1971-01-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in both official languages-Mr. Clermont.

[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts-Mr. Hales.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statement made yesterday by Alberta's minister of welfare that he was coming to the welfare conference "not to discuss welfare programs but to discuss unemployment, which is causing welfare costs to soar, and to find out what the federal government is going to do to reduce unemployment", will the Acting Prime Minister take the opportunity tomorrow on motions to outline to the House what answer the federal government has to give to provincial inquiries of this kind which are made with great seriousness? At the same time, would he outline to the House and the country what estimate the government has concerning the number of new jobs its present program to fight unemployment is expected to produce in the next three months?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I share with the hon. gentleman the view that unemployment is the most serious problem with which the country is faced at the moment, and I am not at all surprised that the Alberta minister should regard this as a most important issue to have before this conference. I
can assure the hon. member that our representatives at the conference share that view and will be ready to discuss it with the Alberta minister.


George Harris Hees: The minister, as usually happens, did not answer my question. I would ask him again if he would take the first opportunity on motions to outline what the government is going to do to fight unemployment, as requested by the minister of welfare of Alberta. If he will not do this, would he outline to the House and to the country the government's estimate-and it must have an estimate-of the number of new jobs it expects its present program to produce in the next three months?


Mitchell William Sharp: On a number of occasions the Minister of Finance has dealt with this question. I would point out to the hon. member, however, that there has been a very substantial increase in employment already this year, and we expect there will be a further increase.


George Harris Hees: You mean unemployment.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, both. This is the essence of the problem we face, namely, that there is an increasing number of jobs in the country but the labour force happens at this particular time to be increasing much more rapidly.


George Harris Hees: As the minister refuses to answer my question, I would ask him whether it is not obvious that the government's program is in reality expected to produce very few new jobs, and is it not a bluff intended to kid the Canadian people that something is being done?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



UNEMPLOYMENT-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION UNDER CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the government is prepared to offer to the provinces at the welfare conference an increase in the percentage paid by the federal government under the Canada Assistance Plan to 60 or 65 per cent?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I expect that this question will be raised in the discussions today and tomorrow. The government is not yet in a position to give an answer.



UNEMPLOYMENT-SUGGESTED ASSISTANCE TO MUNICIPALITIES AND PROVINCES TO MEET WELFARE COSTS

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: My question
is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that

January 28, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
the high rate of unemployment is causing such a heavy financial burden on the cities and provinces I wonder whether at the welfare conference or at a special conference of the premiers of Canada which would be called immediately the Acting Prime Minister would outline a policy and discuss with the premiers some financial assistance to the municipalities and provinces?


Mitchell William Sharp: The
Prime Ministers of Canada will shortly be meeting here in Ottawa and I expect that they will raise these kinds of questions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, I think they will.



UNEMPLOYMENT-POSITION OF PROVINCES ON IMMEDIATE AMENDMENTS TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT-EARLIER INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: In light of the assurance given yesterday by the Minister of Labour that the federal government would bring to the attention of the provinces the need for immediate amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act regarding benefits for the hard-core and young unemployed, would the Acting Prime Minister undertake to keep the House fully informed on whether any provinces express opposition to emergency reform along these lines, and if so, which province or provinces?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I expect these problems will be aired and there will be an opportunity not only for the House but for the country as a whole to be aware of the representations of the provinces.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If agreement with the provinces on this matter can be obtained, will the government introduce two specific emergency amendments regarding access and benefits for the hard-core and young unemployed this winter and spring rather than wait until July 1, 1971?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister of Labour said yesterday, there is a timetable for the introduction of unemployment insurance legislation. This will be adhered to. I would remind hon. members that steps have already been taken to increase the benefits.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: So you do nothing for four months.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Could he indicate to the House whether the hammering and drilling we can hear back in this corner are an indication of the increased number of jobs being offered by the government in Ottawa?


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Would the government give consideration to increasing the salaries of its employees so that they will not have to be on welfare at the present time, as was reported on the news this morning over the CBC?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Egmont. I should point out that we will have to go on to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands in a moment, but the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Egmont at this time.



UNEMPLOYMENT-RESPONSE TO REQUEST OF FEDERATION OF MAYORS AND MUNICIPALITIES FOR WINTER WORKS AND OTHER PROGRAMS

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the conclusion reached following the survey conducted recently by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities that federal programs are inadequate to solve urban unemployment, and their request for consultation to consider possible winter works programs, crash programs, etc., would the Acting Prime Minister indicate what response was made to the Association of Mayors and Municipalities on this important question?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question. However, I do want to say to the hon. member that I am sure he would agree that under our constitution it is not only legal but it is also a matter of government policy to discuss the position of the municipalities with the governments that have responsibility for them, namely, the provincial governments.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in light of the Acting Prime Minister's response, would he ascertain whether there will be consultation with the provinces shortly on this important question, or whether in fact anyone in the ministry has received such a request, because apparently it was forwarded to the government a few days ago?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said today and as was said by another hon. member from that side of the House, the ministers who are attending the Council of Welfare Ministers are raising these questions. They will be discussed. I can assure hon. members that no one has a greater concern for the problems of unemployment than the members on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
* He *



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister arising out of the memorandum tabled by the
January 28, 1971______________________COMMONS DEBATES______________________________________2843
President of the Treasury Board on Tuesday entitled, "Special Recruitment of Francophones in the Public Service." Since the Acting Prime Minister has now had several days to look into this matter, I want to ask him whether this memorandum was drafted and circulated with the knowledge and consent of any ministers? The President of the Treasury Board has already said that it was done without his knowledge. I want to know whether the Secretary of State, the Acting Prime Minister or any other minister knew of this memorandum and, if so, which minister authorized its circulation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity of canvassing all my colleagues but I have spoken to those who might be directly concerned, namely, the President of the Treasury Board and the Secretary of State who have responsibilities in the field of the Public Service, and I have ascertained that they were not aware of the contents of this circular.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, am I to take it from the minister's reply that this memorandum was circulated solely on the initiative of the Public Service Commission? If so, does the Public Service Commission have the authority to commit the government to an additional $2 million annually over and above the regular appropriations, and does it have the authority to set aside the merit system on its own initiative.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the impression that the second part of the hon. member's question has already been asked, but obviously because the hon. member appears to place great importance on the matter the minister should be allowed to reply.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House the other day, there has been no money appropriated by parliament yet for next year, and before any money would be expended for this purpose not only would the Treasury Board have to approve it, not only would the government have to approve it, but parliament would have to approve it. No money has been appropriated for this purpose yet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: On the second point may I say that I for one and the government as a whole are interested-I do not know what the view of the hon. member may be-in the recruitment of more Francophone Canadians into the Public Service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: That is the purpose of government policy which has been endorsed in all parts of the country. I hope it is supported by my hon. friend and by all those on the opposite side. This policy is being implemented. We have under study a proposal which would help to effect this purpose. Just how it is going to be worked out
Inquiries of the Ministry
we do not know yet. There is simply a study under way, and we hope that we can find some way of accomplishing our purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member. Apparently the hon. member for Egmont seeks the floor on a question of privilege.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because I am sure that the Acting Prime Minister would not even wish to suggest by his response that there has been any change in the position from that originally enunciated when the vote was taken in the House and hon. members in fact supported that policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That has nothing to do with a question of privilege.


Mr. Forreslall:: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it certainly has something to do with it because certain implications arise from this nonsense.


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


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since the policy of bilingualism in the Public Service is not at issue, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government proposes to take any disciplinary action with respect to the circulation of the memorandum outlining a program which is in complete violation of the Public Service Employment Act and seeks to destroy the merit system which has been established in this country for decades?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that in this case the merit system is at issue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: It is perfectly possible within the merit system-this has been thoroughly supported by the bilingualism commission, by the government and by the Public Service Commission-to bring more Francophone Canadians into the Public Service. I can assure the hon. member that this government is thoroughly committed to and will observe the merit system in bringing more Francophone Canadians into the Public Service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

January 28, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



PHOGRAM FOR HIRING OF FRANCOPHONE UNIVERSITY GRADUATES-ONE-CANADA POLICY

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Does the Acting Prime Minister feel that spending $2 million of the taxpayers' money on a specific group of university graduates from one province is in keeping with the government's proposal for a one-Canada policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is inviting the minister to express an opinion and in those terms the question is not in order.



PROGRAM FOR HIRING OF FRANCOPHONE UNIVERSITY GRADUATES-RCMP INQUIRY INTO DISCLOSURE OF MEMORANDUM

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, since the Acting Prime Minister has investigated the actions of members of cabinet to find out where the leak was, would he inform the House whether the RCMP have been asked to conduct an investigation into the leaking of the confidential memorandum on the special program to provide employment for Francophones in the Public Service?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why not, Mr. Speaker?



PROGRAM FOR HIRING OF FRANCOPHONE UNIVERSITY GRADUATES-APPLICATION TO NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. When this program is under way, will it also apply to Francophone students from the province of Nova Scotia? Will they be given every opportunity to participate?


An hon. Member:: Include New Brunswick as well.


Robert Muir: Will they have the same opportunity as the students of any other province?


An hon. Member:: Including New Brunswick.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope so, and if there were any danger that in any way we were not giving all Canadians an equal opportunity to join the Public Service-


Mr. Diefenbaker:: You are not.


Mitchell William Sharp: -then I would certainly think that the government ought to be condemned. But I do not think that it should be condemned just because special efforts are being made to bring more Francophone Canadians into the Public Service. I have been a public servant and I know about this-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


J. Michael Forrestall: There speaks an ex-mandarin.


Robert Muir: If the Acting Prime Minister seriously and sincerely believes what he is saying, why did this memorandum only mention Francophone students from the province of Quebec and not the province of Nova Scotia where there are many French-speaking students?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer is very simple. This is not the whole of our program.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



SUGGESTED INCREASE IN NUMBERS TO BE EMPLOYED UNDER PROGRAM FOR HIRING OF FRANCOPHONES

Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Since the number of 250 French-speaking civil servants represents only a small part of the federal civil service, could the Acting Prime Minister say whether the government would consider increasing the number to about 2,000 to make it a fair proportion of French-speaking employees?



SUGGESTED EARLY IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAM FOR HIRING OF FRANCOPHONE UNIVERSITY GRADUATES

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Considering the importance of the French-speaking representation within the civil service and the comments which could reduce it, could I ask the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roch La Salle: -if you would be kind enough to let me ask my question, you will perhaps understand what I mean.
I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he can assure us that the memorandum, in view of its importance, will be tabled as soon as possible in the House in order to enable those who wish to have a fair representation in the civil service to support it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see some support from the other side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see four or five members who are very anxious to ask supplementaires on this subject. I doubt whether we should spend the rest of the question period on this matter, although I realize it is important. Perhaps the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings might be recognized for the moment.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a very important matter. A few moments ago the Acting Prime Minister indicated that what has come to light through this leak is only a very small part of the program. When may the House and the country expect to learn more of the program through ministers, or do we have to wait for leaks through the press and radio? When will we learn this?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: The Acting Prime Minister stated that all the facts will be ascertained at the time the estimates are before the House. How is that possible when the Acting Prime Minister cannot find out from his own cabinet ministers who was responsible for the memorandum?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that the questions are now becoming slightly argumentative. I realize that the matter is important. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. Other hon. members may want to ask questions about this very interesting matter, but in fairness to other members who may want to bring other important and interesting matters to the attention of the government, perhaps we might go on to the next subject and in due course return to those hon. members who want to pursue this matter.
s*s Hs %



PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS ON NEW AGREEMENT TO REPLACE INTERNATIONAL GRAINS ARRANGEMENT-NATURE OF CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Is the minister in a position to advise the farmers of Canada generally and western farmers in particular whether, as a result of the ten days of meetings so far in Geneva, there is any indication that a new agreement will be entered into between the nations to take the place of the International Grains Arrangement?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, beyond confirming the continuation of the negotiations and Canada's participation in all of the committees at these meetings I do not think it would be helpful or appropriate to comment upon the progress of the negotiations themselves.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Then may I put this question, Mr. Speaker, since this is also something which, as the Acting Prime Minister himself said, should not be hidden. Do the Canadian representatives at the meeting favour controlling production to match demand, an end to crop subsidy payments, maintenance by producers of fixed floor prices, and importers buying at uniform rates? Are these some of the representations that Canada is making?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think I should simply repeat my previous answer, except that I should add that some of the matters included in the question of the right hon. gentleman are far from anything that anybody would represent. Our position in general is well known. We favour an international agreement, one that will be of interest to this country. It is also well known that we believe in a free trading world in which those countries that are supporting an inefficient agricultural industry should make more room for our production. This policy is also well known and I am sure it is being put forward at the meetings.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister for his answer. What I was reading from were the representations made by the Canadian delegation and given by the press. Would the minister now tell the House which of the matters I mentioned are so far from the thinking of the Canadian government as to shock his finer sensibilities?



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-AMOUNT OF FARMERS' CONTRIBUTION-MAXIMUM GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister responsible for the Wheat Board whether, in view of the stand taken by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that contributions by grain growers to a stabilization plan should not exceed a maximum of one per cent, the minister is prepared to accept this as the maximum burden that he could expect to place on the western grain growers at this time?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, many discussions have been going on, as all hon. members know. In these discussions, not surprisingly, the farm organizations have tended to suggest that if the farmers pay less rather than more the plan would be more attractive to them. What we have to try to do is to determine from our discussions where they put their priorities in terms of types of program, and then as a government we must reach a conclusion as to the total amount of financing that may be possible out of general revenue.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's statement at the meeting he had with the Manitoba Farm Bureau in which he said that he recognized there would have to be a limit to the amount of money which would be available, is he prepared to inform the House what is the maximum contribution, subsidy or aid the government is prepared to make available to the western grain grower?

January 28, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the proposals presented in the House on October 29 indicated a certain level of participation which the government was obviously considering as reasonable. As I indicated to the CFA yesterday, this is the kind of question that is bound to be under continuing review as circumstances change and as the facts become more readily apparent to everyone concerned.



INQUIRY AS TO ANNOUNCEMENT OF REGULATIONS RESPECTING PROTEIN GRADING OF WHEAT

Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Because of its importance to our export trade and in view of the very great interest in the matter on the Prairies, can the minister inform the House when he will announce the regulations under the new Canada Grain Act which will authorize protein grading for wheat?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we hope that within a very few days we will have the regulations ready so that the Act can be proclaimed. With regard to the protein grading aspects or the changes in the grades taking into account protein, we are required to give some notice of this. I think I have already stated that we hope to make a start on this at the beginning of the new crop year so far as grades to the farmers are concerned.



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-OPPORTUNITY FOR HOUSE DEBATE PRIOR TO FINAL DETERMINATION-REQUEST FOR BACKGROUND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
for the fullest exploration of the subject by hon. members at the committee stage.

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister who answers for the Wheat Board. In line with the thinking he expressed to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and his statement that "it is essential that every effort be made to maximize the return to the grain producer from the sale of his product both at home and in export markets", is the government giving consideration at this time to establishing a two-price system for wheat, since it takes Canadians four minutes to earn the money to buy one pound of bread compared with 12 minutes in Russia and 27 minutes in Japan, which might also be in line with some of the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply, but I have to caution hon. members that in a few minutes we will be running out of time and we have not even completed the first round of questions.


Otto Emil Lang: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, we are conscious of the representations that are made by distinguished farm organizations on this or any other subject. This really forms a part of the total analysis of the appropriate amount of assistance or financial help that can be made available to the agricultural industry.
sj:	Ht


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the importance of the grain policy proposals and the varying views that have been expressed by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at the meeting this week, will an opportunity be given the House to debate this important matter before the proposals of the government are finalized? May I also ask the minister whether he is in a position now to provide an answer to my inquiry of Monday last whether background analyses and information developed with respect to the government's proposal will be tabled or otherwise made available?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it would be my hope that we would make to the House a further presentation of the government view on what the proposals should be and to make this presentation in the form of legislation that would then be put before the House and a committee of the House for full discussion and debate.
I have looked into the question of the tabling of background studies and information, but I find that so much of the total development of the program is in a variety of forms as not to be suitable for tabling. It would be inappropriate to present to the House at this stage those portions which are in fact on pieces of paper, though of course it would be my intention to answer very fully questions asked by hon. members, and indeed to provide



MEAT-INSTRUCTION OF NEW ZEALAND PACKERS BY CANADIAN EXPERTS ON CUTTING AND PACKAGING

Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I will direct to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns the Canadian team of experts who were sent to New Zealand to instruct meat packers in that country on the cutting and packaging of meats for the Canadian market. Does he not think that this gives an unfair advantage to these people who are competing with our packers for markets in this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is inviting the Parliamentary Secretary to express an opinion in relation to the opinion that he himself has expressed indirectly, and to that extent the question is not permitted.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.

January 28, 1971

Since damages resulting from the recent landslides in the town of Asbestos, in Quebec, will amount to several million dollars, could the minister say if he has been consulted by the municipal authorities with a vew to redeveloping that part of the town of Asbestos and assisting the victims?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a telegram from the mayor of the town who has asked if he could see me regarding this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. Order. Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to recognize the hon. member for Richmond for a supplementary, and I will come to him in a moment.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Could the minister tell us whether the mayor has mentioned when he would like to meet him?


Jean Marchand: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.
* Hs %:
{English]



CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Because small businesses in Canada are encountering difficulties in making collections, will the government cancel or declare a moratorium on monetary fines for late filing of government returns, as the penalties imposed are to a large degree a form of blackmail on the part of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The first part of the question is in order, but I would think that the second part is more in the form of an argument. The hon. member may want to rephrase the question, but in any event the first part is quite in order and perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I take it that this is in the form of a representation that we should forego monetary penalties. We do not have the subject under consideration at the present time.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Does the Acting Prime Minister not agree that many of the delays in filing have been brought about by circumstances of the government's own making such as its inability to sell western grain or to cope with the high rate of unemployment?


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



GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIONS TO WORLD BANK RESPECTING PEGGING OF INTERNATIONAL CURRENCIES

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance to advise the House whether the government of Canada has made direct or indirect representations to the governors of the World Bank with a view to changing the pegging system of international currencies either to a floating average or a wider band of spread in order to avoid some of the difficulties we have had in recent years?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we have not made direct representations, but this matter has been under discussion, as my hon. friend knows, by the World Bank for some time. It was brought up at the last general meeting of the bank at which time the governors expressed their views, and it is under continuing study.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Can he tell us whether it is his or the government's intention to press this point with the governors of the World Bank in order to assist Canada to return to a more flexible, fixed currency?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that the matter is certainly worthy of study and is indeed presently being studied, as my hon. friend knows. Canada will participate in such studies.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Does his decision to refuse visitors' visas to certain representatives of the provisional revolutionary government of South Viet Nam, who had been invited to speak in Windsor, represent a change in policy on the part of the government because, as he knows, his predecessor did allow such people to come to Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, this does not represent a change in policy. In applying this policy, of course, every specific fact and variation must be taken into consideration, especially in a case where special permits for people who may be otherwise prohibited are involved. In this particular case the meeting did not seem to be one essentially of a Canadian direction, and that certainly had some weight in the decision taken.

January 28, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, does the minister think it necessary to protect the people of the United States from hearing the views of a section of the people of Viet Nam with whose fate they are very much involved?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is obviously an argument.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Greenwood concerning five South Vietnamese. Has the minister received any representations from the United States government in this matter?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, certainly not. The decision was made on the basis of Canadian law and on the basis of our policy.



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-RAISING OF AMOUNT OF YEARLY EARNINGS REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN STABILIZATION FUND

['Order. I do not think this should be done at this time.']
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister who reports to the House for the Canadian Wheat Board. It relates to a comment he made a few minutes ago with respect of the fact that agricultural policy is presently under review. Is the government considering raising the disqualifying restriction respecting participation in the grain stabilization fund from $10,000 to $15,000 yearly earnings and, if so, is a statement to be made on this subject shortly?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly one of the subjects on which we sought representations and upon which we have had discussions. I would anticipate that it would be part of an official announcement of any decision.



Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since United States interests have indicated they are planning to construct a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez on the west coast, can the minister advise the House whether consultation was carried on with the United States authorities as to the best possible route for this pipeline?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have had many discussions
with United States authorities about both gas and oil, and certainly the idea of a pipeline across Alaska or down the Mackenzie Valley. All these matters were discussed between ministers and secretaries.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister in relation to the question asked a few minutes ago about the Alaskan oil pipeline. I believe the minister indicated that Canada was making representations to the United States. I notice the minister is shaking his head. May I ask whether Canada has taken any particular position on this proposed pipeline, and what is the government's position?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should be asked to take a position on a pipeline through United States territory. Just to clarify the point, I did not say we had made representations. I said there had been consultations between ministers and secretaries.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I realize the pipeline is within the United States, but since trans-shipment to United States ports would involve Canadian coastal waters it would seem to me Canada must have some interest in this matter and I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister would care to put forward our position on this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think this should be done at this time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, in light of the remarks of the Minister of National Defence yesterday to a committee of the other place, would he indicate whether or not he based certain comments he made, particularly his certainty of a greater likelihood of peacekeeping operations in the Middle East, on discussions he may have had with United Nations officials, or was he just prophesying or looking into the future?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the remarks I made on both possible theatres were really based on an assessment of conditions of operation rather than any expectation that there would be an early political settlement in either of the two areas. In view of our experience in UNEF in the Middle East in the past, I think on the whole it is obviously easier for us to operate there than it would be in another theatre.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, can I assume then that there has not been any basic change in our position and in our existing plans in respect of peacekeeping opera-
[Mr. Lang.)
January 28, 1971

tions and the involvement of Canadian forces, particularly in regard to the Middle East, and that this was contingency thinking the minister was expressing yesterday? Can I assume that he did not in the course of his comments reject the position of his predecessor in respect of Viet Nam?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it was an indication that we, as the hon. member says, assume as a task continued peacekeeping assistance. This responsibility will only arise once there has been political settlement. I think I did recognize that in my view it would be far more difficult to carry out effective peacekeeping in the Viet Nam area than in the UNEF area.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but in his absence perhaps someone opposite would take notice of it. Having regard to the statement to the Quebec National Assembly by the president of the Automobile Protective Association, which was critical of the honesty and quality of the car repair industry and called for greater consumer protection, is the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs investigating or does it intend to investigate the car repair industry, as has been done in the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister will be here tomorrow and I will see that the question is brought to his attention.



FINANCE


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a $150 million loan fund has been provided to finance job-creating public works, will the Minister of Finance table the amounts each province has borrowed since his announcement prior to Christmas and indicate how many jobs have been created by this fund?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question is probably quite possible to answer. I think the second part might be fairly difficult because the provinces are treating the matter differently and we have to get the information from them. I should also indicate that the amount of the allocation we have decided upon is $160 million rather than $150 million.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, has the department refused such loans to any province because of their proposals not being sufficiently job-creative?
Government Organization Act, 1970


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that question as notice in order to look at the individual consultations with the provinces.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Healh Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister with reference to the mass executions in Guinea which have brought sharp protests from His Holiness the Pope and other world figures. Can he advise whether the government contemplates any initiative which might be helpful in bringing this matter under the purview of the appropriate United Nations body dealing with human rights?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have followed the events in Guinea with great interest. I am not quite sure whether we would take any action as a result of these studies, but I share the concern of the hon. member about mass executions of this kind. While we have not made any formal representations on the subject, I can assure him that we do not look with favour on any mass executions of this kind whether they take place in Guinea or wherever.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, January 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Drury (for the Prime Minister) that Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this very important bill, Bill C-207, which has to do with the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto. First, I must register two objections I have before proceeding with the main body of my remarks.
Once again, we have an omnibus bill presented to this House. It is sort of a grab bag, a mixed bag. This bill covers many subjects which are not particularly related. I most heartily agree with the remarks Your Honour made when deciding whether the omnibus bill should be allowed to proceed. At one point you mentioned that you

January 28, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
had raised your eyebrows when this bill was first tabled in the House. Then, after having looked at the bill, and when handing down your ruling on the motion that it not be proceeded with, Your Honour stated that omnibus bills seem to take in too much and that we have had many other instances of this in the House. I am sure Your Honour's recommendation that these bills should be scrutinized when first tabled will be followed. So, I, as an elected representative of this House, object very strenuously to having to vote on a bill containing a number of subjects, some of which have my approval while others do not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I should like to vote for the clauses setting up the Department of the Environment. But I do not approve for one minute of the part which would set up the different ministries of the government, and I would like to have the opportunity to vote against that. Obviously, we are placed in a very unfair position. I hope this precedent will not be continued and that in future each subject will be presented in a separate bill.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Alfred Dryden Hales: Yes.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Would the hon. member not have the opportunity to vote against individual proposals in the bill when the bill is in the committee of the whole House.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Yes; I will have an opportunity to vote against a proposal but the vote will not be a recorded vote. The recorded vote will not be on each issue but rather on the whole bill. I can register my dislike of a particular part of the bill, but still the bill as a whole will carry. That is the point as I see it.
My other objection is that the time of this House will be taken up discussing this bill on government reorganization when we have serious unemployment problems facing this country involving nearly three-quarters of a million unemployed people. I believe it would have been much better if the government had placed before us a bill in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mack-asey), entitled a bill to prevent human misery and economic waste.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Dryden Hales: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that is what we should be spending our time on at this moment.
I may say, with regard to the contents of the bill, that it has nine parts. It certainly is a catch-all bill. The bill provides for setting up a Department of the Environment, and sets out the duties of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as well as the duties to be assigned to the Minister of the Environment. It transfers the responsibility for astronomical observatories from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to the
National Research Council. The fourth part of the bill concerns ministries and ministers of state. The fifth part concerns Parliamentary Secretaries. The number is to be increased from 16. The sixth part provides for the appointment of a Postmaster General. We already have one, but still there is this provision. The seventh part concerns the Public Service Superannuation Act and provides for improved early retirement. Part VIII amends the Salaries Act to provide a salary for each minister. Part IX is a general section.
I do not have time to deal with all the parts of the bill, but in the time available I wish to speak on Part IV which deals with ministries and ministers of state, Part VI regarding the post office, and Part VII regarding superannuation. Then, I should like to say a little about the cost of this whole package deal we are discussing at the moment. Many of my colleagues, and members on the other side of the House, have spoken about the setting up of a Department of the Environment and about pollution. I am delighted that this part is contained in the bill, but I wish it appeared by itself. As a member who has a university in his riding, I am particularly pleased that we are now to have some legislation to take care of pollution and to place it under the jurisdiction of one minister. Just the other day I received a letter from the University of Guelph. I was asked what we had done in respect of noise pollution control. I was surprised to learn there were no federal provisions covering that, except in the Department of Transport regulations concerning aeroplanes. So, it is good to have this part in this bill.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the part in respect of ministries and ministers of state is a real package, indeed. Here, we certainly have an example of a government dream or a bureaucratic dream. In addition to having the ministers we have today, we are to have ministers of state for specific purposes. There will be five of these. They will be paid $15,000 plus their other salary. There will also be ministers of state with no specific duties to perform. There is no limit to how many ministers of state can be appointed. There are three types of ministers in addition to ministers without portfolio, as we have now. What a mixed bag of tricks this will be.
The bill does not state what the ministers will do, but let us take a look at it. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), in introducing this bill, said it will provide for greater accountability of the executive branch to Parliament. What nonsense! Here, we will have five ministers appointed with no specific duties assigned to them, but the House will have nothing to say about the departments they will head. This is probably the most devious piece of legislation this government has ever presented. Its only aim is to increase the number of ministers. The bill contains no statement of purpose, no clearcut objectives. Not only does the government have nothing specific for the ministers to do, but it is also proposing a new way to diminish the powers of Parliament. This is a very serious aspect of the bill.

January 28, 1971

Under the bill, the House would not be permitted to debate the proposal to form a new ministry. Just imagine, we will not have the authority to debate in this House the establishment of a new ministry. The government could set up a ministry of information Canada. They can do whatever they like without coming to the House. As the minister said the other day-and he was perfectly right-parliamentary control lies in the ability of this House to deny money for any undertaking of which we do not approve. What chance have we on that score? Even if everyone on this side were present and voted against granting the money, the government could still go ahead and set up ministries. So that argument does not hold water. By proclamation, the Governor in Council may establish at his discretion up to five ministers of state. The responsible minister would be in charge of policy formulation and development, and this is contrary to tradition since policy formulation has always been a Crown prerogative.
We have had a sample of this reorganization in the House. I want to say that this reorganization will not cure all the ills of the government. Let me remind hon. members that the government split the Department of Labour into the Department of Labour and the Department of Manpower and Immigration. I think every elected member has experienced great difficulty in his riding as a result of that action. The division of these two very closely related departments of government has not been very popular. What can be more closely related than a man out of work and one seeking a job? In my city of Guelph there is the manpower office, but the unemployment office from which the unemployed collect their benefits is in the central area of Waterloo. There is no co-ordination between the two offices and there has been nothing but trouble since the department was split.
In 1968, the new Department of Communications was set up and the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) was in charge of the Post Office, Telesat and other forms of communications. We know what a mess we got into there. There was nothing but trouble. I am sure the President of the Treasury Board will not appreciate what I have to say, but I cannot miss the opportunity of reminding him that the government set up the department of industry, against the wishes of the opposition and over our protests. On June 27, 1963 as recorded at page 1663 of Hansard, the Hon. Gordon Churchill said the following:
My criticism of the bill, and of the whole idea-
He was referring to the bill setting up the department of industry.
-is that the Department of Trade and Commerce, as it is at the present time, is equipped to do all that the proposed department of industry is aiming to do.
What could be more plain and forthright than that? On June 28 of the same year, Mr. Churchill said:
-this is a mistake, in that a very strong department, trade and commerce-which could be called industry and commerce-is being weakened by this proposal.
Government Organization Act, 1970
How true those words were. The government paid no attention to the opposition of the day. They went ahead and set up the department of industry.
What did that cost the taxpayer of Canada? The department was set up in July of 1963, and in 1969 it was amalgamated with the department of trade and commerce in great confusion. People were transferred from the department of industry to the new department. The department of industry had hired very expensive people, and these people had to work alongside employees of the department of trade and commerce who were paid much less. There was no end to the trouble and confusion that resulted. If I had been an employee of the department of trade and commerce when that happened I would not have been happy with it either. In the first year, the estimates of the department of industry were $23.7 million. In 1967-68 the figure was $118.1 million, a fourfold increase in four years. Then, there was the amalgamation, and that is the expensive story of the department of industry.
We must not forget about the staff. It will be said that people from different departments will go into the new department of environment and will be absorbed there. But if we experience the same thing that happened with the department of industry, this will not be so. In 1963-64 the staff of the department of industry numbered 274. In 1964-65 the staff grew to 786, a 200 per cent increase. In 1967-68, the budget of the department was $118.1 million and the budget of the department of trade and commerce was $81.3 million. So reorganization is not new to us, and I mention these figures to show that reorganization is not an answer to all these problems.
I think I have said enough on this subject, so I will now deal with Part VI, the Post Office. What a checkered career this department has had. At one time it used to be a stable department which ran efficiently. It did not bring in too much money but it gave good service. The public was reasonably happy with it. But reorganization took place. What a licking the public has taken since that happened. They paid more but got less service. That is the first thing we should note. I have letters to substantiate this. A constituent wrote that it took seven days for a letter to go from Guelph to Toronto, and six days for a letter to go from Guelph to the University of Western Ontario in London. The counter serlvice in the post offices was discontinued on Saturdays and was not resumed until recently. Even now, it is not in effect all day Saturday as the minister said it would be. I find that counter service has been reinstated only up until twelve o'clock noon.
We have had five day delivery introduced. We had a national strike for three weeks in the summer of 1968. From January, 1968, to March, 1970, 1,227 post offices were closed. In April, 1969, 2,500 low budget publications lost their second class mailing privileges. In November, 1970, 140 lost mail bags were found. They had been left in a truck in March, and after the truck had been stored in some place in Montreal no one checked to see if it

January 28, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
was empty. The 140 bags were found in November. That has been the checkered career of the Post Office to have a new minister of the Crown, a Postmaster General.
We did not really need this bill to appoint a Postmaster General. As I understand it, an order in council could have appointed him. True, we need some provision to increase his pay, and rightly so. He should be paid as much as any other cabinet minister, but I am sure that could have been done by amending the Organization Act, or the act dealing with the pay of ministers. But no, Mr. Speaker, it is done through this bill.
I am against the appointment of a Postmaster General. I am surprised that the government did not propose making the Post Office a crown corporation. The government had 15 studies conducted by six consulting firms over a 12 month period. I have one such report before me, that drawn up by Kates, Peat, Marwick and Co., the first page of which reads:
From these studies emerged the overpowering conclusion that the Post Office, as a Crown corporation, could better fulfil its role in the future. It cannot operate effectively as a department of government and serious reservations exist as to whether it can continue to meet the requirements of Canada within its existing framework of operations except at exorbitant cost to the people of Canada.
This is an opinion for which the government paid. Mr. Speaker, it is the opinion of the Conservative party that a crown corporation would be a better arrangement. The government paid for this advice but did not follow it. Now it introduces this bill to appoint a Postmaster General.
Again, I quote from the consultants' report:
The quality cf the senior management group is the most significant consideration before the Post Office today. A transition to Crown corporation status and improvement of operating performance will place great pressure and demands on key executives during the next two to three years.
Yet in this bill the government proposes the appointment of a Postmaster General instead of turning the Post Office into a crown corporation.
What about the public service superannuation part of the bill? There are some good points in it. I am in accord with the proposed provision whereby any civil servant who has 30 years of service and has reached the age of 55 years can retire. That is a good idea. But nothing is said in the bill about the funded cost to the Treasury, and this will be considerable, Mr. Speaker. There will be a large price tag on that proposal.
Now, we go to deputy ministers. There is no reason given to indicate why the government wants this. I suppose one can only draw certain conclusions. The bill provides that any deputy minister with ten years' pensionable service at age 60 can retire and continue to pay contributions under the Public Service Superannuation Act. I cannot agree with that. It would be discrimination of the worst order. Why should a deputy minister have that privilege any more than an assistant deputy minister or other senior officials? Why shouldn't Members of Par-

liament be allowed to continue to pay into their pension fund after they leave here? Why shouldn't the same provision apply to everybody?
Another reason I am strongly opposed to this provision is that I understand under the present arrangement the government pays a contribution of 6J per cent and the individual pays 6| per cent. Now, if the individual retires and continues to pay his contribution the government will also continue to pay its share. If I am incorrect I hope I will be corrected, but I would hope it would be the retiring person who would pay the full amount, and that the government would pay nothing.


Mr. Drury:: That is right.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Anyway, it's a pretty good deal.
Then, there is the question of the definition of a deputy. According to the bill this means a president, chairman, or any other chief executive officer. The President of Air Canada will qualify for this. The President of of the Bank of Canada will qualify just the same as a deputy minister. The President of the IDB, the President of Polymer, and the head of the National Capital Commission will get the same deal. Nothing is said in the bill about the cost of this proposal. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that funding the superannuation account for all those people will amount to a tidy sum of money.
What about the cost of this whole package? Not one word was said about that by the minister who introduced the bill. We are going to give the government a blank cheque when we pass this bill, and I would guess that blank cheque could amount to $1 billion. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this reorganization is liable to cost the country $1 billion. Increase the number of Parliamentary Secretaries from 16 to 29 at $4,000 each, and you have an additional $52,000 right there. You have five additional ministers at $15,000, and there is another $75,000. Then, you have an unlimited number of other ministers at $7,500 each. Some of these ministers are not going to have deputy ministers but secretaries. Why does the government want to confuse the matter this way? Why not have deputy ministers in all cases? It's a real bag of tricks and you end up with a real mumbo-jumbo.
If five separate departments are set up, each with their own specific minister, their own deputy ministers and staff, the cost for each department will be in the neighbourhood of $100 million. Look at what the cost was when we established the Department of Industry. If you have five departments, you will have a cost of $500 million right here. Then, add on all the superannuation, the pension funding and the like, and I think you will find I am not too far out when I mention $1 billion as the cost of this government reorganization bill.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I simply reiterate what I said at the beginning of my speech, that I am very much opposed to the introduction of omnibus bills. I find myself in the position of wanting to vote for something but cannot support it without voting for something which I oppose. Secondly, we are taking up the time of the House debating a government re-organization bill at a
January 28, 1971

time when we should be dealing with something to help combat unemployment.
It is very difficult to figure out this new cabinet arrangement. The bill will certainly take control of certain matters out of the hands of the House and put it into the hands of the executive. I do not approve of that. As an elected representative, I feel that I ought to have the opportunity of voicing my opinion and of voting on whether a certain ministry shall be set up. I should have the right to say whether I think it is necessary or not, and to vote either for or against its establishment. Yet the bill, as drafted, will make us into mere rubberstamps. That I do not like. It is quite plain that that is the direction in which we are heading. I am, therefore, sorry that the government saw fit to bring forward Bill C-207 respecting the organization of the government of Canada.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, having heard the minister speak and having heard from gentlemen opposite, I am at a loss to understand whether this bill actually is a bill dealing with the reorganization of the government. Is it, as the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) seemed to indicate, a bill that will enable us to deal with our environment? According to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) and the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales), this bill will answer the purposes of backbenchers on this side of the House in that it will provide employment, at greater pay, for many of them.


Mr. McCleave:: The hon. member is hoping.


Steven Otto: The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants suggests that since many new positions will be made available under this bill, very few backbenchers will be left in the House. I want to assure him that he and I will always enjoy a position on the backbenches.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Hear, hear.


Steven Otto: He will remain there because he will be in opposition, and I will remain here because I have been on the backbenches for the last eight years. I see the minister laughing.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member is a good Member of Parliament.


Steven Otto: Thank you. I am considered a good member. I intend to deal with the bill. May I, first, say something about the academic discussion on the bill. We were privileged with a tutorial from the cardinal, His Eminence, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). I am sure he will not mind being called the Richelieu of Ottawa. After all, Cardinal Richelieu was one of the most famous administrators of all time, the mandarin of mandarins.


Robert Jardine McCleave: But was he not connected with a religious order?
Government Organization Act, 1970


Steven Otto: He was a professional administrator, and there is no doubt as to who was the power behind the throne in those days. Similarly, I have no doubt as to who is the power behind the throne in this country in these days. I, therefore, think it quite proper to refer to the President of the Treasury Board as "His Eminence".


Robert Jardine McCleave: The minister is being blamed for much. I expect him to rise on a question of privilege.


Steven Otto: I should like to take into account, for a moment, the historical background of Parliament. We are told almost daily that the Members of Parliament control the purse strings and the final disposition of money. I submit that that is an Alice in Wonderland type of proposition, because we all know that the amounts voted on the estimates are governed, to a great extent, by the needs of administrators who want the money. We see the estimates, but we provide no check. We obtain no information as to what this money is to be used for exactly, why it is needed and for what purpose.


An hon. Member:: That is a secret.


