1973-01-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, last night President Nixon said that a cease-fire in Viet Nam has been agreed upon. The government is profoundly relieved at this historic news and profoundly grateful for it, as I am sure are all members of the House and all the Canadian people. At long last, it seems, agreement has been reached to stop the fighting in Viet Nam. The way to peace will then lie open. All Canadians will welcome this.
It is now necessary to decide what contribution Canada can make to ensure that peace does indeed come to Viet Nam. What is now in our interests to do, and what can we do effectively? These are the questions we face.
Canada, in our view, will also wish to help in the immense task of relief and reconstruction in Viet Nam. The government has already announced its willingness to do so. The destruction in both North and South Viet Nam is immense. Canada has some experience in providing aid to South Viet Nam but none, of course, in North Viet Nam. The government does not yet know what may be asked of us nor how a larger Canadian program may relate to the efforts of other countries and international organizations. We will have to find the answers to these questions as quickly as Viet Nam returns to conditions in which aid can be effective. As always, we will offer to do what we are best able to do. We will be willing to help in this task anywhere in Viet Nam where we are welcome and where we can be useful.
On November 2 last year, when it seemed a cease-fire agreement was near, the government made a proposal. That proposal was intended to meet the apparent concern of the parties that there should be some form of international presence immediately on the ground from the time of the cease-fire. The proposal was that, for the initial period, Canada would be prepared to place at the disposal of the new international supervisory body the Canadian delegation to the existing international commission, the ICC, as it is commonly called, augmented as necessary.
Our concern was to enable the initial cease-fire arrangements to proceed without delay if the parties so wished. That is very much the problem now.
The government subsequently stated publicly the conditions and considerations on which it would require assurances before it could take a decision on more complete participation in a new commission. It told the parties what these conditions were.
We have only just received the documents which embody the agreement between the United States and North Viet Nam. There has been no time yet to study them carefully, as they will have to be studied. A first look suggests that the conditions and considerations which we communicated to the parties have to some degree contributed to the terms which have been agreed on for the establishment of a new commission.
These are complicated and important documents. It will not be possible to say how far they meet our conditions until they are carefully studied. We already know that an immediate answer to that question will not be possible, if only because we are dealing with documents which have so far been initialed by only two parties. They will not be signed by all four parties until Saturday of this week, only hours before the agreement envisages an international presence on the ground.
In short the situation is this: the government is faced with a choice. It can accept, with whatever reservations are necessary, the role the parties have defined. We are capable of doing so. But this would mean committing Canada to full participation before we knew with any certainty to what extent Canada's conditions are met. At the other extreme, we could refuse to participate because we do not yet know to what degree those conditions are met. But to do this would risk our standing in the way of an end to the fighting, which all Canadians ardently desire to see ended.
The government has concluded that both these extremes are unacceptable. It has therefore decided that when the documents have been accepted by all four parties, and when all four parties have clearly invited Canada to take part, the government will then confirm that Canada is ready to take part initially. This initial participation will be consistent with the position announced on November 2 last.
Canada will be prepared to serve on this limited basis for an initial period of 60 days. Canada will be prepared, during that period, to do what it can to discharge the obligations which would flow from full membership in the new commission. A full and formal reply to the invitation for full membership, however, will have to await a number of things: first, it will have to await a very thorough study and analysis of all the agreements and of the full nature of the parties' commitment to the agreements. It will also have to await the lessons of our experience of participation in the initial stages. It is no secret to anyone

January 24, 1973
Viet Nam
that we have serious doubts about what we are being asked to undertake. Our more formal decision will have to await our judgment of the degree to which our doubts turn out to be justified in practice. We will form that judgment in the initial period of participation, and our full reply to the invitation will be given, with whatever reservations we may find necessary, before the end of that 60-day period.
Meanwhile, let there be no misunderstanding about what Canada will be doing in Viet Nam. We will not be there to keep the peace ourselves; that is for the parties to the cease-fire. What we can do is observe how the parties are fulfilling their obligations under the cease-fire, and report upon this. From time to time, we may be able to help them through mediation. But it is not up to us whether or not there will be peace in Viet Nam. If the parties fulfil their obligations, there can be peace; if they do not, then nothing Canada or any other country on the commission can do will prevent the cease-fire from being broken.
The government will want these interim conclusions to be discussed in parliament. It will introduce a resolution to provide a basis for this debate. Meanwhile, it will provide the cease-fire documents to all parties in the House as quickly as it can. When everyone has had a reasonable opportunity to consider these texts, a time for debate will be fixed by agreement of the House leaders. For its part, the government would be ready to have this debate take place some time next week.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Viet Nam have endured beyond measure a tragedy of indescribable proportions. Every Canadian prays that the cease-fire will lead to a lasting peace. We can do nothing less than seek some means of contributing effectively to such a peace and to the reconstruction of that suffering region.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, to the remarks just made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) I want to add that we all heartily welcome the announcement of peace in Viet Nam. This is a great day for humanity as a whole. Statements made from Washington and Hanoi meet the aspirations of all inhabitants of our planet and also of Canadians who, like their brethren throughout the world, now have greater faith than ever in negotiation as the real means of settling conflicts.
We hope and believe, Mr. Speaker, that the agreement reached yesterday in Paris will bring to Viet Nam a durable peace extending to all Southeast Asia and that the agreement will contribute to the future of peace throughout the world.
Such objectives incite us, as Canadians, to co-operate with other nations in ensuring that the agreement is carried out and in building up peace in Viet Nam and Indochina. This last concern must make us accept Canada's participation to the international conference which, under the very terms of the cease-fire agreement, must be held within the next 30 days. We would then sit with China, France, the Soviet Union and Great Britain.
Before agreeing to any participation by Canada in an international body in order to see that the peace agreement is observed, we have the responsibility to make sure

about the nature and effectiveness of the role which would be ours.
We have a particular responsibility to assume toward all our fellow Canadians, our soldiers, our peace officers, all other countries and, precisely, toward our eventual partners.
Our responsibility in the highly humanitarian task of building a lasting peace urges us, with regard to our participation in the peace control commission, to act with due reflection. We ponder over the pertinent points. It behoves the present government to enlighten the Canadian parliament, the Canadian people, even before a decision is taken. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I welcome with enthusiasm the suggestion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that a debate be held in this House. In anticipation of this debate, I should like to mention a few questions on which the Secretary of State could reflect and to which he could perhaps give us an answer.
It seems to me that the government has had ample time to consider all the implications of the situation. For months now, the Department of External affairs has endeavoured to anticipate the problems involved in our eventual role in Viet Nam. We therefore ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs when and how the last consultations were held with the Canadian ambassador in Paris and in Washington. To what extent did the political authorities of South Viet Nam participate in the Kissing-er-Le Due Tho agreement, notably with regard to the presence of North Viet Namese troops in South Viet Namese territory?
Does the Secretary of State know that the Paris agreement deals essentially with Viet Nam and little or not at all with Cambodia and Laos? Could he, in his statement, comment on the attitude of the government in this regard?
Could the minister inform the House and the Canadian people about the conditions of Canada's participation in the peace control operations in Vietnam, when and how, on each occasion, have those conditions been expressed and to what parties to the conflict? To this day, which party has accepted or refused the conditions put forward by Canada? In each case, what were those conditions?
More specifically still, to this day what position was taken by the outside organization to whom report is to be made? Will this organization be able to intervene in case of disputes?
What is exactly the clause of free access to every part of Viet Nam? Can this free access be extended to Cambodia and Laos?
Where does the present government stand as to the duration of a mission in Viet Nam?
Could the Department of External Affairs be getting ready to accept a provisional mandate as to the nature and duration of this mission so that it could later decide to continue or to withdraw?
Which countries will pay the costs of peacekeeping operations? Have representations been made to date in this respect? How many Canadians will be involved in the force?
January 24, 1973

Is the government aware that Canadian missionaries or others are held prisoners in Viet Nam, Cambodia or Laos? What has the government done in this respect, and what does it intend to do in the near future? If necessary, has Canada contacted Indonesia, Hungary or Poland or will it do so?
These are questions that arose in our minds and also in the minds of a good many Canadians.
We are willing to fulfil our international role and participate in the peace effort, but we want to accomplish our noble duties with the considered responsibility of an autonomous country, knowing why and to what we are committing ourselves.
We do not want Canada to go once more through what it has experienced on the International Control Commission since 1954 or what it has experienced in Cyprus.
The reputation and image of Canada abroad require an enlightened and utterly lucid decision.
While we rejoice in the achievement of a cease-fire members of the House will note that we feel it necessary to raise several questions as to the terms that would govern Canadian participation in any peacekeeping effort in Indochina. Our party takes the position that not only should Canada be prepared to co-operate with the international community in helping to secure a peace but that we owe it to ourselves and to our brethren across the globe to ensure that our participation be effective and sufficiently potent to guarantee some measure of success. There can be little doubt of our country's direct responsibility to participate in any peacekeeping effort. There can be less doubt about our right as a nation to insist on firm and clearcut conditions to our participation.
Essential to our effective participation is a clearcut position on the part of the minister that this parliament and the people of Canada be taken into the government's confidence with regard to the exact way in which our forces might participate. There is no room for anything aside from an open and honest discussion as to the best way for Canadians to discharge their international responsibilities.
It is clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have an opportunity to once again activate the middle power role in world affairs authored by the Hon. Howard Green-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Claude Wagner: -and so brilliantly put to work by the late Right Hon. Lester Pearson.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bell:: You laughed too soon.


