1971-01-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, on the order paper under Private Members' Public Bills there stands in my name a bill which has a certain technical defect. I would request that, with the permission of the House, the order for second reading of Bill C-209 be discharged and the bill withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of Bills. First Reading of Senate Public Bills. Government Notices of Motions.


Mr. Greene:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister rising on a point of order?


John James Greene: No, Mr. Speaker. I wish to make a statement on motions.


Mr. Speaker:: The item "Motions" was called previously. Is there agreement of the House to return to motions to allow the minister to make a statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Alexander:: We will give you a break, Joe.



ATOMIC ENERGY


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the government has authorized Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to enter into an agreement with Deuterium of Canada Limited and the government of Nova Scotia to enable Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to carry out an engineering assessment to determine the feasibility and probable costs of bringing the Deuterium plant at Glace Bay into production.
The province of Nova Scotia and Deuterium of Canada Limited have a very substantial investment in this venture, and its failure would be a serious financial setback for the province of Nova Scotia.
The province has indicated to the government that it is not practicable, because of the lack of sufficient technical expertise at the provincial level, for the province to bring the plant into production and operate it with its own provincial facilities and resources. The government has therefore authorized the above study, which does not include any commitment on the part of the federal government or AECL to carry out further work or to put the plant into production or to operate same, but which study will be submitted to the government for its consideration upon completion.
The study will be embarked upon and completed at the earliest possible date, and AECL has been authorized to spend the sum of $300,000 of its own funds toward such study.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I say that from my own observation the co-operation between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the province, and Deuterium of Canada Limited has always been very close. Officials of Atomic Energy of Canada have always been most helpful, and I am pleased to see that this degree of co-operation is evidently continuing. I express the hope that this study and other efforts will lead to an early solution of the problems since this is obviously of great importance to the province of Nova Scotia and indeed to the country as a whole.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, we approve of such a study being made. However, I regret that studies of this nature were not undertaken a long time ago. Much trouble and inconvenience would have been avoided. I agree with the minister that the amount of knowledge on the provincial level is not adequate to deal with this type of problem. I think it can be more properly done by Atomic Energy of Canada Limit-

January 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
ed, and I wish them and the province of Nova Scotia well in any such study.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, since I am quite familiar with the problem of the heavy water plant in Glace Bay, I am pleased to make some comments on the minister's statement.
What surprises me is that the federal government wants to assist a Crown corporation established by the former premier of Nova Scotia who is now Leader of the official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). This corporation, as we know, is on the verge of bankruptcy. It is a white elephant. It has shown only deficits since the beginning and it costs several million dollars in interests alone.
We know quite well that the leader of the Liberal party in Nova Scotia based its election campaign last year on the possibility of saving the heavy water plant. Now, that plant is completely obsolete and we want to save, at a cost of $300,000, an undertaking that is considered in Nova Scotia as nothing more than a white elephant. Moreover, until now the company has been very badly managed financially.
I wonder how come the federal government now wants to risk an amount of $300,000, unless it is to keep the election promise of the present premier of Nova Scotia, and also to save an undertaking launched by the Leader of the official Opposition, a crown company on the verge of bankruptcy that has never produced an ounce of heavy water to this day.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Does the government now propose any increased assistance to the provinces and the municipalities in view of the skyrocketing costs of welfare resulting from increasing unemployment? I point out that this is particularly urgent in view of statements such as that made by the Metro Toronto Social Services Commission describing the problem as reaching crisis proportions even in Toronto, that great centre which we normally consider to be one of the most dynamic and prosperous cities in the country.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would agree with the last statement
made by the Leader of the Opposition that Toronto is one of the most dynamic and progressive cities on the continent.


Mitchell William Sharp: In answer to the question that was put to me may I say that the subject of the shares of costs of welfare was discussed at the conference yesterday and will be discussed again today. As I said yesterday in the House, the government has not yet made a decision on the requests of the provinces.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Acting Prime Minister whether this is a subject that can just be considered along these lines? In view of the information that is coming forth daily as to the effect of increasing welfare costs not only upon the people who have to go on welfare but upon the governments directly involved, does he believe this is something than can be let run along, or is the government of Canada now prepared to increase the federal share of assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan in relation to the funds required to meet the costs of welfare, particularly of welfare for those Canadians who are employable?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would expect us to consider the requests before we make any decision. I can assure him that the matter is under active consideration in cabinet, and when a decision is made it will be announced in the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the Acting Prime Minister not agree that the government has had about a year to consider this question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



UNEMPLOYMENT-CONSIDERATION OF INSTITUTION OF GUARANTEED INCOME PLAN

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. In addition to the consideration that the Acting Prime Minister says will be given to the request for an increase in the percentage paid by the federal government under the Canada Assistance Plan, may I ask, particularly in view of the persistence of unemployment, whether the government is also considering the proposal for the early institution of the guaranteed income plan for Canadians?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government was the first in this country to issue a paper on the subject, which indicates our very great interest in the matter. It is, as the white paper indicates, a matter of government policy. This is the direction in which we think we should move.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since the white paper to which the Acting Prime Minister has referred turns down the guaranteed income plan, will the government reconsider it now that it has been requested by a number of the provinces?

January 29, 1971


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the white paper does not turn it down. The government believes that this is the direction in which we should move. I am sure the hon. member will agree that there have been very great advances, as illustrated by many of the discussions now going on with the provinces.



UNEMPLOYMENT-ESTIMATE OF JOBS TO BE PRODUCED BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PLANS

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: Mr. Speaker, would the Acting Prime Minister advise the House as to what the government's response was to the unanimous demand yesterday at the welfare conference by the representatives of all the provinces that the government increase the share it pays under the Canada Assistance Plan to 60 per cent or, if possible, to 65 per cent, since increased unemployment is making it impossible for the provinces and municipalities to meet relief costs?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. gentleman heard my answer to the question asked by his leader. Perhaps he was not listening to what his leader had to say. He asked me precisely that question and I said that the matter is under consideration.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, would the Acting Prime Minister advise the House as to what was the response of the government to the request of these ministers yesterday- it was more of a demand than a request-for the government's estimate of the number of new jobs which will be produced by the government's unemployment program during the next three months?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday to the hon. member when he asked a similar question, there was a very substantial increase in the number of jobs in Canada in 1970.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: We expect that there will be an even greater increase in the number of jobs, mainly as a result of the measures taken by this government.


Mr. Ricard:: There is to be increased unemployment. That is what the minister means.


George Harris Hees: There has been a decrease, not an increase.



UNEMPLOYMENT-GOVERNMENT SPOKESMAN AT WELFARE MINISTERS' CONFERENCE

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, since unemployment, according to the minister's statement and the requests of the provincial ministers, is the No. 1 issue at the welfare ministers' conference, may I ask which minister has been designated as the spokesman for the government at the conference on unemployment?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the spokesman at the conference is, of course,
Inquiries of the Ministry
the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since this is a meeting of ministers of welfare, he is speaking for the government at that conference. The whole question, of course, of what measures should be taken to meet the requests of the welfare ministers is a subject for the cabinet as a whole.



UNEMPLOYMENT-NUMBER DRAWING INSURANCE BENEFITS

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister about the government's unemployment program. Has he received reports showing that the total number of people unemployed and drawing unemployment insurance benefits now stands at 756,000?


Mitchell William Sharp: I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the figure, but I do know that the figure of those receiving unemployment benefits, which indicates the great improvement that has been made in this plan over the years and which is so useful to those who are out of work today, is of the order the hon. member has mentioned.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as that figure is of the order I have mentioned, and since it appears to be an integral part of the government's program to increase unemployment, I wonder whether unemployment has yet reached a satisfactory figure in the minister's opinion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Hamilton West rising on a supplementary?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT-IMMEDIATE AMENDMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT IN VIEW OF INCREASE IN FUND

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As the
unemployment insurance fund has increased from $454 million in September, 1970, to $473 million in December, 1970 and is steadily increasing, indicating that the unemployed either cannot qualify or have exhausted their benefits, a situation that is unbelievable and unacceptable particularly to the more than 500,000 people out of work, will the Acting Prime Minister now accept our advice and bring in the much-needed reforms regarding unemployment insurance?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the government has a firm timetable. It is not going to be deterred by attacks made upon the plan here or elsewhere. We intend to bring this legislation forward. I think it will be a very great improvement.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Will the minister kindly advise what I should tell the 538,000 now out of work? Are they to eat cake?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

January 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



UNEMPLOYMENT-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON DELAYS IN PAYMENT OF INSURANCE BENEFITS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the seriousness of the unemployment situation, will the Acting Prime Minister ask the Minister of Labour to report to the House on Monday on the cause of the extensive and excessive delays in the payment of unemployment insurance benefits and on the measures that will be taken to correct the problem?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have talked with the Minister of Labour about this situation, Mr. Speaker, and he assures me that a very high proportion of the claims have been met on time, and that those that are delayed are a very small fraction of the total.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the fact that the city of Saskatoon is quite small and I am receiving many complaints, there must be a great deal more than-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: moment ago the Acting Prime Minister referred to the fixed timetable of the government for the introduction of amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Does the minister consider the maintenance of a fixed timetable more important than the welfare of the people of this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HOUSING


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. Will the minister join with the city of Montreal in urging the government of the province of Quebec to abandon the project to extend the trans-Canada highway through the city of Montreal in view of the fact that 2,000 families are likely to be uprooted and it is admitted that there is no other housing in which to place them?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I think I replied to a similar question from the hon. member a few weeks ago.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government decided when and if it will reply to the provincial ministers in connection with the representations they made on

the income security plan as it affects family allowances, particularly the strong objections from the province of Ontario with regard to the maximum cut-off family income level included in the plan?


Mitchell William Sharp: The
reason the government put forward its proposals in the form of a white paper was to invite comment. I understand there will be at least some revisions in the plan expressed in the white paper.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Can the minister state when the government is likely to make this announcement so that we can then consider how sincere it may be?


Mitchell William Sharp: I expect the announcement will be in the form of legislation.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It is in connection with a civilian secret service being established to replace the Royal Canadian Mounted Police security and intelligence agency. Is it a fact that a decision in this regard has been made, as reported in the press, and if that is so will the minister say whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force is to be placed in a position in which it will have no responsibility in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the Acting Prime Minister replies I think I should take exception to the form of the question asked by the right hon. gentleman since it asks for confirmation or denial of a press report. Perhaps we can assume the question has been asked directly, in which case the Acting Prime Minister might be allowed to reply.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with all respect to Your Honour-


An hon. Member:: Now, don't get mad, John.


John George Diefenbaker: -I suggest to you that the manner in which the question period is being restricted places the opposition in a position where it cannot discharge its responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the opposition has been discharging its responsibilities very ably. In any event, the rule to which I have alluded is one of long standing. It is just as easy to ask a question directly, and I must assume at this point that the question has been asked in this way.
January 29, 1971


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, from where I sit I do not see any restriction on the freedom of the opposition to ask questions.


John George Diefenbaker: Your Eire the biggest dictator of all in that connection and you would not know.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I say that there is no substance whatever to the report that has appeared.
Inquiries of the Ministry
but if it is addressed to me, I can say that the government has considered this proposal and concluded that this solution was not feasible.



POLLUTION

Mr. Muir:: You are as dull as usual, Sharp.


Mitchell William Sharp: The government is not considering transferring any of the responsibilities of the RCMP in the field of security to any other agency.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, will the minister say whether a civilian secret service group has been or is in the process of being set up?


Mitchell William Sharp: I thought I had answered that question, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Just with evasiveness.


Mitchell William Sharp: There is no substance to the report referred to by the right hon. gentleman. The government has not established such a force and does not intend to do so.



ATOMIC ENERGY


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of vital importance to the province of British Columbia and I should like to direct it to the Minister of Transport. As Atlantic Richfield Oil Company is in the process of building a $150 million refinery complex at Cherry Point adjacent to the British Columbia border to handle Alaskan oil which will reach the refinery in 125,000 ton oil tankers by a water route, which represents a real pollution threat to Canadian territory, has the minister's department been approached by the United States government regarding the possibility of establishing a tanker route between Valdez, Alaska and Cherry Point in the state of Washington?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In spite of the hon. gentleman's reference to the fact that this is a very important matter to the province of British Columbia, it does not appear to me to be a matter of extreme urgency. Perhaps the Minister of Transport should be allowed to reply briefly.



ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT OF DEUTERIUM PLANT-INQUIRY AS TO REJECTION OF FINDINGS OF DUPONT REPORT

Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the announcement this morning by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, does this additional study of the Deuterium of Canada plant by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited at a cost of $300,000 indicate a rejection of the findings in the Dupont report?


John James Greene: No, Mr. Speaker.

[DOT] * *



POST OFFICE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board.
Since a document issued by his department suggests the establishment of a crown corporation to provide a mail carriage service in Montreal, could the hon. minister advise whether he favours this proposal and whether he will urge the government to create this corporation?


Hon. C. M. Dury (President of fhe Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard this question too clearly, 23786-42


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no direct approach made to me of which I am aware, but I will be glad to check to see whether any representations have been made to my officials.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the refinery construction is in progress before any hearings have been held regarding the trans-Alaskan pipeline syndicate application, in which Canada may be interested, will the minister direct inquiries to the United States to determine whether there is any substance to the report that the refinery complex will be in a position to receive Alaskan north slope oil?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do understand the urgency of this question and I can assure the hon. member that we have the situation under scrutiny. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich brought this question up the other day, and I do believe that a very serious problem is involved for the coastal region if in fact these plans proceed.


Randolph Harding: In view of the terrible pollution threat this proposal represents to the whole southwest section of British Columbia's inside passage, would the minister make representations to the United States government to try to stop this project from being constructed in this area?

January 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we consider this to be a serious problem and we are examining the matter now.



NATIONAL SECURITY

Mr. McCleave:: I wonder whether the minister would tell me whether he said yes to me or whether he said no?


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Speaker, I attempted to explain to the hon. member some of the procedural requirements relating to the expenditure of funds-



INQUIRY AS TO WITHDRAWAL OF PUBLIC ORDER (TEMPORARY MEASURES) ACT IN VIEW OF BAIL LEGISLATION

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to whom to direct this question because there are so many gallivanting ministers of the Crown, with only nine here today-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -but I hope I can get an answer from the Acting Prime Minister. Since the government is now bringing forward a bill to make bail easier, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether the government has decided to withdraw the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, known as the Turner bill in Quebec? I ask the question because making bail easier would seem to be in contradiction of the Act which is still in effect.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have no plans as yet to withdraw that measure. As I understand it, the province of Quebec still feels that it is desirable to have these special powers.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of the Acting Prime Minister's statement yesterday, does he believe there should be one law with reference to bail as far as the province of Quebec is concerned and another law as far as the rest of Canada is concerned?



AGRICULTURE


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture; I have given him notice of same. Could the hon. gentleman indicate whether feed grain freight assistance will be continued, as requested at the meeting this week of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, may I express my appreciation to the hon. member for advising me as we were coming into the House that he intended to ask this question. I have not seen the full context of the request in the resolution that was considered at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture convention, but I should remind the hon. member that early last summer we indicated that the rates in effect now -will continue until the end of this fiscal year. Of course, in the new fiscal year we will have to bring estimates before the House for the appropriation of funds for the levels we set for that year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



MANPOWER


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Could he give us an estimate of the number of Canadian textile workers who would be laid off as a result of the rationalization policy proposed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce concerning this industry?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, the purpose of the legislation that has been introduced is to strengthen the position of the textile industry. I think it will and I believe that there will be less unemployment than otherwise would be the case.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Could the Acting Prime Minister table in the House as soon as possible a statement on the number of jobs that will be created at Sainte-Scholastique, considering that, apparently, some very definite figures indicate that not more than 50 per cent of the number expected will be created? Could he tell the House how many jobs will be created following the construction of the Sainte-Scholastique airport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Perhaps I might be permitted to answer that question, Mr. Speaker. I have not actually seen the assessment that was made but I understand it was made privately. It is purely a theoretical projection, and at this stage it is exceedingly difficult to come up with what might be described as a firm figure as to what the total permanent employment picture is going to be.


Roch La Salle: I want to ask another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Minister of Transport still believe that it will be possible to make 100,000 new jobs available through the establishment of this airport, as it was indicated-

January 29, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Wellington.



POST OFFICE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Post Office. Before asking my question I should like to congratulate him on his efforts to restore the next-day delivery that Canadians were accustomed to having before his colleague-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time and the hon. member should ask his question.


Alfred Dryden Hales: In view of the great amount of unemployment in the country, would the minister consider reinstituting six-day delivery, thus creating jobs for many unemployed Canadians?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, as I said in reply previously to the leader of the hon. member's party, the recommendation of the Davey report is under study. If this service were now reinstituted, I do not think it would be especially for the purpose of reducing the number of unemployed in the country because I think this problem will be solved very shortly.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of housing. In view of an excellent article in the Toronto Telegram in December by the hon. member for Trinity, wherein he said that the Canadian housing situation is bad and getting worse and that the government missed an excellent opportunity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his question without citing the article.


John Gilbert: I think all hon. members should read this article, Mr. Speaker. He said that the government had missed an excellent opportunity in not implementing the recommendation regarding setting up a municipal land bank. Would the minister reconsider that recommendation and perhaps implement it in the near future?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is in the form of a submission and recommendation. He has to assume that the matter will be considered by the minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



DISCONTINUANCE OF DINING CAR SERVICE, OTTAWA-MONTREAL

Mr. Warren Allmand (Nofre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received any news from Canadian National Railways that they will suspend their plan to discontinue dining car service between Montreal and Ottawa on February 1, which action will further contribute to the unemployment problem and to the seriously deteriorating rail service between the national capital and the metropolis of Montreal?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No,
Mr. Speaker, I have received no such word from the CNR.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, would the minister consider amending the Canadian National Railways Act so as to make that body more responsible to the people of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: -and to ensure that the Canadian people will get the service they expect of a national railway?



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Would the government of Canada approach those in charge of crown corporations such as Air Canada, Canadian National Railways and others and seek their co-operation in avoiding lay-offs-particularly at a time of heavy winter unemployment-which can only aggravate the already deplorable unemployment situation in this country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is a little behind with his request; this was done some weeks ago by the government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is the Acting Prime Minister able to assure the House that the government has received an assurance from these crown corporations that the request of the government will be complied with and that there will be no further lay-offs of the sort announced by Air Canada and the CNR during this season of winter discontent?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would want the CNR, Air Canada and other
23786-42}

January 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
corporations of this kind to be run as good business ventures. We make the same sort of representations to private companies to do the same thing. We are quite confident that these Crown corporations will pay as much attention as private companies, and I hope a little more to our requests.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the minister but I see a number of members are trying to ask questions who have been unsuccessful so far. I am trying to get to them as soon as possible.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister look into the immediate intention of Air Canada to lay off employees in the Edmonton area, in particular the three baggage loading personnel and six charming ground hostesses? Air Canada has deprived Edmonton of extra flights and is now downgrading its personnel and service at this international airport.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into the matter.



TRANSPORT


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Transport. It is related to the question put to him just prior to the Christmas recess concerning the excessively high freight rates presently existing in many parts of western Canada. He stated that soon after the first of the year he or his officials would look into the matter. Is he now in a position to report on what progress has been made?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, shortly before Christmas I had some telephone discussions with Premier Thatcher of Saskatchewan and as a result, a mutually agreeable date, I think within this present week, was agreed upon for officials to travel to Saskatoon for the initial discussions. I will be going there within a matter of a couple of weeks to follow this up.



WELFARE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the

statement of the health and welfare minister of Quebec at the recent conference, does the federal government plan to enter into discussions with the Quebec government and other provincial governments so that direct payments to persons on social welfare by the federal government would be phased out and replaced by a more global approach administered by the provinces?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have made it plain, as have other members of this government, to all provincial governments that the government of Canada considers that the constitutional right to make payments directly to individuals in all parts of Canada is an integral part of Canadian confederation and will not be abandoned.



AIRPORTS


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister indicate whether any progress was made at the meetings this week with the city of Regina concerning the proposed sale of land by the city to the federal Department of Transport at the Regina airport, and can he give any indication when we may expect to have an agreement signed on this matter and also dealing with the future operation of Regina airport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Considerable progress was made at the meetings this week with the mayor of Regina and other officials of that city. As I recall the timetable, we are going to Regina practically at the same time as the meetings will be held in Saskatoon to which I referred a few minutes ago, and I would hope that if we do not resolve the matter completely at that time it will be sufficiently advanced so that the contracts can be signed and the whole deal completed within the present year.
* [DOT] *



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On January 20 when I made a request of the minister for an accelerated housing program on Indian reserves the minister replied that he had asked officials of his department to hasten this project in order to supply Indians with employment this winter. Is the minister aware of the cutback in housing on the Clande-boye and Fisher River district reserves in Manitoba and would he look into the matter to determine why this program has been cut back at this time?
January 29, 1971


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister dealing with the $300 million aid program negotiated and signed jointly by the governments of Quebec, Canada and Morocco. Can the Acting Prime Minister indicate to the House whether the federal government intends to underwrite the total cost of this program, namely, $300 million?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. gentleman has his figures wrong. He must have lost the decimal point. But I can tell him that this project is a project of the Canadian International Development Agency which is being undertaken in co-operation with the province of Quebec. It is an expenditure of the federal government and we are very gratified that the province of Quebec is co-operating so closely with us.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate the total cost of the program because the Globe and Mail reported that the cost of this program jointly negotiated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HIGHWAYS


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-While Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the recent announcement of curtailment of military and civilian forces at Goose Bay, will the minister expedite government consideration of the recommendation of the Transport Committee which was concurred in by the government over a year ago regarding federal participation in the building of a highway linking major Labrador communities to the province of Quebec?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, since the announcement or indeed prior to the announcement of the phasing down of operations at Goose Bay there has been an interdepartmental committee working on this question not merely involving that particular proposal of the Transport Committee but also a number of alternatives. I would hope we would reach
Inquiries of the Ministry
some conclusions shortly as to what are the most appropriate steps we can take.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Mr. Speaker, does the minister think there might be some more information on this matter say by Monday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



BAY OF FUNDY TIDES-REOPENING OF PROJECT STUDIES

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the desirability of cooperation between all levels of government in respect of the development of Fundy tidal power, could the minister now indicate to the House whether the Premier of Nova Scotia has formally been in touch with his department in respect of reopening the studies of this project and, if so, has the minister replied?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge there is no request from either of the provinces which participated in the study to have it reopened at the present time.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, in light of the absence of a formal request or discussion between the province of Nova Scotia and the federal authority, would the minister use his good offices to make sure that this project when it is developed does involve all three levels of government and not just one?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fraser Valley West.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, on November 27, 1970, the President of the Treasury Board replied as follows to a question of mine:
The government is now reviewing the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
Since there seems to be some confusion about the precise nature of this review, I should like to ask whether a review of the Public Service Staff Relations Act is currently in progress and, if so, are the staff associations whose members will be affected by any subsequent changes being consulted?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the review is currently in progress. As the Public Service Staff Relations Board reports to the House through the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, per-

January 29, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry
haps I should let him answer concerning the plans for consultation.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the President of the Treasury Board would take notice of this question for the minister so that this whole issue might be referred to the appropriate standing committee of parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for
Norfolk-Haldimand.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport. The CNR is establishing a servo-centre program, with one to be located at Brantford, which will displace station agents from many of the small stations in the surrounding area. What steps will the minister or his department take to assure not only job security of these displaced persons but also their seniority?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1
would assume this is an issue which would be a part of the collective agreement between the railway and its employees, but I will be glad to take the question as notice and see whether I can find out anything further for the hon. member.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
grievances filed after some prisoners broke out of Prince Albert penitentiary. Actually it was not one corrections officer, but six, that filed grievances.

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has corrected the statement he made earlier, is he prepared to correct himself to the extent of making the report of the investigation into the Prince Albert Penitentiary public so that the people of Canada may know the facts?


Mr. Goyer:: Mr. Speaker, I made a correction, but I have not changed my mind about the basic situation.



PROVISION OF

[Stage Direction]
* [DOT] *


Mr. Healh Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport on a subject about which, when last asked, he was optimistic. Could he now be definitive about the question of providing a third ferry on the Wood Islands-Caribou run?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: hope I can be a little more definitive. My recollection is that the plans or drawings for a vessel for this service are in the process of preparation and that tenders should be called in the fairly immediate future. I do not know what the dates are or the state of the design work at this moment. I will be glad to make further inquiries and inform the hon. member.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to correct the answer I gave the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) on January 21 and 22 in connection with grievances filed after some prisoners broke out of Prince Albert penitentiary. As a matter of fact, not one but six corrections officers have filed grievances.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hearing apparatus was not working when the Solicitor General made his statement a few moments ago. I would ask him to repeat it because we do not want to miss anything from Prince Albert.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In view of the fact that the rights of the opposition are much respected in the House, I will certainly repeat, for the information of the right hon. member for Prince Albert that I want to amend the reply I made to him on January 21 and 22 concerning the


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, considering that this ship will serve the historic Belfast district of Prince Edward Island, will consideration be given to naming it for one of the most distinguished and able Belfasters, Mr. J. Angus MacLean?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: My question is for the
Acting Prime Minister. In view of the uncertainty that exists in the country or has been developing in the past few months, can the minister indicate whether the government will be making a clearcut statement with regard to the question of foreign investment in Canada in the near future?


Mitchell William Sharp: As has
been said on a number of occasions, the government has the matter under consideration. One of the ministers is



[Mr. Drury.)
January 29, 1971

charged with making a report to the cabinet, which has not yet been made. I cannot predict when it will be made.
Inquiries of the Ministry
the House that no new federal programs will be announced for that province until parliament has been informed first?


Paul Yewchuk: Can the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether the government has had a chance to look at the committee report, which has become popularly known as the Wahn report, with regard to Canada-U.S. relations. Has the government had a look at this report and does it accept the recommendations of that committee?


Mitchell William Sharp: Of course we have looked at it. It was a report of a committee of the House. The government has not taken any position on it.


Paul Yewchuk: Can the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether this report will be discussed or debated in the House of Commons in the near future?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not
know whether I can give that undertaking. It is not that I know of any that are going to be announced, but sometimes questions are asked and sometimes it is quite appropriate for ministers to make statements outside the House before making them here. It is not an invariable rule that ministers must make their statements in the House first and, as hon. members know, there are occasions when it is important and in the public interest that announcements be made outside the House before being made here.


John George Diefenbaker: But it is a parliamentary rule.


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not have control over such a debate. I do not know.
* *
*



AGRICULTURE


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: I had questions for two different ministers but they have both left the House. I will direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the surplus of hogs and the corresponding low prices on Canadian markets, would the minister consider encouraging farmers to market hogs of a lighter weight by making changes in the pricing and grading formulas?


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


John Stratford Burton: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the fact that some ministers who are due to be present in the House today according to the government's roster system have already left although the question period is not over. This makes a mockery of the parliamentary institution.


An hon. Member:: They will be here on Monday.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I want to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. It is prompted by a question put to the Minister of Transport by my colleague, the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador. In view of the participation in the economic conference sponsored by the Newfoundland government to start in St. John's next week by three federal cabinet ministers, can the Acting Prime Minister assure


James Aloysius McGrath: The government has announced that there will be substantial federal participation in a proposed master plan to be unveiled by the government of Newfoundland. In view of the fact that the Newfoundland Members of Parliament have been denied access to this conference, I again ask the Acting Prime Minister if he will assure the House that no new federal initiatives will be announced for the province of Newfoundland until parliament has been informed first?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have nothing to add to the statement I have already made.


Mr. Speaker:: The question period expired a few minutes ago. However, I believe the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has a supplementary to a previous question.



IMPORTS OF BEEF-POSSIBLE QUOTA AGREEMENT WITH NEW ZEALAND

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to put my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In his absence, possibly I could put it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the previous decision to cut off imports of New Zealand beef because it was creating problems in the Canadian as well as in the United States market, can the Parliamentary Secretary inform the House whether the government is prepared to work out a quota agreement with New Zealand on imports of beef similar to those now existing for butter and dairy products so that the situation can be regularized?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I had the privilege last evening of debating the subject in the House with the hon. member, and I pointed out that if a problem should arise again with regard to imports of Australian and New Zealand beef the government anticipates

January 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 it would be able to take appropriate action on the same basis as that taken last summer when the problem arose at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions for a moment.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Alexander Jerome: I should like to table on behalf of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs two copies each in the two official languages of the report by the Prices and Incomes Commission on primary nickel prices.
noon)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, January 28, 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 a committee of the whole.
Mr. Thomas S. Barneit (Comox-Alberni):: When I was speaking yesterday evening, I expressed my astonishment at the fact that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) in introducing this bill had suggested that if passed it would enhance the control of Parliament over the executive. I had, by way of illustration to counter his astonishing statement, made some reference to the proposed department of environment. I suggested that this department had already been created by Order in Council and that, therefore, to ask us now to approve its establishment was making a mockery of the concept of the control of Parliament over the executive, rather than the reverse. A few fancy bits of verbiage and a new name do not in any way alter the substance of what

the government has already done by Order in Council under the authority of the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act.
I think it is pertinent to this debate that we should dust off this Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act. It appears to have been on our statute books for a long while. It has not been amended since the Revised Statutes of 1952, and if I read it correctly there, it was taken intact from the Revised Statutes of 1927. I have not pursued its history further back than that. It has only two sections in addition to the Title. I submit it is time we took a look at its terms in detail, and that in fact it should be part of the record of the discussion on this government organization bill. So, I would like to quote from it. Section 2 of the act reads:
The Governor in Council may (a) transfer any powers, duties or functions or the control or supervision of any part of the public service from one Minister of the Crown to any other Minister of the Crown, or from one department or portion of the public service to any other department or portion of the public service: or (b) amalgamate and combine any two or more departments under one Minister of the Crown and under one deputy minister.
Section 3 reads:
Whenever under the provisions of this Act, or under any other lawful authority, any power, duty or function, or the control or supervision of any part of the public service is transferred from one Minister of the Crown to any other Minister of the Crown, or from one department or branch of the public service to any other department or branch of the public service, the Minister, department or branch to which the power, duty, function, control or supervision is transferred, and the appropriate officers of that department or branch, shall, in relation thereto, be substituted for and have and may exercise the respective powers and duties that formerly belonged to or were exercisable by the minister, department or branch and the respective officers of the department or branch from which the power, duty, function, control or supervision is so transferred as aforesaid.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, that is the complete text of that act which has been sitting on our statute books for a long while.
It is important in this context because, as the President of the Treasury Board himself said in his introductory speech the government, in latter years, had been making increasingly wide use of the powers which are conferred by this statute. In fact, Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out last night the department for which it is proposed to substitute the new department of environment was, in fact, created in this way, as I indicated by making a reference to the introduction to the first annual report of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. So, I think it is quite pertinent that we should examine the situation in respect of the government organization bills which are becoming an annual event in the sessions of this Parliament.
If, in fact, we were being asked to repeal, or amend, or alter the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, so as to reduce the authority of the government to move segments of the public service about at will from one part of the ministry to another, then I suppose the veracity of the statement made by the President of the Treasury Board would be emphasized but,
January 29, 1971

Mr. Speaker, that is not what we are being asked to do. I suggest that the debate on this bill is well focused upon the question of just what direction we are heading in relation to the whole question of the authority of the executive to manage the public service and the authority, if any, that Parliament should be able to exercise.
In considering this question I thought I would put forward a form of a bill which I think perhaps actually represents more closely the real state of affairs at this moment than does the exercise which the government has proposed for us in the government organization bill that we are debating. I would like to suggest this as an appropriate statement of the actual state of affairs which currently exists as far as the relationship between the parliamentary branch and the executive branch of the government of Canada is concerned, and in particular with reference to the developing position of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the picture, which has been touched upon by some of the other speakers in this debate. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a draft bill. It reads:
An Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Shobt Title
1.	This Act may be cited as the Act to End Government Organization Acts, 1971.
Part I
Department of the Prime Minister
2.	(1) There shall be a Government of Canada called the Department of the Prime Minister over which the member of the Queen's Privy Council holding the recognized position of First Minister shall preside.
(2) The Prime Minister holds office during his own pleasure and has the management and direction of the Department of the Prime Minister.
3.	The Governor in Council may appoint an officer called the Deputy Minister of the Prime Minister to be deputy head of the Department of the Prime Minister and to hold office during pleasure.
4.	The duties, powers and functions of the Prime Minister extend to and include all matters over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other government.
Past II
Sub-Departments
5.	The Prime Minister may from time to time establish such Sub-Departments as he sees fit and shall assign to them such titles as he deems appropriate, and may abolish such SubDepartments or change their titles or functions at his pleasure.
6.	(1) The Prime Minister shall appoint from amongst other members of the Privy Council a Sub-Minister to preside over each sub-department, to hold office during pleasure.
(2)	Each Sub-Minister shall exercise such powers, and perform such duties and functions as may be assigned to him under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act.
(3)	The Prime Minister shall not, pursuant to sub-section (1) appoint Sub-ministers so that there are more than fifty such sub-ministers in existence at any one time.
7.	The Governor in Council may appoint an officer called a Sub-Deputy Minister to be deputy head of each sub-department.
Government Organization Act, 1970
Paht hi
Transitional and Consequential
8.	Without restricting the generality of section 2, the Acts to be administered by the Prime Minister include the Acts set out in Schedule A, and whenever any department, minister or deputy minister is mentioned or referred to in any of those Acts, or in any order, rule or regulation made thereunder, or any contract, lease, licence or other document made or issued pursuant thereto, there shall in every case, unless the context otherwise requires, be substituted the Department of the Prime Minister, The Prime Minister, or the Deputy Minister of the Prime Minister, as the case may be.
9.	This Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation at the pleasure of the Prime Minister.
Schedule A.
Every Act heretofore or hereinafter enacted.
You may have recognized, Mr. Speaker, that I have put forward this proposal with tongue in cheek. I have done so to emphasize the point that, for all practical purposes, my proposal represents very closely the actual state of affairs in our governmental system at present. If we are to consider the realities of the situation, perhaps we ought to consider the form as well. Parliament ought not to be asked to go annually through this exercise, as we are now being asked to participate in this debate, unless this House is to have some real authority over the nature of what government departments shall be brought into being from time to time. In the absence of that authority, I think we should simply recognize that this matter lies entirely within the prerogative of the executive and in the hands of the Prime Minister, and be done with it. At least that would give us a greater opportunity for assessing and discussing real legislative proposals upon which the operations of the government must hinge.
There are bills before us that have substance and that will have an impact on the future. We passed several during the previous session. For example, the Canada Water Act is the kind of bill that will affect the future operations of the government in relation to the welfare of the Canadian people. Unless the government can agree, when dealing with such questions as organization, to place before Parliament propositions of significance and meaning which Parliament can debate and decide in order to give real guidance to the course the government should take in the organization of the operations of the public service, we ought to have done with the kind of mockery we are witnessing now. Instead of discussing a fait accompli with regard, for example, to the establishment of a department of the environment, we ought to have the opportunity, if the government believes that Parliament should have the power to direct some general trends of government organization, of expressing ourselves on the basic concept before the department is established and not after it has been created. That, Mr. Speaker, is the meat of this debate, especially when one looks at the matter in the light of the terms which were set out by the President of the Treasury Board in his initial remarks.

January 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
Debate might be more real or meaningful if the government were to introduce in resolution from the concept underlying the setting up of a new department or underlying the division of the operations of the government. I made a rough draft of the kind of resolution that might be considered in the context of the current debate. If, before action was taken under the Transfer of Duties Act to create the department of the environment, we had been given the opportunity of telling the government what we thought the nature of that department ought to be, what general areas of operation it ought to be involved in and what jurisdiction it ought to exercise and then perhaps allow the government to look after the details of transfers of branches or subbranches in order to build the appropriate organization based on a concept approved by Parliament, and if a resolution along the lines I shall read in a minute had been introduced in the previous session and agreed to by the House, then, I suggest, not too much criticism could have been levelled at the transfer, for example of the wildlife service from one ministry to the new department of the environment.
In order to emphasize my feelings on this matter, Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest that the House might have adopted a resolution along the following lines:
Resolved:
That there he established a Ministry of the Environment, with duties, powers and functions extending, within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada, over renewable resources and the protection and enhancement of the quality of the natural environment, including water, air and soil quality; such duties and powers to include the implementation and administration of all relevant legislation enacted by Parliament, including that related to water, fisheries, forests, migratory birds and other wild animal and plant life; And be it further resolved: that the appropriate existing branches and agencies within the Public Service be transferred to, and co-ordinated within the proposed Ministry of the Environment.
If we had been given an opportunity to participate in a debate on such a resolution before the establishment of the department, instead of after, we could have embarked on a really meaningful debate in Parliament which could have been of value in guiding the government on the details of its organization. For example, in view of the overlapping in certain areas of government, we could have discussed whether any elements or government organizations dealing with the soil of Canada ought to be removed from the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and placed under the jurisdiction of the new department. We could have embarked on a meaningful debate over the question of whether the management of the commercial fisheries of Canada ought to remain the responsibility of the ministry of fisheries or be transferred to the ministry of the environment. We could have debated the question of whether the parks branch should remain within the rather strange, existing structures of the Department of Indians Affairs and Northern Development, or whether it might more appropriately come within the department of the environment. The Parks branch now seems to be a sort of appendage to the department headed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). If we are increasingly to use our present methods, what is the
point in even bothering to go through this kind of hollow exercise which deals only with the outer shell and not with the meat of the change in government structure and organization. I think it is time for Parliament to indicate that we ought to call a halt to the present trend in government actions.
Although I have not consulted the relevant debates, I imagine that the Transfer of Duties Act was intended to be used for the sort of minor transfer arrangements that create some flexibility in the operations of government. I am quite sure that the parliamentarians who agreed to the passage of that bill, and who put it on our statute books, did not envisage that one day the executive, of its own accord, would use the authority of that law to create out of the blue entirely new departments embracing new concepts of government. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge hon. members of the House to consider the implications of what we did this year, last year, the year before that and the year before that, in dealing with omnibus bills relating to government organization.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, a great many members on this side of the House have already voiced their objections to this kind of omnibus bill. It is not my intention to repeat what has been said. However, I wish to state that I agree with the position of my colleagues in this party and members of other opposition parties. The basic problem is that hon. members, including government members, are faced with the situation, as the old expression goes, of having to throw out the baby with the bath water. In other words, there are many things in this bill that should be separated. I cannot understand why the government would not like to have on the record the unanimous support of the House on some aspects of this bill. On the other hand, there are some sections of this bill which a great many members, including government members, may not wholeheartedly support.
With regard to the phrase the "baby and the bathwater", the baby part of the bill deals with the new department of the environment. I think all hon. members are generally in favour of that, particularly in view of the fact that it will come under the auspices of one of the better ministers of the cabinet. No government is all bad. There are some good ministers in the present cabinet. Certainly, the minister who is proposed to head this new department is in this category.
The matter of having the whole problem of pollution under one department has been promoted by my colleagues for approximately a year. Perhaps the government does sometimes pay attention to suggestions from the opposition. If so, we welcome that. It is ridiculous to have some aspects of pollution under the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis), some aspects under the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), some under the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and some under the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene). The federal government is very limited in what it can do with regard to

January 29, 1971

pollution. It is very gratifying to learn that the authority, and resulting co-ordination, will at least come under one minister, a very capable minister at that.
Having dealt with the baby, I now wish to deal with the bathwater part of the bill. The bathwater part of the bill deals with the creation of ministers of the state, Parliamentary Secretaries and the like.


Mr. Crouse:: That is pretty dirty water.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Our rules of Parliament are properly designed so that we cannot impute motives to individuals in this House. No one really knows what is going on inside someone else's head. Sometimes they do not know themselves. Knowing the background of this present session of Parliament, a reasonable person could only reach one conclusion. By means of this omnibus bill, the government is indirectly attempting to do something that it does not want to do directly. When the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was asked what the just society meant, he said "just for grits". The legislation before us amply justifies that remark.
As hon. members are aware, suggestions have been made at various times that the government might do something about increasing the salaries and allowances of members of this House. Because the suggestions were not adequately presented to the public, they met with considerable resistance. This is chiefly because the public have not been made aware of the expenses and costs faced by members of this House. This is one of the weaknesses of Information Canada. However, that is another matter. Apparently the government is not anxious to present legislation to increase members' salaries at the present time. Some members opposite asked what could be done to get government members off the hook, and to forget about the opposition members. This bill is evidence of what is happening.
This bill recommends the appointment of five additional ministers of state. As I understand the bill, they will receive an additional $15,000 a year. That is pretty good. At the present time there are 28 cabinet ministers. If this bill is passed, there will be 33. As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent the Prime Minister from appointing an additional number of ministers without portfolio who will receive an additional $7,500 per year. It is also suggested that there be as many Parliamentary Secretaries as ministers. They will receive an additional $4,000 per year. This is a very interesting arrangement. If and when this legislation is passed, there will be 33 ministers of state and ministers without portfolio, and 33 Parliamentary Secretaries for a total of 66. In addition, there are 25 committee chairmen.
At the moment, these committee chairmen do not receive an additional stipend, only a title. However, they may eventually receive more. According to what we hear, there is considerable stirring among the backbench government members. They can hardly be blamed because, at the time of the last election, many were persuaded to run on the basis that eventually there would be an increase in the stipend or something else
Government Organization Act, 1970 would be forthcoming. It is easy to understand how this bill came about.
In the past, people have accused the Prime Minister of having socialist inclinations. I do not agree with that. In view of this legislation, the Prime Minister must be a prime promoter of good, old-fashioned capitalism and incentives. The creation of additional ministers of state, ministers without portfolio and Parliamentary Secretaries, is a wonderful way of keeping people under control. If a member of the government is a good boy and has some ability, he will be made a minister of state. If he is not quite as good, he might be made a minister without portfolio. If a member behaves and keeps his nose clean, he may become a Parliamentary Secretary. If he is bad, he may be made a committee chairman with no additional money, only a bit of honour. If he is really bad, he will be put in the sin bin and not receive anything extra. That is the way it goes. It is fairly easy to switch Parliamentary Secretaries on the excuse that everyone should have the opportunity of showing their wares. This is a good idea. It also brings in a good income.
Many people have the uneasy feeling that by introducing this bill the government is establishing a device to reward government members with extra income and at the same time ensuring that opposition members do not receive anything extra. This is a sort of Machiavellian way of doing things. It is to be expected. We do not know where this idea originated. Undoubtedly, there are members opposite who are capable of thinking of such things. It is nice for members to have titles and extra money. It is nice to have the title of a Privy Councillor so that when you leave this House you can put the initials P.C. after your name.
The Prime Minister was apparently a good student. He must have spent a good deal of time reading about a man who was a dictator in Haiti for a good many years, Henri Christophe, who met a very sad fate. He died with a silver bullet in his head. He had a very interesting way of dealing with things. He liked to have a lot of flatterers around him, but he did not have the money to pay them. Unlike the present government, he did not have the means of extracting money from the people. He gave all these people round him titles. He did not call them ministers of state, nothing as pedestrian as that. Mr. Speaker, I am not making this up, this is on the record. He called people the Duke and Duchess of Lemonade, the Count of Sugar Cane and the like. I am rather surprised that the Prime Minister, with his inventive mind, did not think of something like this for the members of this Parliament. He could easily have appointed somebody from London, Ontario as the Baron of Blizzard, or somebody from the Windsor or Sarnia area could have been given the title of Prince of Pollution or something of that type. I am surprised that he did not do this in view of his inventiveness and imagination.


Murray Arndell McBride: What about the Marquis of Maple Syrup?

January 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That is a good suggestion from the hon. member for Renfrew-Lanark-Carleton (Mr. McBride) the Marquis of Maple Syrup. Perhaps he would like to have that title; it is nice and sugary. Perhaps my thinking is not as accurate as it might be in this regard, but in view of the evidence I do not see how anybody could come to any other reasonable conclusion.
Let us consider the remainder of this bill. We have dealt with the watery portions of the bill. There is a great deal of verbiage, a lot of shifting and shuffling of cabinet ministers and those areas falling within their jurisdictions. I think it is probably a good idea that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) has been given responsibility for everything that could be sold. I think this is probably a good idea. I hope the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) will remain in the same position so we will not have people in manpower offices all around the country receiving advice from other ministers. Most of this shuffling and shifting that is going on reminds me of the old shell and pea game we used to see at county fairs; first you see the pea and then you don't.
The government has become worried about the image of the Prime Minister as created by the public relations people. It has now become apparent that, in fact, what has happened has been that, to paraphrase Mr. Marshall McLuhan, logic has become mystery. I should like to change that slightly and refer to the attitude of the government as being one in which shadow has become substance. The government is great in this field. It always presents what it intends to do by doctoring up these shadows and presenting them as substance. This is merely an example of shadow and substance being the same.
We have heard a great deal about participatory democracy. Much of this image has been created by Information Canada and other government agencies. The government does not accept suggestions from this side of the House. Members on the government side feel that no one on this side has any good ideas. The acceptance of a suggestion from this side seems to be considered by the government as a sign of weakness, unless there is a great deal of pressure accompanying the suggestion.
I am surprised that the government did not take advantage of the omnibus bill to accept and implement the idea of an ombudsman. As everyone in this House knows, this idea has worked very well in a number of other countries including Finland, Sweden, New Zealand and others. I understand it has worked very well in Alberta, and I am surprised the government has not accepted the idea. The more a central government becomes involved in various aspects of human life, the more it alienates citizens from government authority. An ombudsman would do a great deal to alleviate this situation.
I was looking over a number of files I have in my office. I discovered one in respect of a widow of a serviceman in the Royal Canadian Navy. He was killed two or three years ago as a result of the greatest possible negligence on the part of authorities on the ship on
which he was serving. His widow was denied any account of what actually took place and she was unable to take appropriate action against the Crown. This woman had a number of children and there is apparently no remedy for her situation.
I have another file respecting an elderly lady in my own city who slipped on ice on the Post Office steps and was seriously injured. A representative of the Public Works Department who was employed there came around and told her that the ice should not have been on the steps. He said she had a valid complaint and she should put her complaint in the mail within a week. She accepted that advice and did so. The government of that day, which was the same party in power today, said she had not sent in a formal notice and was not entitled to any compensation.
I have another file in my hand in respect of a man in the Armed Forces who was badly injured while on duty. He tried to obtain compensation but the Department of National Defence refused to give him anything. I am sure every Member of Parliament could cite examples of this kind of thing. This is further evidence in support of the need for the appointment of an ombudsman. An ombudsman would get right to the seat of the difficulty, which results from the bureaucracy of the civil service, and would put a stop to the infernal policies of secrecy adopted by every branch of organized government.
Let me cite an example of this secrecy which came to light as a result of a letter I received two days ago from a constituent. He is a druggist in the city in which I five. I do not think he is an admirer of the present government but he said he was glad to find that the present government was very anxious to keep its correspondence clear, concise and untroubled. In an open letter which was enclosed in an envelope from the Department of National Health and Welfare was a sheet of paper with absolutely nothing on it. Apparently, this represents the policy of secrecy.
This policy of secrecy applies in many other ways. Perhaps by referring again to Haiti I can make my point. The government there was attempting to change some of the directives of Papa Doc Duvalier. This type of thing is taking place apparently in respect of government organizations or agencies such as Air Canada. We have heard evidence of the use of electronic devices to determine the efficiency of its employees in the two official languages. This is a rather shocking type of inspection.
When I first came into this House a Liberal government was in power. At that time that government attempted to use the same techniques in respect of post office employees. Television cameras were installed in the washrooms in the post office at Peterborough. I cannot imagine what the purpose was, but it was suggested that the government wanted to find out whether people were stealing things. After a great deal of pressure was applied, the government was forced to abandon this project. I certainly hope that this kind of behaviour and activity will cease forthwith.
Other examples of government secrecy have been apparent in this House in the last couple of days. My

January 29, 1971

hon. friends to my left are always asking for the production of papers. I do not recall more than one or two instances during this session of Parliament when these requests have been accepted. It certainly is not the custom of this government to give out information respecting memoranda between departments. Everyone knows that this sort of thing is taking place and that the government makes a fetish of secrecy. This reminds me of my association with the Department of External Affairs when junior foreign service officers made a great thing of placing a high degree of classification on all information. It seems to me it is very dangerous to treat everything as being secret. It is like the boy who cried wolf. Sometimes when you really want to keep something secret people treat it with carelessness, and this is the only result of trying to keep everything secret. I suggest some steps should have been taken by the government in this bill to try to prevent this complete hiding of all information, even of the most trivial and inconsequential nature, from the people of Canada, not to mention members of the opposition whose job it is, under our parliamentary system, to criticize the mistakes of government and offer solutions or alternative methods.
Another thing the government should have done but did not is this. We have had enough complaints, even complaints from members on the government side, about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I do not want to elaborate on this matter; I have said enough about it in the House over the years. However, I do want to say that it is apparently the accepted pattern of behaviour in public affairs broadcasts made by the corporation for individuals to use these public facilities, which are made available to them at great cost to the public, as an instrument to try to brainwash the people of Canada by expressing their own particular political, personal and economic views.
I do not have to enlarge on this because every member of the House knows that this sort of thing is done regularly. Members on both sides of the House have been very anxious to put some kind of control on those using the facilities of that organization to promote their own political, personal and economic philosophies. Many things could be done, but one suggestion is that we establish a parliamentary committee, on which no party is dominant, which could entertain complaints made by the public and others and then make recommendations to the CBC.
Then, there is the related matter of controlling actions emanating from government commissions. Certainly, from what we have heard this week some control needs to be exercised over the Public Service Commission. The Unemployment Insurance Commission has been having a grand time during the last few years conducting a virtual reign of terror among various sections of the public, interpretating the act in its own way. The commission follows the pattern in, "Alice in Wonderland", being both judge and jury. This can be said not only of this commission but of most government commissions.
Government Organization Act, 1970
These commissions were set up with the very best of intentions. There was to be no political interference. Although I have heard suggestions in former days with regard to the public service, I have never found any great evidence of interference. All of these commissions and crown corporations like the CNR, Air Canada and so on, were set up on the understanding there was to be no political interference. But once you have created a Frankenstein monster, which in theory is responsible to Parliament as a whole, you in fact have created a monster that is responsible to no one.
As any hon. member who has been in this House for some time well knows, there is no way you can deal with the administration of these commissions, even though they are public emanations. The public pays $180 million a year to maintain the CBC. I am not suggesting that members of parliament should be allowed to meddle in the running of crown corporations, but I do suggest there should be some degree of control by the House in actual practice.
Perhaps an arrangement similar to what I have suggested for the CBC would be workable, but it is clear that something must be done to control the activities of some corporations. I think the government would be the first to welcome this suggestion, in view of the action taken by the Public Service Commission during the last few days-at least if what the government says is true. Only this morning the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) suggested in the House that something must be done to make crown corporations such as the CNR and Air Canada conform to public policy, particularly as it relates to unemployment at the present time. Only a few moments ago members on the government side gave a round of applause to the hon. member for that suggestion, indicating their support, and I give him my support as well.
Another step that could be taken would be the improvement of the committee system of Parliament. A new committee system was introduced a couple of years ago with high hopes. To be perfectly fair, a great many government members of these committees have exhibited a great deal of independence and have put forward some very good ideas. But what has happened to the committees' reports? I was a member of the transportation committee at the time the committee went on an expensive junket to look into Maritime transportation problems. But before the committee had returned to Ottawa the government had acted on some of the matters the committee was considering.
The defence committee took a two or three week trip to Cyprus, West Germany, Sweden, to hell's half acre one might say, and submitted what was almost an unanimous report on defence policy. Although this report was supported by most government members, again it was completely disregarded by the government. Then, suggestions were made by the veterans committee, and there was the notorious incident with the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development whose unanimous suggestion was ignored.
Now, everybody knows that no government can be expected to accept every report of every committee; that

January 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
would be clearly ridiculous. But it does seem that some arrangement should be made to oblige the government to pay some attention to reports made by committees, particularly unanimous reports. The government's attitude has a very bad effect on Parliament as a whole. Those members who work very hard on committees, and spend long hours devoting their attention to them, are treated like children playing house. If committees are merely a means of keeping people occupied around here, then this situation is not satisfactory.
Another matter that should have been dealt with in the bill, and which I will not deal with at length, is limiting the staff and expenses of cabinet ministers. Since we now have a cabinet that is about three times as big as it was previously, some limit should be placed on expenses. I remember some years ago one cabinet minister-I am not going to mention his name because that would not be proper, but if hon. members want to know they can see me afterwards privately-who had his office redecorated about four times in one year. He had a gold coloured rug on the floor, gold handles on his door and all that sort of thing. There is no excuse for this. If we are going to have a multiplicity of cabinet appointments, then something should be done to limit expenses.
My final suggestion relates to a most important matter. Members on both sides of the House have talked about our youth. Some say youth is bad, others say that it has never had a chance. We hear references to the generation gap and to other trite expressions. But no one to my knowledge ever does anything about youth. I asked a question about the plans for student employment this summer, and I was told that the government was formulating plans and getting around to dealing with that matter. Apparently responsibility has been divided between the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang). It is the old story of too many cooks not only spoiling the broth but not making any broth at all.
It seems to me that the government has missed a glorious opportunity here. I hope that before this bill receives second reading the government will consider withdrawing it and accepting some of the suggestions made by members on this side of the House. The government can then bring in a bill all of us can be proud of, one which would greatly assist future operations of this or any other government.
Therefore, I hope the government gives serious consideration to establishing a department of youth. I do not refer to some phony department that does not do anything but to one that would really turn its attention to two very important matters, one of which may well affect the basic future of Canada, especially during the next 25 to 30 years. To a certain degree, this suggestion had been adopted by a minister of the previous Liberal government, Miss LaMarsh. I was not always an admirer of Miss LaMarsh, but in this case she did something very good. During centennial year she arranged for young people from all provinces to travel across Canada. They

were able to visit in other provinces for a few days. Nothing could have been more valuable in terms of the future of this country. Young people, for example from Quebec, had an opportunity to visit Saskatchewan and vice versa and young people from southern Ontario had an opportunity to visit Newfoundland. One thing is certain. Twenty-five years from now the people who now are in the age bracket between 12 and 20 will be running this country. If these people live in virtual isolation they might develop many built-in prejudices. They might have suspicions in respect of what people in other parts of Canada are trying to do against them. Such things are bound to arise in a country such as ours with its great distances.
One problem Canada has always had has involved the suspicion the English and French-speaking members of the population have had of one another. This is only natural. If people are unable to communicate there is bound to be suspicion. There is enough suspicion between the Maritimes and Ontario about economic problems and yet the people speak the same language. However, when we have the additional problem of language, the situation becomes worse. One way to get around this difficulty is by helping the young people move around the country so that they will have an opportunity to talk to each other. In my area we have had students from all parts of Canada visit us on an exchange basis. Nothing could be better for the future of our country. At the present time, when large numbers of high school and university students are out of work, it would be money well spent- instead of pouring it down the drain in respect of the CBC and some other institutions.

to provide funds so that these young people could travel. I do not suggest that the arrangements should be elaborate. The young people I know would not want this.
The young people would like an opportunity to visit other parts of the country. If we could help them do this we would be performing a real service to our country and its future. The young people would be occupied in this way rather than being influenced by the rabble rousers who are not interested in what is good for the future of Canada. We know that last year many of our young people were on the highways without proper food and the other necessities. One can expect people to be resentful about this. This is a plan the government might consider implementing this summer, in view of the unemployment situation which faces our young people. They might not earn any money in this way but at least they would get a wonderful appreciation of what our country is and could be.
There is one final comment I should like to make. I believe that not only the young people of our country- and I get around every year to all the high schools in my area-but also many of the middle-aged and older people have no real idea how Parliament or our government operates. I do not know how we can expect the average citizen to respect this institution when he has little knowledge concerning how it works. So far as I am concerned, no adequate book has been written on the subject of how Parliament operates. Most people think
January 29, 1971

that members sit here all day listening to golden words or little pearls of wisdom. When a debate is in progress, such as is the case now, they say that hardly anyone is present. We all know the reasons for this, but the public does not know or does not understand. Frequently, we are compared to the United States. You can bet your bottom dollar every young person in the United States knows how the Congress works, how the committee system works and what the powers of the President are. Very few people in Canada have any idea how our system of government works.
Perhaps the government, with the co-operation of the provinces, the CBC, and through the use of pamphlets and the press could help our young people understand how our democratic parliamentary system works and why it is not necessary to go to the streets in order to put ideas across. So many people say that nobody pays any attention to them. They say the country is undemocratic and that they have to take to the streets. That idea is promoted by people in Canada for their own ends. Many people have no idea how parliamentary democracy works or how the cabinet system works. This situation must be changed if we expect the country to flourish in the future. If the educational system of our country, in the hands of the provinces, is not working in this regard something must be done to make it work. Our system of government has been worked out over the centuries. It is a very flexible system. Something must be done so that future Canadians will appreciate and understand it. If this is not done, then anything else that is done in this House will be of little value to the future of our country.
I hope the government will make some appropriate changes in this bill so that it might incorporate some of the suggestions which not only I have made but which other hon. members have made and probably will make within the next few days.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, at this point may I call it one o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there is unanimous consent the Chair can call it one o'clock. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I leave the Chair to resume the same at 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Boulanger:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Honey):: Is the hon. member for Mercier rising on a question of privilege?
Government Organization Act, 1970


Prosper Boulanger: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to inform Your Honour that on the opposition side the clock shows three o'clock. I wonder whether it is because the opposition has nothing else to say but the fact remains that time is running fast on the opposition side. I would like this situation dealt with.


J. Michael Forrestall: I want to make a correction, Mr. Speaker. I think, in all fairness, it must be pointed out that we are always ahead of the government.


Mr. Hogarth:: When one considers who is going to speak this afternoon, I think we should call it five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


J. Michael Forrestall: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. If one assesses what has been accomplished with regard to the great plight we are in today, we might as well quit now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If hon. members on both sides of the House are not impelled to speak too long this afternoon, we might notice that clock for the purpose of adjournment.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I am greatly cheered by the enthusiasm with which I am awaited.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I really did not think that anyone on the government side would rise and ask the opposition to get going. After the going over they got this morning, I thought they would be very pleased if the opposition benches were not too well filled.


Mr. Walker:: We are still waiting for something
sensible.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: While you are waiting for something sensible, we are waiting for something constructive.


An hon. Member:: You will just have to wait longer.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Undoubtedly so. If this bill is passed, we will have a few extra ministers to help the cause along. I hope they will be more effective than the ones we have now.
The bill before us contains some proposals to deal with our environment. According to one press report, it is man's greed that is supposed to be the real culprit responsible for the damage that has been done to our environment. The article goes on to describe the Ottawa River as a flowing sewer which is at the service of a group of pulp companies. This may be so. I am willing to accept the description of it by the hon. member on the government side. What surprises me a little is that it took the government so long to make this finding, since the situation has been evident for a while now. Perhaps ,it took them that long also to find out that greed is necessary to the functioning of the economic system which the people on the government side so fondly

January 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
embrace. Why they are so surprised to see it evident in our economy passes my understanding.
The proliferation of departments and the appointment of extra ministers will not change that situation to any degree. A government which can view present unemployment with equanimity will scarcely solve the problem of unemployment by setting up another department. It will scarcely solve the problem I mentioned this morning, namely, that people in my constituency and indeed in other parts of Canada who are thrown out of work and apply for unemployment insurance payments to which they are entitled, find themselves waiting for six, seven or eight weeks before they get benefits.
What is really necessary is to have the departments presently responsible for these matters operate more effectively and efficiently. Sometimes I think the government has fallen prey to its own propaganda, to its own myths, to its own shibboleths. Cabinet ministers think the just society has really arrived. Perhaps if they would take a good sampling of public opinion instead of creating other departments they would do something about the reality in which they live.
I am concerned to some extent about the matter of environment. This bill refers to soil and water. I just wonder if the new minister will be able to work with those ministers who are responsible for agricultural matters in order to bring about a rational land conservation policy. Last spring we had a program which called for the summer fallowing of a great deal of acreage in western Canada. In fact, it forced farmers to summer fallow land for two years in succession. Mr. Speaker, you can scarcely conceive of a policy that would be more destructive of the basic soil on which our agricultural community depends. You can hardly conceive of a policy which would lead to more water and soil erosion than this type of program.
I wonder if the new minister in charge of improving the quality of the environment will be able to meet with his counterparts and take effective action to protect the environment. In view of the way our cities are expanding I wonder if policies can be developed which will enable feed lots and other agricultural enterprises to fit into the urban picture so that all the needs of our people will be met. Too often, large feed lots and other agricultural enterprises are situated close to cities. On occasion the urban spread encircles farms, and then people living within the urban area demand that things like livestock enterprises, which they find unpleasant, should no longer be carried on within that area. This is not the result of planning, and indicates that no decision has been made that this or that area is suitable for this or that purpose. This situation is the result of speculation, of the greed which is described in this article. I very much doubt that those who drew up this bill were much concerned about these sorts of situations which relate to land use.
I am reasonably sure that the government has been fairly ineffective in dealing with pollution. I recall the situation in Manitoba and the mercury pollution which resulted from discharges into the Saskatchewan River system. I am certainly not aware of the federal government acting in concert with Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta to discuss the matter with chemical and other industrial companies. Instead of that happening, the province of Manitoba launched a law suit against pulp companies and chemical companies in the two other provinces. Unless a better approach is made to the pollution problem, the federal government will be ineffective. The incompetence, the do-nothing attitude of the federal government in this field is of real concern.
Then, there is the question of the trade war going on between the provinces, with the province of Manitoba having to launch action in the Supreme Court in order to establish the prerogatives which properly belong to the federal government in the matter of trade. Trade should flow freely across this land, but the federal government seems to have abandoned its responsibilities in this area.
We have one minister in charge of the Wheat Board, Mr. Speaker. He tries very hard to succeed. I have asked him about the problems that exist in connection with the marketing of rapeseed and futures prices. He has said that he will talk with the Grain Exchange. I believe he said he had a letter from the Exchange, but I have not seen it yet. He has said that he will try to correct the inequalities and inequities that exist in the futures market. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there is some malfunctioning of the system. Today, I raised with him the matter of the spread between the Vancouver future and the future at Thunder Bay, which is some 46i cents per bushel. Anyone who is knowledgeable of the Grain Exchange, or who is even an observer of the commodity exchanges, will know that this is not a good situation. In fact, it indicates a malfunction in the exchange and a distortion of the prices received by the producer and paid by the consumer, whether the consumer be an importer like Japan or a domestic consumer.
Yet, as I say, no effective action has been taken. Are we waiting until some outsider is able to move in to correct the situation? You can only go so far with camouflage and with going through the motions. It is all very well for posters put out by Information Canada to depict a couple of people practically naked, clad only with a couple of maple leaves. You can have your fun with things of this kind; but that is only play acting. That does not come to grips with the realities or the day to day decisions that the people of Canada are trying to make. You know, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) may be enjoying himself very much riding an elephant, a tiger, a turtle, or whatever else he may find convenient for transportation, but those of us who remain here must live with our day to day problems. There is no indication that the government has become seized of the day to day problems relating to the slow-

January 29, 1971

down in the economy, a slowdown that is creating hardships in all walks of life in all parts of Canada. That slowdown was brought on, encouraged and fostered by the people who sit on the government side of the House.
What disturbs me for example is that the minister responsible for agriculture does not seem to know where the government is going or what its objectives are. Let me illustrate what I mean. We are proposing to encourage the production of forage crops in western Canada. We are proposing to increase, through this method, the size of cattle herds and the production of livestock; yet, at the same time, we are encouraging the increased importation of meat from other countries. I am not one who says that we ought to draw a solid circle around Canada and prevent the importation into Canada of food products. That is not a practical suggestion. What I am saying is that the farmers of Canada have a right to know what the government's policy is. They have a right to know what the limitations of that policy are and, before investing millions of dollars in growing forage crops in western Canada and in increasing livestock production in Canada, they have a right to know what the policy of the government is with regard to importations of meat. Then, they can plan and govern themselves accordingly. This they do not know. All we hear when this point is raised are remarks such as, "Well, we stopped some of this importation before, and we may do so again." That sort of policy is at variance with the policies of other countries.
The United States does not absolutely block the entry of meat coming from other countries. That country has established quotas for meat coming from all countries except Canada. It has established such a policy and its producers have a working knowledge of that policy. They know where they are going. That sort of thing needs to be done here and it has not been done. The Government cannot get away with its present careless and ill-defined policies. The Prime Minister cannot get away merely by shrugging his shoulders and saying, "It is not my job to sell wheat." He did not need to tell us that. We knew that. Nevertheless, it is his job, and the job of those who are part of his government, to outline the policies under which we operate.
Under this bill we shall be able to do either very little in regard to the environment or a great deal. All will depend on the thrust and determination of the government of the day. What is done will depend on how determined governments will be to improve the quality of life. It will depend on how determined they are to make this economy work instead of fiddling while Rome burns.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my views on this bill and, at the same time, express my concern about one important aspect of the bill. I am especially concerned about its effect on the Atlantic provinces and, as well, on British Columbia and the great lakes areas of Canada. I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, over the downgrading, as a consequence of the passage of this bill, of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry.
Government Organization Act, 1970


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I think, Sir, that that is a cause for legitimate concern. I am sure that if the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) represented a constituency in the Atlantic provinces, he would probably share that concern and not sit complacently and smugly listening, as he does today.


An hon. Member:: He does that well.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is exactly what this bill does. Notwithstanding the assurances and reassurances that the minister has given us, the evidence shows clearly that the department of fisheries is to go. After this bill becomes law, that department will no longer carry out its very important functions, as it has been doing since Confederation. I was especially concerned and, indeed, surprised that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) said absolutely nothing in his speech to allay this fear or to reassure us. As a matter of fact, to put it mildly, I was shocked when reading the minister's speech to find no reference whatsoever to the department of fisheries or to the future responsibilities with regard to fisheries under the new set up. I am not for a moment suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that this was deliberate. I am suggesting, nevertheless, that something alarming is happening in this area. Since the new department to be formed is to be given all these new areas of responsibility, it is only natural that the age old responsibilities, the traditional responsibilities, of the department of fisheries relating to the management and well-being of the fishing industry of this country should be downgraded and "get lost in the shuffle".
As I say, I do not think this is being done deliberately; nevertheless, the government is doing that. This omnibus bill does precisely that. It will do away with the department of fisheries, that department winch is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, of departments in the federal government. Certainly, it has existed since Confederation. During the course of his speech the minister did not refer once to the importance of the fisheries to the Canadian economy, and especially to the importance of the fishing industry to the Atlantic provinces and British Columbia. That industry, Mr. Speaker, in 1967 produced millions and millions of dollars for the Canadian economy. That industry in this country employs directly over 90,000 Canadians.
I wish to put some statistics on the record in order to illustrate how important this industry is to the Atlantic provinces. In the province of Newfoundland, 24,000 people are directly employed in the fishing industry out of a total work force of 130,000. In the three Maritime provinces, 31,000 people are directly employed in the fishing industry out of a total work force of 466,000. These figures are taken from 1968 statistics compiled by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. I put them on the record to illustrate how important this industry is, not only to the province of Newfoundland, but to all the Atlantic provinces of Canada. In the four Atlantic prov-

January 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 inces, over 55,000 Canadians are directly employed in the fishing industry. This tact becomes even more impressive if we use the multiplier factor.
In terms of its importance to our balance of payments position, Canada ranks third in the world as an exporter of fish. The total value of our exports of fish in 1968 was in excess of $227 million. This has been increasing each year in terms of its value on the export market. Most of our exports are to the American market which is very important to Canada. Although Canada is one of the largest fish-producing nations in the world, this fact is ignored in the over-all planning of this new department. It has, I regret to say, been ignored by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. He is a good minister. He has done many good things for the fishing industry and has introduced many innovations. He has modernized this department.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear?


James Aloysius McGrath: I have no hesitation in saying that. However, this is all the more regrettable because in his zeal and determination to form this new department, which will include many new responsibilities, the minister has downgraded the fishing industry and its importance to the over-all economy of this country. The industry does not merit one word in the name of the new department. It is not even mentioned in the name of the bill. We have cause for genuine, legitimate concern.
I listened to my colleague with interest when he expressed his concern during the course of this debate. When the minister was asked what would become of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry when this bill becomes law, he replied, and I will paraphrase, that it will continue as a service in the new department in the same way as the forestry and Canadian wildlife services. I do not want to be unfair to the minister. He is not here at the present time. However, this statement can be found at page 2832 of Hansard for January 27. The minister stated that the department of fisheries will no longer exist as a department. As he termed it, the Canadian fisheries service of the new department of the environment will rank in terms of importance with the Canadian wildlife service and the Canadian forest service.
The Canadian wildlife service serves a very useful function in the preservation and management of our wild life. The forestry service carries out very useful and efficient work in the field of experimentation in an attempt to combat various diseases in our forests. Neither of the services directly contribute to the Canadian economy to the same extent as the fisheries industry, and I am speaking in the federal context, especially in the Atlantic provinces and the province of British Columbia. I feel that we have cause for concern in the overall context of federal responsibility.
I notice that the appointment of the new deputy minister has already been announced. I understand that he is a professional engineer from Montreal. This man does not have the remotest connection, nor has he ever been
remotely connected, with the fishing industry. This is more evidence of why we are concerned about the downgrading of the fishing industry and the fisheries department in this bill. The department of fisheries is to be a service within the new department similar to the wildlife service. It will be presided over by an assistant deputy minister. I sincerely ask, what is wrong with having two deputy ministers in the department? I made this suggestion to the minister. I will put this suggestion in the form of an amendment at the appropriate time.
If there were two deputy ministers, one could be responsible for the over-all management of our fisheries department and the other could have over-all responsibility for the other areas in the new department. In this way, we would ensure that the responsibilities of Parliament in the areas of management, development and exploitation of Canada's fisheries would receive the attention it so justly deserves. The new deputy minister has been appointed, notwithstanding the fact that this bill is still before the House. I would have at least expected the government to wait the few days necessary for this bill to go through the legislative process, be enacted and become law before announcing the appointment of the new deputy minister.
I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) in paying tribute to the retiring Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, Dr. Needier. I am happy to note that he will continue to play a role in the department and that he will have a special responsibility in so far as the fishing industry and our international negotiations with respect to conservation are concerned.
There are reasons for concern. They are manifest in the minister's speech and in this bill. I say to the approximately 4,000 Canadians who are presently employed by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry that they better get on the bandwagon or else they will be left out. They better acquaint themselves with the new responsibilities of the minister in the area of pollution and pollution control. As far as this government is concerned, there is not much future in the fishing industry, although the facts and statistics I have put before the House certainly contradict that statement. I do not for a moment want to take anything away from the importance of having effective measures to combat pollution. We all know the seriousness of pollution. We know of the critical stage we have arrived at in this country and in this world. We have polluted our environment to the point at which certain species of wildlife are under threat of extinction. We know that the very survival of man is at stake. Let me repeat that it is necessary and essential that we adopt effective measures of control.
It is logical that we give this responsibility to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. He is obviously the man who should have the responsibility for combating pollution. That minister is responsible in respect of our fisheries, and this is an area which is more directly affected by pollution than perhaps any other in Canada.

January 29, 1971

This fact was recognized long before pollution became a popular subject. It was recognized when the Fisheries Act was drawn up many years ago. At that time, adequate provisions were written into the act to combat pollution. Unfortunately, for reasons which have not been sufficiently or adequately explained, these provisions in the Fisheries Act have never been enforced.
When we were amending the Fisheries Act and examining the Canada Water Act we could not find a rational or logical explanation why various ministers of the department of fisheries down through the years did not see fit to enforce the very stringent and strict provisions of this act. We put forward the suggestion when the fisheries Act was last before the House that, in effect, there was no need for a Canada Water Act if the pollution provisions of the Fisheries Act were enforced. The federal government already had the power at the time Parliament enacted the Canada Water Act to combat pollution. The Fisheries Act contains provisions even to this day which, had they been enforced, would have prevented a great deal of the pollution which now exists. The Canada Water Act is much like a toothless tiger. It is ineffective. I do not want to repeat the arguments presented at the time this bill was presented to the House, but it is ineffective to a large degree because it depends upon provincial and municipal initiative. The provinces and municipalities in this country will be motivated and guided by economic considerations. These considerations must be favourable to them before water management areas in Canada are set up to combat pollution.
The Minister of Fisheries, who will inherit jurisdiction for the Canada Water Act as a legacy under this bill is now saying these things, too. But, Mr. Speaker, he is a little late. Let me quote what he is reported as having said as it appears in the Sunday Express of January 3, 1971 under the headline "Whiz-kid Davis Defends Mother Nature". This minister is our knight on a white charger and is reported as follows:
Davis feels the poison chemicals which can kill in even small quantities should be the first target of government attack, and to ban them he'll use the Canada Fisheries Act, not the Canada Water Act which was so recently passed by parliament.
"The Canada Water Act requires federal-provincial-municipal co-operation to work. The law is already there in the Canada Fisheries Act to force clean-ups, and industry is being fairly co-operative"-
We can draw some consolation from the fact the minister is now saying what we said at the time the Canada Water Act was before the House. We can draw precious little consolation from the fact that the time spent considering the Canada Water Act, its preparation, the debate on it and the exhaustive and extensive examination by the committee must be written off as a waste of time. The water act is not yet operative. It has no past, and if what the minister says is an indication, it has no future.
We are asking that this new department created by this omnibus bill now before the House reflect in its name the importance of the fishing industry to the Canadian economy. What is wrong with naming the new
Government Organization Act, 1970 department the department of fisheries and the environment? In that way we might expect the department to live up to its obligations in so far as the fishing industry is concerned. As things now stand, there is a risk that the fishing industry in Canada, which is a responsibility of this Parliament, will lose something in the shuffle.
I suggest that perhaps we should make provision for the appointment of two deputy ministers. I think there is precedent for this suggestion in that we have a deputy minister of health and a deputy minister of welfare within the one department. In the interest of preserving this industry upon which Atlantic Canada is so dependent, I should like to know what is wrong with the suggestion that the word "fisheries" be incorporated in the name of the act. In that way, the federal government's responsibility under our constitution, as recognized at the time of confederation, would be assured. Perhaps we could appoint two special deputy ministers, one responsible for fishing and the other responsible for the environment.
There are other subjects I should like to deal with if time permitted, but I realize a number of other members want to participate in this debate. Members from the Atlantic provinces have some concern about conservation and the establishment of agreements which hopefully can be negotiated in order to provide some kind of agreement on a sustained yield basis in respect of Atlantic fisheries.
We know that negotiations are taking place at this time and that there will be a meeting of the International Commission on North Atlantic Fisheries. I am told that this will be a subject on the agenda of that meeting. It is my view that the Canadian fisheries industry should be adequately protected by meaningful international agreements which will hopefully be worked out by the International Commission on North Atlantic Fisheries when it meets in May of this year.
This morning I read of the formation of a committee in the United States in respect of the preservation of the Atlantic salmon. We have said many times in this House to the Minister of Fisheries and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) that we are concerned about the future of the Atlantic salmon. It is being threatened as a species by the exploitation of one of the member countries, namely, Denmark. It is a well-known fact that within the last ten years Denmark has discovered the North Atlantic salmon feeding grounds. These salmon are hatched in Canadian rivers and protected by Canadian laws. Millions of dollars have been spent to preserve this species of fish, not only as a source of food but as sport fish as well. If the Danes continue to exploit this fish off Greenland at the present rate, then the Atlantic salmon cannot possibly survive as a species beyond the next ten years.
A group of prominent people in the sport fishing industry in the United States recently took some initiative in this connection, and I salute them for it. I only hope a similar initiative will be taken in Canada. In particular, I

January 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 hope the government will tell Denmark in the strongest possible diplomatic language that Canada takes a very dim view of its activities in the over exploitation of Atlantic salmon; that if Denmark does not agree to preserve the species under some sustained yield system, Canada will threaten economic sanctions against them until they do. I have made this suggestion before, as has the hon. member for South Shore, and I now make it again.
We wonder what will become of these urgent and pressing problems faced by the fishing industry once this bill passes the House and this new department of the environment is set up. For our part, we will continue to express our concern in the only way open to us, namely by moving appropriate amendments to the bill when it comes before the committee of the whole House.
Before I take my seat, I want to make one more point. As a member of parliament, I resent very strongly the government putting this bill before the House in its present form. I find there are provisions in the bill that I can support wholeheartedly. On the other hand, I find provisions to which I am very much opposed. Yet, I must take the whole package or I must reject the whole package.
I contend that Members of Parliament should not be placed in this position. This bill deals with many unrelated subjects. I have read Your Honour's ruling and the arguments preceding it, and I acknowledge that there are precedents. But I submit there is no precedent which supports an omnibus bill of this sort that embodies so many different, unrelated subjects, from additional Parliamentary Secretaries to pensions, from setting up a new department of the environment to creating new ministers of state. Members of Parliament should not be placed in this position.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been referred to on a great many occasions as an omnibus bill, a government catch-all or a new bag of tricks. The descriptive part of the bill indicates that this is an act respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto. Having read the bill, and also the speech made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), it appears to me to cover the entire waterfront of the government activities. Items dealing with new ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries appear to me to be a backdoor method of increasing the salaries of many of the more vociferous backbenchers on the government side. The fact that during this debate there has been better attendance by these hon. members is an indication that hope is springing eternal in the Grit breasts.
Well, Mr. Speaker, why not? The extra $4,000, even for two years-which of late has been the prescribed life of most Parliamentary Secretaries-would add an extra $2,000 to the yearly salary of a great many government members. A great many of them could be the recipients of this extra income during the lifetime of a Parliament. After all the guff that came out after the announcement that Members of Parliament might get an increase in
salary, this looks to me like a backdoor method of giving a reward to the righteous, so to speak. It is also a method of holding out a carrot before the other poor rabbits as an indication that if they behave themselves they, too, may become Parliamentary Secretaries. A former outspoken cabinet minister in the Liberal party many years ago said: "If we want to get away with it, who's going to stop us?" The same arrogant air of ruling by divine right has once again permeated the front benches of the government.
A few years ago this House was faced with another omnibus bill, the one that created our over-burdened committee system. The failure of that particular scheme as evidenced by the present breakdown of our committee system, cannot help but make this House and the nation skeptical of the effectiveness of this and other schemes. For example, yesterday the committee chairmen and their deputies in both the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs were not prepared to discuss a bill which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) has stated is one of the most important to come before this Parliament this year. The minister was in the House making a speech and had not troubled to find out whether the committee was sitting. As a result the committee had to wait 15 or 20 minutes, wasting the time of members and the witnesses who were to appear. This is just one example of the ineffectiveness of our committee system.
However, most of my remarks will be related to the establishment of a department to be known as the department of the environment. This is a department that members of this party have for many years advocated. Last year when we were discussing the water bill, time after time, both in committee and in the House, members of the official opposition suggested the creation of such a department. I think all the environmental problems that are so prevalent in this country should be placed under the jurisdiction of one minister.
I should like to say that the minister who is going to head this department is, in my estimation, one of the most far-sighted and able ministers. He is probably the one most capable of grappling with this particular question. This is the most redeeming part of this legislation. I understand, of course, the problems facing members from the Maritime provinces, where fishing is such an important part of the economy. These members have indicated that they fear for the fishing industry of Canada if that department is downgraded.
I was a little disturbed when the minister who is going to head this department said in the House the other day that we in Canada must make sacrifices, especially on the economic front, if we want a better world than we have now. It almost seems as if the minister does not feel the time has now come to take action to deal with many of our environmental problems.
Last Friday in this House the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney), when speaking on a bill that had to do with setting aside a national

January 29, 1971

pollution awareness week, had this to say, as reported at page 2690 of Hansard:
-the desire to pinpoint the significance of pollution in ail ways, the significance of the cost of pollution to our environment and to our society, the benefits of controlling and reversing it, and the cost that we must pay in achieving that benefit, must all be made known to the public before emotional steps are taken.
Mr. Speaker, this was brought to the fore by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I refer to an article in the Windsor Star for February 27, 1970, under the heading "Pollution, water: Is Trudeau serious?" I shall read a few excerpts from this editorial to indicate the point I wish to make:
On Wednesday a sizeable audience of Windsor citizens heard health and welfare minister John Munro speak on the necessity for an all-out fight against all forms of pollution. There was even the promise of a clean air act to go with the recently passed Canada Water Act.
All very dandy.
Except that Mr. Munro's boss, Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, had downgraded current concern about pollution as just another "kick" on Tuesday night when taping a television show with Carleton University students.
This is just another kick people are taking. The article continues:
The PM's remark must also make resources minister J. J. Greene feel a little sick about the Canada Water Act and the considerable trouble Greene has gone to in justifying its necessity when the majority of provinces would rather the federal government left the area of water pollution well enough alone.
Joe Greene was not over having the rug pulled out from under him by the swinging bossman. Mr. Greene had also just made his most unequivocating statement about Canada not selling its water to the United States in the House of Commons.
Lo and behold, there was Mr. Trudeau telling the student audience at the television taping that since Canada can't use all its water it shouldn't be possessive about it. We, of course, should consider selling our resources "for good, hard cash" said the Prime Minister.
This is an indication to me of the feeling of the government at the present time. They hope pollution is something that will go away. It is an indication that the government does not have any immediate plans to control pollution. They fear that the majority of Canadians do not understand. This would seem to be an insult to the credibility of the Canadian people. There have been sit-ins, think-tanks, symposiums and pollution probes at every level of government and its agencies. In fact, the other day when someone spoke of the Ottawa River it was suggested that we have another survey. We have had so many surveys that it is now time for action. Studies by magazines, periodicals, radio and television have all brought home to the public the extremely critical situation we face in connection with our environment. One of the principles of true conservation is that each generation passes on to the next an environment as close as possible to the one he received.
We brag about our affluent society. We certainly have done a dandy job of ruining our environment. Do we have to wait until disease runs rampant throughout our land because of our inability to grapple with our wastes?
Government Organization Act, 1970 Do we have to wait until babies die from air pollution before we do something about our air? Are we to find ourselves running short of arable land, pure water and clear air until one day we find ourselves knee deep in garbage?
One of my first speeches in this House was in the field of conservation. I have always been happy and proud of the fact that one of the first conservation programs was established in my area. I refer to the Grand River conservation program. The main physical structures were built within the confines of my riding. However, the authority that has the responsibility for administering this scheme found itself in difficulty because federal assistance was cut off last year by the repeal of the Water Conservation Assistance Act when the water bill was passed.
The previous act contained a formula whereby the three levels of government participated in projects of this type in the ratio of 37J per cent by the federal government, 37 J per cent by the provincial government and 25 per cent by the municipalities involved. In private conversations I have had with the minister he indicated that he would consider some type of assistance for a water management plan on the Grand River, but until he indicates whether a new formula will be presented, or to what extent the federal government will participate, it is difficult for the responsible body to carry forward its projected plans.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seeks the floor on a point of order.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I would remind you that I pointed out to Your Honor that the clock on the opposition side read 3 when it was actually two o'clock. It now reads 4 p.m.
I was then told that we would go by that clock and proceed to private members' business when it read four o'clock. If Your Honor is ready to make a ruling, please note that the clock in front of me shows that it is now four.


Some hon. Members:: Four o'clock.


Prosper Boulanger: The members are ready to call it four
o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the majority of the clocks show it is still not four o'clock.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Speaker, this situation would appear to be almost the same as some of the other things run by the government; two are running and one has stopped.


Prosper Boulanger: We are not making progress, anyway.


Mr. Harkness:: The clocks are like the governmentrunning out of order.

January 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


William Marvin Howe: When I attended football games we had a cheer which went like this: Feed them oats, feed them hay, feed them anything but stop that play.
I see no reason why the water act of last year cannot be amended to include the original formula. The Grand River Conservation Commission has plans which, if implemented, could create hundreds of jobs and could be of tremendous assistance to the communities in the area by improving the quality and flow of water so necessary for continued development.
This is only one phase in the improvement of our environment. I see many areas in which government action could be taken by various departments toward improving our environment. For instance, our Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) has laid great emphasis on the necessity of equipping cars with gadgets that would reduce the amount of deleterious material coming from exhausts. The areas where this is most prevalent are the centres of our cities. Many municipalities have installed equipment to measure the pollution content of these areas, and the readings vary to a frightening degree. Recently in a Canada-Japan newsletter an article appeared entitled, "Menace of Pollution Spurs Search for Practical Electric Car". Periodicals and magazines have emphasized the necessity of this type of pollution control, and universities participated in a marathon race across the United States emphasizing the importance of so-called clean car exhaust systems.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has made a great issue of the new packaging bill he has brought forward. But has he brought forward a container or bottle to hold hazardous products which have brought into jeopardy the lives of so many children in Canada? The latest figures show there were 50,000 last year. What has the minister done with regard to throw-away, nonreturnable bottles which have become such a blot on the highways and the streets of our towns and cities? Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have to wait for the people of Canada to become emotionally aroused before we take very rapid and vital steps to eliminate pollution.
Our government is twisting and turning, trying to find ways and means of grappling with the problem of unemployment which finds hundreds of thousands of Canadians in a hopeless, helpless, almost frantic situation as they face not only days and weeks but in some cases years with no hope of steady employment. I have in my hand two or three speeches that were made by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis). I know he is very interested in these projects and in the solution of this problem. One of his speeches is entitled, "Conservation: a dynamic concept". What we need is a man with dynamic concepts and ideas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, we cannot have stagnation.


William Marvin Howe: Another speech which the minister made is entitled, "Recycling and recovery: the twin keys to environmental control". Both of these speeches contain a great many ideas regarding ways and means of improving our pollution problem in Canada. Recycling and recovery is something in which I have become very interested. I have here a book entitled, "Garbage as you like it. A plan to stop pollution by using our nation's wastes". It is a very interesting book, well written, in simple language, but it gives some idea of methods used in other parts of the world to dispose of garbage, to recycle it and to segregate it. Garbage can be composted first and then sold as a fertilizer. Paper could be reclaimed and so could metal, to be used in factories to carry on our industrial production.
A few years ago "bold" and "imaginative" were used as a catch-phrase by the Liberal government. If my memory serves me correctly, the government did not prove to be very bold or imaginative. We can survive a monetary crack-up. We can survive a social revolution. We cannot survive the destruction of our environment. It will take bold and imaginative planning, such as the creation of satellite cities on unproductive land rather than the creation of asphalt deserts on our good, arable land. There has been a historic tradition in the Liberal Party of suggestions of this kind. I remember a speech made by a former Prime Minister of this nation, Right Hon. Mackenzie King, shortly after the last war in which he said this would have to be done. At that time they were not sure that wars were over. The same is true today. We know how vulnerable our cities would be if war broke out.
The former minister in charge of housing, who was previously the Minister of National Defence, also had the idea of setting up satellite cities. These are bold and imaginative ideas to move people from crowded areas of the cities to land that is unproductive and where cities could be built and developed. It will take bold and imaginative ideas such as the development of a recycling program for the water in our homes, apartments and places of business.
A couple of years ago there was a great deal of fanfare concerning the building of a house in Rockcliffe where the water was to be recycled. I telephoned the National Research Council recently and was told that this project had been wrapped up because of a couple of problems that arose. If they can recycle the water in swimming pools used by our children in schools, why cannot they recycle the water used in our homes, apartments and other buildings? I maintain that we are not doing enough research in this area. Solutions to these problems will have to be found if we are to survive. Many cities have tried different ways and means, but so many of them result in just moving the problem from one place to another. In other words, incineration fills the area with tons and tons of pollutants which filter down, sometimes not on the city but on some place in the area.
It would seem that some plans have proved effective; they are described in this book. Means have been found of segregating different types of garbage and composting others. Many cities are coming to grips with the problem. I know that in my area, in the last year several municipalities have been having difficulty disposing of

January 29, 1971

their garbage and have united to buy land on which it could be disposed. Further research might indicate means whereby a number of smaller communities could form a composting unit where their garbage could be disposed of in one area. These are problems which have to be solved if we are to avoid destroying our environment.
I think the government should explore the possibility of providing assistance for communities which face such problems. I know that through the National Housing Act assistance can be provided to communities for setting up sewage disposal programs, but I think we have to delve into the problem deeper if we are to accomplish what must be accomplished in order to survive. Many projects that are not completely self-supporting have been helped financially through the sale of fertilizer, paper and metal.
It appears that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has the idea that pollution is not very important in the minds of the people of Canada. I do not think it is necessary to await public approval before taking the bold and imaginative steps which I have suggested to overcome unemployment and many of the environmental problems which our affluent society has created.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak briefly on only one or two of the matters dealt with in this bill. As a matter of fact, if one were to deal with all the proposals in the bill, the limit of 40 minutes on speeches at this stage in our proceedings would have to be stretched. However, the evils of an omnibus bill of this kind have been dealt with by my colleagues and I will only add my protests to theirs against this sort of measure being introduced. This measure is called, "an act respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto". The bill might much more properly be entitled, "an act to provide jobs for the boys". That is essentially what it is.
In my opinion, the most important provision in the bill is the one which provides for a considerable increase in members of the cabinet. Up to five ministers of state will have specific jobs to perform. Several other ministers of state will not have specific jobs to perform but will assist the ministers who presently have departments. There will also be ministers without portfolio. At present there are 28 members in the cabinet. With the additions proposed under this bill, there may be anything up to 10, 12 or 15 more. This would make the biggest cabinet of any country in the world.
Our cabinet is already too big. We have 28 ministers looking after the affairs of some 21J million people. Immediately to the south of us is a country with 10 times our population. They have 12 cabinet members, plus the President and the Vice-President-14 people to look after the affairs of a population of some 220 million-ten times ours-and with a great many more international commitments and governmental business of all kinds than we have. It is an absolutely ridiculous situation for us to have a cabinet of 28 people while the United States cabinet numbers 14.
Government Organization Act, 1970
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, rather than increasing the number of cabinet ministers, if this were a reasonable bill we would be cutting the number down to at least half. As a matter of fact, I do not know how they all find a place to sit in the cabinet chamber in the East Block. There is not room for 28 chairs around the cabinet table, so a considerable number of them must sit back in the corner like Little Jack Horner.


Some hon. Members:: Where is Jack?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There just is not room around the table for them. There may be room in the temporary cabinet chamber, which used to be used for the Progressive Conservative caucus, on the third floor. So long as they use small chairs, they may possibly squeeze 28 around that table, but certainly if the size of the cabinet is increased there would not be room for all the ministers. Somebody says that maybe the cabinet will be run on the roster system. Certainly something will have to be done along that line.
If you examine this measure, Mr. Speaker, you will see that it is one of the most ridiculous proposals ever put before the House. It is a complete waste of public funds. Rather than increasing efficiency in government, it is bound to decrease efficiency. A cabinet of 28 is too large. A cabinet of 28 cannot operate efficiently. If you are to have a dictatorial form of government with a Prime Minister and two or three of his close colleagues running it, it does not matter if you have a cabinet of 300. But if you are to have cabinet government, which I think is the best form of government, you need a cabinet of manageable proportions-and a 28-member cabinet is not that. Increase the size of the cabinet by 10 or 15 ministers and it becomes a completely hopeless situation. We will not have cabinet government; we will have a dictatorial form of government with the Prime Minister and two or three of his cronies running it and the rest of the cabinet being more or less nonentities. I protest as strongly as I can against an innovation of this kind.
If the government was intent on introducing effective cabinet reorganization, it should have looked at the British system where there is a cabinet of anywhere from 12 to 15 ministers, with a number of junior ministers who look after administrative functions of various kinds. To add another 10 or 15 people to a 28-member cabinet is complete nonsense; it is making a mockery of the cabinet system of government. What it really amounts to is making jobs for the boys, to give more of the members who sit on the government side official jobs, higher salaries and more staff-things of that sort-to make them feel more important and more satisfied. This is being done at a terrific cost to the Canadian population not only in dollars but in efficiency. Instead of government being more efficient, it will be less efficient under this type of system. And how much more it will cost, God only knows!
When I was a member of the cabinet, ministers had one executive assistant. Now ministers have three, four

January 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 or five executive assistants. What, in God's name, all these people do I don't know, except waste the people's money. That is what they do, waste the people's money and put out propaganda on behalf of their ministers and the government. As far as making any contribution to the government of Canada is concerned or to the welfare of the Canadian people, theirs is negative rather than positive.
Somewhat the same criticism applies so far as Parliamentary Secretaries are concerned. The Parliamentary Secretary is a very anomalous animal. He is something like the mule in the animal kingdom; he has no pride of ancestry and no hope of posterity. I think it was a great mistake to bring in Parliamentary Secretaries of the nature we have in this country. A Parliamentary Secretary has no authority whatsoever. He cannot sign a single document. When I had a Parliamentary Secretary and on some occasions two I did not know what to do with them half the time because they had no authority. You could not give them many jobs because there was no legal basis for their carrying out the jobs. They could not sign anything; they could not really make any decisions. So far as many of the proposed new ministers are concerned, the only difference between them and Parliamentary Secretaries will be that they will have authority to sign documents and do things along that line. This business of creating more Parliamentary Secretaries, with their present absence of power and thus their inability to do an effective job in a ministry, again is a mistake.
As I said a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, if we want to improve the situation we should look at the British system where they have a cabinet with a limited number of people, junior ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries who have some authority. For these reasons I think this bill should be defeated. The government should withdraw the bill and introduce something reasonable, something which will be more effective and more efficient rather than something, as is proposed here, which will be less effective and less efficient than the set-up we now have -and God knows that has been bad enough!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to follow a former cabinet member because he has personal knowledge of how the system works and therefore has the authority to make valid criticism. He has knowledge of what went on when he was a minister. He knows what Parliamentary Secretaries can do, and he certainly knows that there is no use appointing another 15 or 16 of them. He knows what a minister can do and therefore he knows how many ministers we should have. His points are very well taken.

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Corbin) also made a speech last night-


An hon. Member:: Yes, a very interesting one.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Exactly. I listened to him carefully. He said that among other things of interest to him was that
he might become the first Parliamentary Secretary of the new Department of the Environment. He dealt with the question of the new department and quoted instances proving that industry is now paying more attention to the fight against pollution. No doubt that industry will pay attention to it. If industry is compelled to pay the cost of fighting pollution, taxpayers will still have to pay, for prices generally will no doubt increase. It is true that industry can take advantage of some circumstances and innovate-if I may use this word-however, the main consideration is still that to fight pollution money is needed.
I do not intend to deal with every aspect of the bill because I am not knowledgeable enough to do so. However, I wish to speak about the creation of a department of the environment. Really, there are too many items in this bill for one to deal with. The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness) said that apparently the government wishes to create positions to be filled by backbenchers and that this will make them more vocal. At the moment they are afraid to talk, but if they are paid another $4,000 a year they may become more interested in what is going on in this country.
I agree with the comments of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) with respect to the Department of Fisheries. I need not repeat them. This department will have minor responsibility. I ask, why has the Department of Agriculture not been engulfed in this new department? That is an interesting question. Obviously, the government knows there would be too much opposition from the western provinces, and it does not want that. This shows how little the government has considered the problems of the Atlantic fisheries and Canadian fisheries in general.
How can one minister handle this great portfolio and know what is going on in all these fields? Surely, that responsibility is too vast. There are too many questions which are unanswered. For example, we have been asking for some time for the establishment and enforcement of fishing limits off our shores. The Department of Fisheries has not been able to cope with these problems. Emphasis has been placed upon participatory democracy. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) has not been able to indicate how he will handle this present responsibilities to fishermen, let alone his new responsibilities. I must say, since the minister has spoken a great deal about pollution, that he is the logical person to handle this matter. Perhaps one of the new ministers of state will be able to assist him.


An hon. Member:: What about Parliamentary Secretaries?


Louis-Roland Comeau: Since the minister's portfolio will be so vast, probably a Parliamentary Secretary and a minister of state will have to help him with some of his responsibilities. It might be said that the number of ministers will be too great. However, since the new department

January 29, 1971

will cover many responsibilities, perhaps they will be divided among several members of the cabinet. For example, I know that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) has hardly anything to do now; he is completely lost. Instead of adding other ministers to the cabinet, could the government not ask him to take over some of these added responsibilities?
I see that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) is in the House. We do not hear much from him: I hope this is not an indication of the amount of work being done in that department. Anyway, I know it is not. I have mentioned a couple of ministers who do not seem to have very much to do. That being so, could they not take over some of these responsibilities? We need not necessarily add new ministers-


Mr. Richardson:: In my department everything is working well.


Louis-Roland Comeau: The minister says that everything is working well: there are no complaints respecting his department, apparently. If that is the case, I congratulate him, because his is the only department that is working well.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Ask and you shall receive.


Louis-Roland Comeau: As I said before, I am not opposed to the creation of the new department. Actually, I am glad the opposition has gained a major victory in convincing the government to put its anti-pollution efforts under one ministry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Louis-Roland Comeau: We have advocated this for quite a while and the government has been opposed to it. When we discussed the Canada Water Act last year, the government did not want to listen to us. They said it was too complicated and that we could not do this and that. When we made similar suggestions in the debate on the Fisheries Act amendments they said, "We do not even want to hear about that." They brought in silly arguments and defeated our amendments. The backbenchers spoke in committee. Perhaps they thought that by voting down the amendments they would stand a chance of becoming Parliamentary Secretaries. They would not hear of our suggestions, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this year we proposed the establishment of a centralized office responsible for pollution control. We were aware, and still are, that the various ministers upon whom responsibility fell for pollution control did not have a single mind on how to attack this vital problem. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry was ambivalent; the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) was talking everywhere about sovereignty; the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) was not prepared to deal with oil pollution.
Mr. Speaker, to include in the same bill pollution control and the control of renewable resources gives an interesting dimension to the problem.
We have strongly advocated that one minister should deal with the whole problem of pollution. As I said, we
Government Organization Act, 1970 made numerous proposals last year. We made proposals during the Canada Water Act debate on the whole subject of pollution. This bill is vague: it tells us what job has to be done but it does not indicate how it is to be done. It mentions co-operation with the provinces and municipalities, but provides no mechanism for co-operation. Will this be done on an ad hoc basis? Will subsidies be available? What about the training of pollution officers? That should be a relevant question in any discussion of the Canada Shipping Act. Will the government pay for their training? Also, why will not this department have control over pollution in the north, in view of the great dangers of ecological imbalance in that region? I do not see anything in the bill that says the new department is to be responsible for what happens in the north.
Because the department of the environment is to take over some of the responsibilities of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, some changes have been proposed in the bill. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources will be left with responsibility for nonrenewable resources. In this connection it is interesting to note the difference between the English and French texts of the bill. Some changes will probably have to be made in this regard.
Part II of the bill is worth mentioning, since clause 11 (2) (b) gives the minister the power to "enter into agreements with the government of any province or any agency thereof respecting the carrying out of those plans." Why cannot the minister of the environment enter into direct agreement with the provinces and thereby make this department really effective in the fight against pollution?


Mr. Bechard:: It does not exist yet; that's why.


Louis-Roland Comeau: The hon. member says that the department does not exist. There spoke a former Acting Speaker and Deputy Chairman. A man who is in charge of one of our committees tells me the department does not exist. Of course it does not exist; we have not passed the bill. I think that was an awful remark for the hon. member to make.


An hon. Member:: Yes, it was.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, it cannot be done.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bona-venture (Mr. Bechard) is not being objective; he knows better than that because he was Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House.

The hon. member knows that a bill is not law until passed by this House. The word "pollution" had sex appeal last year and it still has some sex appeal. The government brought in all kinds of legislation to pretend that it was really doing something to fight pollution. It introduced the Canada Water Act, the amendments to the Fisheries Act and to the Canada Shipping Act, and the bill we are now considering. It also introduced the Arctic waters pollution bill. There has been a great deal of talk
2916

January 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 on the subject of pollution, but no action. There has been no action because the government has refused to make money available to fight pollution.
Last week I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) whether low-interest loans or other types of aid to industries and municipalities had been recommended in order that they could fight pollution. The minister stated that he was waiting for recommendations from the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. When I directed the question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, he stated that some recommendations had already been made and more would be forthcoming. He did not state what the recommendations were. The government will have to tell me what recommendations were made because I now have on the Order Paper a question regarding this problem. Other than grants or loans which have been made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for sewers, no money has been made available for the fight against pollution. It is easy to pass legislation and pretend to be the great saviour in this regard, but municipalities need money to do the job. The municipalities cause 50 per cent of the pollution but they do not have the money with which to do anything about the problem. Municipalities and industry require assistance from the federal government in order to fight pollution. Recently we heard of an industry which failed because it did not have the finances to meet the required standards. I am not saying that industries should not have waste-treatment facilities, but they should not suffer because the federal government will not provide financial assistance.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) allow me a question?


Louis-Roland Comeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Albert Béchard: Is the hon. member making a comparison with the former Atlantic Development Board that was created without the necessary credits for the development of the Maritime Provinces?


Louis-Roland Comeau: I did not grasp too well that question, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say this: in order to fight pollution-and we have been doing that for a year or two-we need money. It may be true that the department will have the necessary credits to fight pollution, but there is nothing that says so in the bill. Moreover, nothing was said last year to indicate that credits had been appropriated for that purpose.


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, we should begin by fighting pollution amidst the Conservative caucus.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just added to the general pollution. Anyway-

It is easy to pass laws but it is another thing to apply them. Many agencies were supposed to be set up under the Canada Water Act, but very few have been set up. I
would be interested to know how many have been established. I will find out because I intend to put a question on the Order Paper. There has been some success in the fight against pollution, for which I give the government credit. However, this success is mainly due to the efforts of private enterprise. I warn the government not to depend on private enterprise to do the job.
We have a serious unemployment problem because of the state of our economy. Industry cannot be kicked too hard in difficult times. The government must be reasonable and willing to do its share. If the government wants private enterprise to do something about pollution, it must be prepared to make money available for this purpose. I wish to give an example of the complexities of the problem of pollution. The International Joint Commission recently submitted a report on pollution of the Great Lakes. The report was tabled in the House by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). It contained several recommendations. One recommendation was that a program be instituted to control and reduce phosphates in detergents by December, 1972.
Government members are looking at me. They will say that even before the report of the International Joint Commission, Canada introduced the Canada Water Act designed to eliminate phosphates prior to December, 1972. I will deal with that matter in a minute. Industry has been asked to eliminate phosphates in soaps and detergents. However, more than half the pollution in the Great Lakes is caused by municipalities dumping sewage and other materials into them. The government has urged private enterprise to control phosphates but it has not assisted the municipalities to do a similar job.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Let us give a few minutes' rest to the members' hour, it is already 4:40.
I would like you to rule on my point of order. If you would look at the clock on your left, to call private members' hour, it is already 4:40.
By what clock will you go? Since it is 4:40 we are breaking the rules as the private members' hour should have started at four o'clock.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Richard): I will have to take into account the majority of clocks!


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I have already had this answer from the chair but I had hoped I would get a better one from you. Thus, you are going by the two other clocks and not by the clock in front of me.


J. Michael Forrestall: It seems a great waste of time to remind hon. members opposite that we are always at least one hour ahead of the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. [Translation]


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. "whippet", as I think he is called in French, for

January 29, 1971

giving me a little rest since I have a slight cold this afternoon.
Nevertheless, a second recommendation from the IJC- [English]
The International Joint Commission recommended reducing phosphates in municipal and industrial waste to the extent of 50 per cent on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes and 75 per cent on the American side. It said that the cost of a clean-up program for industrial and municipal waste would be in the order of $1,373 million for the United States and $211 million for Canada: this would be the cost of building proper treatment facilities. This means that Canadian municipalities and industries must spend $211 million for their part in cleaning up the Great Lakes. Although the government has enacted legislation which requires industry to reduce phosphates it has refused to make available any part of the $211 million for this purpose. The government has been quick to act, while not spending any money. It has merely lowered the boom on private industry without getting involved in large expenditures for research.
It was reported this morning that approximately 2,200 manufacturing enterprises went bankrupt last year. This should be of great concern to the government. The International Joint Commission a couple of weeks ago recommended a detailed and fully co-ordinated contingency plan between Canada and the United States to effectively respond to major accidental oil spills and other hazardous materials. This is not a new proposal. The task force made similar recommendations. There are three major reports the International Joint Commission's third interim report, the report on the Arrow situation and the latest report of the IJC which advocate the same thing. Still no steps are being taken by this government to initiate such a plan. This is why I attack the government in respect of this policy. It has bypassed all advice in respect of legislation and it has taken no action. The government has pretended to the people that it has done something, but it has really asked industry to do something about pollution. The government does not want to spend one cent on controlling pollution. I hope the new minister of the environment will do something in this regard.
We need this new department. We have advocated its establishment for some time. We have felt that the minister has more responsibility than he can handle in the fields of forestry and fisheries and he is now being given another task, that of looking after environmental pollution.


Albert Béchard: Then you had better give him another Parliamentary Secretary.


Louis-Roland Comeau: The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard) knows very well that I want this new department to be successful, but I do not think the present minister can do an efficient and effective job while at the same time handling his responsibilities as Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. We should establish one minister
Government Organization Act, 1970
responsible for fisheries in the Atlantic provinces to deal with the problems there.
The interventions of members of my party have not all been negative and I do not apologize for anything these hon. members have said. On the contrary, members on the government side have expressed a negative attitude. I suggest this is because they are not capable, for the most part, of reading the available information by my party on this topic. They know nothing about it because they have not read about it. They do not know anything about it and I would bet that government members do not know the situation we face today. The Canadian public is beginning to realize the situation and want strong measures adopted. Even some of the Liberal members are starting to talk about a fall election because they will not be able to cope with the unemployment situation next winter. This is shameful.
Let me refer to what happened at the conference in Niagara Falls. I should like hon. members to read the report of the committee headed by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) who was a co-chairman with Mr. John A. Fraser. This report indicates what my party would do if it were in power. I do not intend to read the report to government members of the House, because they do not care. This is a government which has advocated participatory democracy.


Mr. Reid:: We are Liberals, not Tories.


Louis-Roland Comeau: We can excuse the hon. member; he has just made his maiden speech and is unaware of the problems.


Robert Jardine McCleave: He is not a very beautiful maiden, either.


Louis-Roland Comeau: The problems of pollution are vast and complex. The solution rests with a commitment by national, regional and municipal governments in respect of health-condition priorities. We must have a department which will act in this regard. This government must allocate funds to carry out the job of eradicating pollution. Initially, a popular structure for streamlining must be adopted by the new department. I hope it will succeed in this regard.
I do not see anything in schedule A of the bill which deals with laws passed by Parliament which would transfer authority from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to this new department. There you have it; this is not a complete department and it does not deal with Arctic problems. I think I have spoken sufficiently in respect of pollution. Let me remind the House that the only way of doing a job in respect of pollution involves the expenditure of a considerable amount of money. We cannot ask industry to undertake the whole job; we must do our share.
The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has at least youth on his side and he is serious in his responsibilities in the field of fisheries. What we really need is a minister who has more than a passing interest in this field. Like other hon. members, I seriously object to the omnibus character of this bill. I object to the fact that we must
2918

January 29, 1971
Income Tax Act
vote on it on the basis of participatory democracy which we do not have.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business, namely, notices of motions, public bills and private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS

Mr. Mahoney:: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is unanimous agreement to proceed to item No. 26 standing in the name of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and allow the preceding items to retain their position on the Order Paper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Does the House agree to the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary, that we proceed to item No. 26 and allow the preceding motions to retain their position on the Order Paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INCOME TAX ACT


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure to amend the Income Tax Act to provide that where a student, enrolled at an educational institution, is entitled to deduct his tuition fees in computing his income for a taxation year, he may also deduct expenses paid by him for textbooks, laboratory equipment or charges in respect thereof, student union fees, medical fees, athletic board fees and other expenditures necessary for or incidental to enrolment at the educational institution; and similarly, that a taxpayer, whether the spouse or otherwise the student, who pays such tuition fees and other such expenses, whether in whole or in part, upon behalf of the student, may deduct any amounts so paid in computing his income for a taxation year.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members who have allowed their motions to stand in order that I may discuss this measure which I think is of concern to everybody in this House and in the country.
My motion really is in two parts. The first part gives a student the right to deduct tuition fees as expenses from moneys earned to provide for a college or university education. It also provides for the deduction of expenses incurred in respect of laboratory equipment, textbooks, etc. The most important feature relates to the right of a taxpayer, generally the parent, who has committed himself to putting a daughter or son through college or university. This expense should be allowable as a deduction from income tax.
In order to arrive at a conclusion on this matter it would be helpful to put on record the cost of education in Canada, which is mounting every year. I checked these figures this morning and they are the latest available. The estimated total cost of education in Canada is $6,674,706,000, or $6.6 billion in round figures-in other words, about half the total federal budget in Canada today, which is around $13 billion. The cost of higher education at Canadian universities amounts to $1,602 million. This gives the House an idea of the costs we are talking about.
Then there is the student loans plan which has worked very well in Canada. Many students would be unable to attend university or college but for this scheme. In 196869 there were 109,293 loans made to students, amounting to $62,500,000. In 1969-70 there were 128,070 loans, amounting to $77,500,000. This gives hon. members an idea of the amount advanced to the students of Canada by way of loans. I am sure every member of the House would agree with me that the youth of this country is the greatest resource we have.
It is of interest to note how many students are attending university. Enrolment at universities and colleges in Canada in 1969-70 was 299,889, almost 300,000 students. They were permanently enrolled. Of this group, this year 5,206 will be graduating. I shall have something to say about that in a moment. In addition to the almost 300,000 students there were 125,266 students attending on a parttime basis. My motion asks that in cases where parents are trying to educate their sons and daughters at college or university they should have the right to deduct the cost of that education from their taxable income. That is the meat of the motion.
A lot has been said about the salaries of Members of Parliament. I know one member on this side-there are probably members on the other side in the same position-who is sending three of his family to university. The total salary of a Member of Parliament is $1,000 a month, of which about $400 is deductible. In my family I have two dependents. I am left with about $600 pay. So how my hon. friend on this side can educate three boys at university is beyond my comprehension.
I hope that my suggestion finds some merit among members on the other side of the House. After all, it is the government that runs the country. When things are bad, some members of the government try to spread the idea that Parliament runs the country, but when things are good it is the government that runs the country. I should like to see taxpayers who are trying to educate their children given the privilege of writing off the cost of higher education no matter in what university or province the higher education is received.
What would this cost the nation? I will have something to say about the employment of students, but at the present time the unemployment situation is such that there will be 5,200 students graduating from university and looking for jobs. There were 30 to 35 per cent of the graduates of the last class unable to get full-time employment. I suggest the only way to improve the employment

January 29, 1971

picture is to cut taxes, not increase them. Therefore, let us start at that spot and allow taxpayers to deduct the cost of higher education from their taxable income.
When the Hon. Walter Gordon was Minister of Finance, he said in one of his budget speeches that the rate of personal income tax in the United States was higher than the rate in Canada. It is true, the rate in the United States is higher. However, every year I tell my sister living in the United States what my salary is and ask her what my taxes would be if my wife, my two children and I were living in the United States in the same sort of house in which I live in Canada. She tells me that my tax would be about 25 per cent less than I pay here. Although the rate of tax looks higher on paper, there are many tax exemptions and deductions in the United States. The working man can write off the taxes paid on his home, the interest on his mortgage, the cost of educating his children, as well as various other deductions. As a result, the net tax is much less.
Let me deal briefly with the employment picture. I should like to refer to volume 33 of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for April 16, 1970, and put on record what was said at that time. Questions were being asked of Mr. Bryce and Mr. Brown. Mr. Bryce is economic adviser to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and he was speaking with great affection about the white paper on taxation, about taxes and the ability to educate students. I asked him who drew up the white paper. After some discussion, which will be found at page 62 of the report, Mr. Bryce admitted that he and Mr. Brown drew up the white paper on taxation. So if Mr. Bryce is the economic adviser to the Prime Minister, we know whose baby the white paper on taxation is-the Prime Minister's.
I also asked him whether the capital gains tax proposed in the white paper would be higher than the one in the United States or Great Britain. As reported at page 63, I asked:
All right, let me put it this way. He may have misunderstood my question. Suppose it is a person-I only brought the farmer in as an example because I know your exceptions and I could quote the other side to it-an ordinary land holder who bought some land, then sold it and in that taxable year, whatever year it might be, he made $10,000. I am asking you, under the ordinary rules, would not that capital gain be added to his taxable income in that one year.


Mr. Brown:: Yes, sir.
So it would be added to his taxable income in that year, one hundred cents on the dollar, though I know there is a provision with regard to spreading the cost over a number of years. Then I asked:
Yes, so basically, although you have mentioned some exceptions and I am prepared to determine those in a few moments, what the chartered accountant of one of the national firms said is true, that the distinction between capital gains and income will be virtually abolished because in many cases-I have given you two or three illustrations, but I am sure you could give me more than I have given you because you are far more knowledgeable in this field-it will merely be added to the taxable income and become taxable in the year. Is that correct?


James Elisha Brown: Yes, it is.
Income Tax Act


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is the difference then between United States' and Great Britain's capital gains tax that they, the United States, have special rates on capital gains and rates on taxable income in the ordinary way. Is that not correct?
Mr. Brown said yes, and that the United States has a frozen rate of 25 per cent. Now I come to the real meat of some of the things I asked. I asked whether in certain circumstances, under the capital gains tax as set out in the white paper, in the first year of operation it is possible that a gain on land would be as high as 80 per cent. Mr. Brown and Mr. Bryce said yes and that even after the first year it is possible for it to be as high as 50 per cent. If there is any question about this evidence I should like hon. members to read it carefully. It appears at page 66 and 67. Then I asked whether under the white paper proposal we would not have a higher capital gains tax for middle-income Canadians than people in the United States and in Great Britain, and the answer was yes.
Then I put this question which I believe justifies my discussing the ability of young people in Canada to obtain an education by earning money at the time and to obtain employment after education. I said:
I think, with the greatest respect, you have been sniffing public opinion-
This is what I said to Bryce and Brown:
-a little better than the public have been sniffing their own facts. I question up to the last six months, and maybe the last two months, that the Canadian people, and even informed Canadian people, ever realized that the tax in this nation under capital gains could be as high as 50 per cent, and under certain circumstances the first year as high as 80 per cent. This is now just taking hold in the nation.
What effect has this white paper, after being discussed for a solid year in the committee, had on the economy of Canada? This is what Mr. Bryce, the economic adviser to the Prime Minister, the brain trust, said:
Undoubtedly some projects, some investments will be affected by uncertainty as to what the tax position is going to be. I think it is inevitable in the process of tax reform and this process of tax reform has been a long time in getting under way and is being extended by the kind of process that we are going through now. On the whole, I think most Canadians have felt this is a price worth paying to have a thorough examination of the system.
Maybe that is where the Prime Minister got the idea for his phrase "like it or lump it". Then I said that we had a very high level of unemployment and asked whether they thought the fear and uncertainty in this regard would have an effect on the mining, petroleum, farming and manufacturing industries which would slow down the economy. The answer by Mr. Bryce was yes, but he thought Canadians were prepared to put up with it.
The man who went to the other place-I always think of the Senate as heaven-had various figures on unemployment, but today we have figures showing there are 750,000 people unemployed. I do not want to be one who preaches doom and gloom like they did in 1962, but this depression which has particularly hit the youth of Cana-

January 29, 1971
Income Tax Act
da-our university students and the young men and women who are trying to find jobs-has been brought about by the government because they say it is the only cure for inflation. I say these are nineteenth century methods.
So we have a man-made depression in Canada. We are told there are now 750,000 people unemployed. When we consider that 300,000 students in university will be coming out in three months' time it is obvious that there will be one million unemployed people in Canada out of a population of about 21 or 22 million.
What is the government doing? We are told the government has a program, but it is never disclosed to us. Of course, the Prime Minister does not bless this place with his presence too often these days. He has been absent for a certain length of time. However, I say the government surely has a responsibility for the youth of this nation and should start a program now to cut taxes and immediately permit taxpayers to write off the cost of education against taxable income and give students a break so they may be able to find summer employment to help them return to college.
I plead very seriously with the government to show some concern about the 30 per cent or 35 per cent of our young men and women under age 25 who are unemployed in this country. Some of these young people are graduates who have a doctorate in economics or a doctorate in this or that. They are unable to find jobs. I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) is here. He is a good friend of mine from my home city. He has a young family and I know he is concerned about this situation. I hope he will take to the minister the suggestions I have made. I hope the cabinet will do something to relieve Canadian famines of the cost of education. The suggestion I have made is not novel. I placed it on the Order Paper so that today I would have an opportunity to express myself, in the hope that something would be done for the youth of Canada.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in joining this debate because in my riding of Vancouver Quadra is situated the University of British Columbia. The staff and students of this university would gladly tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is now the biggest single campus in Canada with a fulltime, registered student population during the winter of approximately 25,000.
I am quite sure Members of Parliament from Montreal would tell us that the University of Montreal has an even larger campus. I am also quite sure that hon. gentlemen from Toronto would say the campus of the University of Toronto is even larger than that of the University of British Columbia or the University of Montreal. What this shows, as the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has pointed out today, is that our university population is growing very rapidly to the point where it is coming close to 400,000 students in post-secondary institutions and the problem of paying the tuition fees to keep them in universities and secondary institutions is a great one indeed.
It is an added pleasure for me to be able to enter a debate in which the hon. member for Calgary North has taken part. The hon. member, who was in the House yesterday afternoon during private members' hour, will remember what a shocking bore that debate was and how speaker after speaker stood up to read that which had been handed to him by the departmental hack-writers until members were falling over in their seats and snoozing. So it is nice to see a man on his feet debating a subject without his nose in a text written by a poor scrivener in one of the buildings of the public service, sneezing in the dust of the files.


An hon. Member:: I thought you would be accepting the motion.


Grant Deachman: I want to speak a little on the motion. It is worth pointing out that the government does permit deductions, and has since 1961, for that part of a student's university fee that is clearly related to his studies. The plea which the hon. member for Calgary North makes is that this be extended to include other items in the category of student fees in order to give the student additional income tax deductions.
I have some figures here which are worth noting and which give an idea of the size of the present deduction. Perhaps from that we can get an idea of the total sum involved. In 1968, the deduction in respect of tuition fees, based on all taxation returns, amounted to about $111 million. On the basis of taxable returns, the amount was about $81 million. You can estimate from that that in the year 1968 the cost to the federal and provincial governments which did not receive that revenue was in the order of $20 million. So we are looking at $20 of revenue which federal and provincial governments forgo in respect of only that portion of the fees which relates to studies. How much more of these fees is unrelated to studies, I am not quite sure. It varies from department to department in the university and it depends on the extent to which the student involves himself in all sorts of student activities. Some of these are obligatory, such as alma mater fees and the like, while athletic fees and fees of other kinds are not.
In any event, we can estimate that if the whole package were deductible, it could go up perhaps by another 25 per cent to 50 per cent and we would be looking at revenue losses of the order of $20 million or $30 million spread over the 400,000 university students in Canada today. It is not really a very significant sum. However, there are many other ways in which we can assist universities through the federal government.
When we come to these comparisons it is interesting to note a tendency which exists. I think the hon. member for Calgary North will concur in what I am about to say. When the federal government starts to support a university through one device or another, the province in which the university is located takes a look at its annual budget and the amount of money it pays to the university, and the provincial Minister of Finance shrugs and says, "Look at the federal treasury putting all that money in. I

January 29, 1971

will cut back my budget to the university this year and let the university ride on the back of the federal government".
I know that in my own province of British Columbia this was very evident a few years ago when Dr. Bladen of the University of Toronto brought down his report on university financing, a report which was commissioned by the universities of Canada. It demonstrated clearly the tendency of provincial Ministers of Finance, when they see a federal windfall coming, not to let the benefit accrue fully to the university by cutting down their own budgets. So whatever we do in this direction, let us do it remembering that not all the funds will pass directly into the hands of the universities but some will be taken away from them before they ever get there.
In what other ways does the federal government assist the universities of Canada? It is estimated that in 1969-70 the advances to the provinces for post-secondary education were $625 million, or about two-thirds of $1 billion. Student loans, which were mentioned earlier in the debate today, in 1969-70 amounted to $80 million and they went to 130,000 students. If we look at the full statistics on this we find that the outstanding value of student loans as of June, 1970, was $237 million, of which the federal government was paying interest on $163 million. This is a very considerable contribution to the young people of this country who are looking for help in financing their studies.
The Canada Council assists universities in a number of ways, particularly through its capital fund which, hon. members will remember, was originally set at $50 million and to which additional funds have been added. At the University of British Columbia, in my own constituency, funds of the Canada Council went a long way toward the expansion of the university library and some went into student housing. Last year Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation set aside out of its available funds for mortgage lending a sum in the neighbourhood of $55 million for student housing loans across Canada.
I note that at the University of B.C., which had a considerable building program for student housing, $5J million from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation went into construction that year. We expect an equivalent amount go into the completion of that construction in the current year. As a result, the student who is housed in these quarters is housed at a much cheaper rate than he would be outside. The effect is to reduce the amount which can be charged locally because of the influence of rates on the campus and rates which are established in relation to the amount of funds they are able to borrow from sources such as Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Of course, the government has involved itself on campuses across Canada in a number of very sizeable scientific laboratories and scientific developments, including the new Triumf development at the University of B.C., which is a nuclear experimental laboratory of important dimensions. Very considerable funds have been poured into the development of a new health sciences centre at the University of B.C., the eventual cost of which will top $20 or $30 million, as well as into several laboratories
Income Tax Act
long established on the campus of the university dealing with forestry and fisheries. These are ways in which over the years the government has given support, not only to the universities but also to students.
There is another area of support which is extremely important to us in reviewing the total picture of what we can do for the student in order to make it possible for him to secure his education. That is in the field of jobs for students during the summer time. I was heartened to learn that $50 million is to be made available this summer for youth programs. I hope all that money will not be spent on buses and gasoline, as suggested by the Globe and Mail, and that some will trickle off to youth and students who are attempting to educate themselves. But it is not really on crash projects such as this that we must count. We must count on annual programs, programs which year after year will sustain students who go out and try to earn enough money in order to go back to university in the fall.
I have always felt that the federal government could do much more than it does now to establish a well co-ordinated program, drawing on the resources of many departments and using them to assist students in summertime. I want to suggest some guidelines which the government might think about with respect to such a program. First, the program be well co-ordinated. Second, it should give summer employment over a long time. Many of these programs are so short in length that they are not totally effective for the student who has to work in the summertime. Third, these programs should pay real wages and not just toy wages. Very often when a student looks at a government program that is offered to him he says, "That's just dandy, if all I wanted was popcorn money. If that is all I wanted I would take the job, but I have to put some money away in order to go back to university next year." We should look at the wage scale we are paying students if we expect these programs to do any good.
The jobs offered to students should not be petty little ticket-taking jobs at the gates of our national parks. I think that a student's work in the summer ought to be related to his knowledge, his education and his skills, so that he will reach the end of summer with a wad of money in his pocket, ready to return to university and feeling he has put in a useful summer being a good Canadian citizen and doing a useful job. I think a student's job should have some real purpose in building Canada. The summer should be a time during which we are doing surveys of all kinds, doing work on the Indian reserves, perhaps doing a lot of those things that other agencies in the past have tried and which the Canada Council has only loused up.
Finally, there ought to be known criteria. The work that a student does in the summer, the wages he receives, the task to which he addresses himself should not interfere with the permanent labour force. We should not try to sweat students in summertime and thereby force working men, who have to earn money for their families all year round, out of decent jobs. These should be special jobs for students devoted to a special service and

January 29, 1971
Income Tax Act
designed for the purpose of enabling students to return to university in the fall. These are some of the thoughts that I wished to put before the House this afternoon on the occasion of this very excellent debate launched by the hon. member for Calgary North.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be very brief in my comments. Essentially, the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), through advocating the device of making expenses incurred in the course of obtaining an education deductible for income tax purposes, has the effect of lightening the financial burden now being sustained by students and the families of students enrolled in educational institutions. I believe it to be an imaginative, interim step toward the removal of all financial obstacles which stand in the way of the complete fulfilment of each individual in our society, in so far as education contributes to the fulfilment of the individual. The suggestion is especially relevant at this point in Canada's history, with unemployment being astronomically high, because it is becoming increasingly difficult for students to find the kind of summer employment they require in order to have wherewithall to return to school in the fall.
One might have hoped that the hon. member for Calgary North in preparing his resolution would have proposed to the government the total elimination of financial obstacles standing in the way of the achievement of an education, but I expect that he formulated this resolution in the least radical way in order to make it more palatable to the conservative tastes of hon. gentlemen sitting opposite on the government benches.
I think the economic pay-offs of encouraging the development of an increasingly well educated population have been well documented within the last few years by studies such as those conducted by the Economic Council of Canada. I also believe there can be no doubt in the mind of any hon. member that financial considerations have a considerable influence upon the amount of formal education which Canadians seek and receive. For example, studies have demonstrated an almost directly proportional relationship between the income of a student's parents and the frequency with which his university education has been interrupted. I suspect that similar relationship could be established with respect to other post-secondary institutions if similar studies were undertaken.
To the degree that the provisions of this resolution would contribute to the removal of financial obstacles to a person's obtaining the best education of which he is capable, it is worthy of the support of this chamber as a recommendation to the government for action, and on that basis I would support the resolution. However, if I may I should like to introduce another area for thought into these deliberations.
It has been the experience of jurisdictions that have chosen to make education at all levels available to their citizens without cost, and even in those jurisdictions which offer considerable financial incentives to their citizens to pursue their education, that the successful pursuit of post-secondary education remains largely an achievement of the middle and upper classes and that the
participation of lower-income groups in the programs is only marginally higher than it is in those jurisdictions which offer no such financial encouragement.
Since it is a demonstrable fact that native intelligence levels amongst the children of lower-income groups are distributed in exactly the same manner as they are amongst the children of the middle and upper-income groups, it would appear that a major part of the problem is one of motivation, the degree of assumption of success on the part of children, the level of expectations of children and the ability of middle-class teachers to deal in an adequate fashion with the education of lower-income students. I suggest that this question of motivation and the means of developing it is an area to which the House could profitably devote some of its attention in the near future.
In saying this, I am not suggesting to hon. members that it would not be a worth-while measure to remove all remaining financial obstacles to education-to use a shorthand phrase, making education at all levels and in all categories free. What I am saying is that if there is to be such a program and this is the way in which we should be moving, we need to develop concurrently with such a program a means of developing the kind of motivation amongst all our citizens which would enable them to avail themselves of the program with some prospect of success.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to support this motion proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). One of the things we most certainly should do is encourage self-help among the young people. But because it is difficult for young people in the labour market today to help themselves, I think the second part of the motion is worth while, namely, that parents who are already overburdened with taxes should be given some relief when they keep students, sometimes to the age of 30 and beyond, out of competition in the labour market in order that they may remain at school and thus be enabled to make an even higher contribution to the welfare of Canada. Therefore, I do not see any great argument against proposal.
I do not object to spending money to be used in education, especially when it is spent well. Nevertheless, it would be only fair if we could relieve the burden of those Canadians who already are paying too much in taxes in this regard. I am talking about middle-income Canadians. They are already carrying a triple burden of taxation. They already pay heavily in taxation if they own their own home, as most of them do. They carry the burden of education; taxes levied against their properties pay for education. I know about this: I pay $700 in taxes every year on a bungalow in a village. I do not object to that because I think the money is well spent. Nevertheless, there comes a limit in our ability to pay. Relief must be given, in view of present living costs, for those with children going to high school or university.
Obviously, if you make $10,000 a year you cannot ask for welfare or assistance of any kind; you can only ask
[Mr. Deachman.l
January 29, 1971

for equity in taxation, and I claim we are not getting that. If you dip into your depleted resources and support a student of 18 years of age or over who could be earning his own living but who is not working and is therefore being kept off the labour market-I assume that nearly all such students would help themselves to go through university if they had the chance-I submit you are entitled to relief from the burden of triple taxation.
Man cannot live by bread alone. Our present taxation structure gives some relief to the student going to school but that relief applies only to student fees for tuition. It ought to apply to more than just tuition fees. A university student today cannot enjoy a well-rounded life on an amount that is merely sufficient to pay for his tuition fees and for bed and breakfast. The Canadian student has the right to look forward to a rounded life in sports, social events and culture, and to a broadened experience. There are too many eggheads who buried their noses in books for six, seven or eight years, obtained their Ph.Ds and thereby became far removed from the facts of life. Many of them do not know the proper way to raise children or the proper way to deal with their fellow man.
That may be why some of them are far too refined and are out in left field. They have left behind common sense. They do not know anything about unemployment, about how people pay their bills or even how they have a good time. They have forgotten all that on the so-called road to progress. Our taxation laws should take into account our necessity for a well-rounded life and the fact that mother and father are entitled to have a dollar left after taking home their so-called affluent pay. Otherwise, all our taxation becomes ridiculous nonsense. I will not waste any more time arguing this matter. I think the motion is good. I will sit down, ask for the question to be put and see whether we cannot be unanimous at least on this one narrow point.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of attention to the speech made by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams). I commend him for bringing this matter forward. I must also criticize him, because his motion does not deal with the problem of equalizing educational opportunities in Canada. Those who represent the rural parts in Canada, the areas far removed from universities, know that the main cost of educating our young people is not the cost of tuition; indeed, that may be considered as being one of the smaller parts of the cost. The main cost lies in the burden of sending the student to university and bringing him back. As I say, the main cost is not the cost of tuition but the cost of room and board as well as the cost of transporting the student to and from university. He must go to university, return home at Christmas, go back to university and then come home at other times. In these latter areas lies the real cost.
If we are interested in doing as the hon. member for Calgary North suggests, of equalizing some of the costs of education and making education more equitable and available for a greater number of students then, it seems to me, we must concentrate in those areas I have mentioned, the costs involved in sending a student to university and in maintaining his room and board. I have raised
Income Tax Act
this matter, since coming here in 1965, several times with ministers of finance. Every time they have said to me, "What about students who live in cities and choose to live in residence? Should they not also expect to obtain relief through these tax deductions?" My answer to that has been a simple and unequivocal no. Those people have a choice. The student coming from outside the city has no choice. If he wishes to further his education, he simply must pay for his room and board.
Generally speaking, the incomes of the parents of children in rural communities, who wish to send their children on for further training or education, are lower than those of parents in urban centres. Therefore, a student who goes into a city to attend university, obtain postsecondary education, or even attend school, is at a disadvantage when compared with his urban counterpart. It seems to me that in the white paper tax reforms which the minister is proposing, special note ought to be taken of this discrimination which adversely affects students coming from the rural areas of Canada.
It can be safely said, for example, that for the tax dollar which the rural taxpayer pays to the federal government he probably receives less value than he receives in return, in comparison with any other dollar he may spend. The reason for that is not hard to see. When we go to rural areas we can see just how many federal and provincial government offices are there, compared with the number of such offices in urban communities. According to the 1961 census, the people of my riding finish school either at grades 5 or 6. That is their average educational level. The difficulties of such people in dealing with the bureaucracy of the federal government or provincial governments are almost insuperable, because they simply do not have the education or confidence that one needs to deal with bureaucrats in Ottawa or in any other urban centre.
Although we are prepared to accept some diminution in the return on our tax dollar in the field of education, we protest against the kind of discrimination that is now practised against us, a discrimination arising from the way in which the federal government has arranged for tax deductions to apply solely for tuition without taking into account the most important costs involved in higher education. It is all very well to talk about the crippling burdens that tuition places on the student when in fact about 80 per cent of the costs of higher education is now borne by the general taxpayer. It is borne by individuals, for example, who are not married, by people such as the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson), neither of whom has taken the plunge into marriage. Yet both of them are supporting the education of my progeny and of yours, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


John Mercer Reid: Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, since we are considering the tax burden on individuals I think it could fairly be said that the more equitable way of distributing that burden would be if the government were to provide tax deductions for room and board to those who must directly pay for higher education in the rural areas. Also, through general taxes they pay the cost of supporting the
2924

January 29, 1971
Income Tax Act
university and post-secondary school establishment through their payments to the consolidated revenue fund. When we look at the tax position, it becomes even less equitable when we are concerned about making access to higher education the right of all.
We should pay attention to the particular position in which people living in the rural parts of Canada find themselves because of the particular higher education cost structure. This question will become more and more important because there is more and more centralization in the country and less opportunity for extension courses and the like being extended to rural residents. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, who will no doubt be reporting this debate to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), that he seriously consider this representation to ease the financial burden on the rural taxpayer. He should also consider the cost of transportation and room and board while living in the urban centre, and the fact that incomes in rural areas are much less than those of parents of students living in urban centres.
In addition to the money which the federal government provides through the student loans program and research grants to universities, it also provides a significant amount of money to the purses of universities. I was interested in the remark of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman), who said the money made available by the federal government is diverted to other things which the provincial governments may consider more important. I recall when these grants were first made available five years ago, the province of Ontario was accused of cutting the amount of money being paid to universities and using it to build roads. This may have been an admirable social objective but it was not in keeping with the means or purposes for which the money was made available. Because of this kind of fiscal irresponsibility, if the federal government is to ensure that the money goes to the proper place it must engage in the difficult practice of shared-cost programs. Everyone must share the blame and no one must share the credit, to ensure that the moneys go to the proper place.
Under the terms of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act of 1967, the federal government agreed to transfer substantial tax revenues and to make an equalized grant to the provinces. In exchange, the provinces accepted full responsibility for supporting postsecondary education, which requires at least junior matriculation for entrance. To enable the provinces to meet this responsibility the federal government transferred four percentage points of personal income tax and one percentage point of corporate income tax to the provinces. In addition, a post-secondary educational adjustment payment was added, to bring the total transfer up to the greater of $15 per capita of the residents of that province or 50 per cent of the operating costs of post-secondary education in the provinces.
In the last fiscal year for which I have been able to obtain figures, the fiscal transfer and cash adjustment payments for 1969-70 were over $625 million. That money must be paid by the federal government which has no control over the accounting procedures or the way in which budgets are set; the provincial governments merely submit their bills. By the terms of the act and agreement, the federal government must pay. In addition, the federal government provides substantial assistance to students through the student loans plan and grants by the Canada Council and others. In the year 1969-70, approximately $80 million in loans was authorized for over 135,000 students in post-secondary institutions. The value of the loans outstanding as of June 30, 1970, was $237 million on which the government was paying interest on $163 million.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't talk it out.


John Mercer Reid: Is there a question?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes. When are you going to sit down?


John Mercer Reid: Before I sit down and, hopefully, close the debate I want to reiterate the peculiar financial disadvantages faced by people in northwestern Ontario and other rural parts of Canada. The benefits which the federal government makes available for higher education are considerable. Grants paid to institutions go a long way in making higher education available for more people than ever before. However, a significant amount of the total cost of higher education must still be met by the rural people of Canada through expenses such as room and board. A very expensive part of their education must be borne directly by the parents and students concerned.
I suggest that a way to equalize the direct cost to the students and their parents would be to permit them, where there is taxable income, to write off the costs of transportation and room and board. As a student from a small community who attended university, I can testify as to the expense and the financial difficulties. It would be pleasant if the government provided a surprise in the White Paper tax legislation to allow these additional deductions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. The hour set aside for private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until two o'clock Monday afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).

Have a good weekend, keep warm and try to skate on the canal.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 1, 1971