1972-03-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections-Mr. Laflamme.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
CRTC, to seek a political nomination be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Reid) agreed to.
* '* *



PRIVILEGE


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I should like to move a motion concerning the case of Miss Ann Booth, which I raised in the House on Monday and which was raised again yesterday by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, to present herself for nomination as a candidate for a political party. Her application for leave of absence was turned down and she has now been suspended and proceedings are being taken to terminate her employment in the public service.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster):
That the subject matter of the refusal of the Public Service Commission to grant leave to Miss Ann Booth, a lawyer with the CRTC, to seek a political nomination be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is made to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unini-mous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is always surprised when there appears to be unanimity. Sometimes I fail to believe my ears so I shall inquire again whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be unanimous consent and the motion will therefore be put. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, seconded by the hon. member for Algoma, moves:
That the subject matter of the refusal of the Public Service Commission to grant leave to Miss Ann Booth, a lawyer with the


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have in my hand a letter addressed to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa. It was delivered to me yesterday, opened, by the Postmaster of the West Block post office. He did not know who had posted it or any other circumstances other than that the letter had been opened. He brought it to my office. On the front of it was written "105S West Block".


Mr. Laprise:: I am rising on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member who has the floor. There appears to be no interpretation. I gather that is why the hon. member for Abiti-bi was rising to put his own question of privilege. Perhaps by the time the hon. member resumes his presentation the matter will have been cleared up.

If the hon. member wants to pursue his remarks, I believe the interpretation system is functioning again.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I shall start over again. I did not know the wires were being cut off so soon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a letter addressed to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, Ontario. It was delivered to me yesterday by the Postmaster of the West Block post office. The letter had been opened. There is a piece of cellophane across the top. There was no explanation whatsoever as to why it was opened. On the front of it somebody had written, "105S West Block". There is no such room in the West Block, although there is a Room 105S in the East Block.


Mr. Baldwin:: That is the Gestapo.
838

March 15, 1972
Unauthorized Opening of Mail


Alfred Dryden Hales: I should like to submit this letter to the Standing Committee on Elections and Privileges and let them find out where it went and who opened it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can do this by communicating directly with the committee. The hon. member knows that he cannot raise a question of privilege at this time since the Chair has not received notice as required by the Standing Order. The hon. member in his statement referred to the fact that a committee is investigating such matters. I would hope there would not be debate from day to day on matters which are being considered by the committee. Certainly, the hon. member will recognize that he has not given the notice required under the Standing Orders. Since, by his own admission, this only happened yesterday, the matter cannot be raised at this time.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, could I revert to motions to move a motion under Standing Order 43?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When the hon. member requested the floor a moment ago I was under the impression that he was seeking the floor to put a motion under Standing Order 43. If he wants to move a motion it will be proposed, but I have some qualms whether we should by a motion moved under Standing Order 43, bring forward for debate in the House a matter which, by unanimous order of the House, is now under consideration by the committee.
All this having been said, the hon. member might indicate what the motion will be. Of course, if the hon. member wants to propose a motion the Chair will consider it.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I would therefore like to move, Mr. Speaker:
That the letter be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for their investigation.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will supply the Chair with a copy of the motion, as required by Standing Order, it will be put to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43,
I was going to suggest that we could go to another item of business. However, the motion is being presented now. Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Wellington. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Jerome:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Alexander Jerome: I said no.


Mr. Fairweather:: Why did the hon. member say no? Is he following a double standard?


James Alexander Jerome: I said no.



BROADCASTING OF PROCEEDINGS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the motion I am about to present under Standing Order 43 and in view of the general agreement, I believe, on all sides-


An hon. Member:: No.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that any member would object to hearing the motion.


An hon. Member:: That is not strange.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the precedential decision by the Alberta legislature to permit radio, television and photographic coverage of its proceedings and, recalling the lengthy discussion and investigation of our own committee on procedure and the general agreement of all members and, because of a basic public right to see, hear and know, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
That this House undertake to provide access to all its proceedings for the purpose of broadcasting commencing April 10,1972.
I would hope this motion would find favour with all members of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Egmont. The motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.



FAMILY INCOME SECURITY PLAN


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-170, to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
March 15, 1972

Mr. Marshall: Did the Minister of Manpower and Immigration state that a lot of people really don't know what to expect from the various government agencies and, if so, does he consider Manpower counsellors capable of assisting the unemployed?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The Minister does not recall making the exact statement as it appears in the first part of the question but he has stated that many people are frequently unaware of the services available from the various government departments and agencies. With regard to the second part of the question he does consider manpower counsellors capable of assisting the unemployed through the various manpower programs and services provided through Canada Manpower Centres, including occupational and labour market counselling, referral to employment, occupational training and allowances, referral for vocational rehabilitation and geographical mobility assistance.


EDUCATION-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE, ONTARIO
Mr. McBride: 1.	Within the Province of Ontario, is grade 13 designated as post-secondary education for the purposes of federal assistance?
2.	If so, what percentage of the cost of grade 13 in Ontario has been borne by the Government of Canada in each of the past five years?
3.	What was the amount of that assistance in each of the above mentioned years?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: 1. Yes.
2.	Fifty per cent of eligible operating expenditures as defined under Part II of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1967 and its regulations.
3.	1967-68, $16,153,670; 1968-69, $18,947,357; 1969-70, $23,326,300 (estimate); 1970-71, $28,219,500 (estimate); 1971-72, $32,988,500 (estimate).


URBAN AFFAIRS-TRI-LEVEL CONSULTATIVE MECHANISMS
Mr. Ryan: Have any permanent, tri-level consultative mechanisms been established among municipal governments, provincial governments, and the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs planning officials or other officials and (a) if so, what are the mechanisms and what is the nature of each (b) if not, is the possibility of establishing such mechanisms being looked into by the Ministry?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: No permanent tri-level consultative mechanisms in Urban Affairs have yet been established, although considerable progress has been made to that end in several consultations. (b) Work is in progress now within the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, in cooperation with other governments, on establishing mechanisms for tri-level consultation in urban affairs, following upon major federal-provincial discussions in Winnipeg in April of 1971, in Victoria in August of 1971 and at the November, 1971,
Questions
Conference of First Ministers in Ottawa. Provincial governments, which have constitutional authority for municipalities, have expressed no views which cannot be accommodated within the principle of tri-level consultation.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO UTEX CORPORATION, VICTORIA VILLE
Mr. Fortin: Did the Utex Corp. in Victoriaville receive any subsidy from any department since January 1, 1966 and, if so (a) what was the amount in each case, and (b) by department, on what dates were such payments made?


James Alexander Jerome: No.


FEDERAL GRANTS FOR THE CREATION OF EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO QUEBEC
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has the government recently granted loans to the Province of Quebec for the creation of employment opportunities and, if so (a) what was the amount of each such loan (b) what was the rate of interest on each such loan (c) what is the duration of each loan (d) what are the reimbursement terms?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: The following loans have been made to the Province of Quebec under the Special Development Loans Program authorized by Supplementary Estimates "C" for the fiscal year 1970-71. The loans are for a period of 20 years with interest payable annually and the principle payable in full at maturity.
Date Issued	Amount $	Interest Rate %March 1, 1971	12,000,000	6.88April 1, 1971	4,900,000	6.82May 1, 1971	4,900,000	7.00June 1, 1971	4,900,000	7.16July 1, 1971	4,900,000	7.26August 1, 1971	4,900,000	7.41September 1, 1971	4,900,000	7.54October 1, 1971	4,900,000	7.25November 1, 1971	4,900,000	7.14December 1, 1971	4,900,000	6.93January 1, 1972	4,900,000	6.76February 1, 1972	4,900,000	6.75
As of February 11, 1972 no loans have been made to the Province of Quebec under the current Employment Loans Program.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO ENGLISH NEWSPAPERS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has the government granted financial assistance through one of its departments or agencies to any daily English newspaper to assist in providing correspondents in Ottawa to ensure better dissemination of information throughout Canada, and, if so (a) what department or agency was involved (b) what newspapers
840

March 15, 1972
Questions
benefit or have benefited (c) what amounts are spent each year for this purpose?


James Alexander Jerome: No.


PERMANENT JOINT BOARD ON DEFENCE
Mr. Laprise: Since the establishment of the Permanent Joint Board on Defence in 1940 (a) who have been the chairmen of the Canadian section (b) for how many years were they in office (c) what are the names of the other Canadian representatives?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: (a) Chairmen, Canadian section: Colonel O. M. Biggar; General the Hon. A. G. L. McNaughton; Mr. L. D. Wilgress; Mr. A. D. P. Heeney; Senator J. B. Aird. (b) Years in office: August 1940-August 1945; August 1945-August 1959; August 1959-September 1966; March 1967-January 1971; October 1971-. (c) Names of other Canadian representatives: Major General D. R. Adamson; Rear Admiral J. A. Charles; Brigadier General G. G. Bell; Mr. R. P. Cameron; Colonel K. W. Macdonald; Captain D. N. Mainguy; Colonel W. B. S. Sutherland; Mr. A. P. Sherwood; Lt. Colonel J. F. Corrigan; Mr. W. E. Grant; Mr. H. M. Walsh.


CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN-PAYMENT OF SALARIES TO PERSONNEL
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Does the federal government pay half of the salaries of provincial public servants who administer the social assistance Acts on the same basis that it pays half of the benefits to welfare recipients?
2.	Are there any mechanisms for assuring that salary policies are being respected and that the money is not being used for other purposes and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. No. The salaries in question are considered as welfare services and the federal government currently shares, under the Canada Assistance Plan, to the extent of 50 per cent of the portion of such costs in excess of base year costs as established for the fiscal year 1964-65. Benefits to welfare recipients are not subject to base year deductions.
2. Yes. Persons whose salaries are cost-shared must be employees of provincial or municipal welfare departments, or of agencies which are nominated by the provincial authorities and approved for cost-sharing by the federal government. Claims for shareable costs are audited by provincial auditors, examined by field representatives of the Canada Assistance Plan and by federal auditors to ensure that they comply with the terms and conditions of the Act and the agreements made under the Act.


PROJECTS APPROVED UNDER LOCAL INITIATIVES
Mr. Diefenbaker: In what towns, villages, or municipal areas have projects under the Local Initiatives Program been approved and in what amounts in the constituencies of (a) Saskatoon-Humboldt (b) Prince Albert (c) Saskatoon-Biggar?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is in statistical form. It is rather lengthy. If the right hon. member agrees, it could be printed in Hansard as though read. I had an extra copy made of the reply and I would be pleased to send it across the floor to him at the present time.
[Editor's Note: The answer above referred to is as follows:]
(a) Constituency of Saskatoon-Humboldt		Federal
Project	Contribution	
421-1	Saskatchewan Council for Crippled	
	Children	22,246
421-10	Alliance of Youth and Elderly	56,395
421-31	Saskatchewan Association for	
	Mentally Retarded	16,380
421-50	Institute for Northern Studies	30,000421-71	Boy Scouts of Canada	17,990421-107	Manitoba-Saskatchewan Confer-	ence of Seventh Day Adventists	13,572421-108	Saskatoon Documentary Media	33,462421-134	Saskatchewan Order of the Eastern	Star	21,411421-179	Indian Northern Curriculum Re-sources-Saskatchewan College of	Education	29,773422-12	Town of Allan	38,610422-19	Town of Humboldt	26,376422-52	Town of Wakaw	18,954422-95	Rural Municipality of Pleasantdale	36,500422-135	Humboldt Roman Catholic Separate	School District No. 13	19,305422-170	Town of Cudworth	13,718(b) Constituency of Prince Albert	FederalProject	Contribution	421-17	Gronlid Minor Sports Association	50,000421-45	Federation of Saskatchewan Indians	20,000421-103	Prince Albert Fish and Game League	25,000421-145	Prince Albert and District	Association	31,122421-185	Trail Riders Recreation Cooperative	Arena	15,865421-192	Kinsmen Club of Tisdale	7,371421-204	Tisdale Community Curling Centre	7,862421-224	Nipawin Lions Club	14,800421-233	Pasquia Regional Park Authority	26,318421-236	Tisdale Community Fairs Association	9,879421-277	Beatty and District Memorial	Booster Club	9,336421-311	Synod of the Diocese of	Saskatchewan	74,480422-49	Town of Birch Hills	17,784422-57	Prince Albert School District No. 56	15,444422-133	Local Improvement District No. 983	Loon Lake	7,722
March 15, 1972

422-134	Nipawin School District No. 61	7,500422-162	Kinistino Union Hospital	10,413(c) Constituency of Saskatoon-Biggar	FederalProject	Contribution421-2	Western Development Museum	95,311421-28	Saskatoon Family Service Bureau	30,000421-72	Saskatoon Antique Auto Club	17,550421-184	Big Bear	14,016421-221	Metis Housing Group	35,568421-262	Saskatoon YMCA	7,722421-268	Saskatoon Labour Building Asso-	ciation	41,184422-44	St. Paul's Roman Catholic School	District No. 20	16,731422-58	Board of Education	48,087422-65	City of Saskatoon	10,062422-66	City of Saskatoon	32,946422-67	City of Saskatoon	25,272422-132	Town of Waldheim	16,614


PROJECTS APPROVED UNDER LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM
Mr. Diefenbaker: How many projects as of this date have been approved under the Local Initiatives Program, and in what total amounts in (a) Saskatchewan (b) Alberta (c) Manitoba?


Raymond J. Perrault: The following number of projects has been approved in the total amount indicated as at March 1, 1972: (a) in Saskatchewan, 172 projects- $4,187,905 (b) in Alberta, 304 projects-$7,883,315 (c) in Manitoba, 200 projects-$5,478,616.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 32 is acceptable to the government.


COPY OF REPORT BY CANADIAN FACTS COMPANY LIMITED ON PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY FOR DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, 1968-69
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 32-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Canadian Facts Company Limited, on a public opinion survey undertaken for the Department of Labour in the fiscal year 1968-69, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the 1st Session of this Parliament.
Motion agreed to.
Inquiries of the Ministry
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to notice of motion No. 35. It concerns the CNR pension plan and correspondence between the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and CNR officials. Could I have some indication whether this motion will be answered at an early date?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, we will look into that question. Of course, that entire subject is before the House at the present time in the CNR financing and guarantee measure.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Now that the dates have been fixed for the visit to Canada by President Nixon, I should like to ask whether dates have also been fixed for the resumption of meetings between ministers and officials of our two countries with regard to trade? Have dates been set for such meetings to take place prior to President Nixon's visit to Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not
think those dates have yet been fixed. There have been some conversations involving my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in which United States representatives were discussing the resumption of these talks, but I do not think a date has yet been fixed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the government announce its policy with regard to foreign investment in Canada prior to President Nixon's visit to our country? I ask this question in view of the breakthrough with regard to understanding that the Prime Minister announced he had achieved during his last visit to Washington.


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not
think the visit of the President is relevant to this question one way or another. As the hon. gentleman knows, we have been working on the application of principles upon which we have already agreed. This, and the preparation of the background material, is the only reason why an announcement has not been made. It has nothing to do with the attitude of the United States government, which has not expressed a view on this subject.