Claude Wagner: We must avoid the pious platitudes and naive hopes that can characterize, all too often, the international efforts that never fully succeed. Our posture must be clearcut and direct. We will have a job to do. We are prepared to do our job. We demand the right to ensure that we can do the job properly. I know that the minister
Viet Nam
shares with all members of the House the desire for effective participation and successful organization of our peacekeeping effort. I urge him to deal with strength and wisdom in determining the conditions under which Canada will lend its helping hand. In this way members of all parties in the House can join in endorsing and supporting a very necessary and significant gesture on the part of our nation in the interest of a better and more peaceful world for us all.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the conscience of the whole world has been deeply troubled by the long war in Viet Nam. The whole world can breathe a sigh of relief because this long, bloody, brutal and tragic war is now apparently about to be ended. We are concerned with Canada's contribution to ensure that the peace there is a lasting peace. We can say proudly that Canada has always been ready to make a contribution to assist the world through providing peacekeeping forces and through its efforts in respect of reconstruction in parts of the world devastated by war.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Therefore we welcome the statement the minister has made. We have been good members of the world community. Although there have been many, many difficulties and many, many doubts, we cannot turn down now the opportunity presented to us to contribute to the maintenance of a stable peace in war-torn Viet Nam.
I am glad, however, that the minister has made it clear that he will look very cautiously into the documents, the conditions and the terms in respect of our contribution. I am glad we are to go there as observers only. I know that the parties there, certainly those with whom I have been in touch recently in North Viet Nam, do not want a military force. What they want is observers to ensure that the peace will be kept but not to make peace themselves nor to intervene in any military sense of the word.
I am more than happy to see that Canada proposes to participate in the reconstruction of both North and South Viet Nam. They have been sorely ravaged in one of the most brutal wars in our history. We should do our part in an effort to build up this wounded country.
The minister mentioned one condition which we think is of the utmost importance. It is absolutely vital that there should be an international authority to whom the members of the commission may report. We suggest that the best possible authority in this regard should be the United Nations or its Security Council.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am pleased to see the minister applaud because I really believe the United Nations exists for the purpose of being able to aid in situations like this. It is the expression of the world's conscience, and unless we can build the United Nations we will never have an effective world community.
We in this party are quite determined that no Canadian force should go overseas in any capacity whatever without the approval of this parliament. As I understand the minister's proposal, it is that the matter will be discussed

January 24, 1973
Viet Nam
in parliament before that happens. We think parliament is the authority that should determine this matter.
There are one or two other matters I should like to mention, although I realize this is an occasion for a brief rather than a long statement. I agree with what the minister said, that no arrangement, no international machinery, can work without the good will of the people concerned, without the good will of the parties themselves in Viet Nam. As some hon. members know, I recently had the opportunity of talking to government officials in North Viet Nam and I must say I was impressed with the sincerity of their desire to maintain peace and to maintain their belief in the unity of Viet Nam as a country. Their aim remains the reunification of that country. They now say- and I hope and believe they mean what they say-that this will be achieved by a process of national reconciliation, not by force of arms. If that is the attitude of both parties, then let us hope that once foreign troops are removed from the area the Vietnamese themselves will settle their own problems. I believe I can say that the situation will be approached by one side at least with an attitude of good will and a determination to make that aim succeed.
There was some reference in the settlement, and rightly so, to the return of United States prisoners of war in North Viet Nam. We rejoice that they will be allowed to go home quickly. But this reminds us that in addition there are prisoners in South Viet Nam. I am informed that nearly 300,000 persons, mostly political prisoners, are in the jails of South Viet Nam. The solution to that problem must be part of the solution that is sought in this international reconciliation.
Many of us in this House have for many years had a feeling of agony and unhappiness about Viet Nam. We earnestly pray that a new chapter is opening, and we hope that Canada will be able to play a constructive part in that new chapter of history.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, in his statement the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has nearly promised us a much more important debate for next week after studying the whole text of the agreement just concluded and giving us copies of it. For these reasons, I do not intend to unduly prolong the time allotted to statements today.
However, my colleagues from the Social Credit Party, all other hon. members and myself were very pleased last night to hear the President of the United States proclaim the end of this war which has been lasting for nearly 30 years now.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has inquired about our contribution when the interested parties will not only ask us to oversee the cease-fire but also and especially to establish peace. In brief, what the parties have requested and what American President Nixon refused was not only the end of the war but mainly the assurance of a durable peace and that this assurance be an example for peace throughout the world.
I have noted that in his statement last night Mr. Nixon used the words "peace with honour" at least six times.

Depending on how they are interpreted the problem is not only to save the American honour but rather to gain the honour of a true peace by ending this war. The Secretary of State for External Affairs does not know exactly what will be the Canadian participation following this war, but it seems however that some decisions have been taken for some time because almost 450 military personnel have already been vaccinated and prepared to be sent to Viet Nam following the signature of this agreement. Therefore, this means that certain conversations have already taken place between Canada and the American government. Since this war has lasted so long I think it should be possible for the present generation to love peace as it has not known anything else but a climate of war.
Of course, many thing have to be rebuilt; surely there are many wounded to cure and readapt. In addition to the 450 troops which Canada can dispatch, it would be desirable to mobilize some doctors and nurses to assist the Vietnamese people in recovering from this war.
Mr. Speaker, when we will know more about the complete text of the agreement which will be signed by the parties concerned, then we will be in a better position to give our opinion, to support, to advise the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs on Canada's participation. I think there should be participation even if it is only a humanitarian participation.
Perhaps indirectly, Canada benefited from that war but I think we should help bring back peace to that important part of the world that is Viet Nam.
As the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) mentioned a while ago, there still remains the question of Laos and Cambodia. Not too long ago Prince Sihanouk made a rather disturbing statement. I think that those two countries very close to Viet Nam are very important and suffered the backlash of that war. I think we must also be concerned with finding out what they desire in the establishment of that peace and what they are prepared to do.
Everything considered, Mr. Speaker, I think that the next hours or the days to come will allow us to see to what extent each party is anxious to see a true peace in that part of the world.


HOUSING
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister oi State for Urban Affairs):: 
AGRICULTURE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the adverse weather conditions which have ruined the grain and vegetable crops of thousands of farmers in the Peace River country of British Columbia and northern Alberta, in view of the inadequate government assistance they have been promised, and in view of the fact this disaster has become a matter of national concern, as indicated in the Globe and Mail this morning, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That the government immediately take action to assist these and other farmers by ensuring a stable price for grain, compensation payments that reflect true loss, and a moratorium on capital credit payments and interest.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW BILL
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-132, to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons and of the establishment of new businesses in Canada by certain persons.


[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.)
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount of money in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1970
(b)	March 31, 1971 (c) March 31, 1972?
2.	What rate of interest has the government paid for the use of this money during the fiscal years ending on the dates noted above?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 70 (b) March 31, 1971 (c) March 31,1972?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1970 (b) March 31, 1971 (c) March 31,1972?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. (a) $165,764,567.44; (b) $199,716,533.74; (c) $223,657,501.35.
2.	(a) 4.7862 per cent; (b) 5.3460 per cent; (c) 5.5895 per cent.
3.	(a) $5,454,750.61; (b) $6,908,425.99; (c) $8,325,914.58.
4.	(a) $1,315,474.24; (b) $1,525,344.69; (c) $1,786,016.81.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired Armed Forces personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets (a) less that $20 per month (b) $20 to $29.99 per month
(c)	$30 to $39.99 per month (d) $40 to 49.99 per month (e) $50 to 59.99 per month (f) $60 to $69.99 per month (g) $70 to $79.99 per month (h) $80 to $89.99 per month (i) $90 to $99.99 per month (j) $100 to 149.99 per month (k) $150 to $199.99 per month (1) $200 to 249.99 per month (m) $250 to $299.99 per month (n) $300 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of Armed Forces personnel or of retired Armed Forces personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the total number of retired Armed Forces personnel and also the number of widows of Armed Forces personnel or of retired Armed Forces personnel presently residing in each province?
In respect of how many orphans of Armed Forces personnel are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1.	As of December 31, 1972, the number of retired Armed Forces personnel receiving monthly pensions totalled 38,384 as follows: (a) 54; (b) 74; (c) 151; (d) 270; (e) 253; (f) 213; (g) 334; (h) 418; (i) 552; (j) 3,737; (k) 6,580; (1) 7,541; (m) 5,804; (n) 12,403.
2.	The number of widows receiving monthly pensions totalled 3,634 as follows: (a) 64; (b) 56; (c) 55; (d) 77; (e) 120; (f) 173; (g) 236; (h) 246; (i) 214; (j) 1,067; (k) 722; (1) 275; (m) 167;(n) 162.
	Retired	
	Personnel	Widows
Newfoundland	137	9Prince Edward Island	290	25Nova Scotia	3,358	295
January 24, 1973
Order Paper Questions
3.
	Retired Personnel	Wide
New Brunswick	1,194	128Quebec	3,339	373Ontario	15,680	1,622Manitoba	1,607	152Saskatchewan	475	60Alberta	3,040	247British Columbia	8,033	587Yukon and NWT	61	3Outside Canada	1,170	133
4. 77; $42.70 per month.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount of money in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1970 (b) March 31, 1971 (c) March 31, 1972?
2.	What rate of interest has the government paid for the use of this money during the fiscal years ending on the dates noted above?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March
31.1970	(b) March 31, 1971 (c) March 31,1972?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March
31.1970	(b) March 31,1971 (c) March 31, 1972?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1,	3 and 4. This information is tabled in the House of Commons annually in accordance with Revised Statutes, and also appears annually in the Public Accounts.
2.	See reply to your question No. 35 in Hansard, page 534, dated March 6, 1972. Interest paid since then is as follows: Quarter ending June 1971, 1.3838 per cent; Sept.
1971,	1.3896 per cent; Dec. 1971, 1.4004 per cent; March
1972,	1.4157 per cent.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	In each year 1959 to 1972, both inclusive (a) how many personnel of the Canadian Armed Forces have commenced drawing pensions under the Canadian Forces superannuation Act (b) how many widows have commenced drawing pensions under the said Act?
2.	In each year 1959 to 1972, both inclusive, how many pensions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (a) to retired Canadian Armed Forces personnel (b) to widows of such personnel, have been discontinued because of the death of the annuitant?
3.	In each year 1946 to 1972, both inclusive, how many service personnel contributed to the pension or annuity account under the former Part V or under the provisions of the present Canadian Forces Superannuation Act?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1,	2 and 3. The information requested for the years 19591971, and 1946-1971, was provided in reply to Question No. 36 of the fourth session of the 28th Parliament, on March 6, 1972, at page 534 in the House of Commons Debates (Hansard). The information for 1972 is as follows: 1. (a) 4,405; (b) 420.
2.	(a) 323; (b) 11.
3.	84,933.


Mr. Crouse: Is it the government's intention to construct a federal building at Bridgewater, Nova Scotia and, if so (a) how many government departments will be placed in the new building (b) what is the estimated cost of the new building (c) what are the estimated starting and completion dates for the new building?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, (a) a re-assessment of space requirements will be completed by 1974. (b) In 1971 the estimated cost was $300,000. This is due to be revised in 1974. (c) Estimated start: 1974; Estimated completion: 1975.


Mr. Haliburton: 1.	What is the military personnel complement of CFB Cornwallis at present?
2.	How many individuals have been trained on the base each year since 1963?
3.	How many civil employees have been laid off in each of the past three years?
4.	What capital expenditures have been made on the base in each of the past three years?
5.	What expenditures have been made in renovations on the base in each of the past three years?
6.	What is the projected amount to be spent in the next three years?
7.	(a) For what purpose is CFB Cornwallis presently being used (b) are there to be changes in the near future concerning these uses?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1.	411.
2.	Statistics prior to 1968 are not available. The following number of recruits have received training at CFB Cornwallis: 1969-70, 5,222; 1970-71, 3,736; 1971-72, 2,402; 1972-73, 3,476 (forecast). In addition, 1,500 Sea Cadets undergo training each summer.
3.	1969-70, 22 term and 1 indeterminate; 1970-71, 17 term and 1 indeterminate; 1971-72, 16 term; 1972-73, 152 term (1 Apr-Dee 31).
4.	1969-70, $138,000; 1970-71, $226,000; 1971-72, $930,000; 1972-73, $492,700 (estimated).
5.	1969-70, $639,700; 1970-71, $562,500; 1971-72, $932,300; 1972-73, $954,000 (estimated).
6.	The construction and maintenance allotments for the next three years are still under review and no firm figures can be given at this time.
7.	(a) CFB Cornwallis provides base support for the Canadian Forces Recruit School, and summer training of Sea Cadets, (b) In an endeavour to realize operation and maintenance savings and therefore increase the cost/ef-fectiveness of a total base support, a continuous review is carried out to plan base posture for the whole of the Candaian Forces. As of this date, no specific recommendation has been formulated in regard to any change in the future of CFB Cornwallis.
January 24, 1973


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many bushels of wheat as of (a) July 30, 1972 (b) December 31, 1972 remained to be delivered under existing contracts with (i) Mainland China (ii) the Soviet Union?
2.	At what dates do existing contracts with both Mainland China and the Soviet Union expire?