Steven Otto: That is how it is now. The President of the Treasury Board was quite right in saying that the reorganization of the government really affects the structure of the government and that it is within the competence of the government to carry this out. He spoke of the historical background. Previously it was the prerogative of the Crown, acting through the Privy Council, to bring about such changes. That tradition has gone. Now, the government must seek the approval of the House when it wishes to reorganize itself. Reorganization is really a government responsibility. The government is responsible for the conduct of its affairs. I am inclined to the belief, Mr. Speaker, that we may be reverting to the old system. I ask the minister to consider whether there is no possibility of our returning to the old methods of acting in Parliament. Under the reign of this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-and I use the word "reign" advisedly- perhaps we ought to consider whether we should not revert to ancient practices in which all members of the House, whether on the government side or the opposition, joined together in opposition to the ministry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven Otto: Without any doubt in the world, I think the Prime Minister at present has the absolute mandate of the people. I am not saying this in any derogatory way; I am saying it out of admiration. I ask people whose noses are freezing outside the West Block in winter or who are roasting there in summer, "Why are you here?" They say that they want to see the Prime Minister. Recently the Prime Minister went to the Maritimes, one of our poorer areas, and then he went out west before the wheat had been sold. He came back a hero. Judging from that, I do not think there is any doubt that he will command the allegiance of the people of Canada for a long time to come. I, therefore, feel that Members of Parliament could well revert to the position that they enjoyed previously in history before the organization of parties.
23786-39J

January 28, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, may I now speak to the bill itself. It is to set up ministers of state responsible for certain areas. I do not object to that. I see nothing objectionable in giving ministers responsibilities for certain areas. For example, there is no cabinet portfolio for the minister in charge of housing. Housing is not necessarily a municipal problem; it is a national problem also. I think there ought to be some cabinet position dealing with this matter. Housing must be made the responsibility of some department of government, otherwise some of us will say, "Housing is a municipal problem, and we therefore cannot deal with it. The subject will not fit into any pigeon hole in Ottawa." The result will be that we shall not be able to deal with housing in a responsible way.
Urban problems must also be dealt with. May I, in that connection, commend the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing for his recent innovation which resulted in officials of CMHC as well as other experts taking part in a sort of "think" week. Hon. members will recall, as was reported in the press a few days ago, that the minister, CMHC officials and other experts in the field of housing, took two or three days off from their regular duties to consider the very serious problems in the field of housing. The minister wanted advice. That was the first time the mandarins or administrators had actually invited opinions from other experts. I commend the minister for that. I ask him not to pay attention to sneaky remarks in the press which complained that the conference had cost $12,000, as though that was a fantastic amount. If the conference had cost ten times that sum it still would have been worth it.
I now intend to deal with one of the provisions of the bill found on page 5, that provision dealing with the National Research Council. I am glad that the President of the Treasury Board has remained in the House to hear our speeches. That, I think, is most responsible on his part. He knows well that I do not easily flatter ministers. Would the minister give some thought to renaming the National Research Council, mentioned under part III, and calling it the Research and Development Corporation? It should be a crown owned corporation for research and development. May I explain my reasons for my request. As the report of the Senate Committee on Science Policy indicates, scientific research in this country is broken into fragments. We have medical research, research for military purposes, research into aircraft, and so on. All in all, we spend about $4 billion on research in Canada.
The complaint in the Senate report is that this research is not applied research, but almost pure research which is applied to one small department. The research branch within the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will have absolutely no meaning unless it is co-ordinated with the Department of Finance, Department of External Affairs and other departments. Because our industry is not large enough to support private interest and development, a crown corporation will always be needed. This corporation should be responsible for all phases of
research, scientific, market, inventory, sales, export, manufacturing and medical. Everything should be combined in one corporation.
I wish to give an example of what I am talking about. At the present time, the research corporation is being used almost exclusively for the military. It should have a much better and broader application within the government. At the moment, we are having a little more luck than we probably deserve with regard to exports. However, we have a problem with uranium. We are stockpiling it. The president of the uranium company is suing the Prime Minister on some issue. The world lacks uranium. Canada has very large quantities of uranium. What are we going to do with it? If we had a proper research and development corporation, people in that corporation would realize that many places in the world need electrical energy but do not have the necessary $180 million, $200 million or $300 million to build an atomic power plant. The need is for small package units that would produce electrical energy. These could be exported on a lease basis rather than selling them. These could be installed in Bolivia, Colombia, Argentina, Africa, the near East or anywhere else they are required. These countries could be charged on the basis of kilowatt usage. Imagine what would happen in these areas if they had power to start new industries and education. They do not have these primitive things which we take for granted. When speaking to the president of the Atomic Energy Commission, he informed me that such a plan had been investigated for many years. However, it would be rather expensive. He compared it to the cost of Canadian power which is generated from water. That is not the issue.
One segment of a research development corporation could research the demand for power throughout the world and what price countries would be willing to pay. Another segment could work with the Atomic Energy Commission to develop a small unit capable of producing 300 or a few thousand kilowatts. This could be installed in villages and towns without great expanses of hydro lines and cables. Canadian electrical engineers in the corporation could work on developing ways and means of packaging small units. Researchers in the Department of External Affairs could research conditions in countries willing to buy these units, as well as the agreements we would make with these countries. The financial research people could determine the length of time these units would be required and the profits that could be earned by our manufacturers. Another segment of researchers within this corporation could service these units.
It would be necessary to determine how much uranium we have in Canada. Also, how could we avoid having this uranium used for other than peaceful purposes? Market research could also be conducted by this corporation. When a report was issued by the corporation, all departments of government would have an accurate picture. This might help solve our problems with uranium, unemployment and rationalize our industry.
Canada almost has a world monopoly on uranium. We have productive facilities and good engineering techniques. No one will deny that we should be the most

January 28, 1971

efficient nation in the world in producing electrical power plants. At present, we have people who are interested in this subject but they are enclosed within one small department, Atomic Energy Commission. Their message does not reach any other minister. Instead of an approach concept to research, we have tiny bits of research.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) informed me that his department has a very large research and development branch. I repeat, they only deal with a very small segment of the field. When introducing the previous bill in this House, the minister talked at some length about coloured shirts. Because we now have coloured shirts, he thought this would be the salvation of our textile industry. This is a little off the track and I ask Your Honour to bear with me. The minister thought because there are so many coloured shirts that Canadian manufacturers would exist in perpetuity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That day you had on a white shirt.


Steven Otto: I am glad the hon. member made that remark. The shirt I am wearing was a Christmas present from my mother-in-law. I need not say anything further about why I am wearing this shirt. The male animal is inclined to be a rather lazy creature. In the morning he has only seven minutes in which to get dressed. That is not much of a problem because he only has the choice of one suit and maybe two or three ties. The computations are only one in three. However, if he has to compile the proper tie with the proper shirt with the proper suit, he is faced with the computation of 27 choices. In a short time everyone will be back to the white shirt because it is a simple way of doing things.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the reason I kept mine.


Steven Otto: The minister is flying by the seat of his pants. His department and many others operate by intuition. Intuition is not enough. We need careful research.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Or your mother-in-law.


Steven Otto: I hope she does not read this Hansard. I have resisted the coloured shirts because there is only room for one peacock in a pen. I am not going to compete in this enclosure because we already have someone who is a very keen and avant garde dresser.
I hope I have explained what I hope will be called Part III of the bill. Instead of the research council, I hope the government will introduce a crown-owned research and development corporation. In the past I have tried to point out the need for such a corporation.
Recently I was approached by a fairly responsible electrical engineer. He pointed out that we have the St. Lawrence canal. We also have the problem of where to build atomic energy plants and what to do about the hot water that results from them. He suggested building a plant above each of the locks. In this way we would have a winter canal system which would be open all year.
Government Organization Act, 1970 When I asked how this would affect the ecology, he said this would require more study but he felt it could be done. The St. Lawrence canal system cost us a fortune. It is only used six or seven months of the year. At present, who could investigate this plan? People within a research and development corporation could instigate research. These people would then inform manufacturers, private industry, even the government, what were the market prospects for South America. They would be able to tell manufacturers of, for example, luggage or stainless steel-ware that there was a solid market with a good efficiency rating. The same report could be presented to the Department of Finance, the Industrial Development Bank and so on. Exporters could be told that they could get financing from the Export Development Corporation. All this could be done as one packaged unit.
* (3:40 p.m.)
This is what is required, and in this regard the minister should heed very seriously the advice of the Senate Committee on Science Policy. Then, he could ascertain whether he does not agree with me that the real need is for an application of research. Before research is applied it must be assembled by such a corporation. That is all I have to say about this bill. I have not taken too much time, but even though I have been short and to the point, I hope the minister will understand that I am very serious in my suggestions. If the minister examines the problem I think he will find that a secretary of state in charge of such a corporation is what is required in Canada; and I do not think any member of the House would object to the appointment of a minister of such a department.


Mr. Jack Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, a lot of ground has already been covered, and I am not going to enlarge on the argument whether or not we should have an omnibus bill. However, I do want to agree with the necessity for reorganization in the interest of better government, though I do not necessarily think, from what I have read of this bill, that this is the proper way to bring it about.
What the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) has said, in essence, is that we are seeking to give Canadians the kind of government they want. This, of course, is the avowed wish of every member of this House. I make bold to say that what the people of Canada want today is a system of government that gives the people full employment, and I am still of the opinion that they want this under a free enterprise system. I do not think we should try to give the people of Canada more government in a quantitative sense, but rather that we should try to improve the quality of government.
This is why I do not agree that we need more ministers. What we need is better manipulation of the ministries we now have, and I do not think this is beyond accomplishment. I do not think ministers can give leadership in the departmental set-up we presently have unless the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does his share. Since my experience of being prime minister is not very great, of course, I cannot criticize the present Prime Minister on this score. Therefore, I will attack the problem from

January 28, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 quite a different angle. I am going to suggest that the backbenchers on both sides of the House do not do their work properly. If they did, then I believe that the backbenchers of this House have the power, under your able leadership, Mr. Speaker, to discipline the treasury benches, and through them the Prime Minister himself.
In 1939 and 1940 we had an example of what happened when the back benchers of England, and through them the cabinet ministers, failed to discipline their prime minister. The excuse for this is always the same, of course-that since the prime minister has final say he must be given a great deal of leeway in choosing his cabinet, and so on. The Prime Minister must have the power of going to any corner of the realm to pick those men who can best serve their country. In the final analysis, his judgment is a human one.
In our parliamentary system we take from the ranks of the people certain men of various occupations and backgrounds to lead the country. But the process does not end there. It is only now, some 30 years after the event, that I have been given the answer, and perhaps fortuitously no later than this morning, as to why Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the then prime minister of England, was so incapable of leading that country. The answer is plain and simple: he lacked not only certain knowledge, but he absolutely refused to take advantage of the advice of those men who were close to him who did have the knowledge, the ability and the courage to lead Britain. One of these men, whom I need hardly mention, in parliament at that time was one Winston Churchill, who for most of his life was a backbencher. However, his contribution as a backbencher was so outstanding that when nobody else in England had the ability to get the country out of the hole it was in as a result of wishful thinking and high-sounding ideals but with complete disregard for human nature and the facts of history, they reached into the back benches to bring out Mr. Churchill over and over again.
At the height of his power, although he always made decisions himself-and strong they were-and although he gave leadership such as we have seldom seen in any democratic country, he remained open to persuasion by those around him. He very rarely, if ever, marched out into the forum of the world to make big decisions affecting not only his country but the future of mankind without at least having had full consultation.
That is a lesson not too far back in history which I think we would do well to remember today. As I have said, I am not going to presume to tell the Prime Minister how to do his job. But I do suggest that every backbencher of this House should do his job, namely, to see that the government and its policies fit the needs of the people. If they do not, then if necessary members should have the courage to regroup, not up-country preaching revolution and growing radishes but in their own caucus in Ottawa. If we cannot persuade those in authority in our own caucus, then we should find a caucus where we can. We have had one or two examples of great courage in this House, and I think the results have been, and will continue to be, very salutary.
It is not sufficient for ministers of the Crown to point to hon. members on this side, as they have done during the past year, and to say that they get no leadership from the opposition. Let me assure them that if they show us leadership and reorganize for better government, then they will get all the support they want, and perhaps a great deal more than they can sell to the treasury benches and to their own leader. I do not want to be negative and am not going to spend the few minutes at my disposal being negative. But I do want to remind the House that one or two other mistakes have been made that I think should not have been made. Let me tell these ministers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member, whose speech is very interesting-and I do not want to put him off stride-but it does seem to me that in the last few minutes he got rather carried away and forgot that he should address his remarks to the Chair.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not intend to direct my remarks to the House in any other manner. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I beg the members of the government not to repeat what I think are errors in the approach to governing in general. This has been the cause of what might appear to be a lack of co-operation from this side of the House.
In the second paragraph of the press report of the speech of the President of the Treasury Board there is the suggestion that the best answer to this apparent riddle lies in a strengthening of the parliamentary institution. Parliament has only one big stick. Once people have made their choice of a political party-that is how we are elected and I do not quarrel with this at the present time-and once we have elected an executive, there is only one way that Parliament, including the backbenchers on both sides of the House, can control what may be a well-meaning executive which is getting out of line and does not have the confidence of this whole House.
The only control we have over such an executive is monetary control. If we are to preserve any parliamentary control whatsoever, we must maintain monetary control. If there is no control, we have no democracy and the whole riddle will be solved once and for all. If we are to maintain this system, as I am sure all of us want to do, we must stop what we have been doing openly. Had we lost this right of monetary control accidentally, we might be able to excuse ourselves. Six years ago we gave up our Easter recess in order to debate the dangers of allowing Vote 15, which I think we all remember, of becoming a means whereby the executive could sidestep Parliament and raise salaries. At page 10003 of Hansard for November 17, 1966, just four and a half years ago, I indulged myself in a little prophesying. Let me quote what I said then:

I do not know why the vote could not be increased to $500 million next year in order to get around the power of Parliament.
[Mr. Bigg.l
January 28, 1971

Just two days ago I was looking over the votes to come before Parliament and I noticed that this same vote has, by devious means, reached the astounding sum of $250 million. In 1966 I might say quite frankly I was exaggerating in an attempt to create a dramatic effect, but we now see that this vote has reached the halfway mark of that figure which I mentioned. At that time, it was $15 million and it has now reached $250 million. To all intents and purposes, our control over Parliament and its daily proceedings has been very seriously weakened.
As hon. members know, we have changed the method by which estimates come before the House. It is very difficult now to debate the estimates of any department thoroughly because of the allotted time. The government is getting bigger every day. As I said a few minutes ago, it is not the size of the government which will help us out of our difficulties, but rather the quality. There is a danger in allowing an executive, liberally oriented, conservatively oriented or socialistically oriented, to have unlimited powers without control. The basic human desire for power and of an increase in power is irresistible. It is our job to reorganize government along better lines and to see that, instead of increasing the number of departments, we do everything we can to ensure that the departments we now have streamline their efforts from the top down. It is understood that the departments accept reasonable proposals from their ministers, but the ministers should keep their ears to the ground so far as their backbenchers are concerned.
Instead of setting up an even greater bureaucracy in every department with more and more experts knowing more and more about less and less, we should return to the good old, common sense days of Parliament. We have 265 men here who have been chosen at random but who represent the common sense and the good judgment of the average Canadian citizen. That is good enough for me.
I would go along with the presidential system if I thought anybody in Canada or anybody in the world, for that matter, had enough knowledge, integrity, application and the popularity to lead the Canadian people through thick and thin. History has shown that such a man has never been produced. In my opinion, the greatest leaders in history have been those who have been great enough to reduce their ultimate power by sharing it among men they recognized as being as dedicated, as knowledgeable and as loyal to their country and the free enterprise principles for which they stood. It is when such men are willing to share these powers, and when those of us who sit behind the chosen leaders have the courage to discipline them, that Parliament works best.
Monetary control is our only weapon. We must be able to refuse to pay these people who are not carrying out the will of the people. That is the only way Parliament can work. I will fight against this as long as I am here, and I will not preach to others that which I will not do myself. Any time my party seeks to subvert the will of the people by giving them things they do not want or by setting up power groups beyond the control of the people, I will seek a seat elsewhere in this House. I do not think it will be necessary to go back home to Alberta to preach
Government Organization Act, 1970 revolution and grow radishes-and I have grown my share of radishes. I have seen the results of the preaching of revolution. I should like to see a little more evolution in respect of our affairs. Perhaps we should even take a step backward toward the days when we believed in the very institution to which we belong, and to which we have sworn to dedicate our time and loyalty.
In a little lighter vein, let me say I was interested in the dream expressed by the last speaker of keeping the St. Lawrence Seaway open. A dream is one thing, but practical operation is another. If the previous speaker had thought for a moment he might have recalled that rainfall in Canada is marginal and if it were not for the wisdom of the Almighty in freezing up our lakes and rivers in the winter time most of Canada would be a desert.
The idea of keeping our rivers and lakes open all year has to be thought out very carefully. At this time we require a great deal of research before interfering with the nature of our rivers and lakes, the ecology of our Arctic, the wild creatures, and even the future of our forests, grasses and other growth. There is a need for research. In Parliament, a multiplicity of ideas are expressed and I believe an alert executive could pick out the important things, be they dreams or solid, well thought out scientific advice. No one man has all the knowledge.
e (4:00 p.m.)
I realize, of course, that I have been somewhat negative and critical up to this point. However, when I rise to speak I usually try to offer something positive as well. If we accept the fact that these ministries are necessary- and I have no doubt we will have them-I should like to suggest how the extra amount of taxpayers' money which is to be spent in this regard might be used. There are two ministries which are long overdue. I suppose people are thinking that, first, I talk about cutting down and then talk about creating additional ministries. I say that if we are to have new ministries let us exercise some common sense in this regard. We need a ministry of youth. This is not a new idea. Ten years ago I spoke at length in this House about the need for a department or a minister of youth. I believe the ten years which have elapsed since then have proven the need.
Every department of government in Canada, to a certain extent, is involved with the problems of youth, some deeply and some not so deeply. There should be co-ordination of the work of these departments. I do not think the pied piper approach will work as well as the previous speaker suggested. I believe the young people of today, if the pending federal election is held off for another 18 months, will probably have the vote. Most of them will be unemployed unless we do something about that problem. I believe a ministry of youth could well make this its number one project. There is the danger, of course, that people who are not in favour of the idea of a department of youth will say I wish to establish a Hitler youth movement. Far be it from me; but it is essential that the interests of our young people be co-ordinated. A great percentage of the taxpayers' dollar is involved in

January 28, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 their education. Their future in terms of job placement is very complicated at present. The trade training program of a previous administration was probably the best thing it did. It far exceeded in importance the bill in respect of the Great Slave Railway, the selling of wheat to Red China or any of the other short-term stop-gap things which are very necessary and important.
However, the welfare of our youth involves the welfare of our whole nation. The youth will not be satisfied with the dulcet tones of the pied piper's music any longer. They want something solid; they want assurance that they will have an opportunity to take their place in this new dynamic Canadian society. They want to help us beat the Japanese and the West Germans in the markets of the world. I hope they will never be called upon to fight in our armed forces, but they certainly will be called upon to serve in a Canada which is alert to its responsibilities in the world. In terms of economics, we are in the proud position today of having our balance of payments position good and our exports high. Yet, it is strange in this age of great and magnificent affluence for many of us-some people say for 90 per cent of us-that 10 per cent of our population, and most of them young people, should be neglected. This is not the fault of any one administration. My party formed the administration when I begged for action in this regard. I have begged for it ever since. Several provinces have taken up this challenge and their departments of youth are working very well.
The original dream in respect of the Company of Young Canadians was good. I believe we learned something from that. I do not think we should put off any longer the consolidation of our efforts on behalf of the young people merely because we made a mistake. Far from it; the mistakes in respect of the Company of Young Canadians should be merely sign posts along the road indicating where the soft ground is. But let us have leadership. Let us not place this responsibility on the shoulders of a junior member of the new administration. Such a person should not be a sub-cabinet man but rather the finest leader we have. If necessary this responsibility could be that of the Prime Minister himself. If he has the magic touch with the young people, why not put it into action; why not give our young people the leadership they are anxious to have. We do not want only the 13 year old girls with autograph books waiting for the next act of the Prime Minister. We want the college graduates, the young men and women who desire homes and solid jobs in Canada, clamouring on Parliament Hill.
I wish many of these young people would march here with banners calling for this type of action. This would be preferable to having them lead a revolution or a movement to upset the government. I submit that so far the government's best has not been good enough. A negative approach is not good enough. When there are not sufficient jobs to go around in Canada I do not think it is good enough to say, "let us just share the jobs we have". This attitude reminds me of a snake with its tail in its mouth. I am afraid that when we have had 10 more years
of this there will not be a snake. I suggest we should have a plan for Canada which is big enough to include all of us. In a country the size of ours there should be a clamour for immigrants. The future in Canada should be such that a solution would be possible for even the problem the young people are worried about. They do not want to bring babies into this world because some of them say there is no future here. I would like to think that every family could have four children who would have a future and that no one would have to worry about abortion.
I would like to see the people in the position of having to worry about income tax and running away from Benson. I would like to see them in the position where they would have to worry about paying $4,000 or $5,000 income tax on an income of $15,000. That is the kind of worry they want. If this reorganization of government means that the cabinet ministers will be able to solve some of these problems, then I know there will be a good deal of co-operation from both sides of the House. If we find that members of all parties in this House are absolutely bankrupt of any ideas, or any loyalty to the people of Canada, then it will be obvious that we are already overpaid. I happen to think that a Member of Parliament who does his work is probably donating his time. It is not well-known that the average take home pay of a Member of Parliament is that of a public school teacher. Many people come here at a monetary disadvantage. They do not have their arms up to the elbows in the public treasury. Those people who speak out at this time will have very little chance of getting the double pay that is to be offered to these extra cabinet ministers.
I believe it is very dangerous to think that any government in Canada is in such an entrenched position that it does not have to worry about a turnover in the future. I do not think for a minute that government members should be worried about their own tenure of office; far from it, but it is discouraging to hear it said in this House "we are not worried about you". I do not expect them to be worried about me or my leadership or lack of leadership, but I do expect them to be worried about the fact that the people of Canada are looking for quality in government which they do not think they are getting at present.
Having been here 12 years, I know how difficult it is to gain a reputation for giving the kind of service which the public wants. But we have to go to work on it and we will have to have the co-operation of everyone. I do not think it is necessary to try to make something appear legal which, in fact, is not legal. I do not think it is necessary to try to fool anyone. I think much time may be gained by coming out in the open and explaining to us what the problem is. Let us take, for example, the problem that arose about hiring Francophone students. I for one was very disappointed that it became a cause celebre. I feel certain that if we had known all the facts, which we did not know, this would have been unnecessary because there are equally generous offers for every-

