regarding the seriousness of the use of demethyl-nitrosamine in the curing and preparing of foods. At that time the minister stated that he would have the information within a few days. I should like to know what conclusions have been reached regarding the use of this substance.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question and advise him that the amount of this particular substance that we have found is about 1,000 times less than those amounts known to produce cancer in animals. It does have a useful function. Our analysis is now sophisticated enough that we feel we can study that type of situation and detect any increase in amounts found in foods. We are keeping the matter under constant study at the present time.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Can the hon. gentleman advise whether he has received from the government of Prince Edward Island or from private commercial groups a proposal or proposals for the construction of the Northumberland causeway by private concerns, and can he advise whether the department and the government of Canada are giving their co-operation to such a proposed undertaking?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: The
answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.



FINANCE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs arising out of an answer he gave earlier in which he expressed regret that an earlier government had not included banking services in the anti-combines legislation. Are we to deduce from the minister's expression of regret that he intends to include banking services in the revisions which he has said he will bring before this House some time soon?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think that all that was appropriate to be said on this subject, for the moment at least, was said last week.


David Lewis: Nothing then; double nothing now.

March 30, 1971



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan-Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. What action has the minister taken to finalize arrangements for payment of the $400,000 special assistance to the Okanagan apple growers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there was some lack of understanding or agreement between our department and the association as to the terms and conditions under which the disposition of this money could be used to help out in a very difficult situation. Since I had a meeting with the association in the Okanagan Valley about ten days ago, I have sent a senior official from the department to see whether we can find a better basis for these terms and conditions.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very objective question for the Prime Minister.
In regard to interest-free loans, I feel that the people should know exactly what they are about. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether, when the government makes an interest-free loan to a foreign country, there are conditions attached to the deal which enable Canada to sell its products.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. When we grant such loans to a foreign country, we make sure that a certain percentage of the money will be used for purchasing Canadian materials and services.


James Aloysius McGrath: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government is giving consideration to making interest-free loans available to Canada's underdeveloped provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that this is substantially the question asked by one of his colleagues to the extreme left of the chamber a moment ago.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he
Inquiries of the Ministry
is in a position to answer the question I asked him last Friday, which was taken as notice by the Acting Minister of National Defence, regarding honorary membership in messes?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am advised that the practice of granting honorary life membership in messes was a custom peculiar to the RCAF and was only applicable to RCAF officers' messes. On unification of the Canadian Armed Forces, the practice was not continued. Anyone who has a lifetime membership card may enjoy the same mess membership privileges as before in any officers' mess that was an RCAF mess prior to February 1, 1968. A retired officer may apply to become an associate member of a mess and pay the appropriate mess dues as does a serving member of the Canadian forces.



PARAMEDICAL SERVICES-NEGOTIATION OF COST-SHARING AGREEMENT WITH PROVINCES

Mr. Randolph Harding (Koolenay Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the government come to any decision or is it in the process of negotiating a cost-sharing agreement with the provinces or with any province with respect to any of the several paramedical services?


John Carr Munro: No. Mr. Speaker.
# * *



AGRICULTURE


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In light of Your Honour's ruling and the Prime Minister's reply to my question last Wednesday, is the Prime Minister now prepared to hear a small non-political group express its concern over Bill C-176?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there have already been some 250 witnesses, more or less, before this committee and I cannot see the need at this time, since the bill is making such good progress, to interrupt this progress to hear further witnesses.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the Manitoba government's decision to take the Manitoba Court of Appeal case to the Supreme Court of Canada, perhaps in order to save embarrassment to all it would be best for the Prime Minister to listen to some of the concerns being expressed so that he can better judge the whole issue.
4736

March 30, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL SECURITY



PUBLICATION OF BOOK BY SECRETARY OF STATE ON QUEBEC CRISIS-WORK PERFORMED BY MEMBER OF PRIME MINISTER'S STAFF

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a short question about the famous book. When the Secretary of State announced his intention to write this book, did the Prime Minister know that a member of his personal staff would be working long hours on this particular duty? I refer to Pierre Billon.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's West.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If in fact Pierre Billon was doing this work, would the Prime Minister now put him on more constructive work such as jobs for students?



PUBLIC WORKS


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister inform the House as to the status of the application made by the Newfoundland government to build docking facilities in Come-by-Chance, Newfoundland?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, we expect to be making an announcement on this matter in the course of a few days.


Walter C. Carter: Can the minister inform the House whether it is the intention of the Canadian government to request a guarantee from the Newfoundland provincial government to cover the amount in question?


Arthur Laing: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that we had made that request.
sfc *	*



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: My
question is directed to the Prime Minister. Was the Secretary of State for External Affairs expressing government policy in Montreal last evening when he was reported to have said to the International Law Association that the United Nations can no longer be expected to provide peace-keeping forces for world trouble-spots?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, any statement along those lines would have to be read in the context of the white paper that the government published on this whole matter not too long ago. The government position is quite clear that we do not want to
get into peacekeeping operations without examining the conditions which prevail at the time. That does not mean there will be no participation in any peacekeeping operations.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
At the time of his visit to Marseilles, France the Secretary of State declared that the relations between France and Canada have been improving steadily in the last few months. In that context, could the Prime Minister put the idea of the Secretary of State into concrete form and invite the President of France to visit Canada and discuss with him the problems facing Canada and France?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there have been no discussions to that effect, but I am convinced that the President of France will be delighted to know that the hon. member for Charlevoix is thinking about it.


[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, March 29, consideration in committee of Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental there-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Honey in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order, please. When the committee rose last evening, clause 26 had been agreed to.
On clause 27-Public Service Superannuation


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before we begin discussing this clause, Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a point of order with respect to the way in which it might be handled. Clause 27 is to be found at pages 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Bill C-207. If this clause is examined carefully, it will be noted that there are three subclauses. Subclause (1) appears on pages 9, 10, and part of 11. Subclause (2) runs from the middle of page 11 to the top of page 12. Then, there is subclause (3), which is also on page 12.
I wish to point out that there is quite a difference in the areas covered in subclause (1) and subclause (2). Subclause (1) deals with early retirement generally in the public service. Subclause (2) deals with special arrangements for deputy heads. I wish to suggest, as a point of order, that we divide our discussion and deal with sub-
)Mr. Horner.]
March 30, 1971

clause (1), then move on to subelause (2) and then subclause (3). I wonder if that would suit the Chair.


Russell Clayton Honey: I will hear from other hon. members if they wish to speak on this point. As far as the Chair is concerned, I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is reasonable. We will follow it unless there are objections from other hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I will confine my remarks at this stage to subclause (1) and leave subclause (2) until later on in the afternoon. Subclause (1) of clause 27 is on pages 9, 10 and the top half of page 11. This subclause provides for early retirement in the public service. It seems to be divided into four main categories. One could easily get lost in the detail, so all I shall do at this point is identify the four main categories as I see them.
First, there is a provision for public servants 55 years of age or over who have 30 or more years of public service. Second, there is a category of public servants 50 years of age or over who have 25 years or more of public service. The third category relates to those 55 years of age or over who have ten years or more of public service and are called upon to retire from the public service involuntarily. The fourth category consists of employees 50 years of age or over who have 20 years or more of public service. It might be said that there is a fifth category, but it is really a variation of one of the others.
There are differing formulas that apply to these various categories and, of course, there is a certain amount of overlapping, but if I may I shall move on to the main reason for my intervention in the debate at this time. Since we are in committee of the whole, it is likely that some of us may speak more than once. The idea of providing for early retirement, particularly when it is on a voluntary basis, is good and is highly welcomed. I hope I am not talking so loud that Your Honour cannot hear those members on the other side of the Chamber.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I am sure hon. members have important matters to discuss, but I ask them to do it in a way that will permit us to hear the hon. member who has the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was going to add, Mr. Chairman, that I think the proposed formula for those 55 years of age or over who have 30 years or more service is good. Even as an opposition critic who tries to find something wrong with everything the government does, I am afraid I cannot find anything wrong with this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I knew that would bring a smile to the face of the hon. member for Ottawa West. The provis'on is that if a person is 55 years of age or over and has 30 years or more of service, he can retire and immediately draw a pension. The pension will be the amount that he has earned for that number of years service. Thirty years service at 2 per cent per year will give him a 60 per cent pension, namely 60 per cent of his average salary for his six best years. He will get
24081-19J
Government Organization Act, 1970
that full pension at that time without any reduction. Unless the man is to be put in the Senate there is not much more that can be done for him, and I would not wish that on my best friend in the Public Service.
I would go further, Mr. Chairman, and say that there are good things which can be said for the formulas which apply to the other categories when a public servant, of his own volition, wants to retire. The key element in all the other formulas, of course, is a reduction provision. Thus, if one is 50 years of age and has 25 years of service he can retire but his pension will not be 25 times 2 or in other words a 50 per cent pension; it will be reduced depending on how much he is short of age 55 or how much short he is of 30 years service. So, without going into detail, the same principle applies to the other categories I outlined. In other words, for all these people who do not meet the prime requirement of being 55 years of age and having 30 years service, early retirement has attached to it a provision whereby the pension one would draw would be reduced. If this were merely a voluntary scheme under which a public servant knowing the facts could choose to retire or, if he wished, choose to work to age 55 or 60, it would be hard to make a very strong case against it.
However, when one realizes that people in these categories may be involuntarily retired or, in effect, fired and placed on a pension at a reduced rate, this brings about a situation which prompts me to use a word I used when I spoke on this matter during second reading. I think it is ugly. I plead as strongly as I can with the President of the Treasury Board, who not only is the pilot of this legislation as a whole but also the pilot of this particular part, to reconsider this aspect of the matter. I plead with him not to try to sell us the line about it being a two-way street and that if it is fair one way it is. fair the other. It is the type of 50-50 arrangement involving one horse and one rabbit. To say it is all right for one public servant to have the choice of retiring on an early pension does not make it right for the big employer, the Federal Government, to force retirement on another individual when that forced retirement means a reduced pension.
People in the age bracket 50 to 55 are people who are trying to get their private affairs sorted out, get the mortgage as well as a few other things paid off and perhaps trying to get their sons and daughters through university. Their plans are made and they are looking toward retirement at age 60 or age 65. All of a sudden, the whole situation changes and instead of getting the pension they had hoped to get at age 60 or 65 they must take a greatly reduced pension. I plead on all the grounds I can muster that this is an unfair way for the government to treat its public servants. I ask the minister to-revise his thinking about it. I know it will be said that the government is a good employer and would not do some of these mean things; it would not fire people; it would not take advantage of this legislation. I am afraid I do not have that confidence, and I do not see how anyone in this House, no matter on which side he sits, could have that confidence.

March 30, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
We can recall a situation a year ago when people were retired when these pensions were not available to them. These were people who did not wish to leave the government service. But the government made some changes, and it will do so again. These changes could involve the desire to accommodate one language group here and another language group there and, perchance, there might be a desire to accommodate women in some positions in which they do not have adequate numbers and accommodate men in other positions in which they do not have sufficient numbers. There are all sorts of possibilities, under the government's policy, for public servants to be retired compulsorily. I suppose the government feels it will be able to say times have changed and that people previously had been retired with no pension, indeed had either to take their money out or receive a deferred pension at age 60. The government might say that now they will receive an immediate pension. However, the pension is subject to formulas which are spelled out in the different parts of new sub-section (1) of clause 27 of this bill.
As I say, early retirement is a good idea. I am glad the government is bringing it forward. I am glad it is provided in some other pieces of legislation. I think the man on the street is right when he says it would contribute to the solving of the unemployment problem, particularly of youth for people to retire earlier. I should like to see the old age pension age dropped from 65 to 60. But in view of the rights of people let us keep the voluntary principle alive. Let us not force people to take these reduced pensions because the government has put itself in the position of saying it is not putting people out on the street since it is giving them a pension.
When I spoke on this matter on second reading I gave an example. I notice the Letter Carriers Union of Canada has issued a press release today in which it highlights just about the same kind of example. Let me repeat it from memory. A person who is 50 years of age and has 20 years of public service can retire or be retired on an immediate pension. But under the formula by which he is retiring at age 50 his 20 years of service is ten years short of the 30 years he must have to retire at this point and, therefore, if you multiply ten by 5 it comes to 50 and his pension is reduced by 50 per cent. I see the President of the Treasury Bord giving me the courtesy of indicating that I am doing my arithmetic correctly, whether or not he agrees with my philosophy. So, let us consider a public servant who has given 20 years of service and who may retire or be forcibly retired He may think that with 20 years service he has built up a 40 per cent pension, 20 times two; but no, he has a pension which is reduced by 50 per cent and therefore at that age it is only 20 per cent of the average of his salary for the six best years. I hope no one stands up and says this is being nice to public servants and that it is something which they have not had before.
I say this is ugly and is something that will hang like a sword. I shall not say a Damoclesian sword because in the Hansard office last night we had difficulty spelling that word.


John Angus MacLean: You have said it.
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will be able to see how they spell it today. We found four different ways to spell it last night. It hangs like a sword over public servants generally. It is bad enough, now that there is not the security in employment which the public thinks there is, but when we add to this the threat of retirement at a reduce pension I say it becomes quite unfair.
In this connection I wish to move an amendment but before I do so may I mention another subject unless you, Mr. Chairman, tell me my time is running out, in which case I shall return to the amendment quickly.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member has five minutes according to my calculation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you. I think this is the first time I ever publicly received this kind of service from the Chair. Thank you, Sir.
When we passed Bill C-194 in the last sess'on and provided for the escalation of pensions after retirement- a very good bill except for something that was in it, but I shall not reopen that at this point-we provided that those escalation payments could come into effect only at the age of 60 because that was the normal age for the retirement of public servants. In particular, the bill provided that retired RCMP or retired armed forces personnel who were under 60 could not get the increase right away but would have to wait until age 60. The main argument carried some weight, and the minister can find from the words in Hansard that I accepted his argument.
In committee we had a heated exchange of opinions but the committee was in too big a hurry to get the bill through, for reasons I need not mention. The main argument was that 60 was the minimum age at which public servants retired, except those who went out because of a medical disability, and therefore members of the RCMP or the armed forces who retired at an earlier age would have to wait. I now understand that when you combine the provisions of the bill now before us, specifically clause 27 of Bill C-207, with the provisions of the escalation legislation of a year ago, it turns out that when a public servant retires under this legislation at 55, 56, 52 or 53, he will qualify immediately for this 2 per cent escalation. I am glad of this, for I think it would be most unfortunate if these people being retired early did not get that benefit.
I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether that has not taken away completely his argument that he cannot provide this escalated pension for the retired armed forces and retired RCMP personnel because the normal retirement age is 60 and no one gets it under 60. Incidentally, members of Parliament who are out on pension and are under 60 do not get it either. But I am concerned at this point with the two groups I named. I say that if we are now revising that concept, if we are making it possible for the 2 per cent escalation to come into effect in the case of some public servants-there probably will be thousands of them-there is no justifica-
March 30, 1971

tion lor continuing that prohibition in the case ol retired members of the armed forces and retired members of the RCMP.
There is more that I want to say and more that I shall say, but we are in committee of the whole so one can speak aga'n. But in my view the main evil in this clause is the way in which pensions of people who retire early can be reduced, even when those people are retired against their will. I think that the bill should be amended to take care of that. Therefore, I move:
That clause 27 of Bill C-207 be amended by inserting therein, immediately following line 16 on page 11, as a conclusion to subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section 11 of the Public Service Superannuation Act, the following words:
"provided however that the reductions indicated in this subparagraph shall not be applied in the case of any employee who does not retire voluntarily from the Public Service;"
I have already pointed out to the Chair that subclause (1) of clause 27 runs through pages 9, 10 and a half of page 11, and the place where I suggest these words should be added is in the middle of page 11, at the end of that subclause.
The reason I used the language "who does not retire voluntarily from the Public Service" is that the phrase is already in the clause with respect to one particular group. But I trust the whole point of my argument is clear that in the case of any public servant covered in any of the various parts of clause 27, who is retired against his will, there should be no reduction in the amount of the pension that he would get for the number of years that he has been employed in the public service.
As I said, there is much to be said about this legislation. I repeat without hesitation that in so far as it is voluntary, it is good. I repeat without hesitation that what it does for those 55 years of age and over with 30 years of service is excellent; I make no complaint about it. But surely we in this chamber do not want to put on the statute books a piece of legislation that makes it possible for the government to fire people between the ages of 50 to 55 and force them to take a reduced pension. That is the reason I have presented the amendment which I have the honour to move.