Hon. Otto Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is as follows: 1. (i) (a) At July 31 110.5 million bushels remained to be delivered against two outstanding contracts with the People's Republic of China, (b) At December 31 98.1 million bushels remained to be delivered against three outstanding contracts with the People's Republic of China, a third contract having been entered into on November 8, (ii) (a) At July 31, 190.2 million bushels remained to be delivered against two outstanding contracts with the U.S.S.R. (b) At December 31 100.1 million bushels remained to be delivered.
2. Existing contracts with the People's Republic of China will have all expired by October 31, 1973. Existing contracts with the U.S.S.R. will have expired by July 31 except for an option to extend shipments of minor quantities of wheat and flour to Cuba to the end of December.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	How many ships does the Department of National Defence have in Class C, or operational reserve?
2.	What are the names of these ships?
3.	How many personnel would be required to man these ships to go to sea in an operational role?
4.	How many ships will there be in Class C or operational reserve when the four new Tribal destroyers become operational?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. Four.
HMCS Saskatchewan, Skeena, St. Laurent, and St. Croix.
3.	880 officers and men.
4.	In anticipation of the four new Tribal class destroyers
becoming operational in late 1974, the number of ships to be maintained in Category C, operational reserve, is being reviewed.


Mr. Orlikow: How many members of the Canadian Armed Forces were there in each rank as of March 3i, 1968 and as of March 31, 1972 and what were the salary ranges for each rank on those two dates?


James Armstrong Richardson: 


[Stage Direction]
Rank	As of March 31, 1968	Salary Range as of March 31, 1968	As of March 31, 1972	Salary Range as of March 31, 1972Gen	i	$28,750	i	$40,000-45,000Lgen	6	26,004	7	28,000-35,000Mgen	24	23,760	25	25,000-31,000
Order Paper Questions
[Stage Direction]
As of	Salary Range
March	as of
Rank	31, 1968	March 31, 1968
As of	Salary Range
March	as of
31, 1972	March 31, 1972
Bgen	81	20,100-	21,300	69	22,000-28,000	Col	320	16,848-	17,928	293	21,120-23,520	.Lcol	996	13,560-15,240	862	17,340-	-19,860Maj	3,244	11,172-	12,972	2,879	14,640-16.740	Capt	7,179	8,724-	10,524	7,173	10,620-	-14,040Lt	3,310	0,756-	- 9,024	2,089	6,660-	10, 8002Lt	274	4,428-	- 5,124	163	4,800	Cdt	2,309	2,244-	2,304	1,686	2,400-	- 2,580Cwo	1,001	8,040-	[DOT] 9,648	817	11,688-	-13,248Mwo	2,751	7,020-	8,340	2,339	10.332-	-12,024Wo	5,197	6,444-	7,644	4,649	9.300-11,172	Sgt	11,771	6,084-	7,284	10,250	8,352-	-10,332Me pi	1,057	5,520-	6,564	5,951	7,584-	- 9,300Cpl	35,654	.5,400 -	6,444	29,584	7,284-	- 9,0001'te 4	9,957	4, 176-	5,340	5,302	5,400-	- 7,200Pte 3	8,821	3,672-	3,864	5,268	4,440-	- 4,920I'te 2	5,102	2,808	1,979	3,540	Pte 1	1,283	2,580	1,583	3,240	
The salaries shown exclude: pay authorized for pilot, navigator, flight engineer, medical, dental and legal officers; and pay authorized for men, corporals and above, in the trades of flight engineer and observer.
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Can a person employed by the government, by one of its departments or by any federal Commission be responsible for or sponsor a Local Initiatives Program and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Yes. However, a person employed by the government, by one of its departments or by any federal Commission is not eligible for financial remuneration for being responsible for or sponsoring a project under the Programme.


Mr. Leggall: 1.	What was the total number of applications received under the Canada Manpower Mobility program for assistance in the fiscal year ended 1972, by province?
2.	How many of these applications were approved, by province?
3.	How many of these applications were rejected, by province?
4.	What was the total operating cost for the program for the fiscal year ended 1972, by province?


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister of Manpower and Immigration: 1. No records of applications have been kept between March 31, 1969 and June 1, 1972 due to a revised method of maintaining statistics on the program. It is therefore not possible to identify applications during that period which includes the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1972.
2.	See 1 above
3.	See 1 above

January 24, 1973
Order Paper Questions
(4) Provinces	1971/72 $ 495,959
Newfoundland	
Prince Edward Island	95,108
Nova Scotia	535,558
New Brunswick	362,195
Quebec	3,333,932
Ontario	1,800,466
Manitoba	333,461
Saskatchewan	581,379
Alberta	494,089
Northwest Territories	56,871
British Columbia	766,286
Yukon Territory	41,768
Canada	8,897,072
PATENTS HELD BY NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL	

Question No. 249-Mr. Andre:	
1. How many patents are held by or Research Council?	on behalf of the National
2. From how many patents are royalties being realized and what was the cumulative amount realized during the fiscal year 1971-72?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: In
so far as the National Research Council of Canada and Canadian Patents and Development Limited are concerned, the answer is as follows: 1. As at March 31, 1972, Canadian Patents and Development Limited administered 350 inventions originating at the National Research Council of Canada; 124 of these inventions were licensed.
2. During the fiscal year 1971-72, Canadian Patents and Development Limited received royalties of $146,904.83 from licences covering 108 inventions.


Mr. Hees: 1.	Has the government made any purchase or are they in the process of making a purchase of any property or properties on the south side of Wellington Street between Elgin Street and Bank Street and, if so, what property or properties is or are involved, and what is the purchase price of each?
2.	If expropriation proceedings are not being used, was any pressure brought to bear on any owner to sell to the government?
3.	Does the government intend to use any building that is so acquired and, if so, for what purpose?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 1.
Yes. Negotiations have been completed for the purchase of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company land and building on Wellington Street and, in addition, the Orme property also owned by Metropolitan Life, on the north side of Sparks Street, which is complementary to the Metropolitan Life site frontage on Sparks Street. The purchase price of the Metropolitan Life building and holdings is $15,200,000 and the estimated cost of relocation of computer equipment is $250,000.
2. No.

3. Yes. The Government is urgently in need of additional office accommodation in Ottawa and the Metropolitan Life building is ideally located for government needs and is in good condition. There are a number of departmental requirements which could be met in this building having regard for the termination date of a number of existing leases and as well it would be equally available for alternative use such as parliamentary support groups or any parliamentary requirement.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers Nos. 1, 30, and 46 are acceptable to the government. Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No.-
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. parliamentary secretary hold his fire for just one moment. I believe he has referred to notices of motions Nos. 1, 30 and 46. Is it the pleasure of the House that these notices of motions be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 1-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That an Order of the House do issue for a return showing, by electoral districts, the total amount of election expenses on behalf of each candidate in the General Election of October 30, 1972, as indicated in the return respecting election expenses submitted on behalf of each candidate, as required under the provisions of Section 63 of the Canada Elections Act; and showing also the names, by electoral districts, of any candidates on whose behalf election expense returns have not been submitted.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 30-Mr. Forrestall:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all federal plebescites or referenda held since 1867, with the wording as it appeared on the ballot, the results and the statutory provision in each case.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 46-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the list of pharmaceutical companies that comply with government standard 74-GP-l(c) prepared for the government by the Canadian Government Advisory Board on Drug Procurement.
January 24, 1973
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 2 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 2 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 2-Mr. Coates:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda, and other documents involved in the reorganization and computerization of the Customs Division of the Department of National Revenue.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Baldwin:: Pretty poor service.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising from his statement today. I should like to ask whether the government intends to have the debate on the resolution dealt with by the House before any of the Canadian participants under this new proposal leave the country, or is the minister reserving the position he expressed in the House last week, that the government might find it necessary to dispatch participants before the matter comes before the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the second position enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition is the position the government takes. We have been asked to have some of our observers on site as soon as possible. If in fact the agreements are signed and we are asked to participate by all
Oral Questions
four parties, we would intend to send some personnel without delay, probably over the weekend.


VIET NAM-CEASE-FIRE AGREEMENT-DISCUSSION WITH OTHER PROPOSED PARTICIPANTS IN SUPERVISORY COMMISSION-METHOD OF REPORTING
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he or the government has had any discussions with the other three proposed participants in this operation, particularly as to how the operation will function in view of what I understand to have been difficulties in the past regarding the ICC being able to operate in an effective manner?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, now that the government has made the decision I have announced in the House today we are in a position to talk to the other proposed members. It is our plan this afternoon to provide the United States, the North Vietnamese, Saigon and the Viet Cong or P.R.G. with copies of the statement, and also to provide copies to the other proposed members of the commission and to ask them what their intentions are. Once we know whether they intend to participate we will then be in a position to proceed to have talks with them about the functioning of the proposed commission.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the intention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to insist that the Canadian participants should be able to report on their own, or is it the intention that the combined organization of countries would have to report as a unit?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have examined the sections of the protocol dealing with this question and I think they meet our position fairly well. There is a rule of unanimity on reports made by the commission to any of the parties, but it is also provided that the individual countries may make individual reports.


VIET NAM-CEASE-FIRE AGREEMENT-NAMING OF FOUR MEMBERS OF SUPERVISORY COMMISSION IN PROTOCOL-NATURE OF INVITATION TO CANADA TO PARTICIPATE
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct one or two questions to the minister in relation to his statement. Do I gather from his statement and the answers to the questions asked that the four countries mentioned in press reports are actually named in the protocol dealing with the observer force after the cease-fire-Canada, Indonesia, Hungary and Poland? Are they named in the protocol which presumably will be signed by all parties to the war next Saturday?


Mitchell William Sharp: I cannot answer that. I can say that they are the intended members. I am sorry I have not examined the protocol in sufficient detail to find out whether the names are actually there, but each of the proposed members has been notified by the members who are parties to the

January 24, 1973
Oral Questions
proposed agreement that they are being asked to participate.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I follow up the question because I think it is basic to the possibility of the commission working well. Has Canada been asked by all the parties to the unfortunate war or have we been asked by only one of the parties, and if we have so far been approached directly by only one of the parties, will the government undertake not to dispatch forces from Canada until it has a clear invitation from all the parties who are to be signatories to the agreement?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can be quite categorical. We will not dispatch any troops unless we have had a clear invitation from all the parties to the proposed truce which will be expressed in a formal document that we hope will be signed on Saturday in Paris. We will not send any troops or any observers of any kind until we are satisfied that we have been invited by all the parties.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South for a further supplementary question and then the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings for his supplementary.