March 15, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can
the Acting Prime Minister inform us whether approaches will be made to President Nixon with a view to arranging that he appear before an appropriate committee of parliament during his visit, as was arranged during the visit of Premier Kosygin, or so that a senior cabinet member accompanying him can appear before the committee in order that there can be a mutual exchange of views?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would hope, as I am sure the hon. gentleman does, that the President would be very warmly welcomed in Canada. I would hope that perhaps the President himself would have an opportunity of appearing.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: During the visit of the President is it the intention of the Prime Minister to announce one of those fantastic breakthroughs, when he will be able to tell the country that President Nixon has assured him-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INQUIRY AS TO PROPOSALS BY RAILWAYS TO LEASE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister in charge of the Wheat Board whether the C.P.R. has made specific proposals to the Canadian Wheat Board offering to lease additional locomotives and freight cars and to put them exclusively into grain service for the last three months of the current crop year on the condition that the Canadian government would be prepared to pay the leasing costs? If so, can the minister inform the House of the reply made to this offer by the Wheat Board or by himself as the responsible minister?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the question of available equipment and steps required to add additional equipment to meet our ever-increasing record volume of sales-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: -is under discussion between the Wheat Board and the railroads. The government is following the discussions keenly. It would be premature at this point to comment on where they stand, but I may have something further to say to the House in due course.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Can the minister tell the House whether the C.N.R. has made a similar offer or whether it has been asked to make a similar offer so that the Wheat Board might be better able to meet its commitments and enter into new contracts?


Otto Emil Lang: The Wheat Board is holding discussions with both railroads.



PROVISION OF SUFFICIENT CLEAN GRAIN AT THUNDER BAY TO MEET COMMITMENTS WHEN SEAWAY OPENS

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary or related to the one which has just been asked. Having regard to the forecast that the St. Lawrence Seaway will open early this year, and the current widespread concern in the grain trade that there is not nearly sufficient clean grain in storage at Thunder Bay to meet our spring overseas commitments, will the minister check into this serious situation immediately with his colleague, the Minister of Transport, to ensure, if possible, that the railroads take steps at once to rectify this problem?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board is fully aware of the possibility of an early opening of the navigation season on the seaway and welcomes this very much. The Wheat Board is accordingly trying to arrange for the appropriate movement of grain to meet its needs. I understand they are satisfied with the program that is in place and that they are in close contact with the railroads to ensure that grain is moved as required.



POSSIBLE OPERATION OF VANCOUVER TERMINALS ON SIX OR SEVEN-DAY BASIS-PAYMENT OF OVERTIME BY GOVERNMENT

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board what the status is of discussions or plans concerning operating the terminals at Vancouver on a six or seven-day basis rather than on a five or five and a half day basis*1 If operations are to be on a six or seven-day basis, is the government giving consideration to assuming the cost of overtime pay?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that in earlier discussions the terminals indicated to the Canadian Wheat Board a willingness to move to longer periods of operation whenever that would clearly allow the unloading of more cars of grain. There has been no question of additional payment above the regular rates paid for handling of grain.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will notice that there are quite a few members seeking to ask supple-mentaries. We will have two or three and then go to the next subject. The hon. member for Mackenzie.



SOURCE OF ADDITIONAL FREIGHT CARS TO EXPEDITE MOVEMENT

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask either the minister in charge of the Wheat Board or the Minister of Transport where these extra cars will come from, from the United States or elsewhere, since apparently we were not able to fulfil the need at Vancouver during the last several months?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be premature to comment on the exact source of the cars. There are some cars available and

March 15, 1972

steps are being taken to ensure that they are put into place.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister responsible for the Wheat Board whether the department accepts the position that unless something is done-by that I mean putting grain elevators and terminals on a seven-day week-the government will have to finance a costly expansion program of locomotives and car fleets to meet this year's requirements?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that is really another way of asking basically the same question in regard to what we may do. What we are doing is to try to ensure that all parties involved in the grain movement face the challenge presented by the record volumes that will have to be moved, and that each in his own turn plays his part to make that possible. I cannot at this time be specific about the exact things that will be required to accomplish this, but I can say that almost every sector of the industry will have to put additional effort into this movement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize a last supplementary on this subject for the moment from the hon. member for Regina East, and then the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON SHORT AND LONG-TERM PLANS FOR TRANSPORTATION AND HANDLING

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to undertake to make a statement on motions in the near future outlining plans which are being made to handle the anticipated grain movement during the next several months; and could he also indicate when we might have further word on long-term plans concerning grain transportation and handling, and particularly on the report which I understand is being prepared by a group under his direction?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as decisions are taken about additional steps to carry the large movement of grain they will be announced either in the House or by the particular portion of the industry concerned, or by the minister, as may be appropriate.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
In a press release dated February 3, 1972, the minister announced the policy on compensation to weanling producers who took losses in 1971. Since that date, has the minister received from producers of weanlings, known in French as "naisseurs" requests for compensation to make up their losses over that same period?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes. I have received representations in many forms, directly and through dozens of letters. But the situation is that we would not like to pay the $5 deficiency on the same hog more than once. Therefore we are going to pay when it comes to market, and not each time it is traded along the way.



DISTINCTION BETWEEN HOG AND WEANLING PRODUCERS

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister.
I understand perfectly this point of view, but I would ask the minister whether he is prepared to recognize that one must distinguish between the ordinary pig breeders and those who breed piglets?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is very easy to recognize that there are people who are engaged in the business of producing feeder hogs, sometimes called piglets or weaners, for people who fatten them to market weight. We certainly recognize that they had low prices during 1971 as well as in other years, but the administrative problem of attempting to work out one deficiency payment for one hog and not pay it each time it is traded is very real.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I should like to put a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We must try to move along or we will be running short of time. Perhaps we might return to the subject later. For the moment the Chair will recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert.



AIRPORTS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Minister of Transport. My interest goes back to my boyhood days when I lived in the Pickering township area. Because of the tremendous unrest and ill feeling that have resulted from the choice of the area in Pickering township for the new airport, and having regard to the fact that it means the destruction of one of the finest agricultural areas in the province of Ontario as well as the removal of many historic buildings that go back 150 years, is consideration being given to paying any attention to the strong objections that are being raised not only privately but publicly at meetings against this decision?

March 15, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer the number of issues raised by the right hon. member as quickly as I can. The short answer is yes. There are hearing procedures and people can file objections, so that there will be an opportunity for a full venting of this particular issue.
On the matter of historic sites, we have made arrangements and I have given instructions that every effort be made, and I think it can be made, to preserve all of these. In many cases, people whose land is expropriated will not necessarily have to move from that land, and we are prepared to put it on a lease-back basis to them until such time as it is needed. All of these facts will emerge over the next few weeks. Since the right hon. member lived in that area we might even find that spot and make it a historic site as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: It so happens that the school in question at which my father taught is just outside the area. I would ask the minister whether, even though provision is made for objections to be raised, any attention will be paid to the objections or will it merely be a formality? Second, because of the many other available sites that would not entail the destruction of valuable farmland, would the minister table the list of the 50 or so areas to which consideration was given before the final decision was made, and will he let the House know what were the last three areas from which the choice of Pickering township was finally made?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not know about the 52 sites. I think that would be a very big job for assessment, even for the right hon. member. But what I have said is that we will make available all of the relevant data-and I use that in the broadest sense of the word-so that people will know the basis on which the decision was made. I should also point out, of course, that it was made in conjunction with the government of Ontario which also has plans for that area and is in fact covering a larger portion of property than ourselves.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the two governments joined does not make it any better or any worse, and I do not excuse it on that basis.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development based on a personal attack made by him on one of his employees, Dr. Usher, in connection with the Banks Island report that was produced. Is the minister prepared to accede to the request of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada and apologize publicly to Dr. Usher and concede that the remarks were inappropriate?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, my reputation is fairly well established and I have only said what I really thought. That document was published at the request of Dr. Usher who was attacking the government. Obviously, he could expect me to reply, because I do not usually let myself be attacked without defending myself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Will the minister at least concede that his description of Dr. Usher's conclusions as being stupid was wrong and that it was indeed not a shabby piece of research as the minister alleged?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I read this report and, on being asked what I thought of it, I answered with my well-known frankness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members who were in the House yesterday will remember that the Chair undertook to try to give an opportunity to ask questions to members in the fourth and fifth rows who were left by the wayside during the question period yesterday. I would hope I would get the co-operation of hon. members in that respect. I always find it a little difficult not to give some priority to the frontbenchers and to the second row frontbenchers. This is why I am seeking their co-operation in giving the Chair an opportunity to see members in the third, fourth and fifth rows.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the recent numerous and serious accidents on this country's railways, which have not been confined to any particular locale, would the minister consider having a general review undertaken of the maintenance procedures of this country's major railways?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: thank hon. members for their applause.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Joey Smallwood has left.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Such a review has already been undertaken and, as I recall, there are three separate reviews. The most comprehensive one by the Canadian Transport Commission is, I understand, just about ready for tabling,
March 15, 1972

and I have asked that it be speeded up as much as possible.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: In light of the indication from the minister that this very serious matter is being considered, would he refer to the group making this inquiry the recommendations I have brought before the House with respect to an independent transportation safety inquiry commission?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not think it would be appropriate to refer it to the Canadian Transport Commission, but if the hon. member will give me more details and tell me how such a plan might be effective I will be glad to consult with all the relevant authorities. Indeed, if it makes more sense than the present arrangement I have indicated I will be prepared to implement it.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the increasing number of derailments and fatalities that have occurred in the past two or three weeks in rail operations, would the minister not agree to institute a public inquiry into these mishaps rather than the type of inquiries we have seen in the past?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether a question asked in those terms is in order.



ABANDONMENT BY CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS OF PASSENGER SERVICE TO GRAND CENTRE, ALBERTA

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Transport. Does he intend to take any action to prohibit Canadian National Railways from ending its passenger service to Grand Centre, Alberta?


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



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the government yet taken any steps to end the practice of lending money at usurious interest rates against the future receipt of unemployment insurance cheques?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, the minister is very concerned about the practice of discounting unemployment insurance benefit warrants. I want to assure the hon. member that consideration is being given to a number of measures designed to halt the practice. I can inform the House that as of now a process is beginning and new regulations are being instituted under the unemployment insurance plan to prevent the use of an address which is not that of a claimant
Inquiries of the Ministry
for mailing purposes without the permission of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I must say our survey shows that there is little evidence that the practice of discounting benefit warrants is related directly to delays in payment of UIC benefits.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the parliamentary secretary if the government is contemplating legislation. I can see how this particular regulation will have some beneficial effect, but is the government contemplating legislation to stop this discounting practice permanently with regard to unemployment insurance cheques, pension cheques, T4 slips, income tax rebates and so forth?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.



ALLEGED DIFFICULTY IN CASHING OF CHEQUES AT BANKS

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary to the parliamentary secretary. In light of the fact that there seems to be some problem in respect of recipients cashing unemployment insurance cheques in that banks are balking at cashing these cheques, would the parliamentary secretary take it upon himself to discuss this matter with the leaders of the banking industry so that some solution can be found?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I would express the hope that the lending institutions of Canada would accept their social responsibility and provide whatever assistance they can in this direction.



MANPOWER


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.
Will the municipalities where local initiative projects have been approved after the deadline be authorized to carry on their work after May 31, 1972?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sending me notice of his intention to ask this question. I do not think there is any consideration being given at present to the proposed extension. There may be some confusion since there was a recent announcement that under another program begun in the previous year, the loans program, there is an extension from March 31 to May 31. That applied to municipal projects but not to LIP projects.

Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



ACTION TO PROVIDE RAILWAY CARS TO MOVE LUMBER AND AVOID LAY-OFFS

Mr. Robert Borrie (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on an urgent matter for the Minister of Transport concerning the shortage of box and flat deck rail cars in the area served by the CNR from Prince George and in the Kamloops-Cariboo territory. Would the minister advise what immediate steps are being taken to provide for the transportation of lumber in these areas so that shift work will not be reduced, thereby causing temporary lay-offs of up to 50 per cent?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, all I can say other than that I will take the question as notice is that I know there have been additional problems this year because of the extremely severe weather conditions, but I will get more details and provide them to the hon. member as soon as possible.



MANPOWER


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Last week the House was told that J. P. Lefebvre had been hired for a 15-week period at a total salary of $9,000 plus expenses and secretarial costs to study manpower policies and institutions in West Germany. Can the minister now say when Mr. Lefebvre's report is expected under the terms of his contract with the department and whether it will be made public?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that a question of this kind normally should be placed on the order paper, but if the minister wishes to reply briefly he will be allowed to do so.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, we expect the report to be made available to the department within the terms of the contract. I will report later on whether it will be made public. It is an internal document, as I understand it, for the department.


Steve Eugene Paproski: In light of the fact that sources in the minister's own department have said that the same information Mr. Lefebvre is seeking is already available through ongoing surveys by the OECD, will the minister tell the House now, or by way of a statement on motions, what additional information he expects to receive from this very costly contract to a former Liberal party member?


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

March 15, 1972



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the government any immediate plans to move the Unemployment Insurance Commission office back from Moncton to Charlottetown so that claims in Prince Edward Island can be dealt with more efficiently and promptly?


Abram Ernest Epp: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. I. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. On Friday last the minister said that the situation in respect of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and NABET was fluid and that he hoped it would stabilize around the bargaining table. From recent newspaper reports it would appear that there is now a solid state of stagnation in the bargaining procedure. Can the minister, as the minister responsible, tell us what initiatives he intends to take to clear up and resolve this unfortunate labour dispute?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been misinformed. Conciliation is continuing. The conciliators have asked for five more days to meet the parties separately, after which they would hope to meet them together.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Is the minister saying then that the two sides are presently negotiating? He has been asked since last Friday to make a statement on motions on this important labour dispute involving the most costly Crown corporation to Canadian taxpayers, which may set an example for the public service and all types of labour-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I was coming to the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should ask the question. He will appreciate he was perhaps going beyond the limits of an ordinary question. Would the hon. member kindly ask his question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I may be going a little beyond the ordinary, confined, restrictive rules of the House, but when we see a public corporation involving taxpayers' money and the government sitting on its fat seat-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly ask the question. We do have to try to make headway.
March 15, 1972


An hon. Member:: Shame!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Shame on the government for sitting on its seat. My question is this: Will the minister please check with the various parties to ascertain whether more than 100 substantive items are still outstanding and make a report to the House and to the people of Canada tomorrow on what is holding up settlement of this dispute involving a Crown corporation that receives more money from the taxpayers than any other in Canada?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate for a minister to give a daily account on motions of negotiations between a Crown agency and its employees. The answer to the hon. member, therefore, is no, unless new developments occur.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State whether he would follow the suggestion made by the Quebec vice-president of the CBC to the president and urge the president to enter into the negotiations himself with some authority so that this dispute can be brought to an early conclusion?



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the significant decline in the Canadian catch of haddock, redfish, codfish and herring brought about by the overfishing of these species by the Russian, German and Polish fleets on our continental shelf, has the minister held any talks recently with these countries, and specifically with his counterpart in the U.S.S.R., concerning the necessity of carrying out conservation measures with respect to the groundfish resources on our continental shelf?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs I have made statements of this kind, but my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, has had direct talks and of course is urging upon them the desirability of conservation measures that will be adequate to preserve these species.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct one supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the decline by approximately one-third in the catch of some of these species, would the minister table in the House the fruits of his discussions with the Russians on this important matter?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I believe a release was made yesterday of the results of our
Inquiries of the Ministry
negotiations with the other 13 nations in the Commission for the North Atlantic fisheries. It dealt with herring. Herring stocks are being depleted. We have established quotas for the first time, international agreements on quotas in international waters, which will help, with amendments, in time.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask one further supplementary question. Have quotas-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member, but I have to point out to hon. members that we are again running short of time.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Just one brief supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
I realize that a statement on herring was tabled yesterday, but my question related to the main resource of codfish on the Grand Banks. Have any quotas been established between Canada and the countries I mentioned for codfish in particular?


John (Jack) Davis: Not yet, Mr. Speaker, but we are working on one species at a time. The principle has now been established. For the first time all 14 nations have agreed on over-all quotas and division of quotas in international waters.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would like somebody to ask him a question. Will he take deliberate steps himself to table in the House the Stan-bury-Fields report on taxation of Indians in British Columbia?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we cannot publish this report because we would need the consent of the government of British Columbia and the hon. member for Skeena probably has better relations with that government than myself.



STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed either to the President of the Privy Council or to the Minister of Justice. Would either of the two ministers advise the House when it is the intention to bring forward the resolution to establish the committee on statutory instruments and also the resolution with regard to the change to be made in the Standing Orders of the House to give effect to the operations of that committee?

March 15, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take that question as notice.



FINANCE


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance but in his absence I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Why is Canada's bank rate higher than that in the United States, and does this not encourage foreign investment in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question of this nature cannot be asked at this time.



AGRICULTURE


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. I am delighted to have the opportunity to ask him this question because for some days I have been trying to get answers from the President of the Privy Council and others with respect to the disposition of a number of carloads of potatoes that the Agricultural Stabilization Board has in Prince Edward Island. Did the minister's office receive a telegram this morning from the chairman of the Prince Edward Island Potato Co-ordination Committee expressing extreme dissatisfaction and surprise that the Agricultural Stabilization Board has not yet made a decision on using stocks of potatoes under the board's control for stock feed on Prince Edward Island? In light of the fact that very shortly these potatoes will be of little use even for feed-


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


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether we are in receipt of that particular telegram, but I am well aware of the requests that have been made. There is another consideration that has to be taken into account, and that is the interests of those producers who have taken an advance payment. Now that the price in Prince Edward Island is well above the price at which these potatoes were purchased, those producers to whom an advance payment was made have some right to reacquire these potatoes and take advantage of the higher price by selling them on the market.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Egmont seeks a supplementary and also the hon. member for Malpeque. There are four minutes remaining before the end of the question period. I also see the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants who I think should be recognized. He has been trying to get the floor for a few days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. McCleave:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker-


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize profusely to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants. The hon. member for Egmont seeks the floor on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I seek the floor because the Minister of Agriculture has deliberately misled the House.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot, according to the rules, charge another member, whether a minister or private member, with deliberately misleading the House. The hon. member knows that that is unparliamentary. Hon. members may mislead other members but not deliberately; they cannot be charged with that capital offence. The hon. member, I am sure, will withdraw this suggestion. We are now just two minutes from the end of the question period. If the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants will be patient he will be recognized in one moment.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I would not accuse this minister of doing anything deliberately, but it is very true-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, under the rules of the House the hon. member is required to withdraw the statement he has made. You, Mr. Speaker, asked him to do so, and he is not doing it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Egmont knows what the rules are. He is required to withdraw, and I am sure he will.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this minister would not do anything deliberately but he did mislead the House in suggesting that in fact potato growers in Prince Edward Island-


An hon. Member:: Be a man for once.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: -are in a position whereby they are going to get a great deal more for their potatoes than earlier expected. This is only due to an artificially inflated price because of the shortage of reefer cars and it is not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is debate. The hon. member, I take it, has withdrawn the statement. He has no right to suggest that another member has deliberately misled the House. I am sure it is recognized by all hon. members that the rules have to be respected by them if
March 15, 1972

this House is to operate as a parliamentary institution. My understanding is that the hon. member has withdrawn, and I am sure he will want to confirm this for my peace of conscience.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be quite happy to withdraw provided the minister clarifies-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There are no provisions or conditions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot conditionally withdraw. I do not want to make an issue of this, but the hon. member should very simply indicate that he has withdrawn. This is my understanding in any event, and I do not feel it is necessary to pursue the matter.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if he would simply indicate-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No provisions.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: -that the price was artificially inflated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are obviously not profiting from this exchange. I take the liberty to bring to the attention of hon. members that this is why we get into difficulty from time to time, in fact perhaps every day during the question period. Many hon. members and, I suggest, very often the same hon. members, from day to day take what I consider very honestly more time than we ought to take on points of order, and that is unfair-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: -to many other hon. members seeking the floor. This is not a very tragic matter. The hon. member knows and we all know there are certain things we should not do. Sometimes in the heat of argument the words we use are a little stronger and go beyond our thought. The hon. member has said he did not want to charge the minister with deliberately misleading the House. This is what he said, and he cannot say it conditionally. I am sure he agrees with this. I point out that we have already taken three or four minutes of the time on this point, and I would hope we could now be allowed to go to the next question.



FISHERIES


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I put some fish with those chips on the parliamentary plate and ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries whether there are active negotiations with Washington to meet the petition of Nova Scotia swordfish-ermen which was recently sent to the federal government and, if so, are these negotiations being handled by our embassy in Washington or from Ottawa?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister taken any action to inquire into allegations that starch is being dumped in Canada from the Netherlands, thus making difficult the diversion of surplus potatoes?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have had a representative of the department visit the producer in New Brunswick who made a complaint about this matter, and as a result there has been a certain amount of investigation. The department has now obtained sufficient information upon which to decide whether there are grounds for initiating a formal investigation under the anti-dumping legislation. I shall make an announcement very soon.



TRANSPORT


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that every year representations are made to him to request the railways to make larger purchases of equipment, including locomotives, for moving grain, potatoes, and so on, can the minister tell the House whether he has made such representations? If he has, what kind of response has he received from the railways? Also, will he advise the House what priority Canadian National Railways are giving, in view of the $42 million to be provided under the bill we have been debating, to the purchase of locomotives and equipment suitable for grain movement?


J. Michael Forrestall: Can the rest of us make a speech too?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am very anxious to answer the hon. member, but it appears that hon. members opposite are not anxious to hear it.


An hon. Member:: Don't take as much time as the member did.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: On the question of making representations to the railways, the answer is yes. We have not only made representations but there has been considerable discussion with Canadian National in recent weeks on the question of providing sufficient cars primarily for grain. I can report to the House that a good deal of progress has been made. I am not sure of the percentage of the $42

March 15, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
million that has been mentioned, but perhaps that will come out in the discussions.



JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION RESPECTING EFFECTS ON INDIANS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development if he would make a statement at an early date indicating whether his department has considered the effects of the proposed James Bay project on the native peoples living in the area, what studies his department has conducted, and whether the project as contemplated by the province has the approval of the minister with regard to its effect on the native peoples?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. leader of the official opposition for his question. We are now looking into this problem. As I have already mentioned in the House, the Indians of the province of Quebec are negotiating with the Quebec government so as to reach a satisfactory settlement. I am following the situation very closely. We have already told the Indians that we would be willing to help them but up to now they have preferred to conduct their negotiation themselves.



JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-STUDY TO DETERMINE ACCEPTABILITY FROM ENVIRONMENTAL VIEWPOINT

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of the Environment. In light of the admission yesterday by the Minister of Transport that the government will have to give prior approval to all dams built for the James Bay project, is the government now undertaking an environmental study to determine whether the project is acceptable from an environmental point of view?


John (Jack) Davis: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I rise on a point of order, if I may, Mr. Speaker. I am sure-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Transport rises on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Too many points of order are being raised.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I simply wanted to clarify, for the House and the hon. gentleman, the statement made yesterday. If he looks at Hansard he will find that I did not say all dams will require approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not usually do this, but since the minister has raised the matter can he indicate to the House what dams or bridges he would not have to approve under the terms of the Navigable Waters Protection Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think that might be the kind of question the minister should answer by way of a statement on motions. The question period expired a few minutes ago but the hon. member for Churchill has a supplementary. He may ask his supplementary.



JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-DATE FOR SETTLEMENT BETWEEN QUEBEC GOVERNMENT AND INDIANS

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the James Bay project seems to be progressing unhindered at the present time, is the minister prepared to set a date by which the Quebec government must come to an amicable settlement with the Indian people in order to be allowed to continue that project?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It would be very difficult for me to give an exact date. However, I already said many times over the phone to the Quebec Prime Minister that the sooner the better. As I mentioned earlier the Indians are consulting the government now and when they ask me to intervene I will be pleased to do so.



GOVERMENT ORDERS


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been agreed among all parties that after the speech of the hon. member who is presenting the motion and the speech in reply of the government member, all speeches should be limited to 15 minutes. I am told there are many members on both sides who wish to speak, and this arrangement will give them more opportunity.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is true there has been agreement amongst those representating the parties, but it is also part of the agreement that no one request overtime.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 15, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix) moved:: -That this House urges the government to expedite those public services which affect the quality of life so that entitlement to status and payment of benefits may be sooner established and paid, and in particular, in respect of unemployment insurance benefits, pension and assistance benefits, immigration and passport procedures, post office deliveries, and public service collective bargaining.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 58 enables the opposition to introduce from time to time motions whereby it does not necessarily present only grievances, but also suggestions to the government.
From the beginning of the present session, Mr. Speaker, we have been surprised to see in this House the very defensive attitude of government members and the extent to which ministers apparently defending their policies readily flare up, turn red and often blast the opposition's attempts to be useful to them by practical suggestions liable to lead the government to efficient solution of problems now facing the people of Canada.
It can be wondered whether this is a symptom of the end of the present government, Mr. Speaker, Past experience has shown that when a government is always on the defensive-


An hon. Member:: Like the Progressive Conservative party.


Martial Asselin: -and refuses to fight, its hours are numbered.
Mr. Speaker, the present government is faced with the problems of unemployment and inflation which it has been unable to solve during its four years in office. The government, as I said earlier, is about to come before the people, asking for re-election.
For some time, we have seen the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) roaming up and down the country-


An hon. Member:: Like the Leader of the Opposition!


Martial Asselin: -and trying to gauge voters' opinions on the themes that he should use in the next electoral campaign which in my opinion is to start soon.
Well, the Prime Minister can no longer say once more to the people that his objective is still to build a just society because this election slogan will never be accepted again by the Canadian people. What the government has done for the past four years is overwhelming evidence, I suggest, that never before have the citizens of this country suffered so much from blatant injustices that have so obviously affected their existence.
It would take too long to recite all the grievances that we could rightly state to demonstrate the correctness of this. To demonstrate the serious nature of those injustices, it would be enough to detail all the hardships and humiliations to which Canadians are subject because of the serious situation created not only by unemployment and cost of living increases but also by misunderstanding and care-
Expedition of Public Services
lessness from the government in improving public services to which the people are entitled.
For these reasons, the official opposition has felt that it had a duty to remind the government of certain truths and to insist that it deal with the urgent problems that we are now facing.
From the opening of this session, we have badgered the government and particularly the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) about the delay in paying unemployment insurance benefits to eligible persons.
Over Christmas and New Year holidays, members of all sides of this House have received scores of telephone calls and visits to their offices from people at grips with these problems and who were asking for a remedy.
Day after day since the beginning of this session, my colleagues of the official opposition as well as those from the other opposition parties have urged the Minister of Labour and his parliamentary assistant to come to the aid of these people who were in deep misery owing to the treatment they were getting under the unemployment insurance scheme.
Mr. Speaker, referring back to page 2586 of Hansard, we find that the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) asked the minister for some explanation of the delays in the payment of unemployment insurance benefits.
We can also refer back to page 2484 of the same publication where we can read the always interesting comments made by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) who asked the minister to do something to improve operations at the Toronto unemployment insurance office.
Hon. members from all provinces have made similar requests. After approximately two months of sittings, we are still talking about this problem. In fact, several hon. members of the opposition have asked the parliamentary secretary today when this problem would be solved.
Mr. Speaker, as far as unemployment insurance offices are concerned, this government made an error in attempting to centralize those offices thereby eliminating existing regional offices. The taxpayers are the victims of this policy. Since unemployment insurance offices are located in the big cities-and here I am speaking about my own constituency-people cannot cover a distance of 200 or 300 miles to meet officials and discuss their claim with them.
The telephone lines are busy all day long so that in addition to his normal duties a member has to act as placement agent for the unemployment insurance officials who have been transferred to the big cities.
Mr. Speaker, the delay in unemployment insurance payments caused flagrant cases of injustice and reduced to dire poverty a countless number of eligible people. I know of distressing cases in my riding. For instance, many heads of families applied for benefits during two months. Most of them had four or five children to support and could not get money from any source other than unemployment insurance because they did not qualify for welfare allowances.
Even if the minister said that he made arrangements with social welfare offices in order to help those people in great need, the public servant takes weeks to complete the

March 15, 1972
Expedition of Public Services means test and meanwhile, those people entitled to unemployment insurance benefits suffer.
Mr. Speaker, the government thinks it can erase all its mistakes by distributing millions of dollars to organizations and taxpayers, so it will be able to tell them at the next election: Gentlemen, vote for us, because we gave you this and that grant.
Now, Mr. Speaker, and this I say firmly and forcibly, central state paternalism is today outmoded; the Canadian population no longer accepts it. This government will be judged according to the manner in which public funds have been spent. The distribution of grants is not well planned. The Local Initiatives Program offers ample evidence and this applies also to economic development and Opportunities for Youth programs. We shall soon receive a report to the effect that the latter was not well planned. It was ill-conceived because the ministers acted hastily and the government got panicky on account of its inability to give a strong and profitable impetus to its economic policy.
Mr. Speaker, there are also other subjects on which we want to draw the government's attention. One is mentioned in our motion and it obviously has to do with the postal service.
In 1968, when this government took office, they said: The Post Office Department will go to a great economist, the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans), who started out by turning everything upside down; he believed that the department ought to pay its way; he forgot the human factor. In his economic dissertations, he stated positively that the Post Office Department must bring in profits. That was his first mistake.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, that the Post Office is a public service that cannot bring in profits, it is impossible. It is a service which the public is entitled to because not only does the public pay taxes but it also pays for mailing letters and parcels. Therefore, it is a service to which the public is entitled.
Now, Mr. Speaker, after a few years under the direction of the hon. member for Duvernay, the Post Office fell into almost complete chaos. Grievances and requests kept pouring in from our constituents. They were asking us to intervene in the House in order to tell the minister to come back to common sense and to try for better planning. Then again, the former Postmaster General said: I will make a complete change. Mr. Speaker, this resulted in the closing of many local post offices which had served the taxpayers for years and represented for them essential services. All that was done, we were told, to save money.
In my constituency, some people have to walk four or five miles, morning and night, to get their mail. We told the minister about it. He replied: The post office has to be profitable! The postal rates were increased through legislation passed in the House.
And lately, Mr. Speaker, we have learned that another measure was being worked out by the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote).
My attention was drawn to the fact that notice has been given that the business hours of post offices located in

small localities would be reduced shortly. At the present time, it is said that business hours will be reduced to 20 per week and wicket service provided 16 hours per week. And this will happen shortly, since the taxpayers have received notices to that effect.
I have already received many representations from municipal councils and public bodies opposing reduction of business hours in post offices. Does the minister want to repeat the mistake made by the Minister of Labour- centralize post offices in large centers?
Mr. Speaker, government services should be available to the poeple and the people should not have to look for them. This is a service that should be made available by the state to the taxpayers and I say to the minister that if he intends to centralize post offices in large centers, he is falling into the same trap as the Minister of Labour and the Canadian people will again have to foot the bill.
I meant to deal with immigration and passport procedures but I will let other colleagues take care of that.
Of course I should like to deal briefly with strikes in public services. Under the present administration, Mr. Speaker, there has been a major deterioration of relations between employees and employers. The settlement of union conflicts has been dragging out and in many cases without taking account of the taxpayers' ability to pay.
In that field, the government, particularly the President of the Treasury Council (Mr. Drury), were in total confusion because they never clearly defined the government's wage policy. In that field as in many others, they tried to solve problems in a haphazard way, without planning, without a clear policy, thus increasing tensions between the employer, which is the state, and the public service.
The union leaders, Mr. Speaker, knew about the weakness of the government in that field. Several strikes in the public sector had dealt a heavy blow to the stabilization of our economy. I am not here to excuse union leaders, for I deplore the fact that in many cases they acted irresponsibly. This country witnessed more strikes that ever, strikes that could have been prevented had a negotiation system been established, through which employers' and employees' representatives could have been brought together in a permanent way around the same table. Of course I would digress for a moment to point out the chaotic situation now prevailing in Quebec where 210,000 civil servants, hospital employees and teachers are about to go on strike on March 17. It is time for governments to suggest to our citizens efficient and workable solutions to prevent strikes in the public service.


Mr. Lachance:: What are your solutions?


Martial Asselin: I am coming to that because we do have solutions.
The ministers are repeatedly asking the opposition whether it has solutions to the government's problems. Yes indeed, Mr. Speaker, we have solutions. Quite often, it can be seen in the House-three ministers are now present-that the ministers do not listen. If at least they would read Hansard. They do not seem to read it since after four years they have not yet found the workable solutions suggested by the opposition.

Earlier today questions were asked to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) in connection with the CBC's striking NABET members. Those people have been laughing at the public for two months.
We know the public likes its special programs such as hockey games or popular series. On some Saturday nights when people were getting ready to view the hockey game on television we have seen NABET union members come to work for two minutes and then suddenly bring the broadcast to an end.
I suggest that union members have no right to laugh that way at the people of this country. We will have to find a means of avoiding strikes in public services. Some will say, but you would also have to take away the right to strike from employees in essential public services, but I do not think this would be the solution. If this Parliament has given public servants the right to strike it would be ill-advised to take it away from them through legislation because I believe in free association of union members who use their association as a means of pressure but with the proviso that these means of pressure be warranted. However, I suggest that this is not a solution to be considered.
We could, of course, talk about compulsory arbitration. Here again, this system has been tried in the past but failed to stop unions from striking, even illegally. We have often seen illegal strikes across the country; union members do not hesitate to leave their job and go on strike.
I am not a specialist in labour relations but I think it is imperative that we find a permanent conciliation mechanism that would keep employers and employees in constant communication so as to avoid strikes such as those which are disrupting public services.
The leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (Mr. Stanfield) has recently dealt in Toronto with this important question. He referred to the possibility of adopting a legislation similar to the Taft-Hartley Act providing for a period of 90 days during which union members would be compelled to go back to work while possibly resuming negotiations with their employer.
There is a host of systems we might put to the test, but it would be imperative for the government to devise a formula that would prohibit strikes, particularly in the essential public sectors. Actually, strikes are very costly to the Canadian economy and to union members themselves because it is they who, more often than not, have to foot the bill for the strike and not their union leaders.
As I have just said, Canadians are greatly concerned about the disastrous consequences of strikes on our economy and their financial repercussions on the family. Canadians will insist, at the next election, that all political parties take a clear and unequivocal position on this issue and we would be derelict in our responsibilities if we should allow the present situation in the public services to worsen by maintaining the status quo.
If I had enough time, I would have liked to deal with the question of passport delivery. It may be possible to say, in the light of the Geoffroy case, that order should be restored in this sector, and that the Secretary of State for
Expedition of Public Services External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) should establish another system to replace the present one. But I shall let other hon. members deal with this issue.
Mr. Speaker, may I say in closing that the whole system of social benefits paid to taxpayers by governments, both federal and provincial, must be totally revamped.
In many cases, especially with regard to social security, there is duplication and a considerable loss of public funds. The judisdiction in that field could be divided amongst the various levels of government.
The solution to the problem must not be administrative only. Naturally, the present government sticks out its chest and says: We have solved the problem of family allowances. It is not a solution, although I do congratulate the government for having dropped its arrogance toward Quebec and having shown itself a bit more flexible; these are only administrative arrangements that do not solve the problem.
To my mind, the jurisdictions amongst governments should go further than that. Our jurisdictions must be thought out anew to prevent payments from ratepayers who often pay the provincial and federal governments for those same services. To prevent duplication, things must be straightened out, Mr. Speaker, and we will achieve that objective,-of that I am convinced-by finding a new formula for federalism.
The report of the Committee on the Constitution, in preparation for two years, will be tabled in the House tomorrow. New formulas will be proposed. Obviously, some hon. members will present minority reports, but I insist on saying this: If Canadian unity is to be saved, Mr. Speaker, it will be necessary to seek a new form of Canadian federalism advocating greater decentralization of federal government powers to the benefit of the provinces, and it is simply on that condition that we will be able to say that we are endeavouring to safeguard the Canadian unity and that we will continue to do so.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that under the guidance of a government which was elected largely on the promise that it would bring about a just society, and of a Minister of Labour who has spoken so often and so honestly about his desire to protect the rights of ordinary citizens, we should today be debating a system which has created incredible hardship for tens of thousands of Canadians who find themselves unemployed through no fault of their own and must depend on unemployment insurance payments to provide the necessities of life.
Let me digress for a moment to say that the position of the government has not been helped by the strident partisanship of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Perrault) who has rejected the claims of members of parliament, who has virtually branded as untrue articles by newspaper columnists in almost every newspaper in Canada, both Liberal and Conservative, which have outlined the plight of those who are unemployed and who have not been able to get unemployment insurance, and has denied that there is much loan-sharking going on, one of the most despicable

March 15, 1972
Expedition of Public Services methods I have ever seen of depriving people of their basic necessities.
Before I go into some of the difficulties which I and other members of parliament have encountered through phone calls and letters from our constituents and calls from newspaper and radio commentators, I want to make it clear that I do not lay the blame mainly on the Unemployment Insurance Commission, on the employees of the commission, many of whom are working long hours of overtime to try to meet the needs and difficulties which are brought to their attention.
The main responsibility for the mess we are in has to be placed on the government, because when the Unemployment Insurance Act was changed the government wanted to improve the benefits people would receive while they were unemployed, but they wanted to do it on the cheap and in order to save money they decided to incorporate in the new act certain provisions which have created most of the difficulties about which people are complaining. First, the waiting period, which was a week before a person could qualify for unemployment insurance benefits, was increased to two weeks. Members of my party who were on the committee which dealt with the bill in detail warned that this would create a great deal of difficulty. Those warnings were ignored and rejected by the government. There is provision in the bill that before a person qualifies for benefits he must use up any statutory holidays pay which he has accumulated. For some people, such as construction workers, this can amount to $600 or $800, a substantial sum of money. Averaged out at $100 a week, a person can wait eight weeks or more before qualifying for unemployment insurance benefits.
I am sure there is not one member of this House on the opposition side or on the government side who has not had daily telephone calls or letters from constituents who have had to wait 8, 10, 12 or 14 weeks before receiving benefits. And this despite the vehement denials of the parliamentary secretary that such is not the case. There is not one member who has not been told of cases where benefits have stopped without explanation. Although very often there is an explanation, because of the complexities of the act the employees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission do not know what the explanation is.
Let me give the House an illustration of what I mean. One of my constituents called me during the Christmas recess. Her husband had had a heart attack in the middle of 1971 and under the provisions of the act he was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits. He did receive those benefits for a number of weeks until suddenly, without any notice or explanation, the benefits ceased. This lady told me that since her husband was not well enough to go to the unemployment insurance office, she telephoned the office several times. Usually when one phones the unemployment insurance office one gets the busy signal, but after repeated calls she finally got somebody on the line but could not get an explanation of why her husband's benefits had ceased. She was told she could not know the employee's name so she could not check further into the matter.

She went down to the office and stood in line for several hours until it was her turn to speak to someone. Even then the office could not give her an explanation, so she called me. I had the advantage of the special telephone number that is available to members of parliament and I called the office. May I just digress for a moment to say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who is not here today, that the very fact that there is a special telephone number for members of parliament is an indication of the number of calls that must be made by ordinary claimants. If there were not so many calls and the lines were not so busy for most of the time, there would be no need to give members of parliament and members of the legislatures a special number.
I want to make it clear that the employees handling inquiries made by Members of Parliament at the Winnipeg office are very co-operative, as I am sure they are in most offices. After I had made my inquiry and the clerk had looked into it, she called me back to say that there was a very simple explanation why the benefits had ceased. Under the provisions of the act, a person who falls ill and draws unemployment insurance benefits is entitled to receive benefits for only 15 weeks. If that is the case, then it seems to me it would be a very simple matter to attach to the last cheque mailed to a person receiving benefits under this provision a notice explaining that this was their last cheque since the act only provided payments for 15 weeks. I cannot understand why such a policy is not followed. Neither do I understand why those who work for the Unemployment Insurance Commission do not know the provisions of the act so they can explain to people what is going on. Obviously, the complexity of the act is such that the staff simply do not know its provisions.
Another major problem has arisen as a result of the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, I am certain with the agreement and approval of the government, to computerize the whole operation. I had occasion to talk to one of the top officials in the Department of National Health and Welfare recently who was very intimately involved in the family allowance program. He told me that when it was decided to shift the payment of family allowance cheques to a computer operation, for a number of months until they were certain that the "bugs" in the system had been ironed out duplicate systems were run, the old system under which things were done manually as well as the computerized system. Not so with the Unemployment Insurance Commission; they went straight to a computer operation.
I suppose I have to take the word of the parliamentary secretary that 97 per cent or 98 per cent of the people who file a claim for unemployment insurance benefits have the claim settled and receive payment without difficulty. I shall come back in a moment to the length of time it takes to make these payments, but the usual answer of the government in this regard is to quote statistics. If 3 per cent of the people applying -for unemployment insurance run into problems and there are 500,000 or 600,000 applicants for benefits, then we are talking about tens of thousands of people who are having difficulty. This is the real problem we are facing.
March 15, 1972

In the old days before computerization-which may be more efficient for the large mass of the people-if one had a problem one could make an inquiry and find out what was happening. But today if the computer makes a mistake or somebody fills out a form wrongly, the delay can run into weeks or months. People have to wait anywhere from 8 to 13 weeks. What does this mean to the ordinary citizen, particularly the citizen in the lower income bracket? It means that if he has been unable to save any money there is only one place to go.
The parliamentary secretary tried to create the impression that arrangements have been made with the provinces and municipalities to give these people emergency welfare which they can repay when they get their unemployment insurance cheques. I have checked with the province of Manitoba and no such agreement has been made. I understand that where agreements have been made, no publicity has been given to such agreements either by the Unemployment Insurance Commission or by the province concerned. The result is that people in need are being forced to go to loan-sharks to get money with which to buy food.
The parliamentary secretary at first tried to pooh-pooh the suggestion that this was going on. In the city of Winnipeg there are at least two agencies that advertise regularly every day that if these people need money all they need do is bring their unemployment insurance cards and they will get it. The fact they discount the claim by something in the neighbourhood of 200 to 300 per cent interest does not seem to interest the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Obviously, he is not in need of money to pay his next week's grocery bill.
This disaster which was created first of all by the deliberate action of this government when it amended the Unemployment Insurance Act to extend the benefits but to keep the amount of money which is paid out within the same range as before, has befallen tens of thousands of people in Canada. The administrative mess for which one can blame the government, the minister and the top officers of the Unemployment Insurance Commission has created a blot on our society of which every citizen and certainly every member of parliament should be ashamed.
We have been told again and again that steps have been taken at this late to clean up the mess. I believe that the minister-I believe him a good deal more than I believe his parliamentary secretary-is sincere when he says that he has ordered that steps be taken to clean up the mess. I hope it will not be very long before people who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed, a large percentage of them because of the deliberate policies regarding economic growth put into effect by this Liberal government, will get the benefits to which they are entitled. These people are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. They have paid their unemployment insurance dues for years and are now in need of the benefits.
I hope that when the minister answers some of the complaints which have been made both inside and outside parliament he will take a much more realistic and humane attitude, one which will show some sympathy and
Expedition of Public Services concern for the people who are unfortunate enough to be caught in this terrible tragedy. I hope that his attitude will be much more sympathetic than the one demonstrated by the parliamentary secretary in his statements during the last couple of weeks.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to speak to the motion introduced today and which in short blames the government for being slow in administering its various programs.
Mr. Speaker, even if that non-confidence motion deals with part of the problem, I feel that it rather restricts that criticism and that it does not truly tackle the problems affecting the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some brief comments. This government as the previous ones at first passed a great number of bills, each one encroaching a little more upon the freedom of the individual or the citizen, while driving him a little more in a state of financial insecurity.
I would now like to discuss the second point, that is the fact that the citizen becomes more and more dependent upon the state, which is more powerful than ever.
I will conclude my remarks with some very definite examples. Finally, Mr. Speaker, in view of this great number of social projects and programs, bureaucracy has reached such proportions in Canada that it now manages the country instead of Parliament and the government. This bureaucracy is such that it not only controls the departments and the government, but stifles the people with all sorts of programs and harasses them with repeated inquiries which tend generally to downgrade the individual.
Mr. Speaker, as members of this House, we have a choice to make in 1972. Should we continue to support a policy which is responsible for depriving the individual bit by bit of its freedom while subjecting him to more insecurity-I refer to the measures which are submitted to us in Ottawa, in Quebec or elsewhere, aimed at slowly implanting socialism-or should we adopt a policy which tends not to discourage personal initiative, but on the contrary, to motivate the individual and enable him to assume his proper place in our country?
Here is a particular example, Mr. Speaker. To obtain their votes, students are promised scholarships which are insufficient as well as discriminatory since they are not granted generally.
Mr. Speaker, this scolarship system which is protected and established by federal and provincial governments directly discourages the individual in our society. This can be readily understood.
Let us consider a young student who works all summer and applies for a scholarship. Let us forget, for a moment, his father's salary or his family's income. If that student has worked all summer to help himself, he will not be eligible for a government's scholarship. He would receive a letter simply stating that: In view of your summer income, we are unable hereafter, in accordance with the scholarship program for students to grant you the financial aid you require.

March 15, 1972
Expedition of Public Services Why? Because he has worked, because he wanted to help himself, because he wanted to assume responsibility for his own future, because he wanted to keep busy instead of wasting his summer doing nothing. That one is not encouraged.
The student who failed to find a job, who was not able to work for pay during the summer, will apply for a scholarship and will get one, Mr. Speaker, taking into account, always, his parents' income.
Then, the authorities will say to the young: Get on the bandwagon, help us to build this country!
Mr. Speaker, that is a very definite example, that we are now experiencing, which shows that this particular policy with regard to scholarships has the direct effect of discouraging the young from helping to build their country. One prefers to have them doing nothing during the summer and to help them through welfare payments when they attend school-scholarships amount to that more or less-and to make of them human wrecks who no longer have the heart to put up a fight.
Let us consider unemployment for instance. It is obvious that the Unemployment Insurance Act is in itself, outside of the economic and social context, excellent. It is obvious that it provides for the payment of benefits up to $100 a week, thus assuring some security to the unemployed.
But if I go further back into this legislation and if I put it in the economic and social context in which we live, I can say straight out that we have reached a stage in Canada where it pays more to be unemployed than to work. We are now at the point where unemployment competes directly with work. It is surely not a measure meant to encourage the individual to take responsibilities, to participate in the building of his country.
Mr. Speaker, a man is ahead in Canada if he works during seven or eight months of the year and draws unemployment insurance and welfare benefits during the other four months instead of working all year long. And while that man is living off the fat of the land, because the ever more powerful government has convinced him that it is better that way, most Canadians are going to work for the government.
What about the old age security pension? They give something, but just enough to disgust the people. From 60 to 65 they cannot work any more, or most of those people have lost their job. Furthermore the amount they get is unsufficient.
More cynical than ever the government grants them a monthly increase of 42 cents. Patent proof that even that program is unsufficient and does nothing more than keeping the recipient near the poverty level. That is the way our Canadian citizens are rewarded.
I shall quote another example to show how far from the individual we are in our socialization system. Some farms in the past could provide a living to even ten generations, not small but large families, of which our people were proud. Now, farming cannot provide a living for the farmer. The government said: We will organize production. It said to the various producers: Improve your land,

your equipment, your buildings, your herds. The farmers replied: But, we have no money. Again the government came up with this: There is no problem, we will finance you. That is how the federal and provincial farm credit organizations were established. All farmers took advantage of them. And at that time, the government was already beginning to subdue people who until then had led an independent life. They turned to farm loans, which were good in themselves, but very bad on the whole.
And the governments thought: We are controlling his production now let us control his income. This is how the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Dairy Commission were invented and quotas imposed. When a farmer does not fill his quota, fair enough, he gets a grant from the government. He becomes a civil servant.
But when the farmer exceeds his quota not only does he not get any help from the government but he is fined for having worked too much. He must pay a fine for having got up too early to defend himself in his own country.
What are the results, Mr. Speaker. The radio and the newspapers advertise auctions: Auction for Mr. X in Township Y, auction of Mr. Z. in Township W, and so on. Farms are deserted. What is done about it? The social-oriented government has foreseen everything and says to the farmers: Move to the cities, desert your farms, the government will take them over; come to the cities and you will attend training courses.
The farmer attends those courses and wakes up unemployed. It is not better than before. He finds himself with useless diplomas and ends up on welfare.
This is quite serious. And yet in connection with the delayed employment cheques, what did the government do? Instead of dealing with this problem, on January 26 the minister sent a letter to all the unemployed whose cheques were delayed telling them to go to the nearest welfare office to secure a loan and that after they got their benefits they would be able to endorse their cheques and refund the welfare office.
The worker, who used to be independent, has gone unemployed because of the stifling and omnipotent government bureaucracy. The individual eligible for unemployment benefits does not get his cheques, so he must borrow welfare money and sign an IOU; and when the government finally decides to send him his unemployment cheque, he must first refund his debt to welfare. This is when he becomes totally dependent because while waiting for his cheques he has used up his savings.
So there is another welfare system that is becoming permanent, there is another Canadian in the majority that the minority will have to serve from now on. We have come to a point in this country where more and more people depend less and less on others for their living. Fewer and fewer people are earning a living for the majority.
That is what we have come to, Mr. Speaker. That is why the governments, grits on tories, that have been following one another for many years in Canada, kept on increasing taxes everytime they came back to power and everytime, Mr. Speaker, they introduce other socializing measures which are responsible for decreasing individual liberty and creating a growing feeling of insecurity.
March 15, 1972

The result is greater dependence from one year to the next on the state, and finally, the government must spend more and more for its administration, since the social security programs have reached the point where they cost a fortune. Why? Because the administration of such programs, the salaries of bureaucrats cost more and more and absorb the majority of the funds voted by Parliament for such programs.
As I said, we must make a choice, namely keep on supporting socializing measures that limit individual initiative or measures which not only would not discourage the individual, but would help him to help himself.
Mr. Speaker, what are the governments waiting for, what do they want? To make Canadians more and more dependent or to enable each citizen to live his own destiny, in freedom and security?
Mr. Speaker, some very funny government members will perhaps tell me that Social Credit is utopia. I will tell them that their system has reached such a point that our citizens are being turned into slaves.
Industries are closing down. They have developed, Mr. Speaker-and that underlines the ridiculous aspect of the system-a craze for creating jobs. They grant millions of dollars to industries. This is a form of social welfare. Why? To create jobs. However, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) says: Production is too high, we must control it.
On one hand, jobs are created to increase production and, on the other, Canadians are being told: Tighten your belts because production is too high. And all the time, while poverty is rampant in western Canada because of too much wheat, while poverty is rampant in Quebec and the Maritimes because there is too much of everything, three Canadian families out of five live in poverty, according to the Special Senate Committee on Poverty.
Mr. Speaker, in order to allow each Canadian to have his share of the wealth of this country, we must support with all our energy any policy devised to encourage the initiative of the individual and to make him independent from governments for his living, devised to encourage the initiative of the citizen who is anxious to get out of it by himself.
And with this I bring my remarks to a close, Mr. Speaker. I am convinced that if governments gave Canadians a chance to build their country instead of discouraging them, they would build their country.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the comments of hon. gentlemen opposite and I wish to thank them for some of the suggestions which have been made. The mover of the motion spoke a good deal about the quality of life and its relationship to public services, and suggested that the momentum of the government with regard to creating a just society has been subsiding. I wish to assure him that the only thing that has been subsiding is the currency of the phrase and not the thrust of the government's dedication to that concept.
There is no question that injustices remain in Canada. In fact, their very existence is what caused the Prime
Expedition of Public Services Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and this government to launch a determined attack on injustices wherever they exist. There is no question that one of the greatest of those is unemployment. I should like to make a few comments on that matter and to areas where we on this side, and I am sure hon. members opposite, recognize that progress is being made. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Perrault) will speak more specifically on some of the points raised with respect to unemployment insurance.
I begin, Mr. Speaker, by simply saying that we see unemployment, not in terms of the statistics which are so often passed back and forth across this House but in terms of its social and human dimensions, which is the only true way to see it. While there are now some encouraging statistics emerging, I would like to draw attention to the larger framework in which policies are being developed, some quite innovative policies, because if we see some of that larger problem we can appreciate the magnitude of the problem in Canada which we are resolving.
First let us consider the Economic Council of Canada's fourth annual report. We were told there, on the basis of the data that I think is uncontrovertible, that in the 15-year period beginning in 1965 and ending in 1980-we all recognize that we are over one-third of the way into that period-the Canadian labour force, the people who want to work, who consider themselves employable, will grow by 50 per cent. This is a growth rate that is entirely unique in the western world. I do not say this in seeking any kind of excuse but only to lay in front of all of us the challenge and opportunity which we have. How can this be compared with the problems of many other western countries? The United States labour force is to grow by 30 per cent, against our 50 per cent. What is the rate in the United Kingdom? It is 4) per cent in the same 15 years. What is it in Sweden? It is a zero growth rate. What is it in France? There it is 13 5 per cent. Mr. Speaker, I am quoting these figures from memory but I think they are accurate.
In Germany the predicted growth rate of the labour force in this period is 5 i per cent. In Italy the predicted rate is 2] per cent. In Canada, I repeat, it is 50 per cent. This is an historic, non-recurring opportunity and challenge for us because if we can get an economy that will put those people to work-and they are mostly young people, relatively well educated-we will have in this country an economic base for a more just society and those greater opportunities that we all want in areas other than the economic area.
What is this rate in real terms? In real terms the challenge is quite staggering. We will be adding three million people to the labour force in that 15-year period. In the first five-year period one million new jobs were created in Canada. We appear to be on track but not quite. The three million people who will come into the Canadian labour force will equal the absolute additions of people to the labour forces of Great Britain, West Germany and Italy combined, in that period. On our population base of 20 million people we have to find as many new jobs as those three countries combined. That is a very significant challenge. When we talk about unemployment figures in

March 15, 1972
Expedition of Public Services Canada and compare them with other countries, I think we have to appreciate that we have a historically unique situation.
In the first five years of the period about which the Economic Council advised us, the one million new jobs created in Canada equalled the new jobs created in seven European countries-Great Britain, France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium and a couple of others that I just do not recall at the moment. So there has been some progress down that road. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to linger in making that kind of recital to the House but I do want to draw it to the attention of hon. members. We have in this country, as I see it, such a challenge that we could not rely on the normal fiscal and monetary measures that are employed in other countries. What does it really mean in Great Britain if they use anti-inflationary policies to control an inflationary period? There is no pressure upward on their labour force. Their unemployment does not mount as it does in Canada. What does it mean in France? It means the same thing.
What does it mean in Canada? It means that if we employed the standard techniques which have been developed since the great depression, the Keynesian techniques, and applied them here, confronted as we are with this pressure of entrants into the labour force unemployment will be bound to rise to perverse levels which none of us would want to tolerate. Therefore we have limitations in the use of the standard tools.
What has the government been doing to cope with this quite unique Canadian problem? I want to mention a few of the measures we have adopted. The DREE program is too well known for me to go into it here, but it is a determined effort to find new formulas, new approaches to bring economic expansion into the slow-growth regions where much unemployment exists. Some will say that it has not fully succeeded. Some will say it has not done much more than prevent a widening of the gap. But we all know, if we want to be honest with ourselves, that if we look at this problem internationally the wealthy nations are still pulling ahead of the undeveloped nations in spite of transfer payments, transfer programs and aid programs. We see that the more advantaged regions are still pulling ahead of the disadvantaged regions. We are launched on a very major program to redress some of the regional imbalances and I think there are some successes that ought to be acknowledged.
What else has the government done? There are the two experimental programs which have been launched to consider the human and the social side of unemployment in Canada. These are the Opportunities for Youth program and the Local Initiatives Program. They are innovative. What do they really mean in terms of this larger context? Surely they mean that if we cannot make use of the standard tools without incurring on the one hand undue unemployment and on the other hand excessive inflation, then we see we have in this unique period a unique system that will cope with only so much and in a sense we have to go out beyond that system with innovative programs.
With the two programs that have been successful, judging by the appeals coming to me as acting minister of manpower and immigration to the effect, "Please approve more of these projects," and the agonizing response I

must make that the funds have now been allotted, our approach is to go to the people themselves and say, "Rather than delivering more programs from government, and we recognize their limitations, we will put resources in your hands." We say to the people, "Look at your communities. See how you can improve your communities and employ yourselves, or devise projects that will employ persons now unemployed." As all members of parliament know, we have found that the response has been overwhelming, that persons have displayed new energies. They have defined problems and opportunities in their communities. They have found work for people. This is the government that recognizing a unique employment problem took steps to put funds in the hands of local people who had initiative and were ready to go into action. Some of the results have been very dramatic not only in terms of community betterment but in terms of individual opportunities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, we expect that in the private initiatives area and the municipal initiatives area the LIP program will provide temporary employment for 92,000 persons. The Opportunities for Youth program is again initiated for the summer and will find employment for 30,000 students. Additional summer programs in various areas, the militia for example, National Health and Welfare and travel and exchange programs will provide further opportunities. These are innovative approaches in the search for the just society. You may say that the phrase has been worn out, but the concept is there and the action is there. I have mentioned two or three instances of it.
There are some people working in Canada this winter who perhaps for a decade have not worked during the winter. People in isolated communities are working during the winter when previously the only persons to work would have been the postmaster and the grocery store proprietor. Those are the kinds of concern that this government has for unemployed persons, persons who find themselves seasonally disadvantaged. We are saying to these people, "We will reach across that gulf of injustice you have suffered over the years. We will put resources in your hands. We will trust you to generate projects to better your community." In that kind of partnership we will find employment and a new path toward the just society which is as alive in the concerns of this government as it has ever been.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, there are in Canada people who are disadvantaged in another sense than seasonal. I have mentioned the special efforts made to cope with the seasonal problem of students, the one million or so who join the labour force every summer. There are special measures to deal with that seasonal problem and the seasonal problem which comes in the wintertime. But there are persons who are permanently disadvantaged, the native people, the poor, and there are new kinds of programs in existance and new programs to come which I hope will be available in this session.
March 15, 1972

The mover of the motion mentioned the quality of life. I should like to digress a little from the major concern that we all have in the area of unemployment and mention a few areas where the quality of life has been dramatically improved and new thresholds have been reached. Let us consider national parks where the Canadian public has a proper, new level of concern for the environment as it will affect future generations. In this government's four years of office our national parks have increased from 18 to 28.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is not an answer.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: That is a 50 per cent increase. The hon. gentleman says that is nothing-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I said that is not an answer to the motion.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: This is right on the motion, Mr. Speaker. I challenge the hon. member to deny that the motion is about the quality of life.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is not UIC; it is not the quality of life.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: It is service to the people of Canada down through the future. There is a 50 per cent increase in the area set aside in perpetuity for national parks.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On Baffin Island, the Northwest Territories, the Yukon.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Canada leads all countries in the world in land set aside for future generations. These parks are in every province and in the territories; they are in all regions.
What about the Great Lakes and the treaty we hope to make with the United States to service all Canadians in terms of the quality of life? I think this is an answer to the motion before us. Already the government of Canada and the province of Ontario have an agreement with respect to the Canadian contribution to the clean-up of the Great Lakes so that future generations may benefit and that the Canadian economy and society as it is built around that Great Lakes system may benefit in perpetuity from that magnificent body of water. We expect to spend on that project something like $150 million in a very short period of time. This is for the just society. This justice, in terms of quality of life, has something more behind it than talk.
I mentioned earlier the concern for regional justice and the quality of life in regions of Canada that have been designated for special programs. The government has a very special interest in the development of the economy and social conditions in western Canada. To many people western Canada has been seen as an agricultural base and more recently as an energy base. I do not think that does full justice to the possibilities, the potential and the aspirations of the people of western Canada. In our search for an improved quality of life and justice this government intends in its industrial strategy, which hopefully will soon be announced in greater particular, to open up opportunities for industrial development. The industrialization which has been available to central Canada and
Expedition of Public Services increasingly is the concern of Atlantic development strategy will be available in western Canada.
One sees some evidence of this already in the establishment of the head office of the Canadian Development Corporation on the west coast. Already one sees the beginning of that new economic justice for western Canada in the interests of the Pacific rim countries, in the concern to develop trade relations with China, the Soviet Union, the Pacific countries and Japan to open up resources to a processing and manufacturing phase of advanced technology. A good deal of the forward trend in a new industrial strategy for this country will be toward developing higher levels of economic activity in the west. It is in a sense a decentralization of industrial activity in the search for the just society in terms of quality of life and national unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, there is another point which I should like to mention. It is the contribution being made by the middle-income people of Canada to this thrust into a more just society, into higher orders of justice and into the area of the quality of life.


An hon. Member:: They are carrying the load.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: In the early stages, the first elements of a search for a more just society must always be for those who are most disadvantaged, those who have to catch up. One must begin by putting resources in their hands and by seeing that there is justice in their conditions of life. I shall not go into the various measures that have been adopted, other than to mention the tax reform proposals and the tax reform legislation. However, if we want to be honest with ourselves we know that in the last three years this government has assisted more people of low income into more housing units than were available at any time in the past.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: After much prompting.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: May I also mention the FISP program. We must also consider family allowances and the income support program which the minister brought before the House for the first time this afternoon. Major efforts are being made in this country to improve the lot of lower income persons. The greater part of the burden created by any redistribution of that type has been carried by the middle-income groups in Canada. We recognize their willingness to accept that burden as well as the extreme strains that have become evident as the challenge is being met. We ought to be aware of the size of the burden being carried by middle-income Canadians who are helping us in this unique period of our history to attain a higher order of social justice.
Let me now turn to another subject. The Canadian labour force, despite being the most rapidly growing labour force in the world is almost the smallest in proportion to total population. We do not remember that too often. Our work force, if measured as a percentage of total population, is smaller than that of any western industrialized country. So rapidly is it growing that there

March 15, 1972
Expedition of Public Services will soon be a change in this proportion. Nevertheless, those are the facts. Five years ago the work force was much smaller than it is now. What has that work force been trying to do? Here we have an earning stream and there we have an income stream. This relatively small group of people who make up our work force have been educated in an expensive educational system. It is expensive because we wanted the best, the very largest flow of young people making up the population, on a proportional basis, of any country in the western world. They are now being educated at the most expensive level, the postsecondary level. That contribution and that burden we must recognize.
Secondly, this relatively small work force is supporting a relatively highly developed social security system and retirement system for persons over 65. I will not say it is the best in the world; others have said that and perhaps it is. We know that it is a substantial and good retirement program. The social security program is also substantial. The burden of carrying these programs rests on our relatively small work force. In time the distribution of that burden will be corrected. I wanted to remind hon. members that middle-income people of this country have played a large part in bearing the heavy burden which Canadians must bear. I trust that they can continue to bear the weight involved in some of these changes and unique challenges that face Canada.
The government is making determined efforts, partly through its industrial strategy, to so enlarge economic opportunities that all, including those performing professional, academic, managerial and other skilled tasks will be rewarded with an expanding future. At present middle-income citizens are carrying a great burden. However, as new people enter the work force the weight of that burden will be spread ever more evenly and borne by more people.
I do not want to say much more, Mr. Speaker. I merely want to remind hon. members that we are going through an exceptional period in Canada's social development. It is exceptional particularly in terms of the numbers who in this country are available for employment. To provide employment opportunities, of course, is a top priority of the government. The government recognizes that the traditional methods of bringing about employment opportunities and therefore an improved quality of life must be changed. It has launched new programs and is evaluating them to assure the country that they are not stopgap efforts but, rather, are the beginnings of major efforts to cope with this unique situation. Having said that, I say to the mover of the motion that no momentum is lost through this thrust. Perhaps all we shall lose is a little currency. The action is there, if I may use that phrase, and will increase.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a nice choice of words, a beautiful vocabulary.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, before speaking to the motion may I say a word or two about the speech of the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell). He suggested that the Economic Council of Canada forecast that 50 per cent more persons will be entering our labour force in 15 years. That is true and we are aware of

it. I say, then, was it not utter folly on the part of the government to adopt a policy which would create unemployment? Was it not foolish to adopt such a policy as its number one weapon in fighting inflation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William David Knowles: I want to address myself in particular to these words of the motion: "payment of benefits may be sooner established and paid, and in particular, in respect of unemployment insurance benefits, pension and assistance benefits." I wish to touch on three major aspects involving the Unemployment Insurance Commission, the administration of the program for which the commission is responsible, veterans' pensions and benefits paid under the Canada Pension Plan. I should first like to deal with the program of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
There has been much repetition in this debate and hon. members have raised the same problems about which I intend to speak. Unravelling the problems of people trying to get unemployment insurance benefits takes far too much of the time of members of this House no matter where they sit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William David Knowles: Some members have hired extra help to handle nothing but unemployment insurance claims. I represent a rural area where you would not expect such difficulties, yet hardly a day goes by when I receive no calls for assistance. Sometimes I receive 15 requests for assistance in a day and rarely are there fewer than three of four such requests. As I say, these calls come from a rural area. While criticizing the Unemployment Insurance Commission's over-all program, let me pay tribute to the excellent service that officials in regional offices have rendered to members of parliament. My area is served by Hamilton and the people in that office have been co-operative in trying to solve the problems of my constituents.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: How true.


William David Knowles: The terrible thing is that some individuals who seek redress from the commission cannot get the time of day from some offices. I talked to a man who tried to telephone the Hamilton unemployment insurance office for six hours. He timed his calls. Finally he called the operator and asked if the office telephone was out of order. She said no, it was not. The only thing left for him was to call his member of parliament.
The delays in putting cheques into the hands of the unemployed are bringing serious consequences to local municipalities. One such serious consequence is the increase in municipal welfare costs. When I met welfare officers of Norfolk county they said that this was a common problem. They told me that they were being asked to make welfare payments to those who were not able to get their unemployment insurance cheques. When the cheques eventually arrive the recipients are paid twice, so to speak, once from the Unemployment Insurance Commission and once from welfare funds.
March 15, 1972


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: And that is the just society!


William David Knowles: According to the minister there is supposed to be some means of assigning cheques to municipal welfare departments so that this duplication of payment will not occur. According to the minister, this system is in effect. Before rising to speak I called the welfare officer in the town of Delhi. He assured me there is no means at his disposal to assign unemployment insurance cheques. As this program is in effect it is time the minister and his officials made known the means by which the assignment may be made.
The situation is further aggravated by the two-week waiting period. Today, most people have a hand-to-mouth existence. In this welfare state we rarely find people who lay aside money for a rainy day; therefore, any interruption in their earnings represents a hardship. In committee we suggested that the waiting period be reduced from two weeks to one week in order to avoid this hardship; the report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration will show that we moved an amendment to this effect, which was voted down.
To summarize, I have been highly critical of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and I wish to make some positive suggestions as to how it might be improved. First, regional offices should be decentralized and suboffices established with proper facilities to process claims and service recipients.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William David Knowles: Originally, each unemployment insurance office was a more or less self-contained unit which processed and paid all claims. After a series of changes a new system is coming into force whereby there is a division into three main types of office. There is a parent office, full-time offices and itinerant offices. The parent office has complete files on all claimants. It processes claims. The full-time office usually has staff for benefit control, to check frauds and the like as well as looking into inquiries. The itinerant offices have on staff just one person for all or part of the day or week and he is only responsible for handling inquiries. These offices simply cannot satisfy the demands of claimants.
Surely, efficiency should be the prime concern of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and service to people should be a priority. The program has been decentralized. Cheques are processed by a computer and cheque-writing machine at Belleville. This system was supposed to be efficient but it does not provide good service. Surely, this should be their main concern.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William David Knowles: Another positive suggestion is one which I have already mentioned, reducing the waiting period. The minister said that cannot be done because it will cost an additional $180 million. However, data from July through to November indicates that it would cost only an additional $10 million for that period. Recently it has been very difficult to obtain sufficient data from the Unemployment Insurance Commis-
Expedition of Public Services sion to make an unbiased calculation of what the increased cost might be. I challenge the minister to produce figures which indicate that a one-week waiting period will cost the large additional amount that he mentioned.
The third suggestion I make to the department is that there be closer liaison with municipal welfare officers, including cheque-assigning procedures. It is up to the Unemployment Insurance Commission to make available the information and procedures by which this can be done. My fourth suggestion is that there should be an independent consulting agency to make a study of the efficiency of the Unemployment Insurance Commission's procedures. It seems they have set this system up on their own. They claim it is efficient but the results prove otherwise. Independent advice should be sought. Also, the regional offices should be given authority to write cheques when recipients have been unduly deprived of their benefits, rather than having the long procedure of going through Belleville.
I now wish to make a few suggestions with regard to pensions and benefits to veterans. As a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs I feel obligated to draw the government's attention to some of the difficulties and hardships being experienced by our veterans. Difficulties were experienced when we changed the method of paving war veterans allowances or, as our veterans call it, the burned-out pension. They consider it a form of pension although it is really a form of welfare. Let's face it, it helps the person who is down and out, although the veteran does not think of it in that way. He thinks it gives him special status, and it does. He is being recognized for his service in defending this country.
Veterans resent the reduction in the war veterans allowance. They now receive old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the war veterans allowance. That is unnecessary and demeaning to those who served our country well in times of danger. There are difficulties as a result of this change. The war veterans allowance was non-taxable. Under the new plan, the old age security pension and guaranteed income supplement are subject to income tax. Veterans are now forced to pay income tax on an amount that was formerly free of tax.
Also, there is the deeming principle v/hich was very difficult to get across to our older veterans. If a veteran 65 years of age did not apply for and receive the old age security, he was deemed to be receiving it and his war veterans allowance was cut accordingly. After we got this straightened out and he finally received the back payments of old age security and guaranteed income supplement in a lump sum, the veteran was above the ceiling for war veterans allowance for that year and he or his widow was forced to repay to the war veterans allowance board the amount by which he was overpaid. This repayment causes an undue hardship to these people. They do not understand it. When they receive a cheque from the government, they spend it because they expect the government to know what it is doing. It is an undue hardship even for them to repay in small amounts a sum of money which was paid to them by the government. There is another difficulty which our veterans face. The level of the basic rate of war disability pension has fallen $1,000

March 15, 1972
Expedition of Public Services below the level of untrained labour in the public service. This was supposed to have been the base on which we judged the basic rate for a war disability pension.
I wish to refer to a brief submitted to the minister by War Amputations of Canada on February 21 of this year. I will not read it because it would take too long. They selected five categories in the public service which are called untrained labour; these are correctional offices, building services, messenger services, protective and custodial services. The average wage of these categories is in the neighbourhood of $4,551. This indicates that their pension is $1,000 less, because they receive only $3,500 than unskilled and untrained labour in the public service. The Department of Veterans Affairs should look into this matter with a view to bringing veterans pensions more in line with the base set out for them in the Pension Act.
Veterans are faced with a backlog of appeals regarding adjustment of their war disability pensions. They must go through the entitlement board, the pension board and the pension review board. I do not have the figure before me but I understand that at the present time hundreds of cases are waiting to be reviewed.


An hon. Member:: Thousands.


William David Knowles: My colleague
informs me there are thousands. It is high time the appeal procedures were streamlined and speeded up. Perhaps the commission could be broken down into panels so that three cases could be heard simultaneously instead of only one.
If time permits, I will deal with the third phase of my remarks. This has to do with the Canada Pension Plan. From my own experience, and after discussing these matters with my colleagues, it appears it is taking far too long for Canada Pension Plan administrators to approve payments and place cheques in the hands of recipients. Especially is this true in the case of those who are entitled to disability pensions. Officials responsible for the Canada Pension Plan admit it takes up to six months to process an application for disability benefit.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


William David Knowles: The delay is caused in part by the refusal of the department to accept proof of disability established by another (department of government for which, for instance, the applicant might have been working. As a result, many pensioners are being deprived of their just rights for many months.
In conclusion, may I summarize by directing attention again to my comments on the subject of unemployment insurance, by urging a review of benefits to veterans and especially the need for an increase in war disability pensions and, last, to the case for speeding up procedures under the Canada Pension Plan.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, in the time allocated to me this afternoon I wish to refer to two matters of substantial interest to all hon. members wherever they may sit in the House. I propose to deal with the subjects of immigration and unemployment insurance.
The hon. member's motion includes a reference to immigration procedures, in broad and sweeping terms, and because of the vague wording of the motion I can only guess at those aspects of immigration procedures which the hon. member believes need to be expedited. Presumably he is referring to the situation of visitors from abroad who seek to remain in Canada permanently. Before commenting on the situation as it exists today I should like to review briefly the legislation and policy affecting this class of immigrant so as to place the matter in its proper context.
Until 1967, Canada, like all other countries, attempted to discourage this kind of immigrant movement. Strong efforts were made to prevent the initial admission of people seeking temporary entry who, it was believed, really wanted to stay permanently. Most visitors who tried to obtain landed immigrant status were required to return abroad and make their applications to the appropriate visa office. This policy was followed, not for arbitrary or legislative reasons as some have suggested but for the very practical reason that it is much simpler and more effective for a person to be examined as an immigrant on his home ground, so to speak, by an officer experienced in immigrant selection and in the ways of that country, than for him to be examined thousands of miles away.
We must not forget that the entitlement to take up permanent residence in Canada is not a right in the person but, rather, a privilege to be accorded in the exercise of Canada's sovereignty if it is felt that the applicant can contribute to the development and quality of life in Canada. The immigrant selection examination is thus not a determination of rights but a review of a person's qualifications for being granted a privilege.
Nevertheless, in the broad and substantial liberalization of immigration legislation and policies in 1967, two very important changes were made in the interests of creating a more positive attitude to immigration in Canada and of ensuring that every individual was treated justly and sympathetically. First, the immigration regulations established, for the first time ever, the right of a non-immigrant or visitor to seek to change his status to that of a landed immigrant or permanent resident without having to depart from Canada. These people were to be examined in essentially the same way as applicants abroad, that is, in accordance with clearly stated, almost entirely objective criteria which were to be applied without regard to the person's race, religion or geographic origin, and had for their sole purpose the determination of whether a person would be a good resident and future citizen of Canada.
Second, an immigration appeal board was established. This board was to be completely independent of the department and of the minister responsible for immigration. It was given full power to deal with all appeals against deportation orders made by officers of the department, including cases of visitors who were refused landed immigrant status. In addition to dealing with the legal aspects of each case, the board was also empowered to set aside the Immigration Act and regulations in any case in

March 15, 1972

which it felt there were strong compassionate or humanitarian considerations which should be taken into account.
At about the same time the Department of Manpower and Immigration, in close co-operation with other departments, initiated a joint program to facilitate tourism by speeding up inspection at the major ports of entry to Canada, especially the international airports. This program, involving the inspection of arriving passengers by a single officer representing four inspection services, has been highly successful in expediting the flow of the 38 million foreign visitors who come to Canada each year. It has made it much more difficult, however, to detect the fraudulent visitor who is really a clandestine immigrant.
When these generous changes in policies and procedures were made it was recognized that there would certainly be an increase in the number of visitors, bona fide and otherwise, who would apply for landed immigrant status in Canada. There was no way of foreseeing, however, that the number would skyrocket. From one or two thousand cases a year before 1967 it has shot up to about
45,000	persons each year, or something in the neighbourhood of 20 per cent to 25 per cent of all applications received from all around the world.
You can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the impact this has had on offices in Canada unprepared both as to number and kind of staff required to cope with the workload. The inevitable effect, despite the often maligned but nevertheless heroic efforts of the staff, was the gradual development of backlogs in many offices, especially those receiving the greatest number of applications. By September of last year the total backlog across Canada has reached more than 7,000 cases. If the hon. member had submitted his motion at that time it would undeniably have contained some substance.
I am happy to report, Mr. Speaker, that the situation to which I have just referred no longer exists. By means of still greater efforts than were being made before, by diversion of both staff and resources from other areas of the department's work, it has been possible to effectively eliminate the backlog so that it may now be said that applications are dealt with on a current basis.
This is not to say that an individual application will be decided, as compared to put into process, without some delay. The determination of a person's suitability as a resident and future citizen of Canada requires, by law, an interview, medical examination, certain documentation and certain background checks. These cannot be completed overnight and, as I indicated earlier, they cannot be done as easily in Canada as would be the case if the applicant were in his usual country of residence. Nevertheless, decisions are rendered in many cases in as little as six or eight weeks, although some, depending on the country from which the person came to Canada, may take several months. Everything possible is done to keep these delays to a minimum. Nobody, be it the applicant, the department or Canada itself stands to gain anything by having cases drag on longer than is absolutely necessary.
I suppose that the hon. member might also have in mind delays in immigration processing after the examination stage. Because of factors that I mentioned earlier, such as
Expedition of Public Services the reduction of initial inspection at ports of entry, the facility of applying for landing within Canada and the independent and very powerful appeal board, the provision for applications in Canada is being used not only by genuine visitors but by many people who are immigrants all along and who know or suspect they would be refused if examined overseas. Indeed, they may already have been refused overseas. The result is that a substantial proportion of applications in Canada must be refused.
If the applicant declines to leave Canada on receipt of the decision, as most do, the department has no choice under the law but to undertake deportation proceedings. Because of the large number of applications and the large number now completing the examination stage, it is quite true that there is a large backlog awaiting attention by departmental enforcement staff. I must point out, however, that at this stage it is no longer a question of "entitlement to status and payment of benefits", as mentioned in the hon. member's motion; rather, it is a question of determining whether the person is in Canada lawfully at all and, if not, whether his removal should be directed. The same is true of the third and final stage, the appeal against a resulting deportation order. Although there is also a well publicized backlog at this third stage, I do not consider either the second or the third stage to fall within the terms of the hon. member's motion.
May I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of the House that the minister and the officials of the department are not insensitive to the plight of people caught in delays at any of the stages, even though many have brought the difficulties upon themselves. The minister has not assumed his new responsibilities in order to rest on the status quo. Consideration is being actively given to administrative and legislative measures to provide solutions to the situation that has developed as a result of the desires of so many people to immigrate and settle in Canada.
The second point that I should like to deal with is that of unemployment insurance. There are reports originating in Toronto that the welfare department of the province of Ontario is seeking to recover from $1 million to $2 million from the federal government. The sums, it is claimed, are additional welfare payments made to certain unemployment insurance claimants arising from alleged delays in the processing of claims. I am advised that this matter was in fact discussed on March 3 in the provincial legislature. At that time the Ontario minister of social and family services, in reply to questions concerning delays in payment of unemployment insurance, indicated that his department had been working closely with federal officials in efforts to establish arrangements whereby moneys that had been paid to municipalities could be recovered from payments of unemployment insurance.
In light of these events it is indeed difficult to understand that the Ontario minister would say that the new unemployment insurance program is causing extra costs to the province in welfare payments. Recent surveys have indicated that welfare payments generally have decreased primarily as a result of the more generous provisions of the new program. In actual fact, the unemployment insurance program, combined with the special employment program will save social welfare agencies, local taxpayers
March 15, 1972

Expedition of Public Services and provincial governments millions of dollars in 1972. And any reports to the contrary are totally incorrect.
As a matter of fact, the welfare commissioner of the city of Toronto recently indicated that welfare expenditures would be reduced by some $8 million as a direct result of the unemployment insurance program. Discussions have been proceeding with all provinces, including Ontario, in respect of the assignment of unemployment insurance benefits. A meeting has been arranged for March 21 in Toronto to review the procedural aspects for the assignment of unemployment insurance benefits.
I am further advised that the Toronto metro executive committee met yesterday and announced a $2 million reduction from its welfare budget. This saving is not unconnected, I suggest, with the new unemployment insurance program and the special employment program. So we see substantial social welfare cost reductions predicted for the province of Ontario and other provinces, yet some people in Canada still say that social welfare costs are increasing as a result of the new unemployment insurance plan. To say the very least, that kind of misinformation is most unhelpful.
It should be noted that the old unemployment insurance program did not permit the assignment of unemployment insurance benefits, and this frequently resulted in persons being paid twice for the same period of time. The new Unemployment Insurance Act gives the Unemployment Insurance Commission the power to assign benefits where arrangements have been made with provincial and municipal authorities.
It has been suggested this afternoon that there should be a one-week waiting period. Surely an actuarially sound program must proceed according to actuarial principles. If we were to reduce the waiting period to one week, the premiums would have to be increased substantially and benefits would be reduced. Anyone who buys automobile insurance knows that the $25 deductible policy is far more expensive than the $100 deductible. A two-week waiting period was thoroughly discussed in committee and is the result of actuarial estimates.
It has also been suggested that there should be a greater degree of decentralization. Surely the hon. member is aware that since 1970 unemployment offices, including service offices and central offices have increased in number by 50 per cent and that during the same period telephone lines have increased by 65 per cent. Surely he is not unaware of the fact that every two weeks well over
600,000	cheques are processed and despatched to grateful families from coast to coast. It might be useful to emphasize some of the undoubtedly positive accomplishments of this, the world's finest program of unemployment insurance, a fact which is beyond dispute.
This does not mean to say that this department or the government is resting on its laurels. Both before and during the recent criticisms of the commission's claims processing procedures extensive action was taken to identify and correct any administrative deficiences which could be the cause of the criticisms. The situation is now nearly back to normal, but the meaning of "normal" must be understood in the context of the magnitude of the commission's operations and the unfamiliarity of the
[Mr. Perrault.J
unemployed with the new act, regulations and administrative procedures.
Currently, payments are being made every two weeks to well over 600,000 persons. However, these persons are continually changing at the daily rate of 10,000 new persons added and about 8,000 persons returning to work or exhausting their claim. The effect of 10,000 new claims per day is reflected in inquiries to the commission as each person proceeds to ask for application forms and perhaps to query the two-week waiting period, request an explanation of his benefit rate or income tax deduction or object to a disqualification, disentitlement or notice of ineligibility, etc. About 2,000 persons per day are subject to a disqualification procedure. The commission is averaging over 50,000 inquiries per day, a 50 per cent increase over last year due to the new act, regulations and procedures.
There has been continuous monitoring of the operations under the new act and procedural changes have been made as experience dictated. During December it became apparent that there were three major problems. First of all, the first cheque took longer than expected to reach the claimant.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret that the time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House may I finish my statement?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member knows that the unanimous consent of the House is required for this. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I hear some no's.


Raymond J. Perrault: I thank the House for its courtesy.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: If you knew what was going on you would not need any extra time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I have rendered my decision and there should not be any argument.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I trust I will not try to get by a House order regarding timing. It was agreed at the beginning of this debate that no member would ask for extra time. This afternoon we heard a lengthy reply by the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) to a motion which I think he completely misread. I may say that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Perrault) was rather more on target because this motion deals with the period of waiting, the disentitlement, the effect on status and the way the citizens of the country have been affected in a number of areas. My colleagues have spoken about them. I refer to service pensions, Canada Pension Plan disability payments, the unemployment insurance field. Now I wish to refer in particular to immigration.
March 15, 1972

I am very glad that the Immigration Department prepared an apology for the parliamentary secretary to read to the House with regard to what has happened. It is not that everything was wrong before 1967 and everything has been right since. If there has been anything wrong with regard to immigration, it has been since 1967. In 1967 the department warned that the change in the regulations affecting the rights or the privileges of visitors to apply for landed immigrant status in Canada was going to cause trouble, and nothing has come but trouble to the point where it is suggested in many areas that there is abuse. There is nothing in what the parliamentary secretary has said, nor has any evidence come forward from the department except tacit admissions that there is abuse, that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, who come to this country, presumably as visitors, apply for landed immigrant status and then disappear when they are turned down and turn up elsewhere, most of them in the United States. This country has become another avenue of illegal entry into the U.S.
What gets me is that in the Throne Speech of October, 1970, we were told we were going to get a white paper on immigration, an examination of the trend in immigration. Immigration has gone down from 200,000 persons per year to about 125,000. Ask any immigrant family what their attitude is toward the government. Let me say that the majority of those people are not a drag on the labour market. There are some casualties among them but the majority of them are hard working people. They do not have to conform to the artificially high standards that are set in the points game that people have to play with the department.
Never in my life have I seen anything quite so artificial as this rigid and arbitrary standard that has been set up with regard to the admission of immigrants to Canada. You have to go to school for 11 years or nine years as we do in Canada, but in the country from which the individual comes in six or seven years he may learn almost as much as in the nine years here. That is certainly true of the trades. I have never seen such an ostrich-like performance in the standards that have been set under a minister who did not care a whit about immigration. We know that the minister who was responsible at the time did not care a whit about immigration. As a matter of fact, his background is such that he would wish to eliminate as much immigration as he could.


Mr. Bechard:: Who is he?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He is now Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). That is the point.

And I told him that too, without beating about the bush.


Albert Béchard: Yes, but he answered you too, did he not? [English]
We know that the regulations were made by the officials, approved by the minister and were never submitted to parliament for examination. We are always told that
Expedition of Public Services they have been passed by parliament. Not on your life. Be that as it may, there is that great, running sore that we were to have the benefit of the government's views on this, according to the Throne Speech of 1970. I asked the former minister many times when we were going to get the white paper on immigration. "Soon," he said, but 16 months have elapsed. We have had a new Throne Speech in which nothing was said about this.
We were told we were going to get amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board Act, but nothing has been said about that. The replies were "Soon," but the net result has been that the Immigration Appeal Board itself is run into the ground. They are doing yeoman work. They deal with just under 1,000 cases a year, which is a lot, yet there is now a backlog of over 7,000 cases. If there were no further appeals as of today it would take the Immigration Appeal Board seven to eight years to deal with the backlog.
What happens to the people in the interval? I admit that some of them are acting in direct contravention of the law. I do not want to call into question any of those cases where there may have been fraud. But what about all those people who are now in the country awaiting appeal, working, getting married and having children? Are we simply going to leave them in a limbo and five years from now say, "But you have only 45 points. Out". What about the children? What about the prejudice to the individual because there is a blind and obstinate desire or insistence on fulfilling bureaucratic rules? This is the point that I am concerned about.
I will argue with the Immigration Department about their standards but that is not the point that I am trying to make today. The point is this business of the continuous pile-up. I am referring to the case where an individual, having come to this country, applies in a bona fide manner according to the law and the immigration official does not grant him sufficient points but does not teil him that he has only perhaps 35 or 36 points out of the required 50. The individual must then ask for a special inquiry and at the time of the special inquiry the information is disclosed, not beforehand. The individual cannot go to anyone who is knowledgeable. He is often a poor immigrant who does not speak too well in either of our two official languages. He is in a strange land, baffled by officialdom, row upon row of officials, a great big machine which absolutely terrifies and intimidates even those who come from countries where English is spoken.
I have seen Australian girls, competent computer operators, turned down because they were short of one or two years of their school education. They were told to ask for a special inquiry. They were petrified at the prospect of facing such a special inquiry. What is the lot of the individual who does not get a change of decision at the special inquiry and still there are grounds for dispute and there is a right of appeal? He gets a deportation order and is told to either go voluntarily or be deported.
There are presently 7,000 to 8,000 people who have deportation orders hanging over their heads. They cannot leave the country to go to the United States for even 24 hours. They cannot cross the border. On occasion I have asked ministers and senior officials when they intend to

March 15, 1972
Expedition of Public Services change this barbarous procedure. They say they are studying the matter and will bring in a white paper. Where is that white paper? In the interval, thousands and thousands of people are being made the subject of deportation orders. This is totally unnecessary.
This is the type of thing which is on one's record for life. At a future date, if a person were to ask for citizenship he would be asked whether he had ever been subject to a deportation order. That person must answer yes even though the deportation order may have been vacated. This is what I call an insistence upon an unjust society. I believe this is a situation in which thousands upon thousands of people in this country are suffering injustice from a bureaucratic system. Nothing is being done about this. This is the reason I make this protest.
This situation could be changed very easily. I invite hon. members to turn their attention to this matter. It is a narrow field. There are not hundreds of thousands of people affected; there are only a few people affected, but they are people in the main who are unable to defend themselves unless we speak up in this House. I am very pleased today to speak up on behalf of every one of them and I invite my colleagues to do so as well.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the resolution and I am not worried, as the parliamentary secretary is, about the broad sweep of its language. The resolution was intended to identify a serious problem which governments face and which this government faces in respect of its credibility because of, if I may put it fairly, lack of efficiency in adjudication of some of the claims. This is a serious matter and one on which I believe the House does well to spend a few hours.
This is a government which speaks of its flow charts and boasts about the efficiency of its organization. All this, I am sure, may be excellent but unfortunately a flow chart is quite lacking in compassion. I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Perrault) tell us about the number of cheques which are going out each week. I think this is something for which the government may well take credit. But while we play this numbers game in respect of totals we must remember-the parliamentary secretary and the minister are well aware of this because they had to go to extraordinary lengths to provide members of parliament with facilities to deal with the many thousands of cases which do not appear in the statistics-that these are not all "plus" statistics, if I might put it that way.
We respect those public servants who are doing a superb job in trying to handle the difficulties and we welcome the special telephone numbers, although I must say I somewhat resent the fact that a member of parliament is given the privilege of using a special number when members of the public who are entitled to it because of their contribution are unable to have the service. There is something in the way of elitism or unpleasantness about this. Surely each citizen should be able to reach the Unemployment Insurance Commission and other government boards without the need of this sort of intermediary pressure.
The particular aspect I wish to speak about today is the unconscionable delay which was alluded to by my friend

the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) in respect of the adjudication of Canada Pension Plan claims particularly in so far as the disability aspect is concerned. This is not a matter of privilege. What is being adjudicated upon under the disability section of the Canada Pension Plan is a right which has been bought and paid for by the individual citizen who participates in the plan. I believe it is quite unconscionable that people who are at a very serious stage because of ill health must go through a period of delay month upon month. My hon. friend spoke about delays of six months. When we inquire about situations in respect of the Canada Pension Plan we are told quite casually by officials that there is a six months' waiting period.
I genuinely wished to take part in this debate today to say this is quite an unacceptable procedure. We were all here and took part in the debate in respect of the Canada Pension Plan and there was no question, when we passed that statute, that there would be a six months' delay. Certainly, when the head of a family is stricken because of ill health there should be no question of a six months waiting period. This is an example of straight bureaucratic inefficiency.
This resolution is designed to identify the problem to the government and, with the greatest respect, is an attempt to get the government off its celebrated status quo to which the parliamentary secretary alluded. There can be no excuse for a six months' delay in respect of disability pensions. I have had several cases involving a lengthy waiting period. I had an unfortunate case recently under the Canada Pension Plan involving an orphan who waited for entitlement from January until July 1971. It is no wonder governments are thought of cynically. There is a credibility gap, if I may use a cliche. It is no wonder governments are under pressure from the public when such unnecessary delays occur.
The motion also included a reference to delays in passport applications. I give the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) credit for the opening of regional offices. It is somewhat ironic, when one department centralizes, which is the case in respect of the unemployment insurance offices which are being centralized, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has recognized a need for decentralization and has set up offices in Vancouver, Edmonton, Montreal and Halifax to mention but a few. However, there still remains a very serious problem in respect of processing passport applications. I do not know whether the House is interested in these sort of anecdotal references, but they are the only way in which a member of parliament can personalize individual cases. This brings flesh and blood into what otherwise would be a series of meaningless statistics.
Presently I am trying to deal with the passport application of a man who served this country in World War I and World War II. He has his World War I army discharge certificate. He has a notarized copy of his entry in the family Bible. He has an identification card with his fingerprints and photograph, and with the signature of the Deputy Minister of Munitions and Supply, which allowed him to go in and out of the offices in which he worked in
March 15, 1972

Ottawa during World War II. But still he is ineligible for a passport.
This is an individual case. Governments get tired and frustrated with individual cases. But the member of parliament who is representing individual cases, and is glad to do so, is perhaps the last humanizing link between the citizen and the state. Really, Mr. Speaker, it becomes very frustrating for us when these almost incomprehensible-I hate to use the expression red tape because it is overused-regulations prevent citizens from entitlement to their ordinary privileges.
I do not know whether my colleagues in this House enjoy Kafka, but Kafka was a contemporary philosopher of the absurd. I think it is fair to say that Kafka would understand perfectly; as a matter of fact he would really be the patron of the Department of Labour and its machinations with the Canada Pension Plan and unemployment insurance. Kafka warned mankind that if man allowed himself to be captured by the mechanisms of modern technology, then the ordinary human elements of life would really be second or third rank. As I say, he was a philosopher of the absurd and therefore he would have identified very readily with the motion that is before the House.


An hon. Member:: And with practitioners of the absurd.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Yes, with practitioners of the absurd.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: You are well versed in the absurd.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Any member of parliament who is doing his duty is well versed in the absurd when dealing with this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: There is no problem with that., particularly when we hear great lines of figures read out, with talk about 600,000 cheques. As members we have to deal with individual persons, and it is a good thing for this country that some people are dealing with persons on an individual basis. We see the difference between insensitivity and compassion. In fact, this may be a good subject for an election manifesto.
No doubt we will soon have great election lists recording boasts of achievements. I presume one that the government will want to lay claim to is the Canada Pension Plan. But nowhere in its boasts will be the orphan who had to wait seven months for an identification of his claim. Nowhere will be the individual people who are suffering disabilities, who have paid for their entitlement and yet cannot get adjudication for six or seven months because of absurdities. This motion is intended to jolt the government off its very complacent status quo and I am delighted to support it.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to see this motion appear on the order paper, particularly as it deals with a number of departments. It indicates that people have difficulties with quite a number of departments. All members of parliament receive mail outlining individual problems. The people concerned
Expedition of Public Services encounter a stand-off in trying to achieve ready sette-ment of what appear to them to be simple problems.
The matter of unemployment insurance is one that has been raised a number of times in this House. I am always surprised to find that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Perrault) is able to read some of the garbage that some civil servants hand him. He did it again today. He pointed out that
600,000	cheques were mailed out; but really what does that mean? Every person in this country who works at a job paying over $25 a week and who spends over 24 hours on the job pays unemployment insurance. He pays it just as sure as the sun rises and the sun sets. It is taken from his pay cheque.
There is no question about whether he wants to pay it or not. No consideration is given to the possibility of slow mail, of a lost contribution, or to the possibility that the computer did not handle it properly. The government is highly efficient in getting its pound of flesh. On the other hand, different criteria apply when the government is dealing with individual people who have claims against it.
The parliamentary secretary has often said that 97 per cent of the unemployment insurance cases are settled within what he calls a normal period of time. What is the normal period, Mr. Speaker? It is between four weeks and eight weeks. Anything over eight weeks is considered to be not quite normal. This amounts to three to four paydays that the worker must wait. In such a case it is not difficult to understand why people seek welfare. I send my share of people to welfare offices because I sympathize with them and I am never sure that the UIC will solve their problem soon or at all.
I am also prepared to tell many people that if they can get out of signing the assignment, they should do so. The amount of money these people get is never $100, as the government claims; it is always considerably less. It is a physical impossibility to get $100 under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Although there are many booklets pointing out that the worker is entitled to $100, the worker never gets that amount.


Raymond J. Perrault: You had better read the book again.


William Arnold Peters: I know it has been rewritten several times, but despite the propaganda that claim is not true.


Raymond J. Perrault: You are misleading your constituents.


William Arnold Peters: You simply can't get $100. A person accustomed to an income of $8,000 or $10,000 a year finds that $100 is the minimum he needs to make the payments which he has contracted. But he finds income tax deducted from the $100 and his actual payment is considerably less. Some of the problems connected with unemployment insurance are the fault of the government. One mistake was the computer. We undertook the computer system on the cheap. I am sure it is costing the UIC several millions of dollars to cover the mistakes obviously made in the development of its computer. In the unemployment insurance offices in each province the computer has a payout recorder attached to it. This payout goes on tape which is then sent to the various offices. When someone wants information from it they must scan the whole computer

March 15, 1972
Expedition of Public Services tape. An outlying area may be two or three days behind and have to go over a number of these tapes. This is very expensive and causes difficulty. If someone telephones for information they cannot get a reply because it takes so long to find it and, of course, the person answering the telephone has no connection with the particular section responsible for the computer.


Raymond J. Perrault: You are badly confused.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I handle many more cases than the parliamentary secretary does, so I am familiar with this matter. He is not familiar with anything. He is just an apologist for the government. He has been that kind of apologist since his election and that is what he will continue to be. He knows only what he is told by an official of his department, so sometimes he is able to convey sensible information to the House.


Raymond J. Perrault: You are misleading your constituents. You don't know what you are talking about.


William Arnold Peters: The Unemployment Insurance Commission should have a computer system similar to that used by Air Canada for reservations, so that when information on a claim is requested it can be retrieved from the memory bank. That should have been done in the first place and I hope it will be done now. There are other delays, Mr. Speaker. The office that I deal with is at least 50 per cent understaffed.


Raymond J. Perrault: I think it is some of the poor advice you are giving to your constituents.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, my constituents will worry about that when the time comes.


An hon. Member:: We want them to get their money.


William Arnold Peters: I would like them to get their money and every municipality in my area would like them to get their money. Many of the municipalities are rural and they cannot afford to pay these people; they just do not have the funds. There are at least a dozen letters from the unemployment insurance office in Kirkland Lake demanding some sort of courtesy to that office. Kirkland Lake has an unreasonably heavy unemployment insurance load and it cannot afford to pay the claims made in the form of welfare payments. True, Ontario has an assignment but when a person draws less than two-thirds of his former wages in unemployment insurance, and many of the unemployed are in that category, he cannot go four paydays without money and therefore he goes to the municipality for welfare.
This is a point that bears investigation, Mr. Speaker. Toronto is in a different category from other areas because it has an unemployment insurance district office and people can go there in person. Areas outside the major cities operate entirely by mail and this presents another problem involving the post office. This afternoon I was talking to a member who indicated that on occasion he can get a letter in British Columbia within a day, but a very important letter on one occasion took nine days.


An hon. Member:: That is not unusual.


Raymond J. Perrault: There was an air strike.


William Arnold Peters: It would not be so bad if that happened all the time because then you would know it takes nine days. But in another case where air is not involved the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Belleville mailed five letters on Monday, five on Tuesday, five on Wednesday, five on Thursday and five on Friday. The office in Timmins got two letters on Tuesday, four on Wednesday, two on Thursday, three or four on Friday and the balance the following Monday. How can a thing like that happen, Mr. Speaker? They put it in the mailbox, onto the sorting table then onto the truck and then on the second day you get two letters. These letters were specially prepared by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, but of course the parliamentary secretary would not know anything about that because he has not been told by his officials.


Raymond J. Perrault: Did you contact the postal workers?


William Arnold Peters: You cannot blame the unemployment insurance people for that but you can certainly blame the government. When you put an eight-cent stamp on a letter, if you knew it was going to take eight or nine days to get to British Columbia you would think about operating a special airline. And what about the letter that takes one day? How did the two letters get from Belleville to Timmins in one day and some did not arrive until the following week? These are simple problems, Mr. Speaker, and people want to know the answers.


Raymond J. Perrault: Have you written to the post office?


William Arnold Peters: Then I would be in the same position as everybody else.


An hon. Member:: They would never get the letter.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago I asked the post office for some literature and suggested that I would send a messenger for it. They said they would put it in the mail and that I would get it right away. Well, they did and four or five days later I had to send a messenger to get it. About a week later it arrived in the mail. They had put it in a brown envelope and you know the people who handle the mail do not like touching those.


Raymond J. Perrault: Are you sure you put a stamp on it?


William Arnold Peters: I didn't send it, Mr. Speaker; the post office sent it to me. I did not have anything to do with putting a stamp on it.


An hon. Member:: He just doesn't understand anything.


William Arnold Peters: The point is that in a modern society we have to speed up processes. There are ways of doing things that will cause little displacement in the life of the average individual I may be wrong, but I believe that rather than keep two plans going the Unemployment Insurance Commission should have had two systems going. When a person phones saying that it is four or five weeks since he sent in his form and he has not heard anything, there should be another side to the unemployment insurance system, as there once was, where the matter could be dealt with by hand.
March 15, 1972

If the computer rejects a claim, then someone should take another look at it and see that it is processed by hand. If not, the person has to start all over again and another four or five weeks go by. I do not know why we have not been able to operate the systems simultaneously. Computers are probably the tool of communication of the future, but there is a human element involved which means that we will always have difficulties, and steps should be taken to deal with them. It is not good enough for the parliamentary secretary to say that only 2 per cent or 3 per cent of the population is affected.


Raymond J. Perrault: I never said that.


William Arnold Peters: You did, in exactly the opposite way. You say that 97 per cent are being paid regularly. The hon. member has said it at least four or five times. I presume he had previously read what he was reading then, but of course he may not have. I think that members of parliament have to get as much assistance as possible from the department and they will have to intercede on behalf of constituents who have problems.
I have read in the newspapers about people asking Star Probe to investigate a problem. What did they say? Star Probe handled the problem of a man who was laid off last July. He said that his experience was like screaming in a soundproof room.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to the motion now under study. I listened with great satisfaction to the speeches of several hon. members, and one thing that makes me happy is the fact that the motion calls upon the government to accelerate public services which affect our way of life.
We often tend to blame the government very categorically. In view of the phrasing of the motion, the government will normally be inclined to reply in the affirmative to the requests made today by hon. members concerning certain services which cannot always, this is true, be easily improved.
To give the impression that the minister alone is responsible for unemployment insurance benefits is unfair, in my view. I am sure that the minister, as well as hon. members, want every claimant to receive his cheque without delay, and that the difficulties suffered by those who have been waiting for their benefits, especially since January, will be overcome.
I shall refrain from simply accusing the minister of being responsible for those difficulties, as I believe that the government has in fact tried to improve the service. I wonder, however, if it would not have been better to keep a certain number of regional offices, because it is possible that the experiment that was carried out is not conclusive.
I personally had occasion to ask the minister, six or seven months ago, to reopen an unemployment insurance office in my area, and I received an affirmative reply.
Expedition of Public Services Now, this service is again available to my riding, and is most appreciated.
I should also like to ask the government to consider improving services at the civil servant level, taking into consideration all the time spent on negotiations concerning the new agreement on family allowances in the province of Quebec and the other provinces.
I could also mention the endless negotiations concerning the policy on telecommunications. It is evident that not only the province of Quebec, tut the others as well, often complain about these long-drawn out negotiations. In fact, we are quite aware that citizens would benefit greatly if these services could be improved.
I suggest that the government could give favourable consideration to the request expressed in this motion, urging them to seek solutions for improvement of these services.
Of course, I shall not dwell on the immigration and passport procedure. I know that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) gave an account of the situation. There again, I imagine that the white paper in question should normally be published and tabled in the House before long.
Distribution of mail was also mentioned. Of course, many changes have been made in the Post Office over the last four years. On being elected to the House of Commons, I deplored the serious changes that were made, without enough concern for the service that department was to offer the public.
I remain deeply convinced that the Post Office is a public service. The public not only needs that service, but is entitled to it. I do not believe it wise to put profitability before service due the Canadian people among the assessment criteria. Some definite changes have been made now following the replacement of the imcumbent at the time, and I hope they will produce much more humane results for the country.
I felt it necessary to make these few remarks and to call upon the government to seriously consider improving such services, in the interests of the Canadian people. I have faith in a motion requesting the government to consider all representations from hon. members. In the debate, they did not simply blame or criticize the government, but outlined to the minister the difficulties being experienced by the Canadian people. I believe that we can thus make the government aware of the situation while providing it with as much information as possible, and this solely to improve the services provided to our people and to give them the satisfaction they so legitimately look for.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), proceedings on the motion have expired.
The House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 16, 1972