Russell Clayton Honey: First of all, I should like to apologize to the hon. member for Malpeque. The committee was starting on a new part of the Bill, and to follow proper procedure I should have recognized the spokesman for the official opposition. I apologize for that. It was only inexperience, but I am sure the hon. member for Malpeque will have his opportunity.
The Chair will accept the amendment. I find no objection to it from a procedural standpoint, but if hon. members have any submissions to make from a procedural standpoint, I will be pleased to hear them now.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Chairman, you invited comments on the motion from a procedural standpoint. In my own view, there is a serious question as to whether such an amendment is in order. It is a charge on the Crown. The effect of such an amendment is contrary to the established procedures of this House. Only a minister of the
Government Organization Act, 1970
Crown is permitted to move a motion which has the effect of making a further charge on the Treasury.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, if I may say so, I think you were right in allowing the motion. May I suggest that pensions to public servants are paid out of the public service superannuation account. The pensions that would be paid without any reduction, if this amendment carries, would come out of that account, not out of the general treasury. I submit that on those grounds we have the right as private members to move this kind of amendment.


Mr. Drury:: I rise for the purpose of clarification, Mr. Chairman. While the hon. gentleman is correct that these payments are made out of a particular appropriation, there is no fund as such out of which these moneys are paid. He knows there is no such fund; he has made the point himself. They are paid out of an account which is made up of contributions at fixed rates made by employees, and a balancing or a residue comes from the public treasury or the Consolidated Revenue Fund. All payments into and out of the superannuation account are made from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and consequently any change in these payments is a direct charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, as the President of the Treasury Board will confirm, when I spoke earlier I did not use the word "fund". I used the word "account". I have been through this, around it and over it many times. I think we know what we are talking about. But I submit, Sir, that no additional appropriation, no voting of any money, not even a dollar, now or later, will be required by Parliament if this amendment carries.
The minister says there is no fund. No, there is not a separate bank account somewhere. But the same minister and the same government say the fact that that account is there by legislation means it is as good as gold, if gold is any good. And I submit, Sir, that the test of this is whether or not a subsequent appropriation, a subsequent estimate, a subsequent vote by Parliament would be necessary; and it would not be necessary, not at all. These pensions are paid out of the superannuation account without any specific vote by Parliament at all. I submit, on that test, Parliament is not being asked to vote additional money, and that Your Honour was right the first time.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I must take issue with the hon. member, not with his procedural argument but with his statement of the facts. If, as he suggests, his amendment would have the effect of conferring added security, added benefits on the employee at no cost to the consolidated revenue fund, I would be supporting it wholeheartedly. The fact of the matter is that this represents an additional cost, an increase in the contingent liability and a subsequent increase in the direct liabilities which have to be met out of parliamentary appropriations. The size of these is determined annually or bi-annually as the

March 30, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
case may be, and the actuarial deficit made up by budgetary appropriations.
There is no magic free money out of which the additional costs of this could be met. If there were no additional costs I would be glad to support, indeed to move, the amendment. But unfortunately, there is a substantial additional cost, and I think the hon. gentleman must recognize that paying people full pensions in cases where otherwise they would get actuarially less than full pensions, is going to cost somebody some money, unless that somebody runs the printing presses.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, all I can say again is that the people who will have to put up the money are the employer in his capacity as employer, and the employee who puts the money into this separate account. I realize we are going back and forth, and going round in circles-


An hon. Member:: You are.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, I am doing it too, just as the minister did, but it seems to me that the test the Chair will have to apply is whether or not a vote of this House, an estimate, an appropriation would be required as a consequence of this amendment.
The rule is quite clear. A member cannot move anything that involves the direct expenditure of money. There have also been rulings that a motion that would require a subsequent vote cannot be moved by a private member. This amendment would not require a subsequent vote. The account is there. It runs into billions of dollars. I submit that because no additional vote is required, this proposal by a private member is in order.


Russell Clayton Honey: As the Chair indicated, I would like to rule on the acceptability of the amendment, and I thank hon. members for assisting me. My first inclination was to accept the amendment and I have not changed my mind, although hon. members have indicated that the matter is not entirely clear. While we would want to be precise in following the procedural precedents and citations, I do not think members of the committee would want the Chairman of the committee of the whole to be unduly technical or precise, following the suggestion made one day by the hon. member for Peace River that the Chairman should not try to find sin where there may not be any. That is the sort of approach I would like to take.
The hon. member for Ottawa West raised a point of order which I am sure is not in dispute, namely, that if the amendment results in a direct charge on the treasury then of course it may not be moved by a private member. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, as I understand it, has argued that there may be an additional contribution to the superannuation fund by the employee and the employer, but that this would not involve any vote by Parliament.
While the matter is not free from doubt, it would seem to me that because there is not a direct charge involved, and because there is existing authority for this particular
vote, I should rule that the amendment is in order. Perhaps I should put it in a formal sense. It is moved by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That clause 27 of Bill C-207 be amended by inserting therein, immediately following line 16 on page 11, as a conclusion to sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section 11 of the Public Service Superannuation Act, the following words:
"provided however that the reductions indicated in this subparagraph shall not be applied in the case of any employee who does not retire voluntarily from the Public Service;"


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I have a few observations to make on Part VII, clause 27 of this bill, but I shall limit my remarks to the first part of that clause, as has been agreed. However, I regret that Part VII is included in the bill at all because I see no necessity for including it as a consequence of any other part of the bill being approved by Parliament. I think it would have been much better had the government introduced Part VII of the bill as a separate bill, which could be referred to a standing committee of the House, where witnesses could be called, where people concerned and affected by the provisions of the bill could be heard, such as representatives of the Public Service Alliance, or anyone else concerned.
Even more important than the effect which this part of the bill will have directly on the people concerned is that the amendments proposed in it reflect or are characteristic of certain trends, trends which we as a Parliament have never carefully studied. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has stated that he is in favour of early retirements. That may be his point of view. I may hold that point of view or a different point of view, but I think that as a nation we have not decided what is an appropriate retirement age. There are trends toward younger and younger retirement. For example, the qualifying age for old age pensions has been lowered. The qualifying age for other pension schemes has been lowered.
I am not so sure that this is the best solution to the situation in which we find ourselves, because this is happening at a time when the lifespan of the general population, is lengthening and when generally speaking, statistically at least, people are remaining in better condition, both physically and mentally, to an older age. I think it can be argued that it is not in the national interest, or in the interests of the individuals concerned to put those people on the shelf, as it were, when they are still in good physical and mental condition and are willing and able to contribute to the productivity of the nation for a few more years.
There is also a trend at the present time to require more and more preparation to enter the labour force. A few years ago it was common for people to end their formal education and go to work at age 16, but now this usually happens when they are older because more training is required. Specialist professions such as medicine require many years of preparation, and I do not see why such a career is forcibly truncated by the notion that

March 30, 1971

everyone wants to retire as early as possible. I do not think that follows at all.
Of course, it will be argued that because of technological advances the production of goods and services requires less labour and therefore people must be retired earlier or there will not be enough jobs to go around. I doubt if this is true but if it is I think a better proposition would be shorter work weeks for a longer number of years in order to keep people productive and active as long as possible.
Early retirement means that people contribute to the pension fund for a shorter number of years and then, should they retire five years earlier than was previously considered normal, they will receive the pension for at least five years longer than would otherwise be the case. As a result, the rate of contribution must be higher in order to keep the fund actuarially sound. This makes it difficult to provide an adequate pension because, as we all know, a certain amount of inflation is inevitable. Apart from inflation brought on by artificial means or mismanagement, there is the inevitable rise in the cost of living. As populations increase the per capita quantity of goods and services to be distributed to them is reduced. This means that our material wealth must be obtained from more expensive sources. It is very difficult to provide an adequate pension if it is to be drawn for a great number of years, even with the cost of living increment provided by the legislation. It is almost certain that anyone who is on pension for a long time will die poor no matter how adequate the pension was at the start. If a person started to draw pension at age 55 and lived to be 90, which is quite common, I hate to think what the dollar would be worth then.
There is another important reason why this part of the bill should have been made a separate bill and have gone before committee. I think the civil servants affected by this legislation have a fundamental right to express their views before the committee. I recognize that the Public Service Alliance has made laudatory remarks about the bill. One of their statements reads:
The Public Service Alliance of Canada has welcomed the introduction of legislation that would permit early retirement without actuarial reduction of pensions for public employees in certain cases.
The major change is that an employee who has reached age 55 and has at least 30 years of service may retire voluntarily and receive an immediate annuity with no actuarial reduction because of early retirement.
I agree with that measure and approve that aspect of the bill because it has certain things to commend it which bring it somewhat in line with the age of retirement for persons in the military services, the mounted police and other categories who go on pension at age 55 or a little earlier, including members of Parliament in a few cases.
But that is not the whole story, Mr. Chairman. Like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I am concerned about the government's motives in the introduction of this bill. I should like to think they felt impelled to introduce it because of their interest in meeting the request of the Public Service Alliance but I am afraid I
Government Organization Act, 1970
am sceptical. I am doubtful if that was their only reason for introducing these amendments, especially the one which makes it possible for the government to forcibly retire certain categories of people on pension.
I do not know for what future possibility the government is providing, since they are not likely to reduce the total membership of the civil service. We all know that in the years of this government and its immediate predecessors the civil service has increased rapidly. More and more civil servants are being put into unproductive work which does not permit them to contribute to the national welfare as much as they might, but this is the result of government policy. Does the government intend to create a great number of vacancies in the civil service in order to allow that large group of people now in their early twenties to enter it? I do not know and none of these questions have been answered. I should like a much fuller explanation of the effect of this legislation on all categories of civil servants and of the government's intention on its application when it becomes law. How will it affect typical civil servants and how many will be affected? It is most unfair that people who have made a career of the civil service, who are reaching their most productive years when they can look forward to further rapid advancement from age 55 to 65, should be retired compulsorily. Promotional advances, coming at that age, would affect beneficially the pension of public servants. If for any reason the career of a public servant is terminated, prematurely or, at 55, say, the effect on the pension will be tremendously detrimental, because the six best years on which the pension is based would be years that would lie in the future of that civil servant. I, therefore, hope that the minister will give a fuller explanation of the purposes of this amendment to the Public Service Superannuation Act.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Chairman, this bill has been the subject of a good deal of close examination by hon. members and staff associations. Obviously, these clauses are extremely important to many members of the Public Service. I have followed with interest the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and of the hon. member for Malpeque, who have raised some fundamental points.
When first reading this bill I, too, was under somewhat of a misapprehension with respect to what it did. As a result of discussions with my colleagues and with the minister, I now understand it more clearly than I did at the beginning. First, may I say that the bill itself does not confer the authority to hire or fire. It does not give authority to dispense with the services of any individual civil servant. These are amendments to the Superannuation Act. The right or, shall we say, the authority of the government to terminate the services of any particular member of the Public Service does not hinge on the legislation before us today.


An hon. Member:: Who said it did?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Well, I have listened to comments of hon. members on the other side. I think there has been a little

March 30, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
confusion on this point in their minds, and in the minds of many in the Public Service.


An hon. Member:: Which members?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: About a year ago some in the Public Service were laid off. The government reviewed the activities of departments and decided on the levels of staff which were fair and proper to enable the departments to carry out their work. Some members of the Public Service were retired at that time. I would not wish to suggest that there were very many. I think the total came to something over 400. A few of them would certainly have benefited if the provisions which are now before the committee had been enacted and on the statute books at that time.
These measures, in effect, provide more generous options for some public servants. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre put it very well. He said if you are 55 and have put in your full number of years of service, you may well welcome these provisions. On the other hand, if you have not reached that age and have not made your full contribution, then a certain number of difficulties arise. I think there is no member of this House who is not sympathetic towards the amendment which has been proposed, or towards the general purpose of the amendment. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says that if you are retired compulsorily there should be no diminution in the pension to which you are entitled. You take the number of years served, multiply by 2 per cent, and arrive at the result. I think all hon. members will need to reflect more on this point. The government is trying to put forward a principle, a principle of encouraging second careers. It wants to make the voluntary option of early retirement possible and to soften the conditions under which a number of people may be, have been or could be, shall we say, separated from their employment.
The problem is a serious one. If you are 55 and have served 35 years, there is no problem, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre put very well. Actually, a number of public servants have called me welcoming these provisions. The number of calls I have received welcoming these provisions is substantially in excess of those in which the caller has raised questions regarding any possible adverse application of these provisions.
If you adopt the principle under which you permit reduced pensions for those who are retired voluntarily, how will you square that with this amendment which says that if you are retired against your will, there is to be no diminution in your pension? If ever there was a provision which would encourage malingering, this would be it. In other words, if you were in the situation in which you could retire voluntarily, your pension would be reduced; but, on the other hand, if you made yourself obnoxious and were lax in the performance of your duty, and were retired, then your pension would not be reduced.


An hon. Member:: Come on, now.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I point out to hon. members some of the possible consequences of the amendment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member is straining at the leash.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: No, Mr. Chairman. Is this not one of the
possible effects of adopting this kind of amendment?


Stanley Howard Knowles: You can still fire that public servant.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: That is right. And according to the amendment, if the government were to dispense with the services of that public servant, there would be no diminution in the pension. It would be substantially to the economic advantage of the employee concerned to have the government fire him, instead of taking the initiative and retiring voluntarily.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Come, come now.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Would that not be the effect of the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I am asking the hon. member who proposed the amendment if I have not correctly interpreted what the potential effect might be in certain circumstances?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member is asking a rhetorical question, I will answer it. May I say that what he is suggesting is a reflection on the type of people who are in the Public Service, and I do not think it is warranted.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Chairman, in reply may I say that I have put nine years of my life into the Public Service and I have the greatest respect for the members of the Public Service of Canada who serve this country as well as any country in the world is served. We have a Public Service of which we can be infinitely proud. That does not alter the fact that the effect of the amendment will be to create the wrong types of incentives. There may be some people, and no doubt their number will be small, who might look on the matter in the way I have suggested. Our problem is that we must legislate without creating distortions and without bringing into play such motivation. The problem which hon. members of the House must face is, what is good public policy. I come back, Mr. Chairman, to the fundamental point.
The authority of the Government of Canada to retain or dispense with the services of any individual member of the Public Service does not hinge on the legislation which is before us today. This legislation softens the condition under which some employees, who might in any case have been retired, will be or may be retired. I think this will affect very few of them. Under these conditions, some pension benefits would be available to them. I would welcome a statement from the minister on this matter. I see he is in the House. I hope that he will make a statement to the House indicating that the government will maintain its role as a good employer, as it certainly has been, and that it intends to follow policies which will not be disadvantageous to any people in a technical way.

March 30, 1971

It is difficult to devise an amendment which would legislate equity in all circumstances. A good example of what I mean is the particular amendment before us today. I am sure that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had the very best of intentions, but in all conscience I would have difficulty in subscribing to the amendment. I think that hon. members on both sides of the House may also want to think deeply about it and examine their own consciences before supporting it.


Mr. Ritchie:: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to this amendment to clause 27 of the bill, I should like to take this opportunity to present a few ideas on superannuation for civil servants. It is convenient to give certain categories of civil servants the opportunity for early retirement, but in many instances this has to be agreed upon according to the nature of their jobs and special skills, which may diminish, rendering them less effective. There are however many features of this legislation that make it very suspicious. They could be used to serve other purposes.
I should like to point out that for those in the civil service who will be able to retire at 55, at a pension equivalent to 60 per cent of their salary, this provision is quite attractive. It certainly will be attractive to those civil servants who are over the $15,000 or $20,000 a year mark, in view of our very high rates of income tax at these levels. For instance, a $30,000 a year civil servant does not give up too much by taking early retirement, as the income tax branch is the main loser on this taxpayer. In fact, the $30,000 a year civil servant, or any other person for that matter in that bracket is only giving up about $4,000 and not the $10,000 that might be indicated. I should think there would be quite a wastage of the top level civil servants which the civil service can ill-afford to lose. Unless it is made attractive for these top level civil servants to remain in the public service, it would seem that the civil service will remain relatively scarce of expertise and the high training that many of these civil servants in the higher income brackets have.
Of course, we are approaching the time when the work ethic is diminishing in attractiveness to our general population. It certainly is true that many of the civil servants who will take advantage of this formula are in themselves very creative people. And from their point of view it will certainly be a great inducement to go into early retirement and enjoy those years between 55 and 65, when life can be more full for them in other lines of endeavour.
Then, there is provisions for retirement between 50 and 55 years of age as was ably stated in the House on February 2 by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. This poses some advantages and also some disadvantages. If a person is 50 or over but below 55 and had 20 years service, he would get approximately 20 per cent of his best six years in pension. This would be a very meagre return for him, particularly as many people in his category would be supporting fanrlies not yet away from home and not yet educated. If a $10,000 a year civil servant who is over 50 would only receive $2,000 in
Government Organization Act, 1970 pension he would find himself in an almost impossible position. He would have to look for other income and, being over 50 years of age, would find himself very limited in what he could procure in the way of jobs.
It is perhaps a tragedy that, as a result of the widespread inauguration of almost universal pension plans in our work force, older workers are just not wanted because of the pension requirements. Indeed, I am sure that a survey of small businesses would indicate there are many types of people working in these businesses who normally would be in larger companies if it were not for this pension requirement. Indeed, I would say that small businesses often depend on these people for their work force. I realize it is a very good thing for the individual to be able to retire at an early age and receive some benefits for his service and for his contribution. One of the attractions of the civil service has been that although the salaries have been considered relatively low in relation to private industry, perhaps it is not so true now, security of tenure and the prospect of a modest pension at the end of their career appeal to many people. For various reasons many people must change then-careers in mid-stream and it is a good thing that people who have to do this could receive a pension.
But, Mr. Chairman, there is another side to this problem in part seven of this bill in that the government may avail itself of this part seven and compulsorily retire people at age 55 on the pension they would get, or even down to age 50 on the reduced pensions provided by this legislation. If this is adhered to certainly there could be a great deal of unhappiness in the civil service. The hon. member who has just spoken said in no way provided for the severance of individuals from the civil service. One of the areas where it seems to me that this bill could be closely looked at is the retirement pension based on the average of his best six years. In the case of workers who have to retire between the ages of 50 and 60, or do retire, the resultant pension could mean a severe loss. The reason for this is that between the ages of 45 to 60 a civil servant, like most citizens, often receives rapid promotion and rapid increases in salary. At no time has this been more evident than at present, with the severe inflationary factor that has been prevalent in this past six to seven years. I think this formula could well be refined so that it would be based perhaps on the best year of his last six years or some such format that would give him a truer pension rate. This would be especially valuable when a civil servant has to retire compulsorily in order to comply with government regulations.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the advent and promotion of bilingualism in the civil service has created, is creating and will continue to create major upheavals in a normal career pattern. The advent of bilingualism in the civil service making it preferable that a civil servant be bilingual, and in certain cases mandatory, has added a large dimension and change in the job pattern. It is very obvious that many jobs that might be considered unilingual could be easily declared bilingual and necessitate a change of personnel. Furthermore, many people who are unilingual could never become bilingual, so it may well be that many civil servants will find themselves redun-
4744

March 30, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 dant long before they have reached normal retirement age.
The now celebrated recommendation that $2 million is to be allocated for the introduction of 250 francophones, if we can define what a francophone is, indicates a fundamental change in the direction of the civil service. Although the government states that it is pursuing a policy of bilingualism, it is quite obvious that this must be set aside if the attempt by the government to equalize the number of those speaking French and those speaking English is to follow a mathematical formula. It is difficult to know what level the government would consider reasonable for the participation of French-speaking Canadians in the Public Service, but whatever it is that level should be defined.
There is no doubt about it, this policy will abrogate the merit system. If the government is to give up the merit system in exchange for some method of entry into the civil service other than by merit, we should know what this is. The $2 million program is almost certainly a make-work program because the special recruitment would apply to additional programs rather than complement existing ones and priority would be given to advancement of the 1972 program. None of these programs is in response to a public demand and at the moment even the government does not seem to know how these programs would develop.
The government has indicated that this is only part of a larger program to take into the public civil service some of our unemployed university graduates and presumably keep them from being drop-outs or other socially undesirable people. But government programs, once effected, have a great ability to carry on indefinitely and this is where I feel the Public Service Superannuation Act will come into effect. It will be a simple thing to cut the civil service in more prosperous times by lopping off those who will be in the upper age group and no doubt many of them will be unilingual and be unable to acquire bilingual status. Indeed, bilingual status may well be closed to them by means of administrative channels.
The development by the government of certain French speaking units only, which the President of the Treasury Board described as part of a policy to provide areas in which bilingual anglophones can exercise a proficiency in French, may well indicate that we are moving into an area of a dual language civil service. The mere fact that the Secretary of State is supervising the linguistic programs could well indicate that we are moving in this direction. In my opinion this might not be all that bad an idea, but if it is so, then it is obvious that this superannuation bill will be of paramount importance because it will be necessary to reconstruct the whole of the civil service and there would be much redundancy in many departments.
It is well known that the civil service is in a severe state of flux and the introduction of bilingualism has made it extremely difficult to apply the merit system on which the whole of the civil service has been based. But if we are to have wholesale changes within the civil service, and if a large number of civil servants have to leave the service prematurely, particularly in the age
group of 50 to 55, then it is most important that these people when they are compulsorily retired should get a fair deal. Much of the morale and security of the civil servant would be broken if after 20 years of service he were compulsorily retired on a salary less than he would receive as an old age pensioner on a guaranteed income supplement. Therefore, I do believe that it is most important to this House that it consider the retirement formula ought not be based on the average salary for six years, but perhaps on the salary of the best year of the last six.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of this amendment. I am prompted to do so as a result of the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa West who raised the question of the government's right to fire or to lay off workers. This right was not brought into question at all, and I submit this is an attempt on the part of the hon. member to square himself. He knows that a number of members of the public service are alarmed about this feature of the bill, yet the hon. member says he intends to vote against the amendment. Therefore, he must find an excuse to justify his vote against it.
The hon. member talked about malingering and, in view of this, I think it is for us to suggest motives on the other side of the coin. Firings can be carried out for a variety of reasons which, although they may not be apparent, are thought or known to exist. At the present time there is too much suspicion, whether justified or not, that a lay-off immediately prior to pension, without provision for call-back, is done deliberately in order to save the government pension money. I think a lot of this suspicion is unjustified, but surely an amendment such as this would help to allay such suspicion.
Let me give the committee an example. If my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway were to get her way and all of the recommendations made by the status of women commission were implemented, one could visualize a minister or deputy minister of a department saying there were too many men employed there and firing some of them in order to provide equal status in terms of the number of women employed by the department. If the people fired were under the age of 55, they would have no choice but to accept the pension reduction that is proposed in this bill. Similarly with bilingual civil servants, what is to prevent a senior civil servant or deputy minister deciding there were not enough French-speaking or English-speaking people in a department and firing some of the employees to correct the imbalance thus forcing them to take the reduction proposed in the bill?
Frankly, I think the instances that the hon. member for Ottawa West raised or the ones I have raised will be so infinitessimal in number as to make not only the argument he presented ineffectual but the counter argument I put forward equally ineffectual.


An hon. Member:: They are red herrings.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, I think they are red herrings; but if the hon. member insists on talking the way he did, I

March 30, 1971

think I should indicate what would happen on the other side of the coin. With the prerogative of management that an employer has, he can fire to save money, or a senior civil servant or minister could fire somebody he did not like. One red herring deserves another. If the hon. member's arguments in opposition to the amendment are logical, then I submit that mine are even more logical than, or at least just as logical as his.
Malingering is a general term, something the hon. member would find difficult to prove. What is alleged to be malingering often is attributable to the incompetence of a minister or deputy minister who cannot run his department, with the result that the employees sit around with nothing to do. They are given no direction. Often this sort of thing is labelled malingering and the employees are blamed for it, rather than the blame being placed where it should be.
I think this amendment would remove once and for all any possibility of improper mot ve being attributed either to the government generally or to a minister or senior official with authority to hire and fire. If this amendment were adopted, then no one could say at a later date that an employee had been fired because the government wanted to save some money on his pension. Such suspicion would be completely removed. I should think that the President of the Treasury Board and the government-any government-would want to have this kind of provision so that when firings are carried out they are a direct result of government policy or some just cause on the part of the authorities, with no suspicion as to motive.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why the hon. member for Ottawa West or the minister does not agree at second blush, if not at first blush, that this amendment is worth accepting.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Would the hon. member permit a
question?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Surely.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I am trying to understand the hon. member's argument. Is he suggesting that somehow one could say that the government was firing people to save money on their pension? I am having difficulty following him, but is that what he is saying?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Of course, that is what I am saying. The way the bill stands now, such suspicion is there. People could feel that the government was firing staff under 55 years of age who would then be forced to take this reduction. Surely, that would save the government money.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I am trying to understand the hon. member, but perhaps he could explain how this would save the government money.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Why don't you listen?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I am listening, and I am trying to follow the hon. member's argument. Although there is an actuarial reduction, the pension is payable over a longer period of years. Every attempt is being made to make the
Government Organization Act, 1970
actuarial equivalent the same as a normal pension. How, then, is the government saving money?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I was trying to explain the kind of suspicion that might exist that people who are fired by the government are fired to save money. I suppose this would save money in one way or another, but that is not really the point. The hon. member cannot put me off my point by trying to justify his position, which I submit is unjustified, by bringing in a red herring about malingering. I suggest that if that is his only reason for opposing the amendment, he is on very soft ground.
Many civil servants are concerned and worried about this situation, and this amendment would allay that worry. It seems to me the amendment would be of benefit to the government, too. Since the hon. member talked about malingering, I would ask him about the vindictive senior official or deputy minister with the capacity to fire a person they did not like before that person has reached the age of 55. I would also ask him, what about the changes to be made if the recommendations made by the status of women report are implemented? Adjustments are being made right now in the public service to implement the good bilingual recommendations that have been made. What about those people who cannot or will not learn English or French and are fired before they reach 55? Supposing certain people are completely incapable of learning a second language or Eire unable to reach sufficient proficiency, and are fired as a result? I submit that this kind of fear is just as justified as the arguments posed by the hon. member in opposition to the amendment.
I hope the hon. member will reconsider his position. I hope the President of the Treasury Board will agree that this kind of amendment is what the government needs to enhance its standing in the eyes of its employees and remove any doubt or suspicion the employees might have if they are fired and not recalled prior to the age of 55, being then required to accept the proposed actuarial reduction in their pension.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this particular amendment. First of all, I agree with the arguments that have been put forward. I will not repeat them because I know the government is anxious to proceed with the bill; suffice it to say that I think they are reasonable and responsible arguments. I find it difficult to understand why the government cannot accept the amendment, and for my part I intend to vote for it.
Having said that, may I take this opportunity to bring up a problem which is of special interest to my province and hence very local in nature. It concerns what is a consequence of this particular clause of the bill, an anomaly in the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada. Clause 2 of term 39 of the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada reads:
Canada will provide the pensions for such employees so that the employees will not be prejudiced, and the Government of the Province of Newfoundland will reimburse Canada for the pensions for, or at its option make to Canada contributions in
4746

March 30, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
respect of, the service of these employees with the Government of Newfoundland prior to the date of Union, but these payments or contributions will be such that the burden on the Government of the Province of Newfoundland in respect of pension rights acquired by reason of service in Newfoundland will not be increased by reason of the transfer.
That is section 2 of clause 39 of the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada, whereby Canada assumes the pension responsibility and the pay responsibility of certain public servants in Newfoundland who, pursuant to the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada, come under the federal civil service or under the jurisdiction of the Crown in the right of Canada.
The difficulty is that there are a number of federal public servants in the province of Newfoundland who, at the time of union, came under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada. Prior to union, these people were employed in the postal service, customs and immigration services and the Department of Finance in Newfoundland. Even though they may have reached the required age, they will not have the required amount of service by virtue of the fact Newfoundland has only been a province of Canada for 22 years. Consequently, they stand to be disadvantaged by this legislation. In other words, they will not be in a position to take advantage of this legislation. That is an anomaly. It is something over which they had no control at the time, and over which they have no control at the present time.
I feel that it is incumbent upon the government of Canada, having assumed the responsibility for these people under the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada, to live up to that obligation. More particularly, they should live up to the spirit of that obligation and make provisions whereby these people will not be disadvantaged or prejudiced in any way as a consequence of this bill now before the House. I say the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law, because I am sure the President of the Privy Council and members of the government can argue on the basis of the letter of the law. They can argue on the basis of the precise wording of term 39 of the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada that this is legally the responsibility of Newfoundland and that the government of Newfoundland has to make up any deficiency to these pensioners.
I say to the minister if he were to apply that argument to the government of Newfoundland, I would point out that at the time of the signing of the terms of union this legislation was not anticipated. The situation was not anticipated whereby federal civil servants would be entitled to take certain retirement benefits at age 55. That is the crux of the problem.
I knew that the President of the Treasury Board is very interested in this because I have talked to him about it. At the present time, there are a number of cases before Treasury Board of individuals who are now pensionable and who are trying to acquire their rights. They are trying to establish their position as a consequence of that particular clause. I know that the minister is very interested in the plight of these people.
I put forward their case to the President of the Treasury Board, the government and the committee, with the
knowledge that the government will not hide behind the letter of the law, but will want to live up to the spirit of it. There are not many people involved. It would not be difficult to get a count of the number of people involved. There are certain employees of the postal department, the Department of National Revenue, customs officers, immigration officers, the Department of Finance and even certain employees of the minister's department, the Treasury Board.
These people expect to be justly treated by the government, not on the basis of some inadequacy of the terms of union. Rather than hiding behind the letter of the law, these people must be treated on the basis of the fact that they are now Canadians. At the time of union, the government assumed responsibility for these people. They became federal civil servants. They were not supposed to lose their rights of seniority and hence they should not lose their pension rights. I put this case to the minister. I hope that he will shed some light on it and give some words of encouragement so that these people will know what their rights are before the committee passes this particular clause of the bill.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I wish to say a few words in response to some of the questions that have been asked. I will deal first with the specific point raised by the hon. member for St. John's East. The government of Canada has every intention of not only living up to the legalistic terms of union, but to the spirit of that covenant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Unless an ex-employee of the government of Newfoundland has elected not to count service with Newfoundland toward the service of the Superannuation Act, that service with the government of Newfoundland will count for service for the purpose of these amendments. If this is the problem of which the hon. member is afraid, I assure him that there is no such problem. With the passage of this amendment, ex-employees of the government of Newfoundland and new employees of the government of Canada who come under the Superannuation Act will not suffer any prejudice.
The hon. member for Malpeque suggested that perhaps there are now too many people in the public service, and that perhaps the object of the government in passing this legislation is to make it easier to get rid of some of them. The hon. member for Ottawa West provided a satisfactory answer to that. It is not the intention of the government, as a consequence of these amendments, to in any way alter the approach to the hiring, laying off or firing of public servants. The background will remain exactly the same after the passage of the amendments as it did previously. For those who, in the public interest, are laid off before reaching the current retirement age of 60 years, those who have been laid off in the past and those who will be laid off for some reason in the future, there will be more just and equitable treatment.
While perhaps one cannot help but agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that this is not as generous as his amendment would make the arrange-

March 30, 1971

ments, or not as generous with the taxpayers' money, I would still insist that since his amendment would tend to increase substantially the charge on the treasury this is the principal reason I must oppose this amendment and the principal reason I would not have been in favour of introducing it. This does represent an additional charge on the exchequer. Because of this, and the fact that the contributory scheme would be out of balance if this kind of thing were done, we will oppose it. I repeat it is the intention of the government under this amending legislation to continue to behave as a good employer and to recognize the talent there is in the Public Service. This talent shall continue to be used in the public good and the number of releases which would be contemplated whether or not this particular clause 27 is passed will not be increased.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question. I thought I heard the minister say, and he can correct me if I misheard him, that this change will soften the process of leaving for those who have already retired and for those who will retire. If he did say that or if I thought he said that, was it not incorrect with regard to those already retired; is it not true that these provisions will apply only to those who retire or who are retired after this bill is passed?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The latter statement, Mr. Chairman, is the correct one.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. All those in favour of the amendment please rise. All those against the amendment please rise.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)) negatived: Yeas, 21; nays, 26.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I believe we are still on new sub-section (1) of clause 27 and I should like to raise now with the minister another question to which I alluded when I spoke earlier this afternoon. Am I correct in my understanding that a combination of this legislation and the escalation of pensions after retirement provision of last year's bill, C-194, will produce the result I described. As I described it, a person who retires or is retired at any age under 60 under the provisions of this legislation will be entitled to the escalation of his pension without having to wait until age 60? Did I understand that correctly?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would have to check on that. I should know it, Mr. Chairman. My recollection is that the escalation is applicable to all those who have retired on pension whether it be at age 65, at age 60 or at an earlier age for medical reasons. The escalation operates from the time the pension is payable. The reason we have, up to the present time, age 60 is that this is the earliest age at
Government Organization Act, 1970
which, for non-medical reasons, one can start drawing a pension. If this age should be moved down, I assume the escalation then would apply as from the date the pension became payable for whatever reason.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, like the minister I do not have with me all the legislative material there is in this area. Unlike the minister, I do not have an adviser over my shoulder, but I believe he and I are both right in our interpretation. I have looked into the matter rather carefully and others who are interested in it have done so as well. Certainly the people in the Public Service Alliance of Canada understand it this way. As the minister says, up to this point the only public servant on a pension before 60 years of age who is entitled to the annual escalation is the public servant who is on pension at that earlier age for medical reasons. I believe it is correct, however, that when a person goes on pension at an earlier age for this kind of reason that will also be the point at which the escalation will begin. The minister is nodding his head.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should make clear that the escalation operates not from the date the man goes on pension, but the date when the pension is payable. I, myself, retired from the Public Service some years ago and I will get a pension, I understand, at age 60. I do not like to have the hon. member describe me as now being on pension or indeed at age 60 going on pension. The thing we should look at is the date at which the annuity or pension becomes payable for whatever reason. It may be the date of retirement or it may be later.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is taking us down another lane which needs to be looked into as well. But I believe the ruling will be to the minister's advantage. I think he will discover that when he gets his pension his escalation will date not from the time his pension payments begin but from the time he was separated from the Public Service. I was hoping I might get some nods somewhere in the gallery but these public servants are as discreet as they can be. Oh, I saw the appropriate official nod to the minister. I am sure the minister is pleased to know that is the case.
I am fairly sure about this because last year when dealing with this matter I had some correspondence from a number of public servants who had left the Public Service and had arranged for deferred pensions to come in at age 60. The question was, would those people at age 60 get the escalation only from that date or, from the date of severance from the Public Service. The answer was the latter. I believe that is clear, unless someone can say I am wrong. The minister has a smile on h's face. We are not trying to encourage him to leave, at least not singly. But we would like to see him go and take the whole Cabinet with him.
This supports the position which the minister knows I want to take. We are now moving beyond the question of retirement for medical reasons. We are now making it fairly general that people who are on pension from the public service at ages under 60 will be entitled each year

March 30, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
to the escalation due to the cost of living increase, an escalation that is paid for out of that special fund into which we all pay a half of one per cent. What reason has the minister left for not doing the same thing for retired RCMP and retired armed forces personnel? The whole argument that he made last year was that 60 was the age for retirement of public servants. They did not receive the escalation until they were 60, unless there was a medical condition. By the way, the armed forces and the RCMP people get it also if they can establish medical grounds for their retirement, and it can also happen if one of those persons was perfectly healthy when he was retired but two or three years later is medically unable to take work. He can get the escalation.
We are widening this principle. I do not see how we can withhold any longer this right from retired RCMP and retired armed forces personnel. I want to say to my friend, the hon. member for Ottawa West, that I do not think there is any amendment I can move in this respect, so he is not going to be embarrassed by any kind of vote. I hope, therefore, he will support me in this principle. I know that you, Sir, if you were over there in your seat instead of in the chair, would get the same appeal from me, and I think you would agree with me. I know your record.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is the legislation to which he refers, the superannuation programs, covered by the bill before us today? It appears to me, and I defer to the very good knowledge of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in this area, a knowledge which he has demonstrated on many occasions, that the particular programs to which he was referring and the escalation between 60 and 65, are covered by this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would say they are not under this bill, but I think that that is quite irrelevant. What we are doing in this bill is establishing a certain principle for retired public servants. This principle is achieved not just by this bill but by the interweaving of this bill, with last year's bill dealing with pensions for members of Parliament. It is the interweaving of the two that produces this result for retired public servants. I am simply arguing that, therefore, we should be doing the same thing at the same time for retired armed forces and retired RCMP personnel. Let the President of the Treasury Board not tell me that that goes beyond the realm of this bill. This omnibus bill has everything in it but the kitchen sink, and I suspect the kitchen sink is also in it.


An hon. Member:: It is in one of the schedules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Levity aside, Mr. Chairman, it does seem to me that we have come to grips here with a pretty important piece of discrimination. As I said, I cannot claim that last year I put up one of my decade long fights over the issue because the minister put forth and stood by the argument that 60 was the normal retirement age for public servants. They would not get the increase until they were 60 unless there was illness, and therefore retired RCMP and retired armed forces people should not get it either unless there
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
was illness. But now we have broken that barrier, we have shattered that argument; we have now established that when people retired compulsorily or as of right at any prescribed age they are entitled at that point to get the escalation. If the RCMP and armed forces personnel retire compulsorily or as of right at the ages prescribed by legislation, I do not think it is fair that we continue to deny it to those people, and I am glad to see the hon. member for Ottawa West nodding his head. I hope the President of the Treasury Board will do the same. In fact, I hope he will do better.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I cannot help but be moved by the eloquent plea of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I think the government recognizes that there should be equity and relativity between the superannuation or pension treatment accorded to the public service on the civilian side and ex-members of the RCMP and of the armed forces. As was pointed out, these particular pension arrangements are administered under different acts, not the superannuation act with which we are dealing now. For some time now, the ministers responsible for these two forces have had under study amendments which would be needed to those particular acts to establish a greater degree of relativity in this respect than now exists. It would be my hope that any imbalance that the passage of these amendments might bring about in the relationship of pensioners in the public service and the two forces could be rectified.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I welcome that statement, Mr. Chairman and I am deafening my ear to my leader's suggestion that it will not take more than five years.


David Lewis: That is being cynical.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But I mention that to make the plea that there not be a loss of time on this. May I point out that, although this portion of the omnibus bill that we have before us deals only with the public service superannuation act, there are amendments in the schedule to this act. There are two or three members in the House-the assistant deputy chairman of committees and one or two other people-who were missed in the pension arrangements in the omnibus bill of last year. These people are taken care of in the schedule of this act. This is what galls some of us. The RCMP and the armed forces personnel were omitted in last year's legislation. They are missed in the main body of this bill. Why can we not amend the schedule to deal with them? Do not tell me it is a complicated thing that takes a lot of study. If the principle is sound, when people have retired at prescribed ages, they are entitled to the annual escalation of 2 per cent. You cannot call it equity, or something to be studied at great length and say that if you are a public servant you can get it at whatever age you retire as prescribed in this legislation but that if you are in the RCMP or the armed forces you cannot get it.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the Chair in order that the House may proceed to the consideration of private members business.
March 30, 1971



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. 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 Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Fisheries-Suggested banning of future seal hunts; the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Manpower-Amendment of regulations to extend retraining period; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Manpower-Summer student employment and activities program-Deadline for applications under international exchange program.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: there is some agreement that we forgo private members hour and go back in committee on Bill C-207. With this sacrifice we will show our determination to press on with that bill, as controversial and as iniquitous as it may be.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I hope the spokesmen for all parties are in agreement.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the agreement is with the procedure, not with that vituperation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is agreement to this, except I understand it is just a half hour that we are giving up. There will be a message from the other place at 5.30.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is it agreed that private members hour should be suspended and that the committee shall resume sitting?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Richard in the Chair.
Jean-Thomas Richard: The committee was considering clause 27. Shall the clause carry?
On clause 27-Public Service Superannuation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we were discussing clause 27(1) before we had the five o'clock interruption, and I just want to complete the sentence I was on at that point. I welcome the minister's statement that this matter is being studied, but I am not convinced these changes could not be accomplished by
Government Organization Act, 1970
amendments to the schedule of this bill, in the way some oversights have been taken care of, and I hope that this matter will be looked at before we finish.
We may well finish the debate on clause 27 of the bill shortly, but the bill itself is not likely to be passed today. I am willing for this clause to pass when we finish debating it, but bearing in mind there are references in the schedule to some of these matters I hope the government will give serious consideration to the possibility of correcting this discrimination by amendments to the schedule of the bill.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Shall subclause
(1)	of clause 27 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Shall subclause
(2)	of clause 27 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, earlier it was agreed that we would divide clause 27, like Gaul, into three parts. Now, we come to the one that I think has more gall than the other two. Clause 27(2) sets out what some of us regard as a very special privilege, and I should like to hear from the minister about it. He made an attempt to justify it when we were at second reading of the bill, but I am afraid I was far from convinced.
As I read this part of the clause a special provision is being made for any person in the public service who is or has been a deputy head. I take it this refers specifically to deputy ministers, and then to various other people who hold titles like secretaries, clerks, or what have you of very important commissions where, by statute, they are designated as deputy heads. This provision is that if a person is in that category and has been in the public service for ten years-that is all he has to have, just ten years-he can cease to be employed, either by being fired or by retiring voluntarily, and yet continue to pay into the public service superannuation fund until he is age 60. At that point he can get the full pension to which he is entitled for the number of years he has paid in, including the years he was actually working in the public service and the years when he was out but making payments.
I confess I am not absolutely sure whether such a person, when he is out, pays his contribution and the employer's also, or whether he pays only his own.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Both.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He pays both. The legislation does not make that clear, but I accept the minister's word for it. However, I suggest that this still creates a very special privileged situation for a few people.
I know the argument was that the government wants flexibility. It wants people to come and go. The government seems to be heading away from the idea of the public service as a career. I think it has been a good idea and I think you, Mr. Chairman, and others here will agree with me that the public service has served Canada well because it has had in it hundreds of thousands of people who have given their lives to it. There has not

March 30, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
been a malingerer in the bunch, says my hon. friend from Regina-Lake Centre.
I am not happy about this notion that we are going to have people come in and out. I know part of the theory is that we must not let the bureaucracy develop, the elected people must control things. Well, when I see the kind of control we get from the benches on the other side, I am not happy about that. But in any event, all of that is by-play. The heart of this provision is a special privilege that is being created for a limited number of people.
I suppose there are very few of us in this House who have not had requests from people to be permitted to pay into certain pension funds. We get requests from people who are past the age for contributing to the Canada Pension Plan, and they ask, "Why can't we put in the full amount for ten years and get the benefit"? We have had people in various kinds of public employment and various kinds of private employment make this kind of request.
In most cases, these requests are turned down. I know there are a few special cases. For example, I know that a person joining the public service from certain other kinds of employment can make contributions to cover past service equal to the employment that person had elsewhere. But this right to work in the public service for only ten years and say at age 45, 50, or even younger, that a person could go out, go off into private industry somewhere, with a larger income and another pension, and yet be able not just to get a pension for the ten years he was in the public service but be able to get a pension for those ten years, and for the ten, 15 or 20 years he was not in the public service at all but for which he was able to pay the money, is a kind of special privilege the justification for which I just do not see. Unless the minister gives a much better explanation of this than he has up to this point then, Mr. Chairman, when you call the question as to whether subclause (2) is to be carried or not, this member will be voting no.


Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to pursue the point brought forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. When the minister replies I hope he is able to give us some rationale, some reason why this provision is being granted to this select group. There are literally dozens and dozens of pension plans in this country in which these people could invest their surplus money. For the life of me I can see no reason why they should be permitted this special treatment after ten years of service. It is completely incongruous and out of context with the rest of the bill.
If I may, I should like to refer back to the subclause which we just passed. In the old legislation, the employee was required to have a credit of 20 years or more pensionable service, but the new amendment sets the figure at 25 years. On the one hand, these regulations are being made tougher for the employee by an additional five years and, on the other, we are allowing these men to leave the public service after ten years.
Basically, the reason we have a pension plan is to provide something that will attract and keep good

employees. Now, we are going to allow them to go uptown and get a good job while continuing to pay into this pension plan when they should be paying into a plan operated by a private business. This pension plan is for the benefit of our employees-and I use the word "our" advisedly-and not for the benefit of employees who leave us. I hope the minister can explain the rationale of penalizing some and passing out a bonanza like this to others.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall the clause carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a few more remarks on this matter. I must say that I agree whole-heartedly with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. This looks like a tremendous privilege and I can see no logical reason why it should be available to a small group of people who happen to have served ten years or more as deptuy ministers. I could understand an arrangement whereby their pension benefits would be portable and might be added to pension benefits in private industry or a pension scheme of a provincial government. It seems to me to be extreme generosity to allow people with ten years service to qualify for two different pension schemes at the same time and, in addition of course, the Canada Pension Plan as well. It is difficult to rationalize this, but if the minister has some logical explanation that is a different matter. I hope he has, but it is difficult to see how he can justify this; more power to him if he can. I can think of nothing he could say now which would persuade me to vote for this section, but he may have some remarks to make.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mal-peque discourages me from wasting his time and my own, because he cannot conceive of anything that I could say which would change his mind.


An hon. Member:: Take a run at it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As they say, I might as well "have stood in bed".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The deputy heads to whom reference is made are in a rather different position with regard to a number of benefits which those appointed by the Public Service Commission enjoy. Upon separation, the ordinary public servant has a number of rights not available to deputy heads-the right to earned vacation leave-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They get it anyway.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The ordinary public servant has a right to earned sick leave; no such right is available to deputy heads.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They get that anyway, too.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: An employee appointed by the Public Service Commission has a right to severance pay upon separation; there is no such right for deputy heads.
March 30, 1971

Finally, and I suppose this may be of some significance, employees appointed by the Public Service Commission have a right of appeal to the Public Service Commission if they are dismissed. No such right of appeal is available to deputy heads, nor is there any body to which such an appeal can be made.
In spite of the hoary tradition that deputy ministers are the survivors of a long grinding process, and that once they get there their future is assured, this has not been quite as true latterly as the mythology would have us believe. I was shown a list which verified that job mortality amongst deputy heads has been quite high in the last few years. Some have retired at the normal age of 65, some transferred to other employment and some have left the public service.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There was a change of government.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There are no special provisions for all those people, none of the benefits which apply to those appointed by the Public Service Commission. It is to some degree to compensate for the lack of these advantages and benefits that this particular provision is being proposed.
While the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicates that this is a special benefit for a particular group, I would suggest that it is in some measure an amplification of the rule that there shall be relativity of benefits between various classes of employees. To some degree this establishes a more balanced treatment on separation between people with the status of deputy head and those appointed by the Public Service Commission.
I should point out that this is not a benefit unique to deputy heads. At the present time a number of employees in the public service are granted leave of absence without pay which means, as this proposed amendment indicates, that they are deemed to be continuing as public service employees although drawing their pay from other sources. This arrangement is made for people seconded from the public service to a number of international organizations. This is the arrangement made in respect of this number of public servants who become full time officers paid for by the various employee representative groups, unions, staff associations, etc. For these people, the arrangement is that they are on leave without pay. They are enabled to continue their participation in the superannuation plan by continuing to pay their own contribution as if they were continuing to be employed by the Public Service and by paying, as well, the government's contribution. Thus they pay the matching percentage and make a double payment. In other words, they pay double the normal percentage. It is this kind of arrangement for deputy heads which is being proposed here. It is the same kind of treatment that we allow for those who have been associated with the Public Service of Canada and have gone either temporarily or permanently to serve with international organizations or with employee representative organizations such as the unions. a (5:20 p.m.)
No one will deny, I think, that this is a benefit; but I point out that under an ordinary contributory plan the
Government Organization Act, 1970
employee through his earnings contributes one half of the cost of his pension and his employer contributes the other half. Those who describe the benefit derived by the employee who makes both halves of the contribution to the plan as a bonanza are overdrawing the picture a bit, I suggest. This is somewhat similar to the provisions of group insurance plans which allow ex-employees who benefited under a group insurance plan to continue to participate in the plan provided that they continue paying both their own premiums and the premiums paid formerly by the employer to the plan. That happens in a number of private plans in existence.
We hope here to make available to deputy heads or those with the status of deputy heads the equivalent of the assorted severance benefits which are available as a matter of right to those appointed by the Public Service Commission and, in so doing, make the government as an employer less heartless. It is hoped to make the government less heartless when, in the public interest, it becomes necessary to separate a man with the rank of deputy head before he has reached the full span of service or before he has reached the years of retirement. I hope, in order to establish some greater measure of fairness than now exists and to compensate to some degree for the lack of security of tenure of deputy heads and for the lack of the right to severance benefits of one sort or another which employees appointed by the Public Service Commission enjoy but which those appointed by other methods may not enjoy, that the House will agree to this particular amendment.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question for clarification. In the past, at least, most deputy heads had been civil servants prior to their appointments. When a civil servant becomes a deputy head, do the benefits of which the minister spoke, benefits such as severance pay and so on, cease? Are they forfeited, or do they continue, so that when a man ceases to be a deputy head he can still enjoy those benefits?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I am not too sure about this. I seem to remember that I did not get any severance rights.


An hon. Member:: The minister is too rich.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I will try to obtain the information, if I can, and answer that question perhaps in a few minutes.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, since this provision, according to the minister, is so innocent and logical, does the government intend to extend this privilege whereby one may contribute both the employer's and the employee's share after termination of employment to members of Parliament who are defeated?


Mr. Gilbert:: I was just thinking of the same thing.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. It will be now necessary to suspend the proceedings of the committee of the whole in view of the arrival of the messenger from the other place.
Progress reported.

March 30, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major Guay Vandelac, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
# (5:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
An act respecting Canadian Environment Week.
An act to amend the Crop Insurance Act.
An act to amend the Pension Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
An act respecting La Societe des Artisans.
An act to amend the Income Tax Act and to amend an act to amend that act.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March,
1971.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March,
1972.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Richard in the chair.
Jean-Thomas Richard: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.
On clause 27

Public Service Superannuation.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Shall subclause 2 of clause 27 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Is it the wish of the committee to call it six o'clock?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, since I am the one who talked about progress, although we would be willing to co-operate I find on checking that we have some speakers and I
[The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard).)
do not think we would pass any clause before six o'clock. Therefore, I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to call it six o'clock is a good one.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Thomas Richard: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. House again in committee of the whole on bill C-207, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto. When the committee rose at six o'clock it was considering subclause 2, new section 11 A.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, when Black Rod interrupted us at 5.30 I believe I had taken the floor to answer some of the comments made by the President of the Treasury Board. He had given a little homily on the mortality of deputy ministers. He made it clear it was not physical mortality he was talking about, but in his view and from his study of the matter deputy ministers had rather difficult times economically after filling these positions. I would be interested in seeing his list. As a former deputy minister, I look upon him as exhibit "A".


Stanley Haidasz: He hasn't done too badly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the hon. member for Parkdale has just said, he has not done too badly; mortality has not overtaken him. I know that he is feeling particularly cheered tonight because of the boost he will get in his public service pension, of which I reminded him this afternoon. He is not the only former deputy minister who has subsequently become a cabinet minister. One former deputy minister became the Prime Minister of Canada. Others have gone on to become heads of big companies, some have become tax consultants with very high remuneration, and some have gone into other fields such as the law. What is the name they use when they are attached to law firms in an honorary position?


An hon. Member:: Counsel.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They become senior counsel and are very well paid just for having their names on a letterhead. I do not need to mention names; we know who they are. One prominent official, although I do not know whether he was a deputy head in the civil service, became a cabinet minister, and now I believe he is a deputy head because he is head of the Canadian Transport Commission. All told, the minister
March 30, 1971

would have a difficult time to substantiate his claim that economic mortality is one of the hazards of being a deputy minister. The minister listed the various benefits that ordinary public servants enjoy which are not enjoyed by deputy ministers. I thought some were a bit more fictional than real. For example, he stated that deputy ministers do not get sick leave the way ordinary public servants do.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: They have no right to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I cannot imagine deputy ministers having to stay on the job no matter how sick they are. I suspect that they get all the sick leave they need. I suspect, too, that they get their holidays. I think this applies to most benefits that the President of the Treasury Board says they do not get during the time they are deputy ministers. The minister did not list all the advantages that accrue when a person is a deputy minister. We do not know how many benefits and advantages they get for being a deputy head. The minister did not mention their expense accounts. I suggest that the standard of living and prestige that goes with the job is worth something. They get first-class travel on airplanes. I do not think the minister's case stands up at all.
The lot of those who fill these positions is not so onerous that we must give them the special privilege which is involved in clause 27 subclause 2 of this bill, whereby they are given the right, having been employed in the public service for ten years, to buy their public service pension at the same time they may be buying another pension in connection with another employment. I have no objection whatsoever to their being given transferability of pension rights. This is something I believe everyone should have. I would have no objection to deputy ministers having to establish only ten years service in the public service to get such transferability. I make the point that ten years in the public service on the part of a deputy minister does not have to be ten years as a deputy minister; he could have spent nine years in some other position and one year as a deputy head and would receive these advantages. So all told, I believe the government has gone a little too far in this area.
When I consider the difficulties we have in getting adjustments in pensions for ordinary Canadians under the Old Age Security Act, when I think of the battles we have on behalf of widows under veterans' legislation, when I think of the whole ambit of the problems in this area and the difficulties in getting certain adjustments to the superannuation act, I think this special privilege is a little too much. I am afraid the eloquent plea of the President of the Treasury Board has not persuaded me to alter the position I took when I spoke at the start of the discussion on subclause 2 of clause 27. When the vote on this clause is called, I think the committee should vote against it.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker referred to many matters which I would like to raise. In relation to the matter the minister raised this afternoon,
Government Organization Act, 1970 in his explanation he referred to mortality, not in the actual sense but in the sense of mortality in respect of these jobs. I ask the minister, in the hope that he will reply later, whether mortality with regard to departmental heads is any higher than it is in industry, and whether the remuneration is comparable with the risk involved.
I am sure many of these people receive twice as much as members of this chamber, and therefore my heart bleeds for them in the extremely dangerous work in which they find themselves. The minister's explanation relative to high mortality in this field did not wash so far as I am concerned. It just did not sell me. The hon. member for Malpeque pointed out that he hoped the minister would be able to convince him when he replied, and obviously the minister in his remarks attempted to do so. He may have convinced the hon. member for Malpeque but I regret to say that up until the present time he has not convinced me.
The minister took exception to my reference to this provision as a bonanza. He was probably quite in order in doing so. I should not have referred to it as a bonanza, so I withdraw that word and substitute "windfall". The minister made another comparison this afternoon which escaped me. I could not fathom his reasoning. He brought in a comparison in respect of group insurance. He pointed out that an employee in a company could, in most instances, on leaving that company pay both the company's share and his share and carry on the pension plan. This is entirely different to the situation in respect of the group insurance members of this House carry and, I might point out, which most people in this Dominion of Canada carry. Their group insurance terminates on leaving their employment and they are forced to take out an ordinary contract with an insurance company at ordinary rates. This applies to members of the House. Should they leave here, they have a conversion privilege and can buy the policy themselves.
I would hope the minister would be a little more sure of his ground when he makes comparisons such as he has in this case. Since the minister, I suspect, travels in high society he may have on his mind something about executive insurance, key-man insurance or something of this nature where there is an agreement between the employee and the employer. Such insurance, however, should not be confused in any way, shape or form with the poor man's group insurance such as members of this House carry.
There is one other matter on which I would hope the minister would be able to give an explanation. In my humble opinion we are entering into this field in a helter-skelter manner and rather blindly because this government moves in singleness of purpose. I wonder whether the government has considered the effect this will have on ex-employees. What is the status, so far as these deposits are concerned, in respect of income tax? I see in the paper that there are many plans-the government probably also offers them-such as registered retirement savings plans which have ceilings as opposed to employee deposits toward pensions. I would hope that in his

March 30, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 remarks the minister would give us an indication of what the situation will be in this regard.
I would ask one more question to which I am sure the minister has the answer, as I believe I have. This question was posed to me recently. It is very difficult for the rank and file public to understand financial statements of government. I hope I gave the proper answer to the question that was posed to me, and I hope the minister gives the answer I gave. I was asked whether our pension and superannuation funds are self-sufficient or whether money at any time comes from the consolidated revenue fund to, shall we say, sweeten the pot and carry us over a rough spot or something of that nature. If the minister's answer is in the affirmative, then I think this situation in respect of which we are making flesh of one and fowl of another deserves very critical examination.
That is all I have to say at this time. I look forward to the minister giving an answer to some of the questions which may appear to him to be simple but which are a little complex to me.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, it is not always easy to get an adequate reply in Parliament to a matter as important as pensions, but I cannot pass up this opportunity of raising two or three matters which have always bothered me concerning pensions in the public service. There is an anomaly in the service which I believe bears looking into. For instance, I do not suppose it is well known to members of this House that it was possible to serve in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police before the war, break your service in order to go overseas, come back to serve in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and then find that your pension rights were entirely different to those of others in the reverse situation. I refer to those who served in the armed forces, took a job at home during the war and then went back in the armed forces after the fighting was over. There is no uniformity.
I take the opportunity to raise this question because it is a personal matter. It has been cleaned up now. If this happened now and if we had a third world war, I understand that this type of service would be combined. But in most cases it is impossible to make these things retroactive. Fortunately, it only affects a few people. I have hesitated over the last 25 years to raise the subject because it is not liable to affect me, but this might be the last opportunity I have to raise it. Five or six- members find themselves in this bind. It is an obvious anomaly that a person who is in the service of the Queen should find himself penalized. Certainly it is not done on purpose, but through neglect in procedure the fine print of the regulations causes a person to suffer a very serious financial loss.
The second point I would like to make is that sometimes members of the armed forces and of the RCMP are asked to sign a contract with the government, giving in effect a blank cheque. In regard to widows' and orphans' benefits, members of these forces were asked to sign in good faith under different sections of the act which cover

their service, and in many cases they took a financial beating. One of the reasons they did so was that a smaller amount would be deducted from their pay at a time when their salaries were low, and they found it difficult to live on a small stipend; you could hardly call it a salary. They found it most difficult to get along, so they signed a paper to stop these deductions from their pay cheques. Unfortunately this affects a small but very important section of the population, widows and orphans of people who served in the RCMP and, in some cases, the armed forces. These people, not having read the small print and not realizing they were disenfranchising their widows and orphans, signed agreements which they did not understand.
As recently as this week I have written letters to some of these widows telling them that because their husbands signed away their widows rights some 25 years ago, they now have no recourse but to beg for war veterans allowance or go on welfare. I have begged the minister-I know he is very influential in the Treasury Board in all matters connected with this subject-to give this matter his attention and see whether there is not some way at this late date whereby people who have suffered in this regard can have their cases reconsidered. We find these anomalies in our pension schemes where men who have served exactly the same amount of time, and even hold the same rank, have a difference in their pensions of up to $200 or $300 a month.
While I am on this subject I would suggest that all pensioners in the public service should be entitled to a cost of living allowance. My own father, who rode across the plains on horseback in the old days when a mounted policeman received 50 cents a day, found himself at the age of 93 with a pension of $40 a month. The cost of living has increased considerably since 1893. Surely now we could very well, if we cannot make it retroactive, ensure that any pension schemes put in for the public service, for the armed forces or for the mounted police have a built-in cost of living allowance. I speak from personal experience when I say that one of the reasons we put up with disgracefully low wages in the mounted police and in the army was that we were told we would have security at the end of our service. If the cost of living is not taken into consideration, there is no security whatsoever. The attempts which have been made in recent years to increase pensions have not produced a magnificent effect.
I apologize to the House for having strayed from the wording of this bill but it is closely related to the rights of pensioners, particularly those who serve in the public service, and I wanted to bring the matter to the attention of the President of the Treasury Board.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lamb-ton-Kent indicated that this is in the nature of a windfall for those holding the rank of deputy head or equivalent. He felt that they should be compared to people in private industry. This, of course, is partly the basis for the amendment proposed, namely, the kind of benefits which are available to those in senior executive positions in the private sector.
March 30, 1971

The hon. member cannot help but agree that what is provided here is indeed modest. We have found, in endeavours to recruit senior executives to the public service, that the kind of financial or economic advantages which are available to them are vastly more extensive and attractive in monetary terms than the government, acting on behalf of the taxpayers, can offer to attract this kind of talent to the public service. The right to participate or to continue to participate in a pension plan under arrangements which contemplate the employee or the ex-employee paying not only his share but also the employer's share of the pension plan does not seem to me to be going too far, in comparison with what is offered to senior executives in the private sector, nor does it seem to me to be in the nature of a windfall.
I think hon. members will be aware that there has been a desire by the government to achieve a greater degree of interchangeability of senior executives between the private sector and the public service than has been the case in the past. This prevents the public service from becoming too ingrown, too out of touch with what is happening outside the very large area of government activities, and at the same time it provides a bridge in the form of individual experience between the so-called private sector and the government sector. I think this is to be desired.
It is to be hoped that this kind of provision, modest as it is, will serve to enable one more effectively to carry on this kind of interchange that would be possible for public servants with ten or more years of service to move out of the public sector into the private sector. This would enable him, without too great a sacrifice, to carry on his contribution to the country. Correspond ngly, individuals who have had experience and who have talents which they have been exercising in the private sector would be able to move, perhaps not on a permanent but on a less than permanent basis, into the public sector, the government service, without, under the present arrangements, the virtual certainty that unless they continue for the rest of their careers in the public service no provision will be made in terms of pension or superannuation unless we have been able to conclude an agreement with prospective future private employers.
a (8:30 p.m.)
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has suggested that he would support a measure which provided that public servants who left the public service and went to work in the private sector could enjoy portability of pension. We already have agreements with a number of the provincial governments, but not with all of them yet, and with a number of corporations in the private sector, providing for the kind of portability which the hon. member has suggested and which I think is good and useful. But I am afraid it will be a long time before we are able, in a rather pedestrian fashion, to conclude agreements. The law requires that there be specific agreements-between the private pension funds and the public service superannuation operation covering transferability. I do not think it would be possible to reach this end on a general basis, given the vested rights
Government Organization Act, 1970
both of those who enjoy the benefits of this superannuation account and those who are the beneficiaries of and consequently have vested rights and interests in private pension funds. These must be the subject of individual agreements at present and cannot be legislated on a wholesale basis. Therefore I hope that the committee will agree to this clause.
In response to the hon. member for Pembina, I have the greatest sympathy with the lot of those of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who retired early a number of years ago. Under our system of contributory pensions, both the salary and the contributions which led to pensions of some 40 years or more ago were in an entirely different framework from those of today. However, we have operated these schemes on the basis that it is a contributory pension and, as a consequence of being contributory, the contributors have vested rights. These rights are precise; they are delineated, but they are also limited to the extent of the contributions made. While one could argue that, in social equity, those who in years gone by earned small salaries and consequently made relatively small contributions to pension schemes, and as a result drew relatively small pensions, are at a serious disadvantage nowadays and should be taken care of in some way, this is a problem which unfortunately is not unique with the public service but applies to a great many individuals in the private sector.
We have to try and cater to these needs as best we can through a series of, I hope, useful and progressive social measures, such as the guaranteed income supplement to the government's old age security scheme, the Canada Pension Plan and other similar measures.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Shall subclause 2 of clause 27 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I shall delay the vote for only a minute. The President of the Treasury Board is quite right in saying that I expressed myself in favour of transferability or portability of pension rights. Mr. Chairman, just look at what is coming out of the woodwork in one short minute. Hon. members are streaming into the chamber on the government side. Usually when I get up to speak, they walk out. What a change tonight!


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I wish to tell the hon. member that when I saw he was speaking, I told my colleagues one of the best speakers in the House was up on his feet, so they all ran in to listen to him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The deputy whip on the government side is a man of great perspicacity. Mr. Chairman, I was pointing out that I favour transferability or portability of pension rights, and the President of the Treasury Board correctly quoted me in that regard. I am glad he did not try to equate portability with duplication of pension rights. That is what this subclause would give to these deputy heads in lieu of the fact that they cannot be guaranteed portability. Instead

March 30, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
of that, we are giving them duplication of pension rights, their public service pension and whatever pension they may earn elsewhere, and because we think that is a special privilege that should not be given to a few we oppose this provision in the bill. I expect that because they favour this special privilege, those members who came in to hear my speech will vote in favour of that provision.
The President of the Treasury Board said that portability of pension rights is something that cannot be forced and that we can achieve it only by agreement among those involved. I submit it is not beyond the wit of those who work in this field under the minister to devise amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act and to persuade the provinces to devise amendments to their pension benefits standards acts to provide for this kind of portability. If the government put as much vigour into that kind of effort as it does into providing these special privileges for deputy heads, we would get somewhere. Pending our getting that kind of legislation, I do not think it is a proper answer, in equity and in justice, to single out a few and say to them, "We will give you this special concession because we cannot get portability of your pension to another employer." If the government is going to give these special pension rights to a few, then I say let us give them to all public servants. I intend to vote against this provision.
Subclause 2 of clause 27 agreed to: Yeas, 42; nays, 26.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Shall subclause (3) of clause 27 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before subclause 3 carries, Mr. Chairman, may I point out that all it does is determine that the provisions of clause 27 have no retroactivity and so apply only in the future. I should Tke to say that next time hon. members opposite come in out of the woodwork, as they did a few minutes ago, and we want to defeat something that is before the chamber we will vote for it, because obviously they don't know what they are voting on so they will vote against it and our end will be achieved.
Subclause 3 of clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.


Jean-Thomas Richard: This concludes consideration of part VII. The committee will now proceed to the consideration of part IV which will be found on page 5 of Bill C-207.
On clause 13-Short title.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Shall clause 13 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
Clause 13 stands.
On clause 14-Establishment of ministries of state.


Mr. Flemming:: Mr. Chairman, my observations will be brief. I want to bring to the attention of the Committee
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).!
my rather strong views on Bill C-207, which I have not voiced in this chamber as yet. I take great exception to the various items that the government wishes to accomplish, being mixed up in one package. We have to deal with pollution of the air and water and such things, and quite properly so, and we have to consider the finding of natural gas and oil in Alaska and the fact that it may have to be transported through our country.
This bill is put forward in the name of the Prime Minister. I should like to know why it is felt necessary to combine all these things in one bill. I submit that nothing is gained by it, Mr. Chairman. If I were a lawyer I would express great opposition to it, because as a lawyer I would much prefer separate bills for separate things. But the government has chosen to do it this way and I should like the minister to tell me why. Up to now this House has not received an explanation that would justify-mixing all these things in one package.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hugh John Flemming: The reason for it seems to be a secret that the government is going to keep. Coming back to clause 14, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it allows the-Governor in Council to continue the practice of glaring disregard of the rights of Parliament that has been so-evident in the other clauses of the bill. This could be interpreted as wrapping something up in an attractive parcel because some of the contents will not stand the: light of day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hugh John Flemming: It is quite capable of that interpretation, and I ask the minister to explain it. It has never-been done before. I have been in this House for 10 or 11 years, and we never had any packages like this bill until this government came in-well, not very often: perhaps: occasionally, but the minister in charge explained why it had to be done. This has not been explained and I submit that all members of this House of Commons have a responsibility to weed out things that are undesirable in our legislation and to include things that are desirable. No matter how clever it may be, if there is something they want to hide-they have never said whether there is or is not-I submit that we as a Parliament should vote against any clause of a bill that we consider not to be in the public interest. It might be said that there is some good in it. I have heard that, and it is nonsense, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hugh John Flemming: If there is something in this bill that is not desirable, it is the duty of everyone within sound of my voice to vote against it. That is their duty. They do not have to pick out something that they think is good in order to vote for it; that is nonsense. Mr. Chairman, clause 14 provides:
Where it appears to the Governor in Council that the requirements for formulating and developing new and comprehensive policies in relation to any matter or matters coming- within the responsibility of the government of Canada warrant the establishment-
March 30, 1971

These are the words that I think are significant.
-warrant the establishment for the time being-
This suggests a very temporary period, perhaps just a few months. It does not even say they are going to have a report of one of the ministers, perhaps the President of the Treasury Board or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It just says "Where it appears" that a certain thing is in existence. But that is not a good reason for setting up a change, and that is what they are doing. When they change the machinery of government they are interfering with the Constitution of the country, all wrapped up with a lot of other stuff.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Nonsense.


Hugh John Flemming: I am going to go a little further.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Not too far.


Hugh John Flemming: The clause continues:
-for the time being of a special portion of the public service of Canada presided over by a minister charged with responsibility for the formulation and development of such policies,-
After the word "policies" there is a comma so I submit that when they say that, they are going to set up these five departments without any reference to this Parliament. That is what it says, Mr. Minister. Read what it says in the clause and never mind shaking your head. That is the written word. They are going to be responsible for the formulation of policies. Since when was a minister responsible for formulating policies? That is the function of the government. That is what they should practise. They should not allow a minister to be appointed who will carry out and determine policies. The trouble is that nobody has bothered reading what the bill says. That is the same kind of careless abandon as is evident in most of the legislation. They put these things on the statute books and force them through this House because of their majority, regardless of the public interest. That is what I charge them with.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: The same old bunch.


Hugh John Flemming: The clause ends with the words:
-the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, establish a Ministry of State for that purpose.
What do we find here, Mr. Chairman? Apparently the government is to set up a new department without referring to Parliament. They can set it up by order in council and we will have nothing to say about it. Our opinion is not even asked for. That is what the government is seeking in this bill, and that should not be allowed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hugh John Flemming: There is nothing new in mixing up dissimilar matters in one bill. This government has become famous for that type of legislation. One might
Government Organization Act, 1970 ask, "What is new in what has happened?". I am the first to acknowledge that the part dealing with the protection of the environment and the protection of water is a new departure. Those parts of the bill which try to improve and protect the environment are new. As a new provision, it ought to come before the House.


An hon. Member:: It is there.


Hugh John Flemming: My friends nod their heads. The point is, it should be here by itself; it should not be wrapped up with something else. That is what I object to, and I would object even more if I were a lawyer. The bill deals with pollution of air and pollution of water. I congratulate the new minister who is to take charge of these responsibilities. I have great respect for him.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: He is a pretty good minister.


Hugh John Flemming: We can no longer ignore this problem. But when setting up this department, why do we wrap it up with something else? Why could it not be done without wrapping it up with something else? There is nothing wrong with the provisions dealing with energy, oil and gas, but why wrap them up with something else? There are seven or eight provisions in the bill to which I object. The government wants to create new departments and it is giving people authority to spend money.
Let me say something about the spending of money. The government wishes to enlarge an already large public service. In the main, our public servants are capable people. But we are not adding to them; we are merely proliferating the branches of the public service. In my opinion, once a branch or division is established in any department-I do not care which one it is-it is very difficult to do away with the people who have performed that function once they have completed it. Once they have performed a function for a few months and then finished a job, it is very difficult to do away with them. I say that because probably all the people concerned have relatives among Liberal members and they will raise Cain if anything is done. I say to the minister that that can happen.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Say it out loud.


Hugh John Flemming: Clause 14 contains the words "for the time being". Surely that means a brief period of time. If hon. members opposite were intelligent enough to ask questions instead of snorting, they might question this provision. I know something about the pressures in setting up new divisions or departments. I hope that hon. members are intelligent enough to listen to my proposals. I think that these matters should be handled by employing consulting services. The ministers concerned should employ consultants who are experts in a certain field. They could be asked to perform certain services and be paid for those services. Then when they have finished, you are through and they are through and you will not have built up and proliferated a huge bureaucracy which is already larger than we can stand. That, in my opinion,

March 30, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
is how these things should be done, but it never seems to occur to the government.


An hon. Member:: They want to appoint another task force.


Hugh John Flemming: No task force would be involved. Until this government came to power, we never heard about task forces. The first thing it did on coming to power was to appoint task forces.


An hon. Member:: Try again.


James Aloysius McGrath: They even appointed a task force on seals.


Hugh John Flemming: I think that consulting services would perform a good job, and there would be no need for all this proliferation. Why, may I ask, do they want to set up five more departments by order in council, when they already have ministers without portfolio who cannot sleep at night? What is wrong with them?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Let us have more task forces!


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, I object to legislation of this nature for setting up more departments. I have already said that in my opinion anything that interferes with, adds to or takes away from the machinery of government is an attack on the Constitution of the country. It should never be done unless passed by Parliament. That is why I say that this bill should never be passed. I realize that the government probably will support its passage; yet some day-I hope in the not too distant future-they will answer to the people of Canada for it, because it is wrong. It is wrong to set up all these departments and to do all these things in violation of the Constitution of the country. It is wrong to add to responsibilities set out in the Constitution without first going through Parliament.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: That is where the bill is now, before Parliament.


Hugh John Flemming: May I bring your attention to another matter, Mr. Chairman. I do not think the government should bring in provisions of this kind unless the ministers who are to have responsibility first give Parliament some idea of what they will cost. But that never seems to enter the collective minds of this government. The poor old taxpayer, which is you, me, and everybody else in this country, will pay. The government is taking money out of our pay envelopes every month. The taxpayer has been forgotten. Why does the government not say, "This will cost $1 million a year", or something like that? They never give it a thought. They do not think about the taxpayer. They only think about giving more jobs to more bureaucrats and about keeping themselves in power indefinitely.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Please, no horses on the payroll.
[Mv Flemming.]


Hugh John Flemming: I said I would bring certain things to the attention of the committee. The government does not say how much anything will cost. No minister bringing in any proposal, with the exception of the Minister of Finance, gives the House any idea, as a rule, what the proposal will cost. That never enters the government's mind. How much is taken from people's pay cheques means little to this government.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that these increasing costs are of concern to people who are suffering in this regard. Not only is there inflation, not only is the cost of living increasing, but the amount of money left in the pay packets with which to buy the necessities of life is steadily decreasing.
The government should be setting an example in this regard, but it is not. It is time they woke up. It is an increasing cause of concern to wage earners to find their take-home pay becoming less and less because more taxes are deducted at source. I do not believe everybody prefers that the government should spend their money for them, anyway. I happen to belong to a group of people who feel that as individuals we should have some responsibility to look after ourselves, and that the government should not be taxing everything and giving us little benefits of one kind or another as we go along.
I want to refer to some of the details of clause 14. The government has there the authority, the means to establish, to continue, to change, to initiate and to terminate. So they can start in March and terminate in May if they want to. There is no one to consult, no one to prevent them. This is the kind of power for which they are asking. It should not be sought, and it is wrong. I am surprised that the government should bring down a clause of this kind, although I ought not to be. It gives the administration and the government tremendous power. They could alter the lives of many people if they were so inclined. The representatives of the public, that is us-we are the only voice the people have on these issues, the only ones who can stand up and say anything on their behalf, the only chance they have to be heard- are being deprived of their right to intervene. The government intends to take this protection away. The Prime Minister intends to establish these new departments, and that is only a sample of what they are doing day by day.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. I regret very much to interrupt the hon. member, but I do so to advise him and the committee that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


An hon. Member:: He is the best of the bunch over there.


Stanley Ronald Basford: He is not making any sense, so he might as well continue.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, I could be blamed for many things but I ought not to be blamed for the minis-
March 30, 1971

ter's lack of comprehension. If he is not able to understand anything, I cannot be blamed for that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hugh John Flemming: The bill provides for the appointment of a secretary. This is probably a glorified name for deputy minister. I find no fault with that particularly, but what do they propose to do with whoever is appointed when they abandon a particular department created under these provisions? After all, it is suggested here that the administration can establish it and terminate its activities at will. What will be done about the staff? Hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches opposite care nothing about that because they are not concerned with the interests of the people. The emphasis is on power. Power corrupts, as they say, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They are certainly in a position where they are fair targets for the sort of criticism I am making.


Prosper Boulanger: Why didn't you quit while you were ahead?


Hugh John Flemming: Why don't you get up and make a speech some time?


Prosper Boulanger: As soon as you are finished.


Hugh John Flemming: Moreover, no one on the government side has yet explained the need for these powers. Not one of them has advanced any reason for doing this. In fact, there is no reason. Lots of machinery is available without it, and hon. members over there know it as well as I do. When this bill becomes law there will be no discussion about the formation of new ministries. A simple proclamation will be all that is necessary. You boys on the back benches over there, and us, too, will have nothing whatever to say about it. The goverment will just do it. But provision has been made for a lot of jobs, so maybe some of you will be getting some of the crumbs which fall from the table. If you are satisfied with crumbs, that is all right. I am not satisfied with the legislation, It is not good enough, because the elected representatives of the people, that is us, should be consulted before anything as far-reaching as this in the machinery of government is undertaken by the administration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: Good old John.


Thomas Miller Bell: You haven't got your raise yet.


John Cole: It is coming.


Thomas Miller Bell: It is not through yet.


Mr. Rowland:: It being shortly after the supper hour, Mr. Chairman, I very much doubt that I can reproduce the energy or the enthusiasm of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. Nevertheless, I wish to bring it to the attention of the committee that part IV gives birth to an entirely new breed of cat in the form of ministers and ministries of state. A minister of state is not responsible, like most other cabinet ministers, for a "line" department
Government Organization Act, 1970 but, rather, for a more narrowly defined area which, it would appear, will be largely associated with policy development or problem solving. A minister of state will have defined areas of responsibility, defined powers, duties and functions. These definitions will be contained in the proclamation establishing a ministry of state. In this respect a minister of state will be unlike a Minister without Portfolio who need have no specific duties assigned to him. In short, the proposal to establish ministries of state represents an innovation, a departure from established practice of an important kind.
I certainly have no objection in principle to departing from well-established practices of this House. Indeed, there are possibly many such departures which I would greet with exceeding great joy, even dancing in the streets. None the less, I think it only wise that such departures be agreed to only after the fullest study and the most complete explanation of the reasons which compel them. It is on this ground that I deplore the absence of the Prime Minister from the committee while we are discussing the portion of the bill before us, the portion of the bill with which he is most directly concerned, the portion of the bill which, if approved, will give him power to appoint at his own discretion up to five additional new ministers at the head of five new semi-departments and assign to each of them duties-an assignment which might well involve the major reorganization of existing government departments.
I repeat, the Prime Minister can do all this at his own discretion. I do not think that in these circumstances it is presumptuous of this House to expect the right hon. gentleman to be here to answer our questions. At least he should be prepared to tell us why he believes such a move to be necessary. At least he should be here to explain the use he intends to make of his new powers. At least he should be here to tell us what ministries of state he would anticipate creating, the sort of powers which would be assigned to them and the anticipated normal duration of such ministries.
Information of this kind is not available through a reading of the bill. The President of the Treasury Board who is here to answer for the Prime Minister cannot provide us with much of this necessary information because, in fact, the creation of ministries of state and ministers of state is, under this legislation, the prerogative of the Prime Minister and I very much doubt that the President of the Treasury Board includes among his numerous attainments the ability to read minds.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would draw to the attention of the hon. member, who seems to be in ignorance, that these appointments are to be made by order in council.


Douglas Charles Rowland: I am quite aware that they are made by Governor in Council.


Prosper Boulanger: Why didn't you say so, then?


Douglas Charles Rowland: Saying that the appointments are made by Governor in Council is tantamount to saying that they are made by the cabinet, which in the case of the

March 30, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
appo ntment of a minister means by a decision of the Prime Minister. This being the case, the inability of the minister to read minds, specifically that of the Prime Minister, severely compromises his ability to satisfy the House as to the utility and acceptability of the concept of ministries and ministers of state. But I suppose we have no alternative but to press on as though he were not so handicapped. I am profoundly disquieted by the implications of this section of the bill. I consider the reasons put forward by the minister on second reading to justify the granting of such powers to the Prime Minister to be so obviously and transparently obfuscations or, if he prefers, maladroit rationalizations, that I cannot accept them.
I am not about to join in the cries that the ministry of state is simply another way to provide jobs for the boys. It has that potential, but whether it will be employed to that effect we can only wait and see. I am willing to have the Canadian people pass judgment on that aspect of the bill. Nor am I unwilling to admit that some ministers have too much to do to do everything that they have to do properly. In fact, that might help explain some of the mistakes that this government has made. I am quite prepared to admit that ministers of state might offer some relief in this regard.
I also wish to be very quick to admit that the traditional structuring of the public service in a number of "line" departments each operating, to all intents and purposes, independently of the other is inadequate to the task of providing appropriate and effective solutions to modern problems. Changes and experimentation are warranted, and perhaps the idea of a ministry of state provides part of the answer.
I expect that these are the kind of beneficial effects to which the m'nister was referring when he argued on second reading that the ministry of state would make the government more efficient through providing it with an enhanced capacity for flexible response. What I should like to know is how an enhanced measure of parliamentary control over the establishment of ministries of state would militate against the beneficial effects I have mentioned and for which the minister has argued. Why must the creation of ministries of state be by proclamation? Why not by act of Parliament? Why are they not to be created by means of an act of Parliament, thereby giving members some say about the suitability of proposed arrangements for meeting the assigned tasks, giving members some say about the matters in relation to which the minister for the ministry is to formulate and develop policies, and to give members some say about the powers, duties and functions to be assigned to the minister and the ministries of state.
Why must every response of this government to a given problem involve the strengthening of the cabinet, and more particularly the Prime Minister's office, rather than Parliament? The only plausible explanation I can find for this phenomenon is that the Prime Minister himself is unable to understand the potential of this institution of Park ament. Because the government is unwilling to bring parliament into the process of creating
ministries of state, I feel that the potential advantages of the idea which I have cited are far outweighed by the disadvantages that I am about to cite.
The minister has argued that the arrangement will give the government more flexibility. It is my contention that because Parliament will not be consulted, it provides the government with far too much flexibility. Under this legislation the Prime Minister will have five new departments to create as he sees fit, and I say five new departments advisedly. Under the legislation the Prime Minister can appoint a minister of state, make him head of a department, provide him with a parliamentary secretary and all the public servants necessary. These ministers of state will have the same rights and privileges as those ministers specifically mentioned in the Salaries Act. They will be members of the cabinet.
I submit that the device of the ministry of state, as defined in this bill, presents the Prime Minister with the means to create and dissolve departments at will without coming to Parliament for sanction or for comment. This is certainly the case if one considers, in conjunction with the powers given the Prime Minister in this bill, his powers under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act. That is not efficiency; that is the machine gone mad. Surely efficiency in a democracy means more than simply doing a job. Surely it implies doing the job that the people want done, and doing it with the full knowledge and understanding of the people. This, in turn, implies that the government should, wherever possible, act through Parliament rather than outside it. This section of the bill could have been drafted to ensure that Parliament would be consulted. It has not been so drafted, and accordingly I reject it.
The minister's second major argument in favour of this section of the bill during second reading was that it would provide increased ministerial responsibility to Parliament through extending the interface-whatever that means-between the ministry and the chamber. He argued that the device of ministries of state would allow the roles of ministers to be more precisely defined and hence their accountability would be more easily determined. The equation is: more ministers, therefore more responsibility. If that is a logical argument and a valid one, then why stop at five? Why not 15 or 25? Besides, we do not know whether they will be on the roster for the question period.
In rebuttal of the minister's argument-that is, more ministers means more accountability-some eminent authorities on the government of Canada have already suggested that having 40 or 50 members of the governing party as part of or close to the ministry would severely compromise any remaining degree of independence that this chamber possesses. I might add to this argument that the kind of independence of decision that this bill gives the Prime Minister runs directly counter to the procedures established of recent date by the device of government organization bills which have provided Parliament with some say about the way in which departments are established, their role, their function and their powers. A good example of this is the ministry of the environment that this bill will set up. The bill may well be amended

March 30, 1971

in some salient particulars as a result of having been brought before this House. Moreover, there are all the implications arising from the manner in which the ministries and ministers of state will be created, which I have already drawn to the attention of this House, and which suggest that the accountability argument is mere window-dressing.
Let me go further. If the government really wanted to increase the accountability of the cabinet to Parliament, would it in fact begin by expanding the number of ministers? Its priorities are all backwards. Why not begin, rather, with providing members of this chamber with the facilities necessary to make sure that the ministry is accountable? Why not begin by providing research assistance for members of this chamber as well as adequate office staff, in an attempt to reduce the information gap existing between the treasury benches and the members of this House?
Why not begin by strengthening the committees system of this House? Why not provide adequate staff for committees? Why not provide committees with the power to decide what matters are to be brought before them, rather than leaving that decision to the ministry? Why not insist that committees prepare an epitome of the proposals to be presented to the House to assist it in holding the ministry accountable? I suggest this is the logical way to start if you are really concerned about accountability of the ministry to the House of Commons. You do it by strengthening the individual member of the House and by so equipping him that he can do a job of criticizing the ministries. It had been my intention originally, as a result of this kind of consideration, to offer amendments to each clause in this section, substituting references to "Acts of Parliament" for references to "proclamations". However, on second thought I felt it would be best to defeat each clause in this section of the bill and thereby force the government, if it still sees merit in the idea of the minister of state-which idea I have not discounted-to bring in a mini organization bill each time it wishes to create a ministry of state, thus ensuring the consultation of Parliament.
If I can use as an example what has been said to be a possible department stemming from this bill, namely, a ministry of state for housing, if this bill goes through in its present form the role and function of a ministry of state for housing will be that which is determined by the cabinet. If. on the other hand, the post had to be created by an act of Parliament, the country would at least know what the rest of us in this House thought about it and would be able to weigh the cabinet's conception of that office against that espoused by other members of the House. Surely that is the function of this place. Moreover, there would be a chance at that time to amend the legislation. This is likely to be done with this government organization bill in regard to the ministry of the environment. It will be an important amendment.
I do not see why the government wants to take away from this chamber or, to be more accurate in an academ-
Government Organization Act, 1970 ic sense, why it is not willing to give that opportunity to this chamber. It has always been the prerogative of the Governor in Council to appoint ministers. Forcing the government to bring each idea for a ministry of state before this House in order for the House to consider it would mean, in addition, that each piece of such legislation would be subject to sober second thought. It would not be simple proclamation by the cabinet caught up with a problem of the moment. Sober thought could take place in this chamber. This is not possible under the present legislation. For this and the other reasons I have cited, I urge the defeat of clause 14 and each clause thereafter.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I want to comment briefly on part IV of the bill. I share the disquietude voiced by my colleague, the hon. member for Selkirk. Looking around this chamber and seeing the velocity with which members opposite can emerge from the woodwork, I feel sure that by a head count we are going to be stuck with this part no matter whether we want it. As we are going to be stuck with this part, I am prepared to go on from that point. I realize that too much power is going to be given to the government by this method of creating ministries. It is inevitable that we are going to have this method. I want to know what ministers of state are likely to be created. I would like to see one or two created who will do something useful. I plead tonight that one of these ministers of state will be appointed to deal only with the question of implementing the recommendations of the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Down girls!


Winona Grace MacInnis: Down with the applause until we get an indication that we are going to get more than kiteflying out of this. There has been too much kite-flying in the matter of giving effect to the recommendations in the report on the status of women. Ever since the report was tabled we have been tantalized by half promises and suggestions from the government. As a matter of fact, on several occasions the minister in charge of housing has held forth the idea that perhaps if we let this bill through, a minister of state will be appointed to look after the implementation of the recommendations on the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. In reply to my question on the "late show" the other evening, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister briefly quoted with approval the words of the minister in charge of housing.
During the debate on the status of women we were told that if women were good and bided their time, a minister would be appointed who would be in charge of the implementation of the recommendations in the report on the status of women. I do not think that is good government. One month ago the Prime Minister made a speech which raised the expectations in women's organizations and in the minds and hearts of thousands of women in this country about the priorities of government with regard to these recommendations. Very little has

March 30, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
been done since that time. Members opposite smile pleasantly. They feel that women are such suckers that you just have to promise them something and look as though you have some pleasant surprise waiting for them, and they will do anything for you. They think women will eat out of their hands. Women are getting tired of eating out of the hands of the government. Their frame of mind is to bite the hand that is extended to them unless there is something in it besides empty promises.
Women from across the country have for weeks been flooding the offices of members of Parliament with the request that a minister be designated and a ministry created to put these recommendations into effect. They are tired of being told that women's affairs are a high priority, when nothing is being done about them. In his speech of one month ago the Prime Minister said:
Attitude has been the contributor of most of the obstacles which now confront women in Canada. But more than a change of attitude is required in order to overcome discrimination and to provide opportunity. Some laws will have to be changed to eliminate the anomalies and inconsistencies which have crept into our common law system from days when women were regarded as legal chattels: regarded, virtually, as the property of their husbands.
That is as far as he goes. The Prime Minister then indicated that he is appointing people to work on a departmental committee, and so on. We have heard nothing whatsoever about a minister being put in charge of this important matter. I have seen this happen before. For many years the consumers of this country kept after the government to create a ministry of consumer affairs. For years all they were given were pleasant smiles and expectations that such a ministry would be created. A few years ago there was a boycott by women consumers from coast to coast. The women said that the time had come for a minister and a ministry of consumer affairs to be created. If something is not done by governments, it will not be very long before these women will have a wide-scale repeat of that boycott to demand the implementation of these recommendations.
It is all very well to applaud cheerfully whenever this matter is mentioned. The women are sick and tired of tolerant smiles and a superior look on the faces of government members. The time has come for a minister to be appointed so that these recommendations will be put into law. These laws should be within the federal competence. Something should also be done at the provincial level, and the two levels of government must work together. The women do not intend to play around with this any more. The sooner the government recognizes this, the better it will be. After all, the government only needs to take a head count. Half of the voters of this country are women. They are going to make their will felt in no uncertain manner. They do not want to see all the work that has been done by the royal commission go down the drain or put into some pigeon-hole. The government must be very earnest about designating a ministry for the purpose of looking after the implementation of the recommendations of the report on the status of women. I urge that this be done without further delay.
I am very sorry that the Prime Minister could not find time to be here for this important debate tonight. I think
he should spare a little more time from his private life, even at the present time, to be in the House to deal with these matters which are of importance to the people of this country. The matter being debated tonight is an important one. I ask the Acting Prime Minister to assure the House that a minister of state will devote his time to the implementation of the recommendations of the report on the status of women. As a matter of fact, I throw out a challenge to the minister because women in this country would be greatly reassured if they had some hard news from here instead of more bouquets given from empty hands.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Chairman, we have before us another omnibus bill. I shall not spend a great deal of time in criticism of it because I hope to make a positive contribution. I am against a great proliferation in government. I think we have drifted too far into a situation where the government runs all our affairs. However, if the government is to run our affairs, I say for goodness sake let us have a little order in it so that we know where we are going.
If there are to be another five ministers and a corresponding number of parliamentary secretaries, they must give us a better performance than has been the case in respect of the present ministers. We want ministers who will be responsible to Parliament and who will answer our questions. We want ministers who on proper occasions will stand up to a government which is not always sensitive to their ideas. Although the wording of this bill might suggest that more ministers would mean more creative ideas, I suggest that unless there is a great change in attitude we will merely have more servants and the same limited number of ideas coming from a very limited source.
I should like to know why there are more and more regional desks. Regional desks are being set up all over the country so that members of Parliament are no longer consulted. It is no secret that when a public building is to be built or when a post office is about to be opened, on a great many occasions the member of Parliament who should be the first to know about it is the last to know about it. When a new building is to be opened, why should the member of Parliament concerned be asked to remain in the back row during the ceremony? Surely this should not be necessary.
If it is intended that these changes are to bring about participatory government, surely the elected representative of the people should be given a great deal more prominence than he is given at the present time. I believe we have earned it. In most cases we have gone through a proper democratic process in order to get here. There are many people in my district and in the surrounding district who want to know why in this Parliament of which their member is a part he is so discreetly ignored on many occasions. This has distressed me over a period of years and I want to bring it to the attention of the government.
I expect gentlemen opposite to grasp the power they still have, to exert the pressure they could exert and

March 30, 1971

make sure that their own ideas are brought forward. If they would do so, they would find it unnecessary to always blame a sleepy opposition or an ineffective leader of the opposition, and so on, as we have heard ad nau-seum. I say to them that if they would come forward with progressive ideas, they would find they would get a great deal more support from this side of the House than from their own cabinet.
As the last speaker said, I have no doubt that with their large majority they could pass any number of statutes they desire. I want them to think over very carefully what it is they intend to put through. They must remember that if the number of the ministers and parliamentary secretaries is to be increased, these ministers and parliamentary secretaries should have a job to do and should be prepared to do it. These ministers of state should not be like sheep. I say to members opposite that they are certainly more in the public eye than members on this side and the things they say are quoted more often. I remind them, also, that the leadership they could give is eagerly anticipated all across this country.
Perhaps members of the public are not as frank with members opposite as they are with me. Believe me, I take criticism when it should be directed to the government and I take criticism which should be directed to Parliament. Sometimes we are not in a position to defend ourselves, because we are not given the answers we should be given to the questions we ask. I suggest that members have the opportunity to make their pressure felt by seeing that the questions asked are given the attention they deserve and are properly answered. We still have the power in this House to do anything we wish. We can defeat any government. We can defeat any piece of legislation. The people of Canada expect us to do this. I say, Mr. Chairman, do not believe the people of Canada are fed up with democracy, because they are not. They may be temporarily fed up with us and our performance here. If we listen carefully we will hear a continual murmur which would indicate they feel we do not stand up in our places and do what we should, because the silence sometimes is eloquent. They are waiting to hear that we are honestly striving to improve their lives.
It is passing strange, when our young people are unemployed, to hear statements from members of the government, unless they are misquoted, to the effect that Canada can stand "X" percentage of unemployment. I will not quibble about whether it might be 6 per cent, 8 per cent or 10 per cent. There is no parent in Canada who wants any percentage of unemployment because, unfortunately, the statistic of one might be their favourite son or daughter and they expect us to do all we can to find full employment for these people. If the proliferation of ministers would produce these results, I would be happy. If the proliferation of ministers and parliamentary secretaries would mean only that another five or six Liberals are promoted and are willing to adopt a sheeplike attitude and do exactly what they are told without thinking, then it is my duty to stand up here and say so. This is the way it begins to look to me. If we are to produce more ministries of state, there certainly are jobs which '.hey could do.
Government Organization Act, 1970
I would suggest perhaps one ministry of state might be a ministry of youth. This is not a new idea for me. Some ten years ago I put forward this idea in a complete brief to our government of the day, and perhaps now I can say "I told you so". Ten years later I am sure history has given truth to my position in this regard. It is obvious that we need a ministry of youth, or at least a department of youth to co-ordinate the efforts of the federal government to see that our young people are given every opportunity to use their talents, loyalty, energy and leadership to the fullest extent.
We have made one or two abortive attempts at helping our youth. The efforts we made in the past were halfhearted. We did not give the responsibility of controlling the CYC to a responsible minister. There was a lot of wishful thinking. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, and through you to this government that they should not give this job to a junior minister. Our young people are our most important natural resource, and therefore the job should be that for our most able, capable, energetic and responsible minister.
Let us not do what we have done very often in past years with the Department of Indian Affairs-put it at the bottom of the list. This department is responsible for a very important section of our population, our first senior citizens, the hosts of this continent, people who on many occasions have given us an example in racial tolerance which we could well practise in less obvious quarters in our country. The Indian and Eskimo peoples have always accepted us as full brothers, and I am ashamed to say that we have not always accepted them.
But we have no excuse whatsoever with our young people. Our responsibility to them is of prime importance. So I think we need a full-fledged department at least, if not a full-fledged ministry, to co-ordinate all the efforts of the federal government on behalf of our young people. These young people have the energy to go and make a proper survey of our northern country in their time off from university, using their special talents in engineering and mathematics, their interest in geology, mineralogy and oil development. The young people are willing to go where they are needed, and they expect more leadership from us.
The physical development of our young people has been sadly neglected. During the last war some 70 per cent of our young people were turned down for the armed forces on physical grounds. In World War I only 20 per cent were rejected on physical grounds. So we lost 50 per cent of the health of our young people in two generations. I suggest that one of the first things that a minister of youth should do is to set up a proper program starting with the young people and, I hope, involving most of us in the end.
There should be a complete new look at the question of physical fitness. From there it is not far to go to consider our extraordinary lack of gold medals in the Olympic games. We are not going to get gold medals in the Olympic games so long as we neglect the health and

March 30, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 physical fitness of our young people. So any ministry set up which would be responsible for our youth should put physical fitness high on the list. This year a great many of our young people will be coming out of universities and secondary schools with no prospect of employment. So a ministry of youth should set up a system to ensure that every young person who comes out of school, either permanently or merely for the summer, has available to h m a job out in the fresh air which would combine self-improvement, economic improvement and resource improvement for our whole country.
Perhaps, to inject a little humour because I may be getting a little too intense, may I say that I notice that in part III of this bill we are to have astronomical observatories. I hope that they will not merely be set up to keep track of the unemployment figures. To get back to youth management, may I point out that our young people today are extremely interested in social services. A great many of them come from affluent homes and they are not solely interested in making money. Many of them want to give of their time and do the sort of thing that President Kennedy spoke about. They want to go out to the underdeveloped countries of the world and devote their time and energy, gratis in many cases.
What machinery have we set up to enable our youth to do this? We are doing it in dribs and drabs. We expect the churches to do it all. I think that governments in almost any other country in the world are involved in such programs, but we in Canada have little to match it. I suggest that a minister of youth might well take the init ative of the United Nations. I think that our generation has failed miserably to establish peace on earth through the United Nations. I venture to say that our young people, if they were involved in a kind of junior United Nations, might travel around the world in the sp rit of brotherhood which they often speak about. They want a vehicle for it. Let us give it to them. Let us give them leadership. As John McCrae said in his "Flanders Field", maybe we will have to throw them the torch. We have failed to hold it very high, but among the young people today there are thousands who want to take up that torch which we have failed so miserably to carry. But this takes organization and encouragement.
If we are to enlarge our government by five ministries, certainly a ministry of youth would be one of the most important ways in which we could show faith in our young people, in their physical fitness, in their mental training and in those spiritual qualities which are probably more important than the first two. We should show them that Canada is a country with no territorial ambitions, with little bad history to live down, a country which a generation ago was held in the very highest esteem by the smaller countries.
We could be a bridge not only between Britain and the United States, as we are supposed to have been historically, but we could go out to all those countries which look to us for leadership. We are always talking about dynamic leadership, but we have to take positive steps so that our young people may regain confidence in us and see that we really mean what we say and that we put
first things first. When we are sorting out our 35 ministries, we should show our faith in our young people by putting their own ministry, new though it may be, in its proper place, at the top.
I hope that in setting up these new ministries we will try to be fair. If we are to have a big government, let us at least try to make it as fair as we can. Some good may come out of establishing more ministries, and if we are going to look in the ranks for those who might fill them best, it might be a good idea to appoint many parliamentary secretaries. But I am not sure how much more money they should get. The idea of having professional cabinet men is quite new in the democratic process. When I first came here 13 years ago, I thought I would be well paid just by having the honour of being asked to accept more responsibility. I never thought that my pay should be doubled in order to serve my country in a better capacity. In fact, I have often wondered whether it would not be better if we reversed the process and provided that when a member took cabinet rank he should work for less money.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member to advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member may continue if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Chairman, I have reached the second last item that I wish to cover. I was speaking about salaries. I sincerely believe there is a danger that if the salaries of cabinet ministers are set at double those of backbenchers, there may well be an unseemly scramble for the higher posts. A man would think twice about accepting a cabinet post if he had to accept a monetary loss when doing so. The Liberal party is well sprinkled with men of affluence. A great many of them take an independent view on the question of paying members of Parliament any money. I would take the same view if I had several millions of dollars in my account in any bank in Canada. Several hon. members have often spoken about the privilege of serving in this chamber. From their point of view, that is very noble, but there is something to be said for the point of view that if we want high-class help we should be willing to pay for it. But I do not take away from the idea that it might be good to have a pool of qualified men, well screened for their talent. In my view, one talent that a good minister should have is the courage to fight the government on a question of principle. If you pay a minister twice as much not to fight on principle, this will perpetuate a very mediocre type of leadership.
Part IX of the bill alarms me, Mr. Chairman. Unless I misunderstand it, this part provides the Governor in Council with the right to move estimates from one department to another and thus evade responsibility to
[Mr. Bigg.l
March 30, 1971

this House. I hope I am wrong, but my interpretation of it is that the ministry of the environment could become a catch-all. When the government wanted to do something, it would be able to transfer funds from any other department to that ministry. We wasted one whole Easter recess discussing that very question. At this point all I can say is that I hope I am wrong in my interpretation.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for South Western Nova.


Mr. Comeau:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman- [Translation]


Prosper Boulanger: In French!


Louis-Roland Comeau: I find it interesting, Mr. Chairman, that the "whippet" of the Liberal party seats himself very close to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). He may be trying to get one of the new positions created by the bill under study.

As far as I can see, this is the most devious piece of legislation the government has ever presented. Its main aim is to increase the number of ministers. Mr. Chairman, I see that the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of fisheries is talking to the President of the Treasury Board. Maybe he, too, would like one of these new positions. It is interesting to see two ministers in the chamber and to see so many hon. members whom we have not seen for quite a while. I do not know what they are looking for, but it is interesting to see them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Louis-Roland Comeau: It is interesting to hear them comment from their seats. Those members on the Liberal backbenches come in here just to vote. If they really want to make an impression and become ministers of state, they should speak up once in a while. We would then know if they are qualified for such positions. But I know the hon. member for St. Boniface will not be among that number; he does not speak often enough.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Chairman, I would advise the hon. member that if and when I get up, I will make a lot of sense and not indulge just in nonsensical talk.


James Aloysius McGrath: Explain.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member should explain because that remark did not make any sense. What we need is not an increase in the number of ministers but an increase in the number of responsible ministers. We do not need this provision to create new salaries, not knowing what the new departments will be. Once these ministries of state are established, we will have no way of discussing particular legislation dealing with the establishment of particular departments. We need ministers who will be responsible to Parliament.
I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) the other day if he would consider banning all future slaughter of seals, he sat silent and shrugged. I couldn't believe that he had no answer. I was right. He preferred to give it yesterday in Vancouver. But it is still far from clear what the answer means. The only clear thing seems to be that the minister has as yet no clear policy on this matter. He announced the appointment of a six-man task force to study all aspects of the annual seat hunt in the northwest Atlantic and Arctic oceans. He says the kill-quota of seals will be drastically reduced next year, suggesting that it might be 125,000 compared with this year's 245,000. But in the next breath he says that no figure can be set until the task force makes its recommendations. Then he adds that to help reduce the figure it might be necessary to launch a campaign to "have the ladies stop buying" seal coats, but he gives no indication of any government intention to launch such a campaign.
Obviously the minister needs help. Obviously he is being pushed and pulled in all directions by the conservationists who do not want to see yet another wildlife species wiped out by the politicians of the Atlantic region who are concerned about low-income seal hunters, by animal lovers all across Canada, by profit-making interests who want sealskins for luxury coats and, above all, by world opinion which is mounting fast and which is giving Canada a black eye as a nation of people engaged in the brutal extermination of an inoffensive animal species. The minister is well aware of this unenviable international reputation. He said recently:
There has been a tremendous outburst of concern. The Brussels embassy has received protesting delegations, one of which delivered a petition containing 400,000 signatures of school children... In France a protest delegation marched into the chancery .. . There was picketing in New York .. . Our embassy in Washington has been getting letters at the rate of 600 a day ... I think it would take quite a few million dollars to offset the adverse publicity.
The minister could well have added that for years the members of this House have been flooded with letters, postcards, petitions, etc., from people who want to put an end to the senseless and needless cruelty of the seal hunt. Further pressure has been added by the introduction the other day into the United States Congress of a bill to ban the killing of sea mammals and to ban the importation of sealskins into the United States. The sponsor of the bill is Senator Fred Harris of Oklahoma, a Democrat and a nominee for the vice-presidency.
He indicated that in his opinion the Canadian sealing industry is a dying one because seals are being killed off

March 30, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
at such a high rate. His bill would help reduce the dollar incentive for their extermination. One member of this House suggested that the government tell the US Senator "to keep his elongated American probosis south of the border" and apply himself to solving the foreign and domestic problems of his own country. I can understand the deep concern of this member who comes from Newfoundland, but I would suggest that irritation over the problem is no solution to it; and solutions must be found.
One suggestion is that if a seal sanctuary were established in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the tourist benefits to be derived from it would offset, at least in part, the monetary loss to that section of the country. True, there might be difficulties in initiating such a project and the benefits might fall far short of the need. But it is my understanding that the Department of Fisheries and Forestry is considering it as part of the solution. In any event, alternative employment must be found for the seal hunters. Canadians from coast to coast in increasing numbers are becoming sickened by what the minister has called "a very gory happening". Seals aren't killed for food or essential clothing. Domestic animals can be slaughtered under conditions which keep pain and fear to a minimum. This is not true of seals on shifting ice floes.
Suppose alternative employment still falls short and income must still be provided for seal hunters and their families. James Eayrs, in his recent eloquent and humane article on the need to abolish the seal hunt, observes-
We pay Prairie farmers not to grow wheat. Why can't we pay Maritimers and Newfoundlanders not to kill baby seals?
Why not, indeed? The good name of Canada in the world community is at stake.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, this week we are setting up a special advisory committee on Atlantic seals. It is composed of scientists and executive members of international humane societies, all of whom have visited the seal hunt on a number of occasions. This committee will study not only humane methods of harvesting seals but will also recommend measures to the government to ensure the maintenance of seal herds in the future.
We are making a number of changes and we are also in a better position to manage the hunt than in previous years. One of the reasons for this is that the Gulf of St. Lawrence is now totally under Canadian control in so far as the harvesting of seals is concerned. The promulgation of the closing lines across the Cabot Strait and the Strait of Belle Isle for the first time makes all of the Gulf of the St. Lawrence exclusively Canadian from an administrative point of view.
We are in control of the Gulf of St. Lawrence but we do not control the North Atlantic off Labrador except within the 12-mile limit. Other countries will harvest there and it is therefore necessary to convince them, including Norway, to observe the over-all quotas. This is the first time we have had quotas for seals. In future this will be geared to the findings of this special committee and I suggest that next year at least the quota will be somewhat reduced.
I named in a press release today six prominent people from various countries who will serve on this special advisory committee. We hope to get two others from outside Canada to serve on the committee as well. We will pay close attention to their recommendations. They are from international, humane organizations. They are not employees of the government of Canada and certainly not employees of the federal Department of Fisheries. As I say, we are going to listen to them very carefully.
I want to observe again that the seal hunt is not totally within Canadian control or Canadian territory. There are literally millions of seals, and the harp seal is not in any immediate danger of extinction. There are a number of native people and people living in very small, remote communities who still earn a substantial part of their livelihood from the seal fishery. We must also take them, into consideration. People who live in highly populated communities and who are accustomed to an affluent way of life cannot possibly understand the primitive conditions under which these people live. We must pay some attention to their livelihood and welfare as well.



MANPOWER-AMENDMENT OF REGULATIONS TO EXTEND RETRAINING PERIOD

Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, the other day I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) about the general dissatisfaction that many trainees feel. They are dissatisfied, not with their instructors or the local personnel of Manpower offices but with the stupidity and rigidity of regulations governing the courses they want to take. I have received many complaints both verbally and by letter. Many trainees have come to see me to discuss their problems. I have heard their complaints. There were reasoned and reasonable complaints. Many were trapped in the rigidity of the courses or blocks of courses they were taking. Why was that, Mr. Speaker? The answer is that the Manpower people too often refuse to treat trainees as individuals.
Everything possible should be done to see that a trainee is given the academic training necessary not only for the private but for the public sector as well. By that I mean that trainees should reach grade 12 levels of education. Many of them do not reach that level which is being demanded. Some reach the grade 12 level and the department boasts that their earnings increase by 20 per cent as compared with previous earnings.
In training trainees, the demands of the market must be assessed. They must be trained to meet the demands of the market, and I do not think this is being done adequately. There are grave doubts on this score. There are indications that the requirements of the labour market ought to be assessed better and that its future requirements ought to be looked at more carefully. It is of paramount importance, with the unemployed lists growing at the rate of 100 per day, as they have been for the past two years, that every effort be made to see that trainees get a position and begin earning, thereby adding to the economy rather than drawing from it.
Manpower training has been described as a disaster because bureaucratic regulations will not allow some who
[Mrs. Maclnnis.)
March 30, 1971

need the training and who are eligible to qualify. Sometimes trainees are not permitted to train for long enough. We must remember that over 40 per cent of our labour force is not educated to grade 8 level. Department of Manpower regulations state that you can only take 52 weeks training at any one time, plus an additional 52 weeks of training in skills.
Here is the catch, Mr. Speaker. Say the trainee starts at the grade 5 level. He takes 12 weeks for each grade and at the end of 48 weeks he has completed his education up to and including the grade 8 level. In no way can he complete grade 9. He has only four weeks left, and he cannot complete grade 10. He cannot go on to take a highly skilled course because he has not the academic background or the knowledge to master that course; and there that trainee is. He therefore has to wait for another term. What an inflexible, bureaucratic, discriminatory rule that is, Mr. Speaker. It is frustrating and cruel for the person involved and is a wanton waste of the taxpayer's money.
The trainee has trained hard for 48 weeks. He has cost the federal taxpayer-and who is not a federal taxpayer-$7 a day for training, or $2,000 for his education alone. He will only have reached the grade 8 level, which is nowhere. If he is single, he will have drawn $43 a week; so that for the total time he has spent training he will have cost the taxpayer around $4,000. If he is married, with four dependants, he will have drawn $88 per week. In a year we spend over $300 million on these courses. I have checked into this and according to figures I was given this year we are to spend around $320 million on these courses.
The way to correct this colossal blunder lies in allowing the trainee to continue until he has finished grade 10, if he is going into a skilled trade, then letting him complete his training in skills before getting him back to work. As it is, he finds himself turned out at grade 8 level without a job. Does he go on welfare, waiting until he can register again and, hopefully, complete grades 9 and 10 so that he can then learn the skills required? This is very likely.
The Canada Manpower centres and the local educational facilities operate in an administrative vacuum. There is little or no constructive consultation as to the real needs of students or the best way of spending the taxpayers' money. This is the way the federal government wants it-bureaucratic control from the top. Instead of using the judgment of the local Manpower centres-in my constituency, and I am sure this applies generally, they are staffed with smart, intelligent people who will strive to help these trainees-the federal government prefers to exercise rigid bureaucratic control. The same applies to the teachers. Give them more elbow room in which to operate, and we would see a real improvement in the results. But Ottawa allows them no power within the rigid framework provided.
No leeway is allowed to the teacher to help the trainee along in the best way for the individual concerned; and
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion if it is best for him, it is probably best for the taxpayer. Ottawa must make even the minor decisions. No provision is made for the student who could complete the course in less than the normal period. All must work at the same rate. No provision is made for the talented academic student who might wish to go on to grade 13, either by Manpower or by the provincial boards of education.
I trust I have drawn attention to some of the flaws in the system as well as ways in which a remedy might be found. Many of the problems and shortcomings attached to the retraining program have been outlined in briefs to the department and others. I have drawn attention to some of them in the short time available to me. I am sure the minister is aware of these serious shortcomings and, hopefully, he realizes they must be overcome in order that the $323 million we are spending on the program may not be spent in vain but will bring satisfaction to both the trainees and the taxpayers.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that the hon. member should have displayed such colossal ignorance of the social benefits which have accrued by virtue of the Manpower training program. It is true there are occasions when individual cases are handled in a manner which leaves something to be desired, but to draw from those cases such a sweeping conclusion in the terms the hon. member adopted tonight amounts to displaying a very limited knowledge of the entire subject.
The whole question of the education of adults is a difficult one. It requires, of course, flexibility and sensibility, and we certainly welcome suggestions and criticisms from members of this House, advanced-


Philip Bernard Rynard: Don't speak about colossal ignorance, then.


Mr. Caccia:: -without attempting to accuse the Manpower retraining effort of being a colossal blunder, as the hon. member did. Of course, the object of the educational upgrading courses is not to provide the equivalent of a primary or high school diploma or to facilitate entry into university. It is to provide the essentials of the mathematics, science and communications required to enable an adult to enter a skill training course or move directly into a job. A great deal of such upgrading can be accomplished in 52 weeks. It is common in most provinces to take an adult from functional illiteracy up to the completion of primary level, or from primary level up to the grade 10 level well within this limit. Moreover, experimental programs now under way may enable an adult to move through the equivalent of grades 1 to 10 within 52 weeks.
Modifications in the limits on the duration of training, with a view to providing flexibility if and when required, have been considered. These possible modifications raise questions such as: What larger proportion of available training resources would be devoted to serving relatively fewer trainees? What effect might the elimination or extension of the limits on training have on the incentive
4768

March 30, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion for training institutions to make the qualitative improvements in training which are necessary to speed up the educational process? These are basic problems and are not easy to solve. So in reply to the points raised by the hon. member, may I say that the department, with the co-operation of the provinces, is working on ways and
means of providing shorter training courses tailored to the needs of the trainee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to advise the parliamentary secretary that his time has expired. Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.18 p.m.

Wednesday, March 31, 1971