David Lewis: To follow that up, Mr. Speaker, may I then ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he expects that the government may likely dispatch forces this weekend and, if not, is it not possible for parliament to have the debate he suggested next Monday before any forces are sent from this country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in the protocol, which we did not negotiate but which has now been submitted to us, it is contemplated that members of the supervisory commission will be in place in Viet Nam within 48 hours after the signing of the agreement. We are not bound by this document; we did not negotiate it. The question we have to decide is whether we accept the obligations. However, we do think it highly desirable that as soon as possible after the truce is signed we discharge our responsibilities as I have outlined them in the statement I made today. Therefore it is our intention, if in fact we are invited by signature of the agreements on Saturday by all four parties, to begin without delay to send some men or some observers to Viet Nam. So the answer is that over this weekend it may well be that some of the Canadian observers will be travelling to Viet Nam.


VIET NAM-CEASE-FIRE AGREEMENT-SIZE OF CANADIAN ELEMENT IN SUPERVISORY COMMISSION-STATE OF READINESS AND EQUIPMENT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. As Canada has now indicated its willingness to serve on the cease-fire supervisory force, at least for the first 60 days, and as the days immediately following next Saturday are the most critical for the success of the cease-fire, would the minister advise the House now as to the size of the force Canada has ready to dispatch as of Saturday, if the proper clearances are completed, when that force will be ready to leave, and what kind of arms it will be equipped with?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question, it looks now as though the total number of personnel that Canada will be asked to provide is 290. That includes support personnel as well as those who will be observing. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, we will be ready to send the first plane as soon as the agreement has been signed on the weekend. As to armament, this is not an armed force but some of the personnel, perhaps all of them, will carry a sidearm, a pistol, for personal protection.


VIET NAM-ACTION TO SECURE FREEDOM OF LLOYD OPPEL, BELIEVED TO BE HELD NEAR HANOI
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question with reference to our agreement to send a supervisory force to Viet Nam. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs assure the House that during negotiations leading up to the ceasefire, in which we all rejoice, every effort has been made to secure the freedom of the Canadian missionary, Mr. Lloyd Oppel, who was taken prisoner in Laos last October and is now believed to be held near Hanoi?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I have said, Canada was not involved in the negotiation of any of these agreements. Needless to say, we are not in the war in Viet Nam. However, we have been endeavouring to obtain the release of this missionary.


VIET NAM-CEASE-FIRE AGREEMENT-ESTABLISHMENT OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH NORTH AND SOUTH
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact the statement he has made contemplates increased contacts and relationships with both North Viet Nam and South Viet Nam, will steps be taken to establish diplomatic relations so that we can have an adequate staff to look after matters in these countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the question of the establishment of diplomatic relations with North and South Viet Nam is under review now.


VIET NAM-CEASE-FIRE AGREEMENT-SUGGESTED PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL MEDICAL PERSONNEL
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. Secretary of State a supplementary question.
Besides examining the possibility of sending military personnel to Viet Nam, did the minister also consider increasing the medical personnel to help the wounded of that country recover?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are already providing some
January 24, 1973

medical personnel in South Viet Nam, and certainly we would be prepared to help in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of those two war-ravaged parts of Viet Nam by providing medical personnel.


VIET NAM-CEASE-FIRE AGREEMENT-PAYMENT OF CANADIAN EXPENDITURES RESPECTING SUPERVISORY COMMISSION OTHER THAN PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF PERSONNEL
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the question I ask arises because of the fact that we have a supervisory force in Cyprus and have had for several years. Canada is the only nation that pays all its expenditures connected with that force, totalling some $3 million a year. Will the extra expenditures over and above pay and allowances for this new force be paid by Canada or by the United Nations?


Mitchell William Sharp: I wish I could join the right hon. gentleman in being so certain that the United Nations will be involved. I take the same view as the spokesman for the New Democratic Party, that it would be very useful if the United Nations could be involved in this matter. But the position at the present time, according to the protocol, is that the pay and allowances of the forces provided by each of the participants in the supervisory force would be met by that country. In other words, this is a contribution by each country to the cause of peace. There is some question about the payment of what might be termed the operating expenses of the commission. Originally, when this was first put to us, it was suggested that we should be prepared to think in terms of putting up, in addition to pay and allowances, 10 per cent of the budget of the commission. I took great exception to this and said that we were not preaching for a call, we did not want to buy our way into this organization. Therefore it appears-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure the House would like to know what the minister has in mind and would grant him the opportunity to finish his answer because he is always so terse.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously the minister had not yet reached the terse part of his statement.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question for the minister, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister now proceed to tell us what the answer is?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the right hon. member for Prince Albert wishes to ask the minister a supplementary question, and that will give the minister an opportunity to complete his statement.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can go as far as to bundle the same way as the hon. gentleman has with the NDP again.


Mr. MacEachen:: You should have been here last Thursday. You missed that party.
Oral Questions


John George Diefenbaker: I ask him this: have we his assurance that Canada will not again be in the same position as it is now in Cyprus, and has been for the last several years, of having to spend millions of dollars a year financing a force there which should have been financed by the United Nations? Has he been in touch with the United Nations for the purpose of ascertaining whether that body is going to co-operate and assure that expenditures are not divided among the several countries making their contribution?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, neither North Viet Nam nor South Viet Nam is a member of the United Nations. They have not been involved in these discussions. It is our hope that the Secretary General of the United Nations might be invited to the international peace conference. In that way we might get the United Nations involved. May I complete the last sentence of my previous statement, Mr. Speaker, namely, that in the protocol which has come to hand today it is suggested that each of the members of the supervisory commission, in addition to paying the pay and allowances of their own personnel, should pay 2 per cent of the budget of the commission.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the estimate of that?


Mitchell William Sharp: The amounts involved are quite small; I do not think that more than some thousands of dollars are involved.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of hon. members are rising to ask supplementaries. Perhaps we could have two or three further supplementaries and then go to the next subject. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich has a further supplementary.


VIET NAM-ACTION TO SECURE FREEDOM OF LLOYD OPPEL, BELIEVED TO BE HELD NEAR HANOI
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, is the House to take it from the answer given earlier by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that as of the moment we have no assurance of the release of Lloyd Oppel?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would have to make inquiries. Perhaps I can then be more re-assuring than I have been.


VIET NAM-CEASE-FIRE AGREEMENT-COMPOSITION OF PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since he has seen the cease-fire agreement and the protocols, may I ask him if they envisage the calling of an international conference after the signing of the agreement next Saturday, what nations will be represented at that conference, and is it envisaged from the protocols that such a conference would set up the necessary machinery to which the observers may report violations from time to time, and which can take action upon them?
606

January 24, 1973
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet perused the documents themselves. They arrived in Ottawa just a few minutes before the House met. However, I am advised that they do provide for the calling of an international conference 30 days from the date of the truce and that, if we were a member of the international commission, we would be invited. The other members would be the permanent members of the Security Council, plus the belligerents in Viet Nam.


REDISTRIBUTION OF RIDINGS SUGGESTED AMENDMENT OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT TO MAINTAIN PRESENT LEVEL OF MEMBERSHIP IN CERTAIN PROVINCES
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the House whether the government is considering the possibility of amending the Canadian constitution in order to increase the number of members, so that certain provinces will not be without an adequate representation in parliament after the next redistribution?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think that I said last week or the week before that the problem had actually been drawn to the attention of the cabinet which is now considering it. As I then pointed out, the House must understand that one of the solutions would be to increase substantially the number of mem bers and that the ratio of members would still be the same, regardless of their number, because under the constitution and also in all fairness, I believe, representation must be proportional to the population.
Consequently, even though the total number of members were increased, the ratio would remain the same.


REDISTRIBUTION OF RIDINGS-SUGGESTION THAT QUEBEC REPRESENTATION BE USED AS BASIS
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister if, among the schemes considered by the cabinet, there is one which could be based on a quotient established in the province of Quebec, by constituency, and which would be used to establish the number of members for other provinces so that the number of members would be increased and the representation would be more equitable.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member does recall, the formula he suggests was prevailing at the beginning of the constitution of Canada and had been ratified by the British North America Act of 1867. Previous parliaments have altered the formula so that the number of Quebec members would not be fixed but could differ from the other provinces. I do not think that hon. members would wish to go back to the previous situation as suggested by the hon. member.


REDISTRIBUTION OF RIDINGS-MAINTENANCE OF PRESENT LEVEL OF MEMBERSHIP IN CERTAIN PROVINCES BY ADDRESS TO WESTMINSTER OR PASSAGE OF STATUTE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Prime Minister and is related to the answer he has just given, as well as the one he gave me last week, respecting increasing the number of members in the chamber, thereby avoiding the necessity of there being any reduction in the representation of the provinces of Newfoundland, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. In view of the fact that consideration is being given to this by the government, in the event that a change is to be made, has the government in mind having an address passed by parliament to the parliament at Westminster to make the necessary constitutional change-


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: It isn't
necessary.


John George Diefenbaker: -or has consideration been given to whether such changes could be made by a statute passed by this parliament? I do not accept that, but I wonder if consideration is being given to it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the view which would prevail would probably be that under section 91(1) of the BNA Act it could be done by statute of parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -but I do realize, Mr. Speaker, that the other view could be held by people who believe it to be in provincial interests. I must say that this problem has not been studied to this point by the government. It is one on which studies have been made in the past. I do not think that it is really the difficult problem facing this House. The difficult problem, as I just stated in my answer to the hon. member who belongs to the Social Credit party, is to realize that even if we increased the number of members in the House of Commons the provinces with lesser populations or lessening populations would still have the same proportion, or a lesser proportion of members, compared with those provinces that have increasing populations.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question in order to be perfectly clear. Does the Prime Minister suggest that a change can be made in the membership of the House, in view of the provisions in the British North America Act as well as all amendments to that act that have taken place, by the simple act of a statute passed by this parliament? Does he say that the law officers of the Crown have that view? If he does, it is the end of the constitution.


Gerald William Baldwin: They will probably do it by Governor General's warrant.
January 24, 1973


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the munificent Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can he advise whether he still intends to present legislation at an early date fulfilling his promise of a substantial increase in old age security pensions, or has he now decided to hold discussions with his provincial counterparts before bringing in this measure of relief for Canada's senior citizens?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have contacted my provincial colleagues these past few days and, following these consultations, I have invited them to a meeting called for next Friday, February 2-that is for one day only-in order to discuss this whole question and I hope I can then introduce the required legislation in a near enough future.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if the timing and the amount of this pension increase and indeed, the introduction of the legislation are geared to approval by the provincial counterparts of the minister, or does he plan to hold to his original promise to the House to proceed in any case?