January 28, 1971

one in this country. These matters should have been discussed frankly in the House.
The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) who spoke before me referred to the dream he has. I will give you mine. I do not know how this dream could be brought about except through the agreement of all parties. I should like to see, as a result of government reorganization, some machinery established which would enable us to have an all party caucus which would meet once a month. Since we are all prima donnas, to a greater or lesser extent, I would want the press to be excluded from these meetings. Thus, we would have an opportunity once a month to appeal to members in all parties without our remarks getting into the press and without trying to influence the people back home. We could speak with as much confidence as one could expect in this bear pit about matters on which we will agree.
One such matter, for example, could be the full employment of our young people. We could discuss the problem and thus find ways of shortening the discussion in the House. We could discuss the expenditures necessary for training facilities and for leadership, for all the things that would be necessary to overcome not only the problem at present but as it might develop in the future in view of automation and outside competition in a highly industrialized and aggressive business world. For this we would need the co-operation of everyone. Is it too much to ask that we meet once a month, if necessary behind closed doors because we are not sufficiently mature to do it in the open, to discuss matters which would benefit the people of Canada as well as the rest of the world on which we do not really require any debate?
In this way, we could eliminate the bottleneck which we encounter here on all matters which do not require debate and which are very serious. It seems to me that we would then not have to wait for a place on the Order Paper. Once a month we could donate an hour or two of our time. This would not necessarily be compulsory but we could say "I was there and I told the government how far I was willing to go along the road of co-operation." This has not been done since the days of Burke and Pitt-more is the pity. In the last 200 years we have solved some of the problems which they faced in those days. In the days of Pitt and Burke-the great men of the English parliamentary system-there was child labour. Children, some of them with tuberculosis, were washing bottles 18 hours a day in garrets.
The problem we have now in Canada is sharing too much wealth. Some of us are so drunk with our own wealth that we are willing to sit back and say that we can stand 10 per cent unemployment. Perhaps I understand the situation because I lived for a good many years of my life among the 10 per cent who did not have too much. I did not have a two car garage. I lived in a world where one did not always have enough to feed the children and one had to have the scars of labour on one's hands. I think that the reason this institution is still working is that we can still stand up and debate here. I hope it is not too late to get through at least to the
Government Organization Act, 1970 backbenchers in this House and to say that we all agree on certain matters. If we are going to use 35 ministers to do what 30 people are able to do, let us hope that the 35 will work more effectively than the government has done in the past.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, it would be assuming a lot to say that, should this bill be passed by the House, I might become the first Parliamentary Secretary of the new Department of Environment. Of course I would be honoured to assume that responsibility and to serve the government and the minister in that capacity.
I support readily Bill C-207 respecting the organization of the government of Canada and the setting up of a new department-some have called it a superdepartment- which will assume tremendous responsibilities with regard to the management and protection of our environment.
I endorse this bill because it has become necessary to place under one authority most of the responsabilities relating to environmental quality. It would be easy to believe that this new department has been made necessary because public opinion has been requesting it in recent years. Obviously, its establishment was suggested in the recommendation of various task forces, by several hon. members and even by editorialists.
However, let us not oversimplify like the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) who said and I quote:
The government knows that the public are distressed and alarmed about the pollution of our air, water and soil. It knows that the public are clamouring for action. So the government has decided that this is a popular issue and that it must do something to appease the public clamour. The government's solution is to appoint a minister to deal with this matter. But, Mr. Speaker, the mere establishment of a bureaucracy under one minister will not in itself cope with the problem of increasing pollution.
Mr. Speaker-as I said a few moments ago-this is political small talk. The government is obviously aware of the expectations of the public and knows it must take them into consideration in due course. Creation of the Department of Environment became necessary because of the need for the federal and provincial governments to control pollution through efforts which should logically result in setting up an organization responsible for a good number of the serious and widespread pollution problems that affect air, water, land, in a word, for everything that moves and blows.
Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of delivering a lecture on the quality of the environment. It is true that I would have a whole series of opinions to express and I know that all hon. members will not necessarily agree with me. We know by experience that their opinions vary easily. In any case, there will be other chances for me to speak on the subject of environment.
2860

January 28, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
Today, I speak in support of this new government measure. In the past, I have had, in my capacity as a simple member, the opportunity of requesting a better governmental organization that would admit of more rigid control over the rational development of our natural resources and that would allow for the passing of more adequate conservation measures. And on this question, I agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) who has said so eloquently, and I quote:
We all agree that the idea of having one minister responsible for pollution control and for the preservation of our environment is a good one. It is being suggested that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) will probably be appointed to that post. He is a man who has always been deeply concerned about pollution problems. 1-Ie comes from a part of Canada where we have seen some of the devastating effects of pollution, in particular its effects on our fishing industry, and I think the choice of that minister to become head of a department of the environment is a good one.
Some will say this new department should have been established several years ago. Undeniably, the new name, Department of Environment, will focus attention particularly in the fight against pollution but it is wrong to claim that up to now the government was not concerned with the problem. In fact, excellent legislation has been introduced here, sponsored by other departments, since the early days of this Parliament,-and I give as an example, the Canada Water Act, which in the future will come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Environment. For a good number of years, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry had some prerogatives that enabled him to conduct the fight against water pollution in particular. It would be fair to say that water pollution has always been a major concern of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry.
Besides, the idea of setting up a Department of Environment is beginning to take form in several if not all provincial governments and specially in New Brunswick where they decided to follow the example set by the federal government. They cannot be blamed. On the contrary, they deserve encouragement.
Some will say that it was not necessary to reorganize certain elements of the administration. The answer to that is that times have changed and the government must necessarily adapt its structures to the priorities of the day. In fact, it has to act before a crisis develops and in the present situation, it must try to protect ecology.
I think that the new department will neither be too big nor too powerful, if the need for it is recognized from the start. This is too serious a time, Mr. Speaker, to linger on idle considerations.
I believe that all hon. members sincerely acknowledge the need for the new department responsible for the balanced management and control of our renewable res-sources as well as the quality of the natural and human environment. Some will say we do not go far enough, others that we are too late, that we did not act quickly enough, etc. If those people are sincere, they will not hesitate to adopt the proposal presently under study. As a matter of fact, I invite them to bring forward some

constructive criticism, and not some purely partisan considerations, in order to help the government carry out its mandate in an enlightened way.
I listened yesterday to all hon. members who spoke on this bill. I heard the hon. member for Kootenay-West (Mr. Harding) read some extracts from the 9th review of the Economic Council of Canada, advocating the establishment of an environment council. I am happy that he is considering this recommendation seriously.
A little over a week ago, the hon. member for Mal-peque (Mr. MacLean) urged the government to establish a human environment council. Rising to speak on that occasion, I quoted several passages from the 9th review of the Economic Council.
There is no problem here. To my mind, all members as well as the government agree that it would be useful and appropriate to create such a council whose task would be to give advice and recommendations and perhaps suggest bold and positive policies. This environment council will probably be established eventually and I hope it will be soon.
The member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) has expressed the fear that the fisheries service, and in the end all the services provided to fishermen until now, would be lost in this new Department of the Environment.
I can understand his point of view, but the minister has already given us assurance that it will not be so. The fisheries service will keep its identity; it will continue to give improved services and to suggest bolder policies in connection with all Canadian fisheries, whether they be Atlantic or Pacific coast fisheries, Arctic or soft water fisheries.
It would be wrong for any member to interpret the merger of the Department of Fisheries and the Department of the Environment as a death blow to fisheries or even as a lack of interest on the part of the government in one of the oldest and most respected occupations in North America.
I would even go as far as saying that any member who would so interpret the creation of the new department would be practicing partisan politics. This having been said, I admit that any member has a right to speak that way. To me, such a stand would denote that he has not understood the significant objectives proposed by the government in instituting the important Department of the Environment.
o (4:30 p.m.)
On reading the remarks of the hon. member for South Shore, I noticed certain parts which give me some concern as to his objectivity. I still respect the strength of his arguments, but I do not know what the hon. member meant yesterday. He wanted to act as the spokesman for his party, for the fishing industry, with regard to Bill C-207. I could not help noticing the confusion of his assertions.
On the one hand, he clearly admitted that he agreed in principle with certain parts of the bill, such as the Part I,
January 28, 1971

dealing with the establishment of the department of the environment. He actually said, and I quote:
-I welcome the establishment of the department of the environment.
Then he stated, after having admitted that he had always considered the Department of Fisheries and Forestry as a full-time occupation, and I quote:
Now, if this is so, I can only conclude that the minister designate for this new conglomerate will be bogged and overburdened, so something is going to suffer.
Let us face the facts.
With a department of such magnitude, ministerial responsibility is no longer possible, because of the sheer amount of work.
It becomes impossible to look after all those matters, according to the honourable member. But what solution does he suggest to reduce the burden of the minister? He objects to the appointment of five Ministers of State. He stated:
This is a preposterous recommendation.
-a political piracy of the public purse by this Liberal government.
The minister will be too busy, but the honourable member does not want him to have a parliamentary secretary to help him.
I do not understand what the hon. member is driving at, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, his story does not make sense. We might learn something more at the committee stage.
I also want to say that I did not intend to pick on the member for South Shore for whom I have much esteem as a fellow citizen of the Atlantic provinces. I merely quoted his words to show the confusion other members of his party share with him, because they approach the bill from a much too partisan viewpoint. Yet, they do not have the monopoly of truth.
Fortunately, the member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) who is carefully listening to me this afternoon and whom I also like very much, is a little more understanding. Therefore, there is a little hope for that side of the House.
We must be wise enough to change with public opinion, with the sometimes upsetting turn of events. We must not fear to help make history. To keep what is good, to preserve and to improve our environment or some parts of it, to wisely develop our resources, considering the quality of the environment, to seek man's happiness, to ensure our future and the future of generations to come, such is the difficult task of the new Department of the Environment.
I shall limit my remarks on that particular subject, Mr. Speaker. I might have more to say at the committee stage or at the third reading stage.
In conclusion, I would like to quote an excerpt from the Christian Science Monitor of December 11, 1970, a newspaper distributed free of charge to all members-in fact I do not know why-that contains many editorials on pollution, ecology and all that.
This newspaper tells us that the Americans are as much concerned with this matter as we are.
Government Organization Act, 1970
The article I mentioned is entitled:

"Silver lining seen in pollution cloud". The article, in part, reads as follows:
America's crackdown on pollution is proving to be a blessing in disguise for some businessmen. Widespread concern about environmental spoilage and destruction is inspiring invention and creating a wide new field of private enterprise as well as thousands of jobs and career opportunities.
So, instead of fighting the antipollution wave, often directed at industry, many smart industrialists are taking advantage of it.
How much and how fast this new business grows may depend on how tough cities, states, and the federal government are on environmental polluters and how much money the taxpayer is willing to spend to clean up the sky, earth, and water around him. Only a few firms will spend money for pollution abatement without being forced to.
A little further on, the article reads:
Much of the new environmental concern by industry is obviously the direct result of state and federal antipollution
legislation. Local governments generally have been much slower to respond. -
Dr. Robert W. Cairns, vice-president for research for Hercules Corporation of Wilmington, Del., predicts that industry can solve this nation's pollution problems 'with proper environmental and economic incentives.' -
H. D. Doan, president of Dow Chemical Company, another industrial giant, recently spoke in a similar vein. He chastised industrialists for complaining about the financial burden of antipollution legislation and told them to turn the situation into business and profits by providing 'new ways of thinking and new technical answers.'
Industry, he said, can make money in the vast environmental cleanup.
I am not opposed to that, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Would that not raise the cost to the consumer?


Eymard G. Corbin: This, I submit, is a progressive-not conservative-attitude worth mentioning during the study of this bill.
It would be unfortunate if some politicians were to lead the public to believe that the responsibility for eliminating pollution rests entirely with the government. In this fight against environmental pollution, our primary objective is sound balance between those resources which could be exploited for the benefit of the Canadian people and mankind in general and preservation, conservation and restoration. There should be balance in the distribution of efforts in order to wipe out pollution, and these efforts should be exerted equally by the various levels of government and industry. The time has come for our businessmen and our industrialists to join forces and attune their efforts and expenditures to those of the governments.
Finally, I will say that young people who are still undecided as to their future career should give a thought to the wide field of activities related to this fight against pollution.
23786-40i

January 28, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: principle that our vote on second reading will help to decide. I suggest it is not.
Stephen Leacock once described Parliament as:
-a place where men come together merely to hear the latest legislation and indulge in cheers sighs, groans, votes and other expressions of vitality.
Parliament may often resemble that description, but in spite of all it does serve the useful function of helping to focus public attention upon matters of concern and to define and delineate the considerations involved. In so doing, Parliament aids the public in coming to intelligent conclusions about the actions of government and helps individual members of the public to decide their own position on questions of importance. This whole process, so key to the effective functioning of a democratic state, is injured and perhaps even dies when the issues before Parliament become unfocused and blurred about the edges, when the manner in which they are presented lacks clarity and precision. Nothing could obscure issues better than does this bill and yet the government would have us believe that some of its provisions will strengthen our democracy.
Bernard Crick in his book, "The Reform of Parliament" had this to say:
The only meanings of parliamentary control worth considering, and worth the House spending much of its time on are those which do not threaten the parliamentary defeat of a government, but which help to keep it responsive to the underlying currents and the more important drifts of public opinion. All others are purely antiquarian shufflings. It is wholly legitimate for any modern government to do what it needs to guard against parliamentary defeat; but it is not legitimate for it to hinder parliament, particularly the opposition, from reaching the public ears effectively as it can. Governments must govern in the expectation that they can serve out their statutory period of office, that they can plan-if they choose-at least that far ahead, but that everything they do may be exposed to the light of day and that everything they say may be challenged in circumstances designed to make criticism as authorative, informed and as public as possible.
I, in principle, accept that statement, although I would reserve the right to modify it in detail. The corollary of such a statement is that votes in the House are no longer the important control over the actions of the executive. Rather, appeals by the opposition to the electorate are the important control. The only real sanction, the only real stricture on government action now, is the prospect of defeat in the next election.
With a majority government and the well-established pattern of voting solidly by party, the votes in Parliament are virtually meaningless and are useless as a means of effecting parliamentary control. What is important in the functioning of Parliament is the opportunity for discussion. What is important in the functioning of Parliament is the quality of the discussion conducted. What is important in the functioning of Parliament is that discussion be focused. How in heavens name can discussion be focused when a bill includes at least five different matters of principle? How are the gentlemen in the press gallery going to impose an order and a theme upon a debate which will bounce from pollution, to ministers' salaries, to pensions, to jobs for the boys, to the post office and back again? And how, as a consequence, is
Government Organization Act, 1970
the public supposed to form any opinion except that this place is a hopeless mess?
I have already described the dangers attendant upon Parliament becoming a less effective mechanism of control over the executive, and a less sensitive instrument for transmitting to and impressing upon the executive the needs and aspirations of the people of Canada. The increasing use of the omnibus bill as a means of presenting government legislation is but another in a long series of steps taken by the Prime Minister to make Parliament as irrelevant in fact as it always has been in his fancy. Every measure which this government has taken in the name of Parliamentary reform or government reorganization, including this bill, has had the effect of making Parliament increasingly irrelevant and powerless and of expanding the power of the cabinet, more especially the Prime Minister.
I suppose one could argue two exceptions to this general rule, the first being the government's endorsation of the new committee system, the second being the provision of research assistance to opposition parties. I do not intend to launch into an analysis of each, but in reality they represent the Prime Minister, the illusionist, at his best-or worst. Its the old shell game. Research assistance was given to the opposition parties and now to government backbenchers, but not enough to make a profound difference in the effectiveness of the House, simply enough to make it appear that something had happened. In the case of committees, they were denied the staff and the powers which would have made them truly effective and immediately the government began pointedly to ignore their existence. As an illustration, I need only refer to the fact that a decision was taken by the government on its role in NATO at the same time as a parliamentary committee was sitting to determine its position on that very matter, or to the fact that the government decided to cancel the Prince Edward Island Causeway project before a standing committee of the House examining that question, among others, had had the opportunity to conclude its deliberations. There are a multitude of other examples.
I want to look briefly at some of the other developments which have contributed to the aggrandizement of the cabinet, especially the Prime Minister, at the expense of parliament. I do this at the invitation of the President of the Treasury Board who has indicated to the House that one of the purposes of this bill is to give us an opportunity to discuss the development of the ministry and its future.
One of the first things the Prime Minister did on entering the House was to establish a roster or system of rotation for the appearance of ministers during the question period. This measure was taken by the Prime Minister without any prior consultation with opposition parties, even though a committee to study procedure was at that time being established. The delays and buck-passing made possible by the roster system have down-graded the importance of the question period, made the atmosphere in the House a lot less electric, and given ministers more time to prepare a mass of verbiage with which to

January 28, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 bury their mistakes. A highly desirable thorn in the government's side has been blunted.


Mr. Francis:: Remember the new procedure we have.


Douglas Charles Rowland: I will come to that in a moment. Next was the establishment of the Prime Minister's regional desks. On the surface, the regional desks would seem to be the Prime Minister's attempt to honour his pledge to bring the government closer to the people. The regional desks will act as the eyes and ears of the Prime Minister in every corner of this country. They will act as funnels of information from the people to the Prime Minister. If a person has a problem he can now easily bring it to the attention of the Prime Minister, or rather to a member of the Prime Minister's personal staff. In this sense, the government will be brought closer to the people.
But what are some of the other results? First, it will mean the by-passing of Members of Parliament. If you can go directly to number one, or be persuaded that you are going directly to number one, why bother with number 264, or even number two? In short, the regional desks will rapidly create a situation in which the executive is expected to act as a check upon itself. The Prime Minister, through his regional desks, will be omniscient and omnipresent. Ultimately, and in a political sense, he will also be omnipotent.
Then came rule 16A, which substituted for freely negotiated agreements on the allocation of time in the House the absolute authority of the government House leader, even if he was opposed three to one, or even if he met by himself, to set down any arrangement for the allocation of time for the consideration and disposition of any item or items of the business of the House or its committees. The opposition succeeded in defeating this attempt to create a gag for the House, but another rule only slightly better, the son of 16A, is now part of the Standing Orders of this House.
Then, there are the countless executive task forces and commissioned studies which have been established and announced to the public with great fanfares of publicity since this government took office. However, there has been only one Commons committee of inquiry. The executive task forces report to the cabinet, even to the Prime Minister, directly. The cabinet decides whether the findings should be made public, and the reports are declared privileged documents. This has resulted in an increase in the information gap between ministers and other members. It has also resulted in the glamour and publicity surrounding the cabinet, while the House has been pushed back into the shadows. I could go on and cite other examples but I believe I have made my point. In any event, I can make the same point again by referring to the section of this bill which deals with ministers of state.
In introducing the bill, the President of the Treasury Board offered the following justification for it. As reported at page 2769 of Hansard, he said:
In essence, the government organization bill deals with the constant challenge lacing Parliament and the government to be as efficient as possible in doing those things which are in the interest of the Canadian people and society. This challenge is

imposed upon us by the rapid changes taking place today, and our response in this regard must be positive. Both Parliament and the government must be flexible; both must adapt their procedures and structures; and in the final analysis, the test is whether they are continuing to respond effectively to the needs of society and of the world with which they must deal.
In short, the argument is one of efficiency. One simply cannot quarrel with the objective of enabling the government to readily adapt itself to changing situations. But the means selected to accomplish this are something else. Two kinds of efficiency are involved: efficiency in terms of rapid policy development by the administration, and efficiency in terms of the adaptation and strengthening of our democratic institutions. I submit that the ministers of state proposition contained in this bill indicates the government has opted entirely for the former at the expense of the latter.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There would have to be unanimous consent to call it five o'clock. Is it agreed that the Chair call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave)-Trade-Steps to limit imports of Australian and New Zealand beef; the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter)-Industry-Construction-suggested removal of sales tax on building materials; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway	(Mrs.	Maclnnis)-Government
Property-Vancouver-suggested refusal of lease to Four Seasons Hotel.
It being 5 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely Notices of Motions (Papers).


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on one previous occasion the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) brought before the House one of several Notices of Motions for the production of documents standing in her name. At that time it was agreed that she would select one of them and the others, all in the same category and dealing with the same subject matter, would go off the Order Paper.
Pursuant to this agreement, one of the hon. member's motions is coming before the House again, and it is agreed that the same procedure should be followed. The House will therefore proceed to the consideration of Notice of Motion No. 130, standing in the name of the
January 28, 1971

hon. member, and all other Notices of Motions for the production of papers standing in her name that precede this motion on the Order Paper will be removed. I think the hon. member will confirm that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the Parliamentary Secretary. Is it agreed that an order be made in the terms he has outlined?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved:: That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken by the University of British Columbia in the fiscal year 1969-70 funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare on "Social and Medical Factors of Women Attending Vancouver Family Planning Clinic and a Group of Women not Attending a Family Planning Clinic in two areas of the City of Vancouver".
She said: Mr. Speaker, the motion I wish to discuss today requests a copy of the study undertaken in the fiscal year 1969-70 which was funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare and has to do with the social and medical factors of women attending Vancouver Family Planning Clinic and a group of women not attending a family planning clinic in two areas of the City of Vancouver. This study would be of great interest to me if I could obtain a copy of it, because what we are trying to do not only in Vancouver but across Canada is to emphasize the need for widespread birth control information and the establishment of family planning and birth control clinics. It is of great significance and importance that studies of this kind be made available not only to members of Parliament but to the public generally.
It would appear from the title of this study that we have two groups of women in comparable economic situations, one of which attended a family planning clinic while the other did not. Apparently we also have a comparison of the results of these two situations. I do not know what is in the report and there is no way of which I know, of getting the information to the people who would be concerned and interested in having it.
I find it astonishing that such information should be withheld from the members of this House. There are obviously no security reasons involved and no reasons for secrecy. The taxpayers provided the money to have this study conducted. On another occasion in this House, I pointed out the testimony of one research individual who has done studies for the department and who feels that nothing but public good could be served by having these studies made available to people in this House and others
Vancouver Family Planning Clinic who require them. I think a refusal of this kind is beyond understanding and I want to protest once again that this should be the case. Let me also say that even though I have dropped the other resolutions on this subject from the Order Paper, because I did not want to monopolize the time of this House, there will be others to replace them on the Order Paper under my sponsorship or the sponsorship of other people, at least until we succeed in having this unreasonable regulation removed.
I can understand that if there were questions of security involved in this sort of thing secrecy might be necessary, but for the life of me I cannot see that this government is doing any service by withholding very essential facts from the people of this country. From the little bit of knowledge we have been able to glean, some of it out of date, we know how important this subject is.
For example, back in 1960 the United Community Service of Vancouver, which is a big united welfare organization, did a survey on multi-problem families, that is families with children on the records of social and health agencies in the city of Vancouver. That organization found that in the course of one year there were between 2,100 and 2,800 such families with two or more of the following problems: economic, behavioural, health, child neglect and juvenile delinquency. The organization found that half of these families experienced three or more of these problems. I point out that this survey was done in 1960 and that undoubtedly the proportion would be very much greater under today's conditions.
We must remember that these are conditions which are of very great concern not only to people interested in the quality of family life and situations these families face, but also to the taxpayers who have to foot the bills in respect of economic, behavioural, child neglect, juvenile delinquency and a host of other problems facing us in any of our big cities. Among the characteristics of these multi-problem families on the records of the social and health agencies which this survey mentions is that these families have a large number of children. In fact, the families produced not less than five children on the average, which is much higher than the Canadian average of something over three.
The survey also pointed out that in a large number of these families the parents had contacts with social agencies long before the formation of these families and that their children were turning much earlier toward health and social agencies for help. The survey also found inbreeding in these families. One classic example was a man who had 230 relatives by blood or marriage known to a social agency. That might be a bonanza for the civil or public service, but it certainly was not a bonanza for the city of Vancouver when it came to looking after these relatives with all their costly problems.
There is a great need for birth control in families of this kind. The survey states:
In light of the above facts, it would appear well worthwhile making every effort to bring family planning services to those families, as all the evidence suggests that few dependent families really want to have large numbers of children. They may get them because they are too ignorant, apathetic or feckless to use effective birth control methods.

January 28, 1971
Vancouver Family Planning Clinic
It goes on to say:
Very few of this type of family use the services of the family planning clinics-only 24 persons on social assistance visited the ilinics last year, [that would be 1959] and while some, no doubt, seek their doctor's advice, the birth rate suggests that many do not.
This survey was conducted in 1960, but even in 1970 and now in 1971 there are only three large hospitals in Canada out of some 900-odd which have family planning clinics attached. One can realize the tremendous need. The survey goes on to state:
That this type of family can be successfully encouraged to plan their families has been shown in England, where a domiciliary family planning service in one instance reduced the birth rate of the families serviced over a period of two years from 7.8 to 6.3. This service is now being provided by an increasing number of English municipal health authorities through the agency of the Family Planning Association.
If we could get adequate family planning information in Canada, and I am talking specifically about British Columbia which is by no means the worst, but does require it, distributed throughout this country, along with accessibility to birth control devices we could reduce the average number of children per family. This would have a number of important results. It would reduce the burden of many families and enable them to achieve economic independence. The other day I heard a woman from Toronto say very pathetically, when discussing the problem of poverty: I have eight children and my husband is able to get work for only four months in the year. What am I supposed to do to make ends meet even on city welfare?
The very considerable cost to the state of supporting these additional children would be eliminated if we could get a reduction in the number of children. The survey suggests that:
Even a reduction in the average number of children per family of from, say, five to three children would mean close to 5,000 fewer children to be supported.
This would mean close to 5,000 fewer children being a worry and a burden to families which cannot support them, even though they worry the same as families in income groups which are able to support that many children.
The survey then states:
Fewer unwanted babies would also mean fewer children in the courts or in custodial care.
The remaining children would be better cared for by a less burdened mother.
The continuing cycle of dependency would be reduced to smaller proportions.
While environmental factors will play their part, it is reasonable to assume that defects of character, physique or intelligence were responsible for a good proportion of these families falling into the multi-problem category.
In terms of the future, breeding from the bottom does not make too much sense.
The people in this category know that and they are asking for help and advice in the matter of birth control. They are not getting it in anything like the amount we should be providing. I want to say I believe birth control
is of the utmost importance. The Family Planning Association of British Columbia in its recent leaflet states:
Babies born out of wedlock during the 1960's in this province increased from 7 to more than 12 per cent of total annual births. The largest group was born to mothers aged 15-19.
Many of these children are not adopted because the number of adoption homes is dwindling. Some concerned couples are trying to help by having one or two of their own, and if they want more, adopting the rest.
But there are always the left-overs.
Indeed, there are always the left-overs.
I should like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the words of Dr. O. M. Solandt, Chairman of the Science Council of Canada who, I am very glad to see, has recently solved a serious conflict of interest problem which concerned him and a number of others. Dr. Solandt, whose remarks on this subject of population control are always very wise, recently said this:
Trying to clean up pollution and solve our urban problems without controlling population growth is like treating a patient's fever with ice packs and aspirin without giving him the antibiotic that will directly attack the cause of the fever. Temporary efforts, just like ice packs, are essential, but we must attack the cause of the disease, not just the symptoms.
Too many people are congregated together in our urban areas trying to avail themselves of the services of their community and the funds which should not have to be handed out in such amounts in order to look after dependent people and their children. I would call attention to the fact that the recent report on the status of women has urged very strongly that birth control facts and devices should be available to all who need them across this country, including those at the school level. I read a report a moment ago to the effect that in British Columbia the largest group of babies born out of wedlock involved mothers aged 15 to 19. If this matter of family planning is directed only at married women, then it will be everlastingly too late to deal with this particular problem.
I should like to turn to another reason for action. There is great concern across this country about the rising incidence of abortion, both legal and illegal. The rising incidence of illegal abortions is well known and has been well documented on a number of occasions. But there are also far more legal abortions in some districts than should be necessary. One reason for the great number of legal abortions, where there is some opportunity for legal abortions and where they are really being carried out, is that people simply do not know the facts concerning the prevention of unwanted pregnancy.
Birth control ought to be the first line of defence against unwanted pregnancy. If we in this House do not succeed in moving this government toward having a wider program on birth control, and having more clinics available, then we fall down in our duty to cut down the incidence of unnecessary abortions. Of course, I am in favour of legalized abortion because at this time unless women can obtain abortions safely when required they will go to places where abortion is legalized. This involves a horrible discrimination against women who are poor and do not have the means to obtain a legalized

January 28, 1971_____________________COMMONS DEBATES______________________________________2867
abortion. I say to many hon. gentlemen in this House on the benches opposite, who very comfortably consider this problem to be something which does not come too close to them, that they are actually prolonging the agony of women who must have abortions either because the birth control device has failed or because of their ignorance or because of other factors. Many of these women cannot obtain legal abortions.
I see one of my colleagues from Vancouver shaking his head. I do not know whether he is doing so in disagreement or because he abhors the situation. If it is because of disagreement, I would point out to him that the hospitals in Vancouver which do perform abortions and which are trying their best to meet the need do not have the facilities to do it. Pregnancy will not wait. As time goes on one reaches the horror stages. Organizations have travelled around showing pictures of the awful stages which abortion should never reach because it should have been carried out much earlier. I, too, have seen an abortion. I saw it with my own eyes. I should like to see all these horror pictures documented. However, I am not here to discuss abortion, except to say that the reason we now have far more illegal abortions than we should have, and more legal abortions than we need, is simply that we do not make available birth control techniques and devices as freely as we should.
Hon. members may think this is not true, but I should like to point out that 74 per cent of the women who wished to have abortions, and who went to the Planned Parenthood organization in July, had not used any form of contraception. A great percentage of them did not know where to obtain contraceptives or what type to use.
I should like to draw my remarks to a close by returning to my original theme. I believe members of this House are sufficiently grownup to know that we ought to be trusted with the reports the government has. What is the government doing with all these reports? If these reports resulted in legislation and action in respect of family planning, then I might have some sympathy with the practice of secrecy in this regard. I believe these reports need ventilation, lots of fresh air and sunshine. I urge that members of this House who are interested in these reports be given access to them so that we can give the public of this country the knowledge and information they must have if they are to co-operate in this participatory democracy which I want to see become much more real than anything we have at the present time.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) for her contribution to our previous debates on family planning or abortion.
I wish to thank her also for her co-operation in bringing the number of motions on these problems down to a minimum so that her colleagues would have an opportunity to express their opinions in the House.
I know that family planning and abortion are of great interest to her, as I say, but since other members from her party have already expressed opinions on this
Vancouver Family Planning Clinic matter, I would not want family planning and abortion to be considered as a cure-all as readily accessible as contraceptive pill vending machines. I hope we will not come to that because it would be going too far.
If we were to pursue the question of abortion to the point advocated by some members of the New Democratic party, I believe we would be going back to Hitler's time, to eugenics. As a matter of fact, abortion could be practised on request, when the least doubt would exist as to a possible disability of the new-born child. It is going a little too far. I know that the problem at the present time is an emotional one. It requires serious discussion.
But we should not let ourselves be carried away by emotion and create a problem without solution. Abuse must be prevented and it is by adopting fair and reasonable legislation, as we did by amending our Criminal Code, precisely on this important issue of abortion, that we will be able to determine whether we were right or not. I think we will be able eventually to say to the next generation that perhaps we were right to prevent abuse and from the outset to refuse to allow abortion on request and thus step into the unknown as did Russia and other countries which have had to repeal their legislation to protect their people, since we must be quite careful not to become the tools of our own destruction.
It is always nice to find that intelligent people can sit around the same table and discuss a most important question.
My intention this evening is to review certain aspects of family planning, a concept which, as you are aware, is receiving the support of this government, not only in Canada but also through the Canadian International Development Agency in the emerging nations of the world.

Mr. Speaker, even in the most privileged countries, the quality of life is now being threatened by a population explosion that was particularly marked these last years. Among the various means suggested to check such a population explosion, the best known is the birth control pill which was approved by physicians and welcomed by the general public.

Introduced some ten years ago, these drugs have held out hope to nations struggling under population pressure and to individuals attempting to plan a family.
To the physician, oral contraception not only presents the accustomed challenge of weighing the benefits of a medication against its possible harmful effects, it also introduces a novel and important relationship between himself and his patient. Hitherto it has been implicit that the patient accept the experience and judgment of the doctor. However, in prescribing these drugs, the doctor is usually acting neither to treat nor to prevent a disease. He is prescribing for socio-economic reasons. This situation demands that the patient be fully informed and

January 28, 1971
Vancouver Family Planning Clinic
participate in the decision of whether or not she should use an oral contraceptive. The corollary of this, of course, must be that the physician keep abreast of all implications of the use of the pill and, in cases of doubt, refer the patient for another opinion.
The introduction of oral contraceptives has, unfortunately, brought some problems. As early as 1961, the incidence of certain complications associated with the pill were identified. In the ensuing years, extensive studies have been carried out in Canada and abroad to establish the relationship between oral contraceptives and these various effects.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare's (Mr. Munro) concern for the safety of Canadians taking the pill resulted in his appointment of a special advisory committee of leading medical authorities to assess the physical and mental wellbeing of women practicing family planning in this manner.
The report of the special advisory committee was tabled in December in this House. The committee, chaired by Dr. R. A. Kinch, who is obstetrician and gynecologist in chief at the Montreal general hospital and one of Canada's leading authorities in the field, provides answers to such basic questions as, first, what, if any, are the risks of oral contraceptive therapy, short or long term, inducing serious conditions or altered physiological processes. Second, how do these risks compare with similar serious conditions in healthy non-pregnant women of child bearing age. Third, how do these risks from the use of the pill compare with those of the pregnancies which had been thereby prevented. Fourth, how do the risks of the pill compare with other hazards of modern life. Fifth, what practical clinical measures may be taken to reduce risks. Should the Food and Drug Directorate further regulate the sale or distribution of hormonal contraceptives? Sixth, should the Food and Drug Directorate, based on the advice of its consultants, take the responsibility for informing physicians and the general public on all aspects of the use of hormonal contraceptives.
Of the 28 recommendations resulting from the excellent report prepared by the committee, three relate to general matters, and 13 concern pre-market testing, postmarketing surveillance, pharmaceutical advertising, and information to the professions and the public. Twelve recommendations deal with studies in epidemiologic, haematologic and endocrine fields.
While the report stressed that the risk of coronary thrombosis from using oral contraceptives containing 50 micrograms of estrogen is not of sufficient significance to demand special precautions, the special advisory committee pointed out that women using the pill should be reminded of the need for continuing medical supervision and be alerted to signs of potential trouble so that specialist consultation may be obtained where appropriate.
The committee found that the combined type of oral contraceptive is virtually 100 per cent effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy, while effectiveness of the sequential type is slightly lower.
The report reviews in considerable detail the present state of medical knowledge of the mode of action and the
short and long term effects of these drugs, and contains a number of valuable recommendations about the direction of future research in this field. It also makes recommendations about providing information on the use of the drugs to the medical profession and to the public and advice to the Food and Drug Directorate about testing the products before they are marketed.
Other major points made by the committee were that there is no evidence so far of any incidence of premalignant change in the uterine cervix directly attributable to birth control pills. No significant increase in the incidence of breast cancer has yet been detected, although for 25 years or more concern has been voiced that the clinical use of estrogen may induce the disease in women. Concern has naturally heightened since the introduction of oral contraceptives. The committee concludes there is no firm evidence to suggest any relationship between genital and breast carcinoma and oral contraceptives.
9 (5:30 p.m.)
Much of the committee's discussion and study centred on the real and potential hazards of oral contraceptives. A relationship between thromboembolic disorders and the use of oral contraceptives has been established, with evidence suggesting the level of estrogen in combinations as a possible major factor in determining the risk of thromboembolism. The committee recommended further investigation of the relationship and that, whenever possible, physicians should be advised to prescribe a preparation containing not more than 50 micrograms of ethinyl estradoil or mestranol.
Oral contraceptives present the doctor and patient with a novel and important relationship. Hitherto it has been implicit that the patient accepts the judgment, expertise and experience of her doctor. However, the fact that these potent drugs are now prescribed for predominantly healthy women demands that the patient should be informed and participate in the decision as to whether or not she should use them. If she does decide to use oral contraceptives she should be reminded of the need for continuing medical supervision and be alerted to signs of potential trouble, with appropriate specialist consultation where indicated.
The combined type of oral contraceptives is virtually 100 per cent effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy, 0.1 per 100 women per year, while effectiveness of the "sequential" type is slightly lower, 0.5 per 100 women per year. The progestational potency of these drugs depends on the type and dosage of progestogen employed, as well as on the dosage and anti-progestational effect of the estrogen combined with the progestogen. However, in spite of the individual variations in potency of their components, the efficacy of oral contraceptive preparations marketed in Canada appears to be related to the group in which they belong, that is, combined or sequential.
Oral contraceptives act primarily by suppressing ovulation. The present theory is that the action of the combined preparation is mainly through its progestogen component, abolishing the LH peak by inhibition of the

January 28, 1971

release mechanism at the hypothalamic level, as well as suppressing the usual feedback stimulus to LH release by estradoil secreted from the developing follicle. The estrogen component may reinforce ovulation suppression, inhibiting follicle ripening by suppression of FSH secretion. The theoretical mechanism of action of the sequential compounds is that the estrogen produces only the second of the above effects. This hormonal checkmate leaves the ovary in a quiescent state and causes reduction in both its activity and size. Other effects of steroidal *contraceptives on cervical mucus and sperm activity have been described, but these drugs act mainly on ovulation. Perhaps the most important aspect of the committee's discussion centred on the real and potential hazards of these preparations, recognizing the fact that they are used by a very large number of Canadian women.
A number of studies have established an etiologic relation between thromboembolic disorders and the use of oral contraceptives. Additional evidence now suggests that the level of estrogen in these combinations may be a major factor determining the risk of thromboembolism in patients using them. However, additional time and investigation will be required to resolve completely the question of dose relationship and thromboembolic complications. In spite of possible deficiencies in the existing data, the committee felt that the basic principle in therapeutics embraces the concept that the smallest dose of medication consistent with achievement of the desired effect is, in general, the best treatment. In this instance the lowest dosage of the	estrogens-mestranol	and ethinyl
estradoil-presently available in oral contraceptives compatible with virtually 100 per cent effective contraception is 50 micrograms. Thus, whenever possible physicians should be advised to prescribe a preparation containing not more than 50 micrograms of ethinyl estradoil or mestranol.
With respect to carcinogenesis, it has been shown that estrogens and progestogens are capable of producing or enhancing neoplastic changes in the endometrium cervix, ovary and breast in experimental animals. However, in some instances both estrogen and progestogen appear to be protective against neoplastic change. These results are not directly applicable to the human because of dosage differences, methods and length of administration, differences in species tissue reaction and a large number of other variables.
In the human there is no significant clinical study supporting the proposition that carcinoma in these or other sites is caused by the administration of synthetic estrogens or progestogens. Although a few cases of endometrial carcinoma have been reported after prolonged estrogen therapy in older women, there is no proof that this represents a cause-effect relationship considering the millions who have been treated with estrogens for menopausal symptoms. Progestogens appear to have caused regression of endometrial carcinoma and combined or sequential type oral contraceptives theoretically should not, and in practice have not been shown to cause endometrial malignancy in the human. There is no *evidence to date of any increased incidence of premalig-
Vancouver Family Planning Clinic
nant or malignant change in the uterine cervix directly attributable to birth control pills.
With regard to the breast, there are no studies of sufficient duration to embrace the long latent period for cancer production but it is possible that prolonged steroid-estrogen-administration may imply some risk if given in the occult phase of the disease. The possible role of oral contraceptives in mammary carcinogenesis has been discussed and it is recognized that thus far, the first ten years of wide usage has failed to demonstrate a relationship in the human.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few remarks on the issue of family planning and other related factors such as genetic counselling that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) has brought to the attention of the House by asking for the production of papers which are really the results of research work funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare. I commend the hon. member, as others have already done, Mr. Speaker, because this is a problem which is very vital so far as population control and the environment are concerned. Furthermore, the physical and mental suffering from both legal and illegal abortions could be saved if parents and other people would take advantage of what is available now due to the progress in medical science and the health facilities provided by federal and provincial governments.
In the matter of family planning, Mr. Speaker, sound counselling is the fundamental issue. I should like to deal with the matter of the counselling of people who are going to be parents, and especially with the matter of counselling in genetics. Perhaps hon. members of the House are aware that the World Health Organization in Geneva submitted a report not long ago stating that genetic counselling is the most immediate and practical service that can be rendered in medicine, surgery and family planning. The report also said it is probable that in all countries 4 per cent of live births suffer from some genetic condition which could benefit from genetic counselling, either in relation to repercussions on the family or to successful diagnosis and treatment of hereditary diseases.
Medical genetics today has progressed far beyond the pedigree-collecting stage of the past. I can safely say that genetic concepts are directly influencing many aspects of medical practice even today. It is through the use of modern chemical and physical techniques in the study of the living organism that we have been led to the increased understanding of life processes, including those mechanisms by which genes guide, develop and function in the body. The essential function of the gene is to carry information. At the moment of conception the new zygote receives a selection of genes from each parent, which

January 28, 1971
Vancouver Family Planning Clinic gives the egg certain information about the way it is to develop and function.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


Stanley Haidasz: After I have finished my speech, if the hon. member does not mind.


John Gilbert: The answer to my question would greatly elucidate what the hon. member is saying.


Stanley Haidasz: If the hon. member does not mind, I shall answer questions after I have finished my speech. Through mitosis these genes are reduplicated and appear in each nucleated somatic cell of the body. The reason for this is that in order for genetic information to guide the development of the organism, the information which is carried by the genes must reach to each cell cytoplasm. It is through the desoxyribonucleic acid component of the chromosome that information is transmitted, and it is the particular order at some particular place on the chromosome that determines a particular function in deciding the nature of the cell that it is in. This information must be transmitted from the gene to the cytoplasm. It is thought that this is probably performed through the ribonucleic acid that is synthesized in the nucleus and in some way receives the patterns determined by the desoxyribonucleic acid component.


John Gilbert: That was quite a mouthful.


Stanley Haidasz: The ribonucleic acid migrates to the cytoplasm and imprints corresponding patterns on the enzymes, globulins and other large molecules being synthesized there. This concept of the work of DNA and RNA is similar to that of some process that reproduces a pattern by a cast or template and is referred to as the template hypothesis. At our present state of knowledge, this is the accepted explanation of how the child receives from its parents the blueprint that guides its development and function. The template hypothesis has been confirmed recently by new developments in the study of abnormal human hemoglobins. It has been discovered that sickle-cell disease is caused by a change at a single gene locus and is characterized by a normal hemoglobin. In sickle-cell disease it seems that both normal and sickle cells produce their own type of hemoglobin, and this is what one would expect according to the template hypothesis.
Genes are also known to determine the presence or absence of enzymes, the antigenic specificity of the red blood surface, the nature of the serum globulins and many other biologic properties of the organism. The template hypothesis suggests that with any recessively inherited disease in which there is a known biochemical defect it should be possible to detect the gene in clinically normal carriers by the appropriate tests. Tests of this nature can be used to demonstrate such diseases as galactosemia fibrocytic disease of the pancreas, glycogen-storage disease and an increasing number of other errors of metabolism.
Another interesting development in medical genetics is the demonstration of chromosomal diseases. Recent improvements in the techniques of observing human chromosomes now make it possible to count them accurately and identify them by their length and shape. The presence of an extra chromosome is evidence of Downs' syndrome which results in a mongoloid child. Also, abnormal chromosomal numbers have been demonstrated in Turner's syndrome and in Kleinfelter's syndrome, diseases which affect the sexual physiology of the offspring.
How can medical practioners benefit by and contribute to understanding the advances in medical genetics? First, this can happen through research. The practitioner has the best opportunity to know family groups and there is a great deal which can be learned about the inheritance of disease. For example, observing the occurrence of unusual conditions in several members of the family may provide a clue to identifying new genetic disease. The medical practitioner can also benefit from medical genetics in the early diagnosis and treatment of his patients. Knowing that another member of the family has a particular disease could be a useful clue to determining the patient's condition. Knowing that there is genetic disease in the family can be of invaluable assistance in early diagnosis.
Early recognition is vital in conditions where early treatment may prevent irreversible consequences of disease, especially at childbirth. The siblings of a child with phenylketonurea can be tested in early infancy for biochemical abnormalities associated with the disease. This disease can be treated with a suitable diet. Early identification can prevent irreversible changes occurring in either the brain, glands or the liver, and it is through prophylactic therapy that the defects of some genetically inherited diseases can be ameliorated. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, knowledge of the former history of the disease patterns of a family may be of great value to the physician as well as parents seeking advice concerning family planning.
Much has been said about genetic counselling. I do not intend to dwell deeply on this aspect of genetics. I merely say that parents of a child with a genetically transmitted disease usually want to know the chances if the same condition may occur in the future. The family physician in this case may be the best qualified person to interpret the risk figures to the parents in terms that make sense to them.
Due to the medical advances, especially in the twentieth century, one unavoidable consequence of this progress is that where in the past people with hereditary disease tended to die young or were unlikely to have children, improved methods of treatment are greatly increasing their chances of reproduction. There is little doubt that there will be some increase in inherited disease. It may be necessary to counsel parents to limit the size of their families if they are known to carry genes of a deleterious nature. The decision, of course, whether to limit family size is an individual one which must be
[Mr Haidasz.]
January 28, 1971

made by the parents concerned and must take into account how they feel about their responsibility to future generations. But to make such a decision parents must be counselled and made aware of their responsibility to their descendants.
I would now briefly like to examine some of the genetic influences on childhood disease. It has been estimated that about 50 per cent of chronic illnesses of children have their origin before the child is born. Conditions such as hair lip, cleft palate, club foot, mental retardation, epilepsy and allergy, to mention but a few, are present at birth. Although the patterns of these diseases have been laid down prenatally, we should not necessarily presume that they are hereditary. The point is that because a condition is present at birth and is congenital, not all congenital conditions are hereditary. By the same token, some hereditary conditions are not congenital, that is, they do not become apparent until much later in life. An example of this is Huntingtons' chorea. Nor should it be forgotten that there are other environmental influences at work prenatally other than purely genetic ones.
The environment of the embryo includes the immediate environment of the uterus, the placenta, membranes, etc. However, it also includes the body processes and health of the mother, including enzymes and hormones, and her illnesses acute and chronic such as rubella, diabetes mellitus. Also it includes the nutrition of the mother. This may be of great importance in situations where severe protein or vitamin deficiencies occur. Finally, there is the induced environment through drugs administered by the doctor during pregnancy, and excessive cigarette smoking, all of which may have a profound effect on the developing embryonic tissues. Also, we should not forget radiation, be it therapeutic or diagnostic, and radioactive fallout if administered in large enough doses.
All these so-called environmental factors complicate or may even make it impossible to determine whether a particular defect has been caused genetically or through environmental influences. Cleft lips and cleft palates are examples of defects that could be produced either through genetic or environmental factors. The genetic counsellor, therefore, must be extremely cautious in predicting the outcome of future pregnancies in a woman who has borne a child with such defects.
It has been determined that congenital malformations account for between 20 and 30 per cent of total neonatal deaths. By studying the genetic make-up of the mothers and children involved, through detailed family histories and through metabolic and environmental investigations, it may be possible to determine how congenital malformations are produced.
A very important field of genetic research is in the study of mental retardation. A great deal of research is being conducted to attempt to investigate the cause of mental retardation however hopeless. The finding of genetic causes could lead to effective steps in prevention and treatment. Epilepsy is another problem of considerable magnitude in children and one variety, the centracephal-ic type, has been demonstrated to have hereditary tendencies. In the case of epilepsy, the genetic factors are
Vancouver Family Planning Clinic
not simple but seem to be dependent upon the interaction of several genes.
Another aspect of the science of genetics and of its value to medicine is in the clarification of the human blood-group systems with its applications to the problems of forensic medicine, transfusion, and hemolytic disease of the newborn. I have already referred to the studies of the hemoglobin molecule and the genetic variations found in sickle-cell and other anaemias. This is a typical example of the application of genetic techniques to clinical research. However, it must be remembered that medical genetics is still in an early stage of development and its most important contributions to clinical medicine will be in the definition of specific disease entities and the provision of reliable data as to familial distributions.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, medical genetics and the process of genetic counselling is contributing in great measure to our understanding of the processes of heredity. New interpretations of the relationship of heredity and environment are assisting man in controlling his own evolution. The science of genetics contributes to unifying our concepts of disease and assists in counselling and advising those who have encountered problems which may be of a genetic nature. The science of genetics also enables us to understand more fully the environmental effects in the prenatal stages.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The doctor's hour, however educational it may be, has expired. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was just about to commence dealing with the section of the bill concerning the ministers of state proposition. I find this section of the bill somewhat ominous. I think a careful reading of it is an indication that it means the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will no longer have to come to Parliament to seek its approval of the reorganization of government departments. Through the device of ministers of state and the powers given to the Prime Minister in connection with the creation of this new office, the Prime Minister will be able to shift about sections of departments at will and Parliament will have

January 28, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
its opportunity to pronounce upon the wisdom of such changes only when they are fait accompli. And this is done, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) tells us, in the name of increased ministerial accountability to Parliament.
I realize that the Prime Minister, through the governor in council, has always had this power but in recent years it has been somewhat limited by the device of government reorganization bills. I would suggest to hon. members that the section of the bill dealing with ministers of state is a step away from the kind of advance toward parliamentary control of ministers which previous government reorganization bills have represented.
In the minister's explanation of the idea of ministers of state there is a lengthy discussion of the ministerial system and how it has evolved. This portion of his speech was undoubtedly prepared by one of the professors in the Prime Minister's office. Let me say in passing to this anonymous person that if I were still teaching political science at a university and this section of the speech had been prepared as an essay, I would give him a mark of 60 per cent and send it back with the comment that jargon is no substitute for argument-"interface," indeed. The minister's discussion of the development of the ministry glosses over the key development. Any serious observer of parliamentary democracy in Canada, in Britain, in Australia or anywhere it is practised in the modern world, if asked to state the most important development in the system over the past half-century or more would without hesitation reply that there has been a consistent increase in the power of the executive, or cabinet, at the expense of legislatures.
This concentration of power is constantly being intensified. The process has now reached the point at which the cabinet's power in relation to that of the Prime Minister is going into eclipse. All modern commentators on the constitution make reference to this fact. Indeed, they place great emphasis upon it. Humphrey Berkley in his book "The Power of the Prime Minister" puts the case this way:
Those who think that British constitutional reform is basically about parliamentary procedure are attacking the problem at the circumference; the centre problem is about the power of the Prime Minister. X accept that we are now operating a presidential system: to do otherwise would be unrealistic. Let us concede the Prime Minister has presidential powers and equip ourselves with the necessary safeguards.
True, Mr. Berkley is speaking of the British Prime Minister, and true also he may be indulging in a bit of hyperbole. However, when one looks at the recent developments in Canada, the basing of election campaigns upon the image of a leader, the vast increase in the personal staff of the Prime Minister, the increase in the Prime Minister's power of patronage through the expanded cabinet system of parliamentary assistants, even further expanded in this bill, and the device of regional desks, one recognizes that, although perhaps overstating the case, Mr. Berkley is presenting a very real problem, one with which we shall have to come to grips sooner or later.
The growth of the power of the executive in the past could in no way be characterized as the result of nefari-

ous plots by successive generations of power-hungry men. In the past it could not. It is, in many ways, the natural outgrowth of demands being made upon the modern state and the strengthening of the party system. The rejection of the laissez faire system of government, the almost universal acceptance of the concept of the positive state, the disappearance of Sir John A. MacDonald's "loose fish", and the creation of cohesive, rigid voting blocks in Parliament have all produced this phenomenon of concentration of power in the hands of the executive.
To come back to the bill, surely if one were really concerned about the constantly expanding powers of the ministry and Parliament's decreasing control over it, one would devote one's efforts to strengthening Parliament through its committees and through services provided to private members, rather than to increasing the size of the ministry as this bill provides. In the case of this government, however, there has been a deliberate move toward concentrating power in the hands of the cabinet and the Prime Minister. I earlier described the deliberate steps they have taken and I will not go over them again.
e (8:10p.m.)
Why is this being done? I suspect it is a function of the personality of the Prime Minister. Like most of us, he fears and mistrusts what he cannot understand. There is no doubt that he possesses a profound lack of sympathy for and virtually no understanding of Parliament. He can only find it in himself to trust the judgment of those who are directly dependent upon him for their positions, hence his increasing tendency to rely almost exclusively for advice upon his vastly expanded office staff.
The Prime Minister is slowly but surely strangling Parliament and discrediting it in the eyes of the public. If it finally dies and becomes a purely honorific part of the Constitution, as has the monarchy, it may have become so thoroughly discredited that few will mourn its passing. But when faced with the monolith with which the Prime Minister is replacing Parliament, many more Canadians than do already

and that number is substantial-will regret the day that the reins of government fell into the hands of an academic who understood neither the country, its people nor its institutions. He will be remembered as an amateur in the art of government who left behind as his monument a few changes to the Criminal Code, a divided country, an embalmed House of Commons, the memory of some titillated teeny-boppers and a few puzzled, well-padded English speaking professors who had fooled themselves into believing that change in a revolutionary social situation could be accomplished without pain.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, rather than taking up the time of the House with political versions of the art of government, I welcome this opportunity to make some concrete remarks during the second reading stage of Bill C-207, known as Government Organization Act, 1970. The federal government is to be commended for bringing in this bill which, if enacted by the House of Commons, will better equip the government to develop and implement new policies to serve the needs
January 28, 1971

of the Canadian people. The proposals in this bill will help meet the challenge of many changes brought about in our country by technological progress.
The most urgent challenge facing the government of Canada, indeed all industrialized nations of the world, is the one of survival of the human and animal species in a progressively deteriorating environment. The proposal in Bill C-207 to establish a department of the environment is most desirable and indeed, in my opinion, long overdue. In the past three years when I presented during each session of the House of Commons my bill entitled "To provide for Canada a clean air act" I called for the establishment of a department of environmental quality to fight pollution of air, water, soil and noise. Today I am very happy that the government has resolved to increase its fight against environmental pollution by establishing a special federal department and putting in charge the present Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) in whom we have a great deal of confidence. I hope that his colleagues will give him both co-operation and sufficient resources with which to carry out his responsibilities.
Yesterday the future minister of the department of the environment outlined his philosophy with regard to environmental pollution. It was interesting to hear from the minister that he believes we can have economic growth and a healthy environment too. The minister was very frank when he stated that the massive clean-up of our polluted environment will cost both industry and consumers quite a bit of money. But to be fair, Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will be able to convince his cabinet colleagues, especially the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), that they should grant tax incentives both to the public and industry, thereby encouraging all sectors of the Canadian society to take advantage of all the antipollution devices which become available and others which may be mandatory. The federal government should also consider the removal of all types of sales taxes from anti-pollution equipment which both industry and citizens would purchase. Furthermore, the government should give consideration to creating low-interest loans to both firms and citizens for the installation of expensive anti-pollution devices.
The minister in his speech also mentioned that we need in 1971 a federal clean air act. We all agree with him. Indeed, this clean air act has been promised in Parliament on several occasions in the past few years. As a former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare I would like to say that a great deal of work on air pollution and a federal clean air act has been done under the leadership of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munroe), who today also deserves honourable mention. In the continued effective fight to control air pollution, firm leadership will be expected and co-operation between these two departments, other federal departments and, indeed, the provinces will be necessary.
The problem of environmental quality in Canada will still involve several federal departments. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, which minister will have the ultimate task of leadership, initiative and the basic responsibility to oversee all the problems of environmental quality in our
Government Organization Act, 1970
country? Will the minister of the department of the environment be able to demand epidemiological studies and other research work to fulfil his responsibilities?
In this and related problems I believe that the act establishing the department of the environment should provide for a national advisory council on the environment in Canada. This council would be independent and would report to the minister. It could really assist him in his grave responsibilities. This advisory council would assess in an objective manner the progress of the federal government's anti-pollution measures and environmental protection programs. It should be an independent agency for the review of government policy in environmental matters.
The environmental advisory council would be composed of scientists, industrialists and members of the public who are concerned with environmental matters. The council would assess environmental pollutants, pollution abatement programs and other threats to the environment on a continuing basis and report regularly both to the government and to the public on the success or failure of abatement programs. Appointments to the council should be made on a decentralized basis. Further, nominations should be invited from such organizations as universities and conservation bodies, as well as industry. Furthermore, the council should be generously funded to be able to carry out research, information services, adequate field work and even hold public hearings across the country.
The information available to us in Bill C-207 includes the enumeration of the duties, powers and functions of the minister. We note especially in clause 5 that the department of the environment will be responsible for renewable and forest resources, fisheries, migratory birds and other non-domestic flora and fauna. This is a very good concept, but I believe it is still incomplete. I ask, Mr. Speaker, why our national parks and the special preserve of our wilderness, which are also the habitat of migratory birds, our flora and our fauna, have not been assigned to the new department of the environment. A comprehensive approach to environmental quality should, therefore, include the national parks. Open space for recreation and for the preservation of our wilderness is an essential element of our environment. In our study of the bill I believe the committee of the whole should give this matter close scrutiny.
Furthermore, clause 5 (e) does not include noise, which is a very important factor in the quality of our environment. The crescendo of noise, no matter what its source, is becoming more and more an environmental problem. Noise can adversely affect not only the health of human beings and domestic animals but also wildlife. It can also adversely affect archeological and geological structures. Therefore, environmental noise is in some way connected with the other pollutants of our environment.
In perusing Bill C-207 we note that both the department of the environment and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources will have responsibility for meteorological technical surveys. I am wondering wheth-

January 28, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 er this duplication of responsibility is intentional and, if so, why. Perhaps the inclusion of these technical surveys in the field of weather as a responsibility of the two departments is only an error in the drafting of this legislation.
In his speech yesterday the minister quite rightly stated that pollution knows no national or even international boundaries. Indeed, it is a worldwide problem. In dealing with the provinces and national governments, no doubt constitutional and international law problems will arise. When Parliament passed the Arctic waters pollution prevention bill it was criticized in some quarters as being contrary to the principles of international law. Canadians in the majority disagree with that opinion. I believe members of this House also feel that the overwhelming weight of world opinion favours the decision we took when we passed that bill.
However stringent the legislation we pass in Parliament in matters of pollution abatement, the regulation, supervision and enforcement powers must be carried out faithfully. In this matter, tact and diplomacy will be very necessary because we will need provincial and international co-operation. If finding a basis for co-operation between various levels of government is sometimes difficult in our country, it is all the more difficult to achieve among sovereign states. We can expect to encounter difficulties in persuading those nations which are struggling to achieve industralization that they should not repeat the mistakes of the prosperous nations, but should from the start build into the cost of their industrial processes the necessary expense for protection of the environment.
Even among nations which do not have a great disparity of economic development, agreement sometimes is difficult to achieve. The record of co-operation between Canada and the U.S.A. has not always been excellent. This has been our experience even though the International Joint Commission has carried out very good investigations. The U.S.A. seems to be reluctant to make a firm decision concerning the banning of phosphates from detergents, even though independent expert evidence has established that our Great Lakes water system will not be cleaned up unless the U.S.A. makes the decision to ban phosphates from detergents. Clause 5 (g) establishing the department of the environment empowers it to enforce the regulations of the International Joint Commission. I believe the way to achieve real progress in respect of cleaning up our international boundary waters and keeping our air clean is by strengthening the International Joint Commission so that co-operation by the U.S.A. would be ensured.
I am curious to know how the present ad hoc arrangement between the Department of External Affairs and the U.S.A. anti-pollution authorities is making out. No doubt someone will suggest that Canada-U.S.A. co-operation in these matters would involve the surrender of some sovereignty. This, however, would be a great example to the international community. International co-operation is necessary in order to preserve the environment. It must be recognized that the preservation of the environment is in the national interest and indeed is sometimes above national interest. We are proud that Canadians are taking a leading and active interest in the forthcoming United Nations Conference on Human Environment which will take place in Stockholm in 1972. This conference must be successful in marshalling world cooperation and the adoption as soon as possible of programs and standards to launch a world assault on those forces which are challenging our environment.
We also welcome in Bill C-207 provision for the establishment of ministries of state. This will enable the government to give greater status to the minister responsible for federal policies in respect of housing. It is hoped the studies now being carried out by the present minister, along with the powers which shall be given to him by this bill, will be of assistance to him in meeting the challenge of better housing for Canadians and especially in solving the problems of urban sprawl, redevelopment and urban transportation.
This bill will also give the government an opportunity to appoint a minister in charge of federal science policy. There is a great need in Canada for co-ordination of research activities and scientific pursuits in the various federal government departments and agencies. I hope the government will give the earliest possible serious consideration to the establishment of a ministry of science.
It is also my hope that the part of the bill dealing with the Postmaster General will provide that minister with the status and authority he requires in order to improve postal delivery in Canada. I have received many complaints from storekeepers who sell newspapers, and also from subscribers and editors of ethnic weeklies, that the delivery of these newspapers is late and very irregular. I appeal to the Postmaster General to review federal government policy regarding postal rates for ethnic weekly newspapers and church and professional publications. The circulation of these newspapers and publications contributes a great deal to our national life. However, since the increase in postal rates became effective, their circulation has diminished; consequently, their revenues have diminished.
It is true that part of the decrease in circulation has resulted from lost advertising, but the most serious blow was delivered by the federal government's increased postal rates which raised the cost to some publications by a staggering 500 per cent or even 1,000 per cent according to the information available. I know that tomorrow a delegation of the Canadian Ethnic Press Federation will be meeting with the Postmaster General to discuss the postal rates and irregular delivery of their publications. I hope they will receive more than just a sympathetic hearing.
e (8:30p.m.)
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I commend the Prime Minister for the proposals in Bill C-207 which are steps in the right direction to improve services for Canadian taxpayers and indeed for the entire nation. This bill deserves our support as well as our constructive contributions during second reading stage and especially in its study by the committee of the whole House.

January 28, 1971


Mr. C. A. Gaulhier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on the bill before the House. As others have pointed out, this one contains proposals applying to about nine topics. Once again we are dealing with an omnibus bill not unlike one we had before. It is not quite the same because it is less erotic and less sadistic, but it is more political and patronizing.
In rising tonight and repeating just about all the others have said, I am wondering whether we will bring the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to reason and prevent introduction of still more omnibus bills.
This afternoon we heard the very interesting speech of the future parliamentary secretary of the future Department of Environment. At least, he introduced himself as such. His speech was very captivating precisely because it dealt with only one topic, namely our environment.
There is an example of the effect of a bill on a precise subject. I have listened to the hon. member with great interest because he gave precise arguments on a given subject. It would have been a different thing if he had had to deal with all the subjects under this bill.
Still, before referring this bill to the committee of the whole, we are asked to express our views on the general principle of the bill and to vote, if required.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder how we could logically vote on such a bill because we agree with several clauses, particularly with Part I on the environment and others such as the one about the Post Office. On the other hand, we reject other parts that deal with, for instance, the increase in the number of parliamentary secretaries and the appointment of Ministers of State whom I call "ministers of unemployed parliamentarians" because they have no department to head. We also oppose other principles. We must absolutely try to make up our minds about the bill to be able to vote for or against it.
Given a bill such as this, the opposition parties should form a coalition and refuse to refer it to the committee. I cannot reasonably say that I am in favour of the bill now under consideration because it contains too many disparate provisions.
Even you, Mr. Speaker, I think that you have voiced your disagreement when you asked yourself how long will the government continue to introduce such bills as this one entitled: "An Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto."
If we consider the contents of the bill, we find a speech from the throne. Moreover, we note that all members speak as if they were discussing a speech from the throne. In fact, it is more a program than a bill and this is why I liked your statement, as recorded on page 2768 of Hansard which reads as follows:
However where do we stop?
You were then referring to the introduction of omnibus bills.
Where is the pont of no return? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I believe the hon. member for Edmonton West, said that we might reach the point where we would have only one bill, a bill at the start of the session for the improve-
Govemment Organization Act, 1970
ment of the quality of life in Canada which would include every single proposed piece of legislation for the session. That would be an omnibus bill with a capital "O" and a capital "B". But would it be acceptable legislation? There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am fully in agreement with you, and specially when you said:
Having said this, I would have to rule-if I must rule-that the government has followed the practice that has been accepted in the past, rightly or wrongly, but that we may have reached the point where we are going too far.
We say about this omnibus bill, as we said about the first omnibus bill, when we were mixing homosexuals with guns and bullets and abortion. Today it is the same confusion and we are asked-whether we like it or not-to accept it as a whole. Even if it is impossible to convince the Prime Minister, I wished to make these comments in order to rally other members of his party to our viewpoint. I will never believe that this group of 150 will be influenced by one man. When we tell them that it is nonsense-you do so yourself even-they still try to convince us that it is logical, and this has gone on for two days. There is no need to be a lawyer or a judge to realize it. I am quite willing to accept the wrapping, but the contents seem hardly digestible, Mr. Speaker, and it is the reason why I make these remarks before expressing my opinion on each clause of the bill.
The first part deals with pollution and the establishment of a Department of the Environment. I am very happy that such a department is being set up but my pleasure is mixed with fear. Indeed the functions and the powers of the Minister of the Environment include all the matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. The laws do not give to some other department, ministry, branch or agency of the government of Canada jurisdiction over fisheries, renewable resources including forest resources, migratory birds and other non-domestic flora and fauna, and water. As for water pollution, it originates in the lakes and streams that flow into the rivers. In this connection, the federal government will cross swords with the provinces, since it always refers us back to the provincial government. I cannot imagine how it can be, since we have been urging all governments to stop the large companies in our areas from pouring their waste into our rivers all year around.
In my region, there was a salmon river which has been polluted by paper mills in the last 30 years. Now, we can only catch third grade fish in it. Whatever warning we give the federal government, as I did when I was the mayor of my town, in order to try and call its attention to that, the answer is: This is the juridisction of the provincial government. I turned to the provincial government without ever obtaining the slightest improvement. The company responsible for pollution kept on making everything dirty with impunity, and, today, we are surprised. Governments had been advised of this. They were aware of it. It seems surprising today that everything should be polluted. Governments have known about this for 35 or 40 years and still, they tolerate this situation.

January 28, 1971

Government Organization Act, 1970
Why? Is it because large companies have too much influence upon governments? Is it because they supply too much money to campaign funds?
Now, the department will devise cleaning up programs, in order to fight pollution. Again this is going to be paid for by poor workers in the form of taxes. These big companies, which are responsible, are not going to pay, and this is why I wish to warn the minister. They are the real polluters. Indeed I heard someone say a few days ago that those who will pay will necessarily be the taxpayers.
Well, I say no. In these serious instances of pollution, the taxpayers should not pay, but the government should coerce these companies into undoing the damage they have done to our waters.
We are also confronted with pollution caused by the accumulation of garbage in cities. The government should consult with municipalities in dealing with this problem. As a matter of fact I spoke about it this afternoon to the officials of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to try and attract the attention of the government on the need to pass legislation and regulations to urge municipalities to discharge their sewers elsewhere but not in our waterways, and thus control the present situation.
I am sure that the future minister will arrange meetings with the provincial authorities. In fact, the provincial government will always be involved and it is a touchy operation-especially in the province of Quebec- for federal members to "swing a leg over the fence" as people would say. These will have to be contacts with the provincial authorities and joint programs will have to be developed so that every municipality will feel the obligation to comply with certain regulations designed to cleanse our rivers and streams.
We are told that it is too late, but better too late than never. If we fail to take action within the next decade, in my area, I am convinced that not a single fish will survive. We may have the most beautiful lakes and rivers, but all of them will surely be spoiled due to the nearsightedness of our governments.
The municipal authorities are certainly not able to solve this problem alone and I know the minister is convinced of that. That is why, besides establishing the department, the minister should take care not to imitate other ministers by merely creating committees charged with the responsibility of doing the work for him. He should take direct action and suggest concrete programs to be carried out immediately.
Then, we will be able to say that we really have an active and a progressive department. As far as pollution is concerned, there is no time to lose, I think.
Now, I am turning to the second part dealing with Energy, Mines, Resources and Technical Surveys, which will include hydro-electric power. Here is a problem that is likely to cause many headaches to the federal government when the time comes to make arrangements with the government of Quebec and other provincial governments.
I hope this task will be carried out quickly and, as far as I know, there is no reason why the provincial governments should object to the federal government's proposals for joint action in this field.
As regard Part III, namely the National Research Council, we agree with the clause transferring responsibility for astronomical observatories to the National Research Council. We can only commend the minister for dealing with this matter which, I believe, falls under federal jurisdiction.
With Part IV of the bill, we are really coming to the crunch of the matter. We have been told in Part III that three new ministers of State would be appointed. That will make five. When the Prime Minister is asked about the reasons for this government reorganization, the answer can be found in the January 27 issue of La Presse, and I quote:
The federal government Intends to set up new ministerial duties i-.i order to face "emergency matters".
Mr. Speaker, I really wonder about these "emergency matters". The only "emergency matter' that I can see in the creation of these new puppet departments and the appointment of new ministers of State is an attempt to please as many people as possible. I think the appointments could give the Prime Minister quite a headache. Considering the size of his representation, everybody will probably want to have cabinet post. And since there are simply not enough posts available, why not make up a few extra ones. But this is done at the taxpayers' expense. He will appoint five ministers of State who will receive $15,000 in addition to their salary. Moreover, he will appoint 18 parliamentary secretaries with a $4,000 gift to each of them.


An hon. Member:: It is not 18.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I am told it is not 18 but 16. If we figure the expenses that would result from the appointment of five new Ministers of State, 36 or 38 parliamentary secretaries, 18 committee chairmen, one whip, one assistant whip, we may well wonder where this will lead us to. We realize that in the end everybody will be happy, everybody will be rewarded, everybody will have his piece of pie. But in order to please everybody, it will cost one billion dollars more to this country. We forget that. That is why I cannot logically and sincerely approve the provision of this bill providing for the appointment of Ministers of State and parliamentary secretaries.
A bill dealing with this particular subject would be very interesting. I wish I knew the result of a vote on bills of that kind. But what happens? It is hidden inside the cake so that we might be led to swallow it. However, we shall not, even at the risk of being told by our electors, as often happens when we vote against a bill: You voted against the bill on pollution. But nobody will suggest that this bill features other kinds of pollution

salary pollution, gift pollution and political pollution! This is why I can not support it.
[Mr. Gauthier.l

January 28, 1971

This is why we ask the government in future to introduce subjects one by one so that we can discuss each of them thoroughly. At the present time, everything is camouflaged and the vote will prove unfair to us.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) said this afternoon: You will vote in committee. What is a vote in committee worth? This is a joke. Nonetheless, the public wants to know whether elected members have voted for or against a clause to which they were opposed. With a bill like this, there is no way of knowing.
This being the case, we request that when such important matters as expenses exceeding one billion dollars are involved, they be divided into parts. Since the government rejects the idea, we shall oppose the bill.
As for part VII concerning the public service superannuation I am all for it. I am glad for the civil servants because they will be entitled to a pension at 60. They will even have the right, if they stop working before 60, to keep on contributing to get a full pension. I would like it if these provisions could also apply to old people: this would be interesting. For the last two or three years it has been requested that their penson be paid at 60. The pensioners agree. Unfortunately they have to wait until 65 to get their pension cheque while the civil servants who, incidentally, have had salaries of $12,000, $15,000, $18,000, $20,000 or $24,000 per year will get their pension at 60. That is not so bad. I am glad for them. I am not against it but I wish old people could get their pension at 60 and that their spouse could get it too, whatever his or her age. [This would be justice. There is discrimination against part of our society. All our citizens should be granted the same treatment if the so-called just society is to be achieved. Legislation should be extended to our senior citizens and then the Canadians will be satisfied.
Mr. Speaker, my time is running out.
One might wonder how I would vote on this bill. After all I said, Mr. Speaker, one will realize I am on the horns of a tremendous dilemma. This is why even though I support without reservation certain parts of the bill, some other parts keep me from approving it in its entirety. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will cast my vote against this bill.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, in participating in the debate on this bill which does a number of things may I first commend the government for tackling the very serious problems relating to the environment. Responsibility for these matters has up to this time been scattered among numerous departments. That responsibility in the main will now be concentrated under one minister and one department which is to be known as the department of the environment. I wish the new minister who will assume these substantial responsibilities the very best fortune in his efforts to deal with many of the serious problems that face this nation in so far as pollution is concerned.
I shall place on record some facts about a very serious situation that exists in my constituency in the province
Government Organization Act, 1970 of Nova Scotia. I wish to make all hon. members fully aware of this situation which is probably unique in Canada. It is the type cf uniqueness that the residents of the coal mining town of Springhill would like to have eliminated as soon as possible. That town is faced with a critical pollution problem that endangers the health of its 7,500 residents. I would describe the situation as nothing less than a national disgrace which has been allowed to go on and on. I think it would be of value to the minister and lion, members to have some background information regarding this situation.
Springhill was a mining town. It suffered two calamitous disasters in 1956 and 1958 which took the lives of many miners. The only two employers in that community were eliminated. For some time the people of that community had grave doubts about the future. I am sure this was the case with people all across this country, because Canadians everywhere rallied behind the brave people of Springhill. People all across Canada, including the provincial government of Nova Scotia, assisted the people of that community in many ways. As a result, Springhill has developed a very good industrial base. The federal government can take the credit; it established a very substantial minimum security penal institution which provides a good deal of employment for the people of the community.
Because Springhill had been a coal mining community for a long time, a very large mine-dump developed. The waste products from the mining operations were deposited in the dump. To give some idea of the extent of this mine-dump, I would say that it covers between 45 and 50 acres of land in the midst of the community. About 1960 a fire started in this huge mine-dump. At that time it was not very serious. Although some efforts were made to put out the fire, it continued to burn. The burning became more and more extensive. Today it covers almost all the 45 to 50 acres of land. The fire continued because the dump contained a great deal of coal. I understand that between 10 per cent and 15 per cent of the mine-dump is coal. The fire penetrated deeper and deeper into the mine-dump. I am told that at the present time the fire is burning at a depth of between 40 and 60 feet. The fumes from the fire have started to rise and on a windy day, especially on a humid day, the fumes cover the whole of the town.
We hear a great deal about the bad effects of smog in the cities of Lios Angeles and New York. More recently we have heard it associated with the cities of Montreal and Toronto. Unless one visits the town of Springhill on a windy or humid day you do not realize how dense are these fumes or how hazardous they are to the health of those who live in the community. It might well have caused the death of some residents of Springhill. I have no doubt that it has stopped industries locating there. If an individual who is considering locating a plant visited Springhill on a day when the smog is in existence, he would have second, third and maybe fourth thoughts about locating there and asking his employees to suffer what could be a very hazardous health problem.
For the past five years the people of Springhill have been trying to have this mine-dump fire extinguished.

January 28, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 They have been trying in every way. I do not say that governments have ignored the problem completely. The provincial department of mines has made some studies of the situation. The federal Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources have also conducted studies. Since April 22, 1970, officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources have been preparing a report based on a study they have been conducting as to how this mine-dump fire may best be extinguished. While some efforts have been made, they have not been substantial. They have not been the kind of efforts that would be made if this fire were located in the centre of the city of Ottawa and the people of this city were breathing the fumes from that mine-dump fire, thereby endangering their health. Because this is happening in a small town in Nova Scotia, the people have to suffer on and on. A person with an asthmatic or bronchial condition is put in a very serious situation, one that I suggest should make him leave the community because of possible danger to his life. Hence, I should like to see prompt action taken to put out the fire. Some of the studies which have been carried out indicate that a substantial amount of money is involved in putting out the fire. I think it makes no difference how much is involved; no one in Canada should be asked to live in a community so badly polluted that they might be risking their lives by remaining there.
I have recounted the situation today and hope that when the new department is created-or before it is created, if action can be taken soon enough-steps will be taken to extinguish this fire in the shortest possible time. Having an appreciation of the kind of people living in the community of Springhill, and recognizing the way they have fought back with courage and determination, after two mine calamities, from the brink of complete disaster, I am sure the taxpayers of this nation would gladly see money spent to extinguish the continuing blaze that is such a blight on this great and wonderful town.
It is my hope that the new minister of the environment will take quick action to see that a report that was supposed to have been completed in September of 1970 is released. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) informs me that the report is not yet complete and that it will not be made public when it is complete. Perhaps the information contained in that report is so shocking, not just to the people who five in the community of Springhill but to the people of the whole nation, that it is better so far as the government is concerned that it be kept secret. But I believe it is in the interests of the people of that community to make the report public as soon as possible and that immediate action be taken thereon.
We all became very concerned about the effect on the environment of the Arrow disaster in Chedabucto Bay, as well as the effect it had on wildlife. I am just as concerned about human life in the town of Springhill, the residents of which have been facing this terrible pollutant day in and day out, 365 days of the year, for the last decade. The government spent $4 million to clean up the Arrow pollution and it had better spend $1 million, or
IMr. Coateg.l
whatever is the cost, to extinguish this mine-dump fire as quickly as it can.
I should now like to pass to another subject which will also interest the new minister of the environment, and that is Fundy power. I am indeed pleased to see the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) in the House this evening, for as Nova Scotia's representative in the cabinet he was of material assistance in having a study carried out by the federal government and the governments of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. This study revealed that Fundy tidal power was a feasible scheme from an engineering point of view, though it expressed some doubt as to the financial feasibility of the scheme.
Since this programming board's report has been brought down, new information has come to light. An international conference was held in Halifax in the spring of 1970 on the utilization of tidal power. It was chaired by Dr. Thomas J. Gray of Nova Scotia Technical College and produced much valuable information on the feasibility of harnessing the Bay of Fundy tides, as well as a new insight into how tidal power could best be harnessed to produce thermal power 24 hours a day at an economic rate. In addition, there was information about the marketing potential of Fundy power. There is no doubt that Fundy power could be sold just as quickly as it is produced. The question appears to be one of dollars and cents. The man who will be the first minister of the environment has said that cost is not as important as pollution-free projects wherever they may be and in whatever sector of the economy they fall. Fundy power would be completely pollution-free; no pollution of any kind is associated with tidal power.
Only recently the United Nations indicated that tidal power was a vital future source of energy in the world because of its pollution-free aspect. Surely Canada should be the first to seize upon the opportunity of producing pollution-free power in gigantic amounts which would be available to the whole of Canada as well as to the United States, especially the eastern seaboard of that country. What is more important, Mr. Speaker, is that the federal government, through the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, has indicated a willingess to re-examine the programming board's report to determine whether this project, in light of new technical evidence particularly as to how power can best be utilized from the tides, is feasible. He has said the government is willing to go ahead with this re-examination if requested to do so by the other two partners who initially assisted in a financial way toward the production of this report.
* (9:20 p.m.)
The Premier of the province of New Brunswick has indicated his support for a re-examination of this project. The Premier of Nova Scotia, for reasons best known to himself, has said he will not request a re-examination of the report produced by the programming board or the new material that is available. I do not understand why the Premier of Nova Scotia takes this position, because that province would be the beneficiary in many ways and it is impossible to imagine what such a project might to
January 28, 1971

for the revitalization of the whole of the Atlantic area. A simple example is that between 7,000 and 10,000 jobs would be created almost immediately on the construction of dams to harness the tides. Such a transfusion of employment would transform Nova Scotia from a "have-not" to a "have" province. It would probably do the same for the whole Atlantic area. I am sure this is one of the basic reasons the Premier of New Brunswick is anxious to have the report re-examined. In any event, the Premier of Nova Scotia says he does not wish it re-examined.
The taxpayers of this country have an investment of $2,250,000 in the original report. I suggest it would cost far less to conduct a re-examination to bring the report up to date, so that Canadians might know whether the Fundy project is feasible, than it cost to bring about the original report. In view of the fact that the President of the Privy Council has a personal and friendly relationship with the Premier of Nova Scotia, I hope he will urge the Premier to take action to bring about a re-examination in order that we might in the near future look forward to a project to harness Fundy tidal power. In this way the people in the Maritime provinces would not have to wait forever and forever for such a project.
There is one other point I should like to raise. The power-hungry states along the eastern seaboard must soon decide where they will get power over and above that made available from Churchill Falls. The decision cannot be delayed, because this area of the United States is already facing black-out and grey-out periods. This places the utility companies in a precarious position. Even during the winter months these seaboard states are having to close factories and shut down offices because of power shortages. There can be no action in this regard until the Premier of Nova Scotia requests that the report be re-examined. Surely to goodness the Premier should explain to the people of Nova Scotia and the people of Canada why such an examination should not be carried out immediately. In other words, all Canadians should be made aware of the facts that exist today regarding the development of Bay of Fundy tidal power.
I now turn to the government reorganization proposals contained in this bill. At the present time we have 29 cabinet ministers, two without portfolios. When this legislation passes there will be four additional portfolios, which means we will have 31 departments of government. This is three times the number of portfolios held in the United States. That fact does not particularly concern me, and I might point out that the new Premier of Nova Scotia has cut down the number of cabinet posts. What concerns me as much as the idea of 31 ministers sitting around a table trying to decide something is that for some time there has been developing a stratification within the government of which the public has not been aware. If the government intends to set up an elite oligarchy, they should tell the people about it. If there are to be senior and junior ministers, let the government say so. We appear to be getting the proliferation of appointments of people in the Liberal party to an elite oligarchy charged with the responsibility of running this country in the way it desires.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!
Government Organization Act, 1970


Robert Carman Coates: This government has been running the country "well," Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Right into the ground.


Robert Carman Coates: Today we have the most unemployment in the country since the days which we call the dirty thirties. We have approximately 750,000 persons unemployed. The statistics for December indicate something like 535,000. Surely there must have been an increase of 100,000 in January, and probably another 100,000 who became tired of reporting to Manpower offices, were not qualified for unemployment insurance benefits and went on welfare and forgot about working for the next three or four months.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the department of the environment will create new employment. The establishment of more portfolios and more Parliamentary Secretaries will provide a few more dollars for a few more Members of Parliament, and nothing else. For some time I have followed the tremendous build-up in the super bureaucracy which this government has taken great pride in developing. It now sits as a further stratified layer between the cabinet and the Public Service of Canada. The only thing I can say about the 80-odd people in the Prime Minister's office who secure in excess of $800,000 annually from the taxpayers is that they give damn poor advice. It is their advice the government has been following, and it has put this country in the throes of one of our worst depressions in this century.
We are getting a lot of flak from the back benches of the Liberal party. Whether or not the backbenchers realize it, they do not count because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has regional desks to advise him. Perhaps if the Prime Minister took their advice we would not be in the throes of a depression, but he does not pay any attention to them now.


An hon. Member:: And we don't pay any attention to you.


Robert Carman Coates: It is too bad you do not pay any attention to me, because if you did you would realize you are nobodies. The Prime Minister said so in the House and he has indicated in his every action that you are nobodies. Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear the flak from these boys now, because I'll bet that when they go home they will receive a lot of it; more and more flak will be coming their way in the days ahead. They should stop and think, because if they do not know it already, if the Prime Minister has not told them-and if he has not told them, they do not know it-there is one thing as certain as life itself, and that is that unemployed people mark their X's and a devil of a lot of X's will be marked against this government when these people have an opportunity to vote.
If government backbenchers would like some non-partisan advice about the state of the economy at the present time, I have before me Richardson Securities of Canada Investment Securities Review for 1970. There is a Richardson in this House; I do not know whether he has

January 28, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 any association with this organization. This review reads in part as follows:
The present recessionary state of the domestic Canadian economy primarily reflects a cut-back in consumer durable and housing expenditures.
It is a recessionary state, according to the investment dealers. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a recessionary state not only to the investment dealers; it is a recessionary state for at least three-quarters of a million Canadians. They know this because they are on unemployment insurance or welfare at the present time. This government ignored the warning provided not only in this House but by every segment of the economy that we were plunging into a recession. They went under the guise that inflation was the problem which had to be corrected. In December, when he saw the unemployment figures the Prime Minister announced that inflation was beaten, that it was no longer a problem and that unemployment was now the problem. They created it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It took courage to create it, too.


Robert Carman Coates: They created it, and what are they doing about it?


An hon. Member:: Nothing.


Robert Carman Coates: Don't say "nothing", because they are producing a $2 million fund to give employment to 250 graduates from the province of Quebec. That is the way they will solve the problem. It was good to see the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) on television when he was shown the memorandum. Apparently he is not a member of the elite oligarchy because they did not tell him about it.


An hon. Member:: Didn't they tell him about it?


Robert Carman Coates: No, they did not tell him about it. Probably the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) or the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier)-it could not have been the Prime Minister because he was out of the country, but perhaps it was his two right-hand men or the right and the left of him-forgot to tell the President of the Treasury Board, so the poor unfortunate soul had to appear on television and say, "I do not think any such memorandum exists" and then watch a reporter produce it to him. Then we watched him sweat; we could see the beads of sweat dropping off him.


An hon. Member:: He is sweating right now.


An hon. Member:: What about the horses?


An hon. Member:: What about the bananas?


Robert Carman Coates: I heard somebody say something about bananas. They are for the Prime Minister's orangutan. He goes away, and when he cannot find girls he finds an orangutan to kiss. Mr. Speaker, we have a "big deal" for the Canadian taxpayer. The government are going to take $2 million from Canadian taxpayers to help unemployed graduates; but they will only help graduates who come from the province of Quebec. Maybe they will help
French-speaking graduates from some other province- maybe!


Mr. Paproski:: What about the Ukraphones?


Robert Carman Coates: There are Anglophones and Francophones and Ukraphones but there are not Canadians any more, according to this government. This government went across the country preaching "one Canada." Well, it is a special kind of "one Canada." It is getting to be one Canada if you are from the province of Quebec and a completely different Canada if you come from anywhere else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: One Canada for those who speak the French language but a completely different Canada for those who speak any other language. That is the "one Canada" we have today, with the fund which is being made available by this government to create employment for 250 French-speaking graduates from the province of Quebec. If you speak English, no show: you are not involved; you just are not part of it; you are not in the "in" group.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are not even in the cabinet.


Robert Carman Coates: Who cares if you are not in the cabinet? If you are not Trudeau, Pelletier or Marchand it does not make any difference whether or not you are in the cabinet. The President of the Treasury Board discovered that. They do not tell the rest of the cabinet what is going on. Even the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) does not know.
I imagine there are a lot of secret memorandums at the bottom of which you see the little N.B. which says "This program is to be put into effect without any public information being provided about it". It is a different ball of wax. We have an example of just what can happen when a small, elite oligarchy takes over the government of a country. With the government's proliferation of super bureaucrats, the people of Canada are discovering the information to be bad, the policies to be bad and the end result to be misery, misery, misery.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to an excellent speech by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates). It had its serious moments as well as some lighter moments, as speeches in the best parliamentary tradition should have. But upon reflection even the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) would agree that the speech the hon. member has just completed, practically all of which fell within all-fours of the ambit of the bill, demonstrates very well the futility of the exercise upon which the government is asking us to embark. So far as I am concerned, this bill makes a farce of parliamentary democracy and is a waste of parliamentary time.
The President of the Treasury Board made an attempt in his initial remarks to indicate what he thought was the principle of the bill. I and some of my colleagues are

January 28, 1971

perfectly prepared to attempt to debate the bill on the principle which the President of the Treasury Board enunciated on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The President of the Treasury Board said that the bill, if enacted, will better equip the government to develop and implement new policies to serve Canadians in a variety of ways, among them the fight against pollution.
He went on to outline his concept of the need for greater flexibility and manoeuvrability within the operations of the federal government. But he also made what to me is a most astounding observation, namely, that the bill would increase the accountability of the executive to Parliament. I find that a very strange statement from the President of the Treasury Board. I find it to be very strange reasoning. I attempted to look carefully through the bill's various aspects and phases, with its references to various changes to various pieces of legislation, and I fail to understand how it does anything but the opposite of increasing the accountability of the executive to Parliament. At the very least, it does not change the situation from the one we now have.
The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis), in his speech which he termed wide-ranging-to which I may refer later-again illustrated very well the futility of this exercise, because he delivered what my colleague, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland), called a motherhood-type speech. It would have been a very good speech, made in the right place at the right time. To those of us who have been following some of the speeches the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has made in various parts of the country, and in particular in the coastal areas of B.C., much of it had a familiar ring. In other words, in a debate which, according to the title of the bill, concerns itself with government organization, the minister made a speech which might very well be right and proper on a public platform seeking to arouse the Canadian public to the dangers of pollution, but it had nothing to do with giving the House an inkling of how he understands the responsibility which he has been asked to assume as the minister of a new and enlarged department.
So I think that if the debate is to have any meaning at all, it has to revert to the question of whether or not it is desirable for the House to have this kind of bill thrust before it at almost every session. In some remarks that I drafted earlier today, which I was sending to my constituents, I described the situation in these terms. I raised the question: Is Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau merely a technocrat intent on shuffling round the building blocks of the various structures within the organization of the government of Canada like some child learning his ABCs from a new Christmas gift, or is he a master strategist moving purposefully toward a new era of effective government, attuned to the needs of the latter part of the twentieth century?
This, I suggested, is the substance of the debate which is rapidly gathering momentum in Parliament. Then I went on to say, as did the President of the Treasury Board in his speech, that pretty well every year since 1966 we have been presented with these bills having to
Government Organization Act, 1970 do with government organization-omnibus types of bills. Perhaps in 1966 those of us who were around did not really sense that this was the beginning of a large cloud which was looming low on the horizon. Perhaps we were not aware what was really happening, of the trend and direction in which the government was moving in connection with proposals to change the operations of the federal government.
The fact is that one of the side-results of this form of legislation is that year by year it is becoming more and more difficult to keep track of the legislation we have, because many important aspects of legislation are being buried inside these mammoth government bills, which do not only deal with the restructuring of federal government departments, as other speakers have said. So I think it is time some of the facts of our current situation were brought forward in this debate.
What is the present situation with respect to the authority of the government to move in restructuring or streamlining the activities of the federal government, and why do I suggest this situation is making a farce of parliamentary democracy and parliamentary debate? Let us consider the question of the proposed new department of the environment. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is the point in our sitting here tonight debating the feasibility or otherwise of the establishment of a department of the environment when we are already faced with a fait accompli in everything but name? It makes me think of that old and well-worn saying that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
What added powers and responsibilities is the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry getting under this bill just because it is proposed to change the name of that department? I submit that there are absolutely none. I have gone over the Order in Council that was passed on November 26, 1970, P. C. 1970-2047, and I have looked at the powers and duties that were then added to the responsibilities of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry under the authority of the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act. As far as I have been able to check, there is not one item or aspect of this bill that is not already covered by that Order in Council so far as the responsibilities and duties of the minister are concerned.
Some of us, of course, recognize that the responsibilities of the President of the Treasury Board lie in the allocation of funds and that he is just acting on behalf of the Prime Minister in this debate. But when introducing this measure, when he referred to the new department of the environment he gave no indication that the minister would have any further back-up or muscle to do anything about improving our environment. So really all we are indulging in is an exercise of rubber-stamping something the government has already done. Even if we were to defeat this bill, the authority the government has already exercised under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act would not be affected in any way. So, Mr. Speaker, we come back to the question: Is this bill just a matter of technocratic juggling?

January 28, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
A department of the environment is something many of us would like to see and would support. But, Mr. Speaker, I have some reservations about putting these kinds of responsibilities in the hands of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry because I represent an area of Canada where the commercial fisheries are very important. Other hon. members who participated in this debate have said this is true of their areas also. There is the latent fear in the minds of many of us that the minister will become so interested in making airy-fairy kinds of speeches about the environment and about underwater marine parks in the Strait of Georgia that he will no longer accept as a major responsibility the enhancement and development of the commercial fisheries of Canada.
In his speech, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry mentioned some of the things that had been transferred, but he did not give us any reason why responsibility for the national parks was not being placed in his new department, when general control over renewable resources is included. In other words, why should the Wildlife Service go into the hands of the minister of the environment who is concerned with renewable resources, and the national parks system of Canada, which many of us regard as part of the keystone to maintaining our natural environment for the enjoyment of future generations, be left outside the ambit of the responsibilities of this minister? We cannot really debate that question because the government has said: We have already set up this department in all but name.
I noticed that this transfer of powers is the kind of continuing process to which the President of the Treasury Board referred. To give some perspective to what has happened, I look at the introduction to the first-and I am not sure whether it will be the last-annual report of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. This is how it reads in the introduction:
A major change in departmental organization occurred early in the fiscal year resulting from an Order in Council dated July 12, 1968, under which the forestry branch, together with certain advisory, administrative, and technical support elements from the Department of Forestry and Rural Development, were combined with the Department of Fisheries.
Co-incident with the announcement of this re-organization was the appointment of the Hon. Jack Davis, Member of Parliament for Capilano, B.C., as the minister responsible for fisheries and forestry.
Following the establishment of task forces to study the restructuring of the department as a result of the fisheries-forestry merger, the new Department of Fisheries and Forestry officially came into being on March 28, 1969, with the enactment of the Government Organization Act, 1969.
Now we are sort of undoing that exercise and starting on a new exercise, and I suppose new task forces will spend their time reshuffling the various elements of this new department. This may be an interesting and perhaps even necessary technical exercise, but it does not give Parliament the opportunity to assess what the government really has in mind in relation to a department of the environment, the controlling of the environment against pollution and its preservation for future generations of Canadians. In other words, all we have is a reshuffling of the machinery, which we are being asked
to rubber-stamp. We have had no real indication from the minister who introduced the bill, from the Prime Minister, from the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, or from anybody else over there, as to the direction in which future policies should move and how much money will be put into the pot to back up those policies.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacLean:: Before we proceed with the adjournment debate, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the House leader would indicate what he proposes to place before the House tomorrow and at the beginning of next week, and for as far into next week as he can tell us.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, if I may deal with tomorrow first, I would like to call the bill that has been under discussion today. I suggest that if tomorrow at any point we reach the stage that no further members wish to speak on second reading, and if at that point there is a desire for a recorded vote, we would agree to put off the vote until Monday. It may be that there will be no wish to have a recorded vote, but if there is we would have it on Monday. If, following that point, there were time available before four o'clock we would complete the day by dealing with other items such as the omnibus loans bill, the Canada-Jamaica tax agreement and, finally, the New Zealand-Canada trade agreement.
On Monday I would call the government organization bill, continuing it from whatever stage it had reached and, hopefully, completing it. Then I would call the Canada Development Corporation bill and the bail reform bill. Any of the items that I have mentioned for tomorrow left uncompleted would follow that bill.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question to clarify one small point? I presume that if the second reading debate were to end tomorrow, the three items that were mentioned would be proceeded with in the order in which they were mentioned, with the loans bill coming first.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that would be the order of calling the bills. After the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has expressed his views on the matter, I wonder whether the House will accept my suggestion with respect to the recorded division and, if so, whether that agreement might be put into the form of an order of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we would agree to such an order. I do not know what the minister would say if we were to suggest that nine votes ought to be taken instead of one. That, however, is another matter. We will agree to that order. While I am on my feet, may I ask if the minister intends, once we have dealt with the second reading of the bill and brought it into committee of the whole, to continue

January 28, 1971

the debate on the bill until it is completed, or does he plan any interruption for any purpose?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we hope to continue with it until it is completed. We should only consider interrupting the debate on that bill if the House were to become so weary of it as to make no progress.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then would the minister interrupt it for Easter?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I gather that the agreement of the House Leaders is that if a vote should be required in connection with the second reading of Bill C-207 tomorrow, it will be deferred until Monday. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we would call the vote just as Orders of the Day are called, after oral questions, if that is agreeable.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I am bringing before the House tonight the matter of imports of beef from New Zealand and Australia because I have not been able to obtain from the government and the minister responsible what I consider a satisfactory answer about where we are going in regard to beef imports. The matter was first brought to the attention of the House when the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) early in 1969 returned from a tour of Asia and announced that we could expect increased imports of beef from New Zealand. He said that these imports were mainly derived from the slaughter of canner and cutter cows and that we did not have enough of such cows. By June, 1970, it was obvious that these imports were creating a real problem in Canada. So much beef was being brought into Canada and re-exported to the United States that the United States complained.
On June 25 I urged the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), as recorded in Hansard, to report to the House before the recess what action the government would take and what policy it would follow on this matter. No satisfactory answer was received. On December 1, 1970, I again asked if steps would be taken to limit the amount of beef imported into Canada from Australia and New Zealand to levels that would not pose a threat to our own
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
market. The minister replied, as recorded at page 1628 of Hansard, as follows:
This concerns a matter we negotiated with Australia and New Zealand during midsummer when it presented a serious problem. We hope that the kind of negotiations which led to a solution of the difficulty then will be conducted in the future.
In December or January I again asked the question and received no satisfactory answer. In either June or July of last year the United States put a complete ban on the re-export of these products coming into Canada from New Zealand; they were blocked off. The full flow of products then on the high seas was unloaded in Canada. The "Canadian Cattleman", a journal issued by the cattleman's association, expressed very grave concern. It pointed out that we were reaching the point where 10 per cent of the beef we consumed was imported from Australia and New Zealand. In the period January to September, 1970, Canada imported 62 million pounds of beef from New Zealand and 43 million pounds from Australia. This is the nature of the problem.
At a recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, we discussed the new provisions in trade with regard to these imports. When I asked the witnesses who appeared before the committee whether we could negotiate quotas with New Zealand under the agreement, the answer was yes. To my knowledge, no attempt has been made to take this kind of action. Our market is wide open. We have quotas on butter because it is necessary to protect the dairy industry. However, our beef markets are open to everyone. We tell other countries to come and help themselves.
The North Battleford News Optimist, which is published in the centre of the cattle-raising area in Saskatchewan, states that United States officials have stated this embargo on imports of New Zealand beef to the United States will continue throughout the current year. Are we to assume that our market will be left wide open? The New Zealanders are exporting their problems with regard to dairy products and beef to this country. The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board stated that Canadian farmers would put an additional three million acres into forage for beef production. When speaking to the Canadian Confederation of Agriculture on January 27, the Minister of Agriculture stated as follows:
Our livestock industry is responding to new challenges. The beef industry has invested millions in new feedlots from coast to coast, we are increasing our national herd, we are adopting new processing and merchandising techniques-
Hon. members opposite are not rising to meet the challenge. The minister is responsible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) has raised a problem which existed in Canada last summer. It is quite true that at that time large quantities of Australian and New Zealand beef were being imported into Canada and transshipped to the United States. The situa-

January 28, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion tion arose because the Americans had put a prohibition on imports of beef from those countries. Canada was in the position of being exempt from those prohibitions.
As a result of the distress we were causing the American market by allowing this beef to come through Canada, and the threat that our free entry into the American market could be prohibited if we did not do something about it, we made representations to New Zealand and Australia. We obtained agreement from them that they would not ship beef into Canada during the period in which it would cause distress. At the time this agreement was reached there were shipments on the high seas on their way to Canada, and it took some time to clear these shipments out of the Canadian market. The agreement that we made with those countries at the time was that they would suspend shipments until such time as all this beef was cleared out of the Canadian market. Since then we have not had this problem.
It is true that the New Zealanders and Australians generally ship low-grade, or manufacturing beef to Canada, the sort which goes into wieners and manufactured goods of that kind. We anticipate that if the problem should arise again we would have no difficulty in taking the same kind of action and obtaining the same kind of agreement from the New Zealanders and Australians that we obtained previously. If that occasion arises we will have no hesitation in asking them to take the same action.
The hon. member suggests that we should put artificial embargoes on the importation of beef from other countries.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Not artificial, real ones.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Real embargoes. This is a temptation. I think that all producers in Canada would like to have free access to every market in the world and prohibit imports to this country. May I remind the hon. member that every time we put up a barrier against somebody else's goods there is a temptation for them to put up a barrier against ours. We are fighting a trade war with other countries-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



GOVERNMENT PROPERTY-VANCOUVER-SUGGESTED REFUSAL OF LEASE TO FOUR SEASONS HOTEL

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the matter I raise tonight is of vital concern not only to the citizens of Vancouver but to all Canadians. Stanley Park is an incomparable asset, one thousand acres of beauty and recreation, owned and open to the public of this country and invaluable as a tourist attraction. At this moment its future is in jeopardy.
Over the years the Vancouver city council has spurned the only over-all plan the city ever had and has released more and more nearby waterfront areas to private land speculators and developers. One of these, Harbour Park Developments Limited, made 200 per cent speculative

profit on these holdings between 1965 and 1969. Now the city council is on the verge of allowing a $40 million hotel, apartment and specialty store complex to be built on the 14-acre waterfront lot at the entrance to Stanley Park. Instead of open park space and a magnificent view of mountains and harbour, we are going to get a concrete jungle within 24 feet of the park, an impossible traffic situation in an already congested artery and a betrayal of public trust on a grand scale.
This is the time for plain talk, and I wish the minister were here tonight to deal with the question. This cluttered, greedy plan is a steal, and a steal possible only under the cloak of secrecy and evasion. The only public authority prepared to fight for the public and to save Stanley Park for the people has been the Vancouver parks board. For years they have done all they can to protect one of Vancouver's greatest assets.
Where does the National Harbours Board come in? The truth is that much of the land on which this Four Seasons cement colossus is to be built is owned by the National Harbours Board, whose signature is required for the lease. Further, one piece of the land, the Gilford Street waterlot, which was deeded by the National Harbours Board to the city in 1917 so that the public could have access to the water, is now in the process of being deeded back to the Crown by the city of Vancouver for the sum of one dollar so that the National Harbours Board may have everything in order for the signing of the lease.
In 1917 the Harbours Board gave a waterlot to Vancouver so that the public could have access to the water. Apparently today's Harbour Board is prepared to aid private speculators and developers to fence the public away from water, mountains and parks. I challenge the minister to refute this charge. I challenge him to carry out his duty to preserve and protect the heritage of the waterfront for the public. Let him refuse to sanction this lease. Let him listen to the Vancouver parks board and organized citizen bodies in the city of Vancouver. Let him negotiate with the city council to protect the rights of Canadians from coast to coast who have a share in the ownership of Stanley Park which is, as you know, owned by the Department of National Defence and leased to the city of Vancouver.
At the very least, let the minister look at the compromise plan of the Vancouver parks board, a plan which would preserve the block next to the park for public use. This plan would leave the private developers with the second block. It would allow the parks board to develop a fisherman's wharf and restaurants such as have made San Francisco famous, to build a public, revenue-producing marina and a variety of other self-financing attractions.
Wherever you are, Mr. Minister, will you decide for a few well placed persons, or for the whole community? Will you go along with private speculators, or save irreplaceable public land? You have the power to stop this violation of public trust on the part of a few shortsighted people who would sell out the public heritage for a few pieces of paper. The decision is yours; where do you stand?
January 28, 1971


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I asked the minister if I could appear for him this evening. Ever since he made that interesting date with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) on December 13 I have been envious of him and have been looking forward to keeping it for him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It serves you right.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Some of the comments of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway are not entirely in keeping with the facts. I share with her the concern of all of us for the preservation of parkland in British Columbia, particularly in respect of that site to which she has referred. There has been no evasion of the truth, or secrecy. I would indicate to the hon. member that the lease was signed by the Harbours Board in respect of that piece of property over five years ago, so the government of Canada is not in a position to take action to do anything to affect such a lease.
Many representations have been received by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) in respect of the pro-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
posed development. Some, such as those put forward by the Vancouver parks board, are not in favour of the undertaking. Others have identified the proposed development as being imaginative and as an appropriate addition to the downtown establishment. The proposed development comprises a hotel, various types of living accommodation, shops, walks, boat mooring facilities and extensive ornamental gardens; the same kind of thing the hon. member has just recommended. The lease in question has existed for some years. Recently it was renegotiated to accommodate land use more appropriate to the locale.
In light of representations received, and in consultation with various members from the Vancouver area on both sides of the House, the Minister of Transport has been re-examining the whole question. Meetings are taking place currently and the House will be informed of new developments as soon as they occur.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Another sell-out.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.21 p.m.
2887

Friday, January 29, 1971