Marc Lalonde: The answer is no to the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker. Obviously the discussions taking place are consultations, and no veto power is envisaged for any or all of the provinces.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Do I take it that the minister is in fact going to proceed with his own plan regardless of the views of the provinces? In that case, what is the purpose of the conference?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Following the conference held the past few days in Ottawa and following the presentation by the minister of the proposal of the federal government to provide $100 million for the assembly of land and that proposal having been universally rejected by the provinces as being inadequate, would the minister inform the House whether he is considering substantially increasing that amount before he brings the proposed amendments to the National Housing Act before the House?


Stanley Ronald Basford: First of all, Mr. Speaker, that budgetary level is not pro-
Oral Questions
vided for in the amendments; second, the figure was not universally rejected; third, it is more than double any figure the provinces have spent in the past and I have urged them to spend at least what they are permitted. I would be interested to see action in this regard. Fourth, I suggested, and it was agreed, that there should be immediate intergovernmental consultation on the development of a coherent land strategy for such purposes as determining what the appropriate investment, federally, provincially and municipally, in land assembly should be.


SUGGESTED CHANGE IN REGULATIONS DEFINING FAMILY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I can see that we are going to get no change in that respect so I shall try another. In view of the fact that the proposed changes as outlined by the government define a family as constituting three people and as that would exclude the thousands of families with only two members already existing in the country, in the same government revisions is the minister proposing to change his proposed definition and bring it in line with the desires expressed by some provinces?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is referring to is suggestions made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation about what possible regulations there might be. I have not accepted the size of a family as being two or three or otherwise. There were representations made for the purpose of the regulations on behalf of single parent families and I think the regulations should take into account the provision within the section that the hon. member has referred to of single parent families.


LAND ASSEMBLY PROGRAM-DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCES-REQUEST FOR FORMULA TO REDUCE LAND COSTS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of answer just given by the minister with regard to provincial representations concerning the $100 million, which everybody agrees is inadequate, and in view of the high cost of building houses on land in urban centres, may I ask the minister whether any formula was agreed to that would bring down the cost of land so that more than 4 per cent of the population of Toronto could afford to buy a new home?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the amount that the hon. member says is inadequate is over five times more than his party indicated its contribution would be during the election campaign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that the minister and the hon. member asking the question will appreciate that this is debate. Perhaps the hon. member has a supplementary question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if the minister would mind answering whether there was any discussion of the high
608

January 24, 1973
Oral Questions
cost of land which is preventing most of the average income group from buying new homes? Was there any agreement between the federal government and the representatives from the various provinces on a formula or was there not? Could I have a categorical answer, yes or no?


An hon. Member:: Louder!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, there was, Mr. Speaker. I was very pleased and delighted that the provinces accepted my proposals on this subject at the conference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the minister mind telling the House briefly what the formula is to bring down the high cost of land which is preventing the average income group from purchasing homes in the various urban centres?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister that if he wants to convey this information he should do so by way of a statement on motions.


DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCES AT CONFERENCE ON REDUCTION OF MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Were there any discussions with regard to the high interest rates on mortgages and what proposals did the minister make to bring these down so that ordinary folk may buy homes?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, that particular subject is not referred to in the communique but there were discussions at the conference about the bill on financial mechanisms which I hope to introduce shortly and which is designed to bring more money into the capital market for housing.


Mr. Speaker:: There are a number of hon. members who want to ask supplementaries, but we will be running out of time very soon. I suggest that hon. members try to cut down on the number of supplementaries so as to give other members an opportunity to ask their questions. Perhaps there might be two or three supplementaries at the most on this subject and then we will go to the next matter.


PUBLIC HOUSING PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR CONTINUED SUPPORT BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
John Gilbert: In view of the fact that the assisted home ownership program still assists purchasers with incomes between $6,000 and $9,000 and that the present subsidized rental program assists people with incomes below $5,000, would the minister assure the House that there will be no reduction in the capital allocation with regard to the subsidized rental program and no curtailment or phasing out of that program?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I assured the provinces of our continued support within the law of CMHC public housing pro-

grams. The amount of budget to be allocated to it would be a matter of consultation and co-ordination with each province involved. I think the provinces that have public housing programs were quite satisfied with my undertakings in that regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Again, I bring to the attention of hon. members that we will be running short of time. Perhaps we might have a last supplementary from the hon. member for St. John's West, and then we should go on to the next subject. If we have run out of questioners before the end of the question period, we might return to this subject.


LAND ASSEMBLY PROGRAM-POSSIBLE DISCUSSION WITH MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the municipalities were not directly represented at the recent conference, as promised by the minister in the House on January 16, will the municipalities be involved in the minister's federal-provincial land strategy which he referred to a moment ago?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to get agreement that housing would be discussed at the tri-level conference next November where the municipalities will be represented, and that the land development strategy would come up for consideration then.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister use his good offices to intervene in the current Wardair strike? I ask this question because of the national implications which threaten air traffic across Canada.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. An officer of my department is endeavouring to get in touch with the parties for the purpose of finding some basis to arrive at a settlement.


AIR TRANSPORT
Duncan M. Beattie: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister now in a position to answer the question regarding the enforcement of air flight safety regulations, as promised by him on January 22?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question in the House. In all cases where there is a strike we monitor the flights. We
January 24, 1973

are implementing the regulations and are very strict about air flight standards.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Can he tell us when he will introduce in this House the legislative measure announced in the Speech from the Throne and which purports to bring a solution to the serious problems of feed grains which heavily affect eastern agricultural producers?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have promised that before the new crop year that will be done.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration if it is the government's intention to introduce amendments in the very near future to the Immigration Act so that the confusion surrounding the arbitrary order in council can be clarified?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as announced in the Speech from the Throne it is the government's intention to introduce legislation amending the Immigration Appeal Board Act.


William Skoreyko: Can the minister advise the House whether all the so-called visitor immigrants to Canada will have an opportunity to be heard by the Immigration Appeal Board before any further action is taken by the government?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, if that question refers to all the visitors in Canada I think that would give rise to an impossible situation since there are several hundred thousand visitors here at any given moment.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is misunderstanding me. I am talking about the visitor immigrants in Canada who wish to obtain landed status and are waiting to have their appeals heard by the Immigration Appeal Board. Will they be heard by the Immigration Appeal Board before any further action is taken?
Oral Questions


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the Immigration Appeal Board has a backlog of some 12,000 appeals before it and its ability to handle them is limited to a capacity of 1,500 a year. Obviously, this matter will form the subject matter of some of the amendments that we hope to bring before the House to relieve this congestion. Therefore it would be impossible for the board to hear all those appeals before the legislation is brought before the House, unless that is done several years from now.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. First, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. lady on her appointment to this important position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Is the minister arranging to have scientific evidence tabulated, checked for accuracy and assessed for judgment when given at judicial or quasi-judicial hearings involving federal projects or projects in which the federal government has an interest? I am referring to the hearings-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked his question. Perhaps the minister might reply. If the hon. member has a supplementary he may ask it afterwards.


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take note of this question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of the fact that the hearing I was referring to is the James Bay hearing, perhaps the Minister of Transport or the Minister of the Environment could provide an answer.


Gerald William Baldwin: They have enough trouble as it is.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, may I address one final supplementary to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister consider reorganizing the cabinet responsibilities so that the various ministers concerned will know which minister is responsible, if any is, and for what? None of them seems to know now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a representation, not a question. The hon. member must assume that it will be taken into consideration.

January 24, 1973

Oral Questions SOCIAL SECURITY


RETIRED RAILWAY WORKERS-REPRESENTATIONS BY MINISTER RESPECTING INCREASE IN PENSIONS
Mr. Raymond Dupont (Sainte-Marie):: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having noticed that the member for Sainte-Marie now sits on the other side of the House.


AIRPORTS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of his answer yesterday. Does the government now intend to expropriate the Burkeville area of Sea Island?
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether there have been new developments with regard to pensioned-off railroaders, which question concerns thousands of Canadian railroaders?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure how urgent the matter is. Perhaps the minister might reply. I suggest that normally a question of this nature should be placed on the order paper. If the minister can answer he may do


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have been advised of a beneficial development in this area. As I understand it, the company, as a result of representations made to it by an organization representing the employees, has agreed to raise the pension by 2 per cent, effective on January 1.


RETIRED PUBLIC SERVANTS, ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL AND RCMP PENSIONS-STATUS OF CONSIDERATION OF RAISING OR REMOVING CEILING ON ESCALATION
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the assurance given by the minister toward the end of the previous session that consideration would be given to raising or removing the 2 per cent ceiling on the escalation of pensions of retired public servants and also retired armed forces and RCMP personnel, can the minister say what is now the status of that consideration?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in view of the genesis of the 2 per cent figure in the Superannuation Act, namely, its relationship to the Canada Pension Plan, perhaps these two matters could be looked at together.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister also tell us what is the status of the consideration being given to providing for the escalation of the pensions of armed forces and RCMP personnel compulsorily retired prior to the age of 60, in order that their escalation may commence without their having to wait until they are 60?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think I assured the hon. gentleman in the previous session that this was being sympathetically considered. I think, if we are to open up the Superannuation Act and the Armed Forces Pension Act, they should be opened up at the same time in order to cut down debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us do it now, Mr. Speaker.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think all these questions concerning expropriation should be directed to the Minister of Public Works who is in charge of such matters.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: At present he is too busy sinking barges.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, may I direct the same question to the Minister of Public Works. Does the government now intend to expropriate the Burkeville area of Sea Island?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, a hearing has taken place with respect to the Burkeville area and the hearing officer submitted his report two days ago. A decision will be taken shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has a supplementary to the previous question.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board and relates to the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The hon. member asked a question about compulsory retirement of members of the armed forces and the RCMP. I did not catch the minister's answer. Is it not a fact that there is no authority for retiring anybody compulsorily and that those forcibly retired, whether members of the RCMP or of the armed forces, are entitled to the same privileges that the government now provides to civil servants?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made any reference to compulsory retirement. He was discussing another topic.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I would need to be supported on my question of privilege by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I distinctly heard the reference made to members of the armed forces
January 24, 1973

and the RCMP being compulsorily retired or forced into retirement before the age of 60. I would ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to verify that part of the question he put to the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre does that, perhaps I might suggest that this matter might be raised other than as a question of privilege. I must bring to the attention of hon. members that we have reached the end of the question period.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a further question of privilege. When a question is put to a minister I do not think that minister should impute motives or imply that the question was not properly asked in the first place. The minister has no right to imply that I have put an improper question, or that I made a reference to another hon. member's question improperly. I made a proper reference to that question and I do not think it is the minister's place to deny me that privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



POST OFFICE


Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder, before Your Honour calls orders of the day, if I might direct a question to the Postmaster General in view of the fact that the government is now adopting a more reasonable attitude.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member who has been trying to get the floor for some time. I would have liked to recognize him but we ran out of time about three minutes ago. He may ask the question with the consent of the House. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Ouellet:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the matter could be held in abeyance until tomorrow, when I will give the hon. member priority.


André Ouellet: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be of interest to this House to know that a protocol d'entente was signed at 3.15 this afternoon.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: On the backs of the Canadian public.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister having used a question of privilege to make an announcement to the House, I think hon. members will recognize that, in all fairness, the hon. member for St. John's East should be allowed to ask his question now.
Unemployment Insurance Act


James Aloysius McGrath: The Postmaster General anticipated my question. We are all pleased to know that this long-standing dispute is now settled. My question to the Prime Minister is this: In view of the success of the Postmaster General in concluding a satisfactory agreement on this long-standing dispute, will he now ask the Postmaster General to take over from the President of the Treasury Board all further negotiations with public servants?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the minister is rising on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say I support the suggestion of the hon. gentleman. In all future negotiations with the Post Office, the Postmaster General should conduct them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister of Manpower and Immigration: that Bill C-124, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 1), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, reference was made to the government's intention to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act as a result of its review of the unemployment insurance program. Subsequently, in fact last Wednesday, two bills were tabled in this House, Bill C-124 and Bill C-125, containing those amendments. The first one, Bill C-124, is before us today. It deals specifically with the ceiling on cash advances.
As I indicated before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates the other day, there is extreme urgency in considering this bill since current advances available to the Unemployment Insurance Commission are, I am advised by the commission, sufficient only until February 7, give or take a day or two. I hope to find all members of that committee and, indeed, all members of this House in agreement that we should not arrive at a situation where benefits to the unemployed of this country would be cut off.
There are three main reasons why advances are required. First, as hon. members are no doubt aware, when the unemployment level exceeds 4 per cent, the government pays the resulting additional benefit costs. However, the government's share of the total costs for a given calendar year is not paid to the commission until April of the following year. Therefore, the government is responsible in law for advancing moneys to cover that cash requirement.

January 24, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act
Second, since the amounts of employers and employees contributions and employee benefits are dependent upon the level of employment and unemployment, this creates weekly fluctuations in the unemployment insurance account so as to require advances at various times.
Third, when revenue from employers and employees during the calendar year is not sufficient to completely cover their share of the costs of unemployment insurance benefits, and of administration advances are required to cover that deficiency.
The benefits paid out for the calendar year 1972 were $1,879 million and the administration costs were approximately $120 million for a total program cash requirement of roughly $2 billion. Of this, $890 million, approximately, was the government's direct cost and this will be reflected in the main estimates to be tabled by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) later in this session. The remainder, $1,109 million, is chargeable to the employer-employee premium account. Received from the Department of National Revenue, the collecting agency, for that premium account was $715 million during 1972, based upon estimates of anticipated premium receipts. The final figure of actual premium remittances will not be known until mid-summer 1973 when all income tax returns and T-4 slips are in and tallied.
If that amount of $715 million turns out to have been accurate, and noting that the opening unemployment insurance account balance was $236 million, this means that there will have been an accounting shortfall of $394 million in premium revenue and a cash deficit for 1972 of $158 million in the employer-employee account. Advances required, then, as these figures would indicate, reached an amount in excess of $1 billion for the calendar year 1972.
The Unemployment Insurance Act, section 137(4), establishes a ceiling of $800 million on cash advances. On October 5, 1972 when Parliament was not in session, a Governor General's warrant was obtained in the amount of $234 million because that limit on cash advances was being reached. This was necessary to permit the Unemployment Insurance Commission to discharge its obligation under the law of paying benefits to persons claiming and entitled to unemployment insurance. That warrant was expected to cover the requirements until December 31 and, in fact, did. Payments under that warrant began on October 31.
In early December, a further review by the commission indicated that authorized funds would run out by the beginning of January. Considering that parliament had been recalled for January 4, considering also that funds would probably run out before that, a second warrant was obtained on December 14 in the amount of $220 million. In fact, payments under the first warrant continued until January 3 and payments under the December warrant began on January 4. The funds thus obtained under the second warrant were calculated and are expected to be sufficient until early in February.
The government was, of course, under obligation to table before this House, at the first opportunity, a supplementary estimate to cover the sums so obtained. My colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, did so on January 8 and they included an item for these two warrants. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that on January 18 the

Miscellaneous Estimates Committee of this House had the opportunity of reviewing the financial operation of the program and, I understand, I am to appear again tomorrow before that committee.
These actions, Mr. Speaker, that is the obtaining of Governor General's warrants, are the normal procedures used when parliament is not in session and when such circumstances arise. In this particular process, the law officers of the Crown were consulted at every step of the way and they were and are of the opinion that the commission and the government were acting in accordance with the law governing the use of Governor General's warrants, with particular reference to section 23 of the Financial Administration Act.
There have been attempts to suggest that the government knew before the end of 1972 that the advances provided to the Unemployment Insurance Commission would definitely run out by a particular date, and that the government should have reported this to the House when the House convened in late August. In point of fact, while the commission was becoming concerned that the ceiling could be surpassed in the period between the beginning of November and the end of December, it was completely reasonable and quite proper for the chairman of the commission, who had just recently been appointed to his position, to ensure that he had all of the facts at his disposal so that he could make an accurate estimate and a complete and detailed report to the government on the actual situation. Furthermore, as an administrator he had to assume that parliament would be back in session on September 28 and, therefore, presume that an amending bill could be presented in sufficient time for passage before the situation became critical.
As stated by the chairman of the commission before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee last week, he weighed and checked all the factors and finally, after learning of the new and increased unemployment figures issued by Statistics Canada on September 12, he made his decision and recommended to his minister to apply for a Governor General's warrant. That warrant was requested by him on September 29, and authorized on October 5.
The suggestion that there was something sinister about this course of action or that either the government or the Unemployment Insurance Commission-which is a semiautonomous body-was attempting to conceal the facts from the Canadian public is not correct. It may be politically tempting to constantly draw attention to the fact that unemployment levels in 1972 were higher than the government had anticipated. But the political accounting for that error took place on October 30. It certainly is not politic to repeatedly suggest that the payment of benefits to the unemployed under a formula established by a statute of parliament in its wisdom was not either correct or legal. As my predecessor has said on many occasions, our government may have erred in not accurately forecasting unemployment in 1972, but we did not err in seeking to protect the victims of unemployment. For if unemployment is high, unemployment benefit expenditures will be high, and there is nothing illegal or scandalous in that.
January 24, 1973


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The end justifies the means, I suppose.


Robert Knight Andras: When the chairman of the commission appeared before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee the other day he was forthright and sincere in his answers, and it was noted by committee members that he is administering the commission with dedication, concern and competence in the face of many difficulties. On that particular point, I was distressed to say the least, to note that, as reported on pages 353 to 357 of Hansard for January 16, the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis) named and attacked in very precise terms a public servant. This has not been the practice in this House, particularly in recognition of the special immunity granted to Members of Parliament, on the one hand, and the inhibitions placed upon public servants to respond and defend themselves publicly, on the other. The chairman of the commission has my confidence, that of my colleagues and I am sure that of all reasonable members.
The bill before us provides for two things. It provides for the removal of the existing ceiling of $800 million. It also provides that the funds obtained through the vehicle of Governor General's warrants are not to be considered as appropriations granted to the commission but rather as advances repayable to the Minister of Finance under the conditions prescribed in the Act.
I believe it would be helpful to hon. members if I were to give a brief overview and history of the manner in which the unemployment insurance program has been and is now financed. Under the previous Unemployment Insurance Act, the government's contribution for the fiscal year was voted by parliament through main estimates and/or supplementary estimates. The government's share was 20 per cent of the contributions of employers and employees plus the administrative costs of the program. The government did not assume greater responsibility when the unemployment rate was high, except that when the balance in the unemployment insurance fund was insufficient to pay benefits as it was in 1964, the Minister of Finance, through an appropriations act, was authorized to make loans to the Unemployment Insurance Commission to effect the payment of benefits. These were then repaid from subsequent contributions. I might add that there was no legal limit on the amount of loans that might be made in such a situation.
Under the current act, the cost of paying benefits is financed both by revenues received regularly from employer-employee contributions and ultimately by the reimbursement to the commission of the government's share of the total costs. This latter, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, is not received by the commission until the next fiscal year following the end of any calendar year.
To summarize, therefore, the advances from the Consolidated Revenue Fund which are obtained by virtue of Section 137(a) of the Unemployment Insurance Act serve a threefold purpose: First, to provide for the government's share of the current year until it is precisely calculated and paid in the following year. The effect, of course, is that against the advance ceiling will be charged 15 months-January 1, 1972 to March 31, 1973-of government cost, prior to receiving the voted funds. Second, to
Unemployment Insurance Act
cover any cash deficiencies in premiums received from the private sector when the employer-employee account is not sufficient for the payment of its share of benefits, plus the cost of administration. Third, to compensate for periodic short-falls between revenues and disbursements due to fluctuations in the unemployment rate.
There is no question in my mind now that when the Unemployment Insurance Act was dealt with last, the imposition of a ceiling on advances to the unemployment insurance account was unfortunate. It was put in because it was felt that it might provide a measure of control on costs. Such is not the case, however, because a variety of circumstances make it difficult to forecast accurately what the total cost to the government will be. Such forecasting is difficult because of dependence upon national and regional unemployment rates. The amount of the ceiling must take into account the number of persons unemployed since this has a direct impact upon the government's share of the total benefit costs. You will appreciate that unemployment varies greatly from any given point in time.
Another factor is that employer and employee contribution rates are based on the average experience of the preceding three years, beginning in 1975-so we are in a period at this time of building experience concerning what that rate may be-whereas benefits are paid depending upon the current unemployment rate. This, too, creates fluctuations in the unemployment insurance account.
Advances under section 137 are, of course, at a maximum at times of high unemployment, because of large government cost on the one hand, as well as relatively lower contributions from employers and employees on the other hand. Other factors, such as labour force growth, higher earnings of claimants, length of time of benefits, which are not easily predictable in the very short run, have a direct impact upon the cost of benefits paid at any given point in time. In the face of these variations in cash requirements, either the ceiling has to be set at an extremely high level in order to take account of any unforeseen contingency, in which case it would represent virtually no constraint at all, or it could be set at a relatively low level, which might necessitate amending the act almost every year.
It is clear, therefore, that a fixed limit on advances is not practical. It is also, I submit, unnecessary, since there are many other automatic requirements in the act whereby parliament can review the administration costs and program expenditures under this act on several occasions each year. First of all, the minister must submit an annual report to parliament together with the report of the Auditor General; second, parliament can review the expenditures under the act when public accounts are tabled, which contain a report on the Unemployment Insurance Commission's operations as well as on the government's share of the cost of benefits.
Furthermore, since the estimates are reviewed by a parliamentary committee, this provides a further occasion for hon. members to review in detail the commission's operations, both financial and administrative. In addition, all advances made by the Department of Finance by
614

January 24, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act
virtue of the act are published in the monthly financial statements which are tabled in this House. Thus hon. members have several opportunities for obtaining information concerning the financial aspect of the program and for calling the commission or the government to task.
But most of all, the ceiling is inappropriate because payments to claimants are statutory and not discretionary as far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned. It is essential in any circumstances that the commission always have access to sufficient funds to pay the legal claims of the unemployed, no matter what the level of unemployment might be. If the commission had discretionary power over how many claims could be honoured in any year, then it could be appropriate to have a fixed dollar limit upon advances to the unemployment insurance account. But I cannot visualize this House ever seriously considering the denial of benefits to qualified claimants.
The fact of the matter is that parliament, in its wisdom, has enacted the terms and conditions of payment of benefits, on the one hand, and this act, on the other hand, by imposing a ceiling is restricting the availability of funds and may prevent the commission from implementing that very legislation. Therefore, I now move that Bill C-124 be referred immediately to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration for study and report to this House.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, before I commence my few remarks I have a point I want to make to the Chair. In the opinion of this party and myself there are some doubts as to the right of the government at this time to move this bill, having in mind the presence in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates of the item L30a. I do not propose to deal with this point or to raise it as a point of order; I merely call it to the attention of the Chair. My colleague the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) will, in due course, be dealing with this matter and he will raise the question and enlarge upon it.
We are dealing with this bill today because of the miscalculation, the deceit, the improper conduct and the illegal actions of this government. These I will deal with later in detail. Because of these facts, the whole course of the administration of unemployment insurance has been brought to the brink of disaster. I have to say that the actions of the government must not be allowed to obscure the fact that there are unemployed persons who are properly entitled to benefits, and it is for this House so to exercise its ingenuity that it ensures that these people are not made to suffer for the sins of the government. This I will deal with later and, with my colleagues, advance proposals and amendments from time to time, both during the course of this debate and later, so that we can bring about this most desirable objective.
If the directors of a joint stock company planning to float a bond debenture or to offer stock to the public are guilty of deception, either by making false statements or by non-disclosure, they face penalties and could well go to jail. Deception is recognized in our modern society. As a matter of fact, section 88(a) of this act provides that any person who makes a false or deceptive statement is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine and/or imprisonment.

What if a government, the board of directors of this country, in issuing a prospectus to the public when seeking a new mandate to govern, is guilty of the most flagrant kind of deception with regard to this very legislation? If they had done in non-government life, or in public life outside of the government, the things that they have done in connection with this bill, they would be promptly charged with a course of conduct for which they could be severely penalized and face a fine and/or jail. That is my view of what the government has done in the interval between last summer and today in connection with this very bill. There they sit; sleek, arrogant, smug, feeling assured of power with the support of others in this House. I say quite sincerely that I hope that members of the party to my left will examine with care and with caution what the government has done in this regard so that they will not be found guilty of being accessories after the fact.
Let me now deal step by step with the facts that I shall produce to justify the very serious charges that I have made, and which I shall substantiate with the aid of my hon. friends and colleagues before this debate concludes. The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 was dealt with during that year. After second reading, the bill went to committee. I have not had too much time to go through the proceedings of the committee, but I have found some very interesting comments on the particular sections with which we are dealing now. As reported in issue No. 24 of the minutes of proceedings of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration for Wednesday, May 19, 1971, officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission were questioned on the terms of the proposed legislation. At that time they were considering the proposals that brought into effect what is now section 137, and in particular section 137(4). Mr. Steele, one of the officials of the commission who was produced by this government, the sponsor of this bill, as their expert witness in this regard was being questioned by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) who conducted his usual brilliant cross-examination. From page 24:28 I read these questions and answers:


Mr. Alexander:: Then there is another question. I notice in Clause 137(4) that you have struck an amount:
.. shall not exceed eight hundred million dollars."
I am talking about advances. How did you arrive at that figure?
This is the first time I can recall, or have found as a result of examination, that this figure representing the ceiling on advances was being discussed. The answer was:


Mr.   Steele@: Mr. Allan can correct me if I am wrong, but the $800 million include the government advance for a year. In a year of high unemployment the government advance might reach $500 or $600 million because it would be getting on to 15 to 18 months of payment of benefits before the amounts were credited to the account.
The hon. gentleman who introduced this bill mentioned this but did not give these figures. The answer continued:
In addition, the shortfall on the employer-employee account could vary anywhere between $50 and $100 million for any given year, just as the surplus could vary: it could be as much as $50 or $100 million.
January 24, 1973

Later on, we find the following:


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Have the figures that you have given with respect to the total cost taken in the end result in that statement that you have made?


Mr.   Steele@: Oh, no. The costs which we have given you are our estimates of what the costs will be.
Then later, we find:


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes. What percentage, with respect to the unemployment rate was used in part to arrive at the $800 million?
This is the ceiling the government had seen fit to establish in respect of advances, after careful consideration and examination of this issue. We find this answer:


Mr.   Allan@: Mr. Chairman, the $800 million represented, as an upper limit on the amount of advances, presumably the worst possible case we could think of in terms of a deficit. As Mr. Steele said, suppose we run 15 or 18 months behind while we wait for the government contribution, in the facts and figures which we supplied last year we estimated an excess of $400 million if the unemployment rate were in excess of 7 per cent.
That is the information given to the committee on the strength of which the committee and the House, in due course, were persuaded to pass this legislation. What utter garbage! If there ever was a case of obtaining legislation by false pretenses, that was it. I continue quoting from the report:


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: So you used 7 per cent then?


Mr.   Allan@: We used 7 per cent and then some. We later calculated a figure that could represent the worst possible case and then we added in another $100 million or so for good measure.
Then, Mr. Alexander said: "What is $100 million."


Mr. Hellyer:: He was prophetic.


Gerald William Baldwin: In other words, the government produced witnesses and, on the strength of their evidence, it asked the committee to accept this ceiling of $800 million by suggesting that on the worst possible projection of more than 7 per cent unemployment, in its view the highest that deficit would go was $700 million. Apparently, the government took that figure and added another $100 million. Ant I not justified in saying through you, Sir, to the members of this House, that I have established beyond any shadow of doubt that in securing the passage of this legislation this government was guilty of the most flagrant kind of deception?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The committee was shafted.


Gerald William Baldwin: I then go on to the final answer by Mr. Allan, and he was taking into account the element of inflation. He said:
Inflation has affected everything. If the unemployment rate not only implied a high government contribution, which we were waiting on at the rate of $400 million or so for a year-and we were waiting for more than a year of contributions, say $500 or $600 million-and if in addition the unemployment rate had brought some slowing of the rate of growth in the wage and salary base, then the premiums that we would have got when we related the 4 per cent cost-plus the sickness, the maternity and the administration-to the insurable earning pace for the previous three years, would mean we were lacking $100 million. If the insurable earning pace then slackened off because of a real recession, then we thought we could be, as Mr. Steele mentioned, lacking 100 million dollars or more on that side. So, if we were to take 500 or 600
Unemployment Insurance Act
million dollars from the government account or if we were to be lacking that and 100 million dollars or more from the employee-employer account, we could be in the neighbourhood of 600 to 700 million dollars. That is that we put 100 million dollars in for good measure.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Some measure.


Robert Knight Andras: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: I am developing my case, and I am trying to make these interesting points. The minister may foul them up as I go along.
The government underestimated sadly its capacity to create not only unemployment, but conditions under which this fund got into the sickening state it is in at the present time.
Let me go on from there. In 1972, at which time the estimates of the department were before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, no information or figures had been produced, but as usual my earnest, inquiring and indefatigable friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West was there seeking information. In Issue No. 18 for Tuesday, May 30, 1972, at page 18:37 we find that the then Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who has since retired to a much less odourous position than being associated with this government, was being questioned. Mr. Alexander said:
While he is looking at that, will you still claim that the scheme is actuarially sound, Mr. Minister?


Mr. Mackasey:: Yes, much sounder than the other scheme. The other scheme had no actuarial basis at all. Perhaps Mr. Third will get those figures. But in the meantime, this plan is actuarially sound and our predictions are pretty well on.
These are the predictions which were made before the committee which was considering this bill in the first place.


Robert Knight Andras: And before the amendments were brought before the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: To repeat, the minister said:
. . . our predictions are pretty well on. We are paying out, perhaps, a little more than we had anticipated and $63 is slightly higher. On the other hand, other areas are a little lower.
That was the minister's view and he was obviously speaking for the government in May 1972.
Let me refer to the same committee minutes of an earlier date, April 25, 1972 at page 2:20. Mr. Steele, apparently not very contrite, was being examined by Mr. Downey. Mr. Downey stated:
I believe there were some figures that came from an accountant in Toronto to the effect that there might be a possible deficit-
My goodness, someone dared to suggest there might possibly be a deficit in this account. He went on to state:
.. . there might be a possible deficit in the account at the end of the current fiscal year, something like $700 or $800 million.
Mr. Steele replied in part:
.\ny deficits-and it may be a small one this year-on the employers and employees can be amortized over three years,-
So, back in April and in May, the then minister said that the plan was actuarially sound. I realize what he means by
25714-40,

January 24, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act
that because, so long as he has the taxpayer into whose pocket he can dig, and so long as he has the legal means to extract from it, the plan continues to be actuarially sound. Mr. Steele said that the deficit may be a small one for that year.
I am not finished yet, Mr. Speaker. The then minister, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), was being further examined. He is a very pleasant fellow. He kept on coming back to the committee.


Mr. Nielsen:: He's a sucker for punishment.


Gerald William Baldwin: On September 1, 1972, the date when that parliament was dissolved,-and I shall establish later that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) must have known what the situation was-the date on which the right hon. gentleman dissolved the parliament and plunged this country headlong into a general election-


Robert Knight Andras: How do you plunge into an election?


Gerald William Baldwin: Hon. members opposite did plunge, and they have not stopped plunging yet.
We heard from the minister, and now I intend to tell the House what the facts are. At page 3936 of Hansard, again we find that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) took part in the debate.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, I was busy but I was being deceived all the time.


Eugene Whelan: You were the only one who was.


Gerald William Baldwin: He might have been deceived at first but then he realized that something was wrong, that something was smelling pretty bad. The question reads:


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is a related question in that it involves the Unemployment Insurance Commission. During the debate on the Unemployment Insurance Commission the minister continually advised the House that the plan was actuarially sound and he staked his reputation on that.
Of course, we know what happened. He staked more than his reputation, he staked his job. The question goes on:
I ask the minister whether, now that he has had an opportunity to review the facts, particularly in the last week, he can in fact now state that the plan is actuarially sound?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I will explain it again and I will be glad to stake my reputation on my statement.
During the course of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, which was sitting recently, Mr. Cousineau appeared. The minister has already opened up this matter and thus allowed us to take advantage of it. At that time, Mr. Cousineau made a categorical statement, which will be referred to by my colleagues later, that at least in August of that year it was quite obvious that the limit of advances of $800 million was in danger of being exceeded. Those were the facts. If that was the knowledge of the officials, it had to be the knowledge of the minister. If it was the knowledge of the minister, it must be taken that it was the knowledge of the government. That was in August, before the right hon. gentleman dissolved the House and called the election.

I suggest, Sir, that from the evidence I have quoted,- and I could go on to quote the evidence given yesterday by the Auditor General, although I will not do that because it will be done later-it is absolutely certain that it must have been within the knowledge of those members of the government who held responsibility that this fund was sliding disastrously into bankruptcy. During the period from May to September, the public and parliament, as proven by what I have read, were being expressly and by implication told that the scheme was all right financially, everything was going according to plan. The minister even said on that day that it was "actuarially sound".
In fact, however, if we apply in the House the standards that reasonable people should be entitled to use in the conduct of their own everyday affairs, the fund was sliding into bankruptcy, was disastrously, shockingly, bankrupt. The commission had run so far behind they had just about used up the statutory lending limit of $800 million at the time the House was dissolved. They knew then that they were so close to it that it would not take too long for the warrant to be required. On October 5, Order in Council number PC1/1972 2487 was issued for a special Governor General's warrant for $234 million for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. You do not get Governor General's warrants in five minutes. My submission is that there must have been consultations, discussions and telephone calls for some time before that Governor General's warrant was obtained. The government must have known what was happening to the fund, and they must have known it on September 1.
As a matter of fact, on October 5, the same day the Governor General's warrant was formally obtained, the then minister was interviewed by the press and the following appeared in the Globe and Mail of that day:
At a press conference yesterday, he also promised that Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau would give a detailed accounting of the financial operations of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. He refused to indicate when, except to say that it would be "at the appropriate moment" and-
Obviously, what he meant by that was that it would not be made before the election. He went on to say:
-"in ample time before the election."
No such statement was ever made. The voters of this country were allowed to go to the polls suffering from the deliberate deception which had been practiced upon them, as it was practiced upon this House, by this government which sits opposite and now says that on that record it should be entitled to govern this country.
The press report reads:
Looking very tired, he repeatedly tried to explain that there is no deficit in the insurance fund because there is no fund.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: The report continues:
There is a cost to the government in operating the scheme because above a 4 per cent unemployment rate workers' premium for the insurance are supplemented by the Treasury

The following words are significant.
-up to $800 million a year.
This statement was made on the very day the Governor General's warrant was being secured for an amount
January 24, 1973

which would permit this $800 million ceiling to be increased. The minister was making statements which, in effect, intimated that $800 million was the limit to which the government was entitled to go.
I want to say that I disagree to some extent, and in some ways, on various issues with the minister. I admire him. At least he had the courage of his conviction. He stayed with his case, whether or not it was a good case. The case he made, which was the case of the government, was that all of them must share the responsibility. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) told me the other day in response to a question I asked him on this issue, he shared in the decision; it was a collective decision of the cabinet. What happened then? The former minister was made a scapegoat; he was ditched; he was discharged. He was the man who had the courage, rightly or wrongly, to stick up for his principles. I give him credit for having the best motives, and he made a very good case. 1 disagree with part of it, but not all of it. But the responsibility for this case was shared by his friends opposite. When this disaster came about, what do we find with respect to him? He is ditched. He is made the scapegoat, and he is thrown out.
I suggest to you, Sir, that there was a meeting of minds between different members of the government before this magic date of September 1 was picked. They knew what the situation was. They knew what they faced with regard to this fund. They knew the honest, the honourable, the decent, the only method which should have been or could have been employed by a responsible parliamentary government, which predicates its life on the basis of financial responsibility to the people of this country and to the members of this House. Such a government would have said, "Here is the situation. We were wrong. We miscalculated. We now ask this House to help us put it right." And, Mr. Speaker, the House was in session at the time. We were brought together for a special purpose. That was the time when the government, as any proper government would have done, should have beat its breast, told the truth and said, "Because of these facts we ask for an amendment to this legislation, or we are bringing in a supplementary estimate to cover this amount."
Such a course might have meant a delay in the election, but I assume that what happened was that members of the government who were aware of this, and there was certainly a collective awareness, said, "If we disclose these facts, if we tell the truth-" of course that comes hard for them in any event, politically speaking I want to add because, Mr. Speaker, I am putting this on a political basis-"in the light of what we have said before, and in the light of the facts it would be disastrous for us politically." So, they saw fit to hide the facts, to hide the truth, to call the election, and to allow members of this House to depart. They saw fit to allow the electors of the country to go to the polls without an awareness of what the true situation was. Any government which embarks upon a course of conduct of that nature has an awful gall to come into this House, as the minister did today, and now ask to be given a blank cheque. That is precisely what the government is asking.
If any rational, intelligent and unbiased jury were asked about this situation, they could bring in no other verdict
Unemployment Insurance Act
than that the government was guilty of incredible stupidity or deceit, or both. I suppose this was probably one of the reasons which tipped the scales in favour of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) calling the election. Otherwise, if he had seen fit to come back later last fall, to meet the House again in the last parliament, these facts by then would have been known and he would have had to face that situation. Instead he said, "We will call an election and the election will be over and done with before any of this becomes known." That is virtually what happened. The election was over before the government was compelled to tell the truth-or part of the truth. I do not think we have got it all yet.
Some question also arises on the issue of legality. I want to conclude this part of my remarks by saying that this cynical, devious government wanted an election on the most favourable terms it could get. If the government had acted legally, it would have meant full disclosure of this financial debacle; it would have meant telling the press, the public and the people that they had badly miscalculated and were guilty of the most scandalous incompetence. So, the government and the establishment which surrounds it, have become increasingly authoritarian and have discovered smooth and adept ways of ignoring all financial guidelines.
Not so long ago I was discussing this with someone who should know well what the score was. We were talking about the situation some years ago when the precedessor of this government had substantially exceeded or was going to exceed by some tens of millions of dollars, a program which had a statutory limit laid down by parliament. This official said to the person involved, who knew about the excess and in fact was responsible for it, "Don't you think you are going to get caught in this? Don't you think that at some time or other this will be brought back to you"? And that person turned his thumb in the direction of parliament and replied, "Who is going to catch us- those fellows up there?" That is the position, that is the attitude we now find increasingly in the government and in those who work for the government at the highest levels. We can ignore the guidelines, ignore parliament, ignore the financial responsibility; we can do what we want to do, and they will never catch up to us.
Perhaps I belong to an old fashioned school, Mr. Speaker, but I believe there is a strong case to be made for the fact that the taxpayers of this country are entitled to have the most scrupulous adherence, in matters of finance and taxation, to the guidelines laid down by this parliament,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: -and that anybody, government or not, who exceeds those guidelines deliberately must be brought to trial by public opinion.
What about the question of Governor General's warrants and legality? Yesterday the Auditor General, in a very full and complete statement, went back into the history of how this particular process had evolved. He particularly dealt with the situation from 1958 on because the present-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair is in difficulty, and I think many members of the House realize whence

January 24, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act
the difficulty comes. It relates to the reference of certain estimates to a committee of the House. There is a long standing rule-I will read it from Beauchesne, citation 324-which states:
Until the report and evidence have been laid upon the Table, it is irregular to refer to them in debate, or to put questions in reference to the proceedings of the committee.
The Chair is also aware that to establish the timetable of events as to when facts became known, which is important to the argument of the minister, to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and to other hon. members who will be taking part in the debate, one cannot leave chronological blanks. So, when the minister made the first reference, and the hon. member for Peace River made the second reference to evidence in the committee, I did not raise this point of order then. But I think that at least I would be content at the moment, without giving a detailed ruling, if the evidence were used simply to provide the chronology of events leading up to the legislation we are now considering, rather than getting into a discussion of the evidence itself in the committee. The hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact I did have a number-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) rising on a point of order?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am raising a point of order in order to seek clarification for my participation in the debate which, I can assure you, will be very soon. In view of your admonition with respect to past practice, will I now be denied the right to make reference to the proceedings of the committee that is presently functioning? For instance, the hon. gentleman has made some rather serious charges against me personally-


Gerald William Baldwin: No, no.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -which could, so far as I am concerned, place my seat in jeopardy because I, too, will have charges to make. They are based on allegations made today and on statements made before the committee by Mr. Cousi-neau, and I wonder if I will have the same opportunity in reply to refer to the same extent to the hearings of the Committee presently constituted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is precisely the point at which the Chair finds itself in difficulty. My suggestion is that the allegation, other than the particular time schedule of which I spoke, should not be referred to in debate at this time. This leaves the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) free to pursue his remedy, if he feels himself aggrieved, in the committee where the allegations have been made. I was not aware that matters which arose strictly in that committee were put on the record here. If I am wrong, then the hon. member will have a chance to correct that and make his own defence when he is recognized.


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It is my intention to reply to the previous speaker because I was present at all the proceedings of the standing committee to which he made frequent reference. He told us things that are not quite accurate about the statements made by Mr. Guy Cousineau, the Chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and he also put his own interpretations on statements of the auditor general. I feel we should have the same privilege when we take part in the debate, namely be able to refer to the same sources as the others, and to reply.


James Aloysius McGrath: You are supposed to be the impartial chairman of the committee.


Erik Nielsen: On the point of order raised by the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and I have not heard him, contrary to the remarks of the hon. member who has just spoken, make any reference that was in any way not in keeping with the evidence adduced before the committee. The minister was the first offender in that regard. Perhaps Your Honour did not hear me at the time the minister commenced referring to the committee evidence. I asked for order and the Chair did not intervene. I mean no disrespect when I suggest this, Mr. Speaker. At the time that I called for order and since, the minister was given full latitude to discuss the evidence of the committee at his pleasure. While I appreciate the difficulty of the Chair, I think the door is open now in this regard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The point that the Chair was trying to make was that the references by the minister, as I recall it, and the references by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) again as I recall it, arising from the evidence given in that particular committee were to supply information to fill in a timetable of events leading up to the legislation we are dealing with at the present time. Perhaps some of the references went a bit too far, but I am now asking for the co-operation of hon. members not to refer to evidence given in a committee that has not reported to the House. It is a very elementary rule of our Procedure that this is irregular.


Mr, Nielsen:: Curtail the minister, then.


Mr, Baldwin:: I shall be glad to make my point with a simple reference to facts within my knowledge. There may be some facts which have been referred to in the committee, but they are facts which I know as well. I want to say right away, however, that as far as the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) is concerned, no personal allegation was made against him. There were statements made that the government was responsible.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Is deceit not a personal allegation?


Gerald William Baldwin: The government was responsible for deceit. The government is a corporate body-I think it is a dying body but the government was deceitful.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Our last respects to the deceased.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You can't weasel out of it that way. The charge was deceit against the minister personally, and members of the government.

January 24, 1973


Gerald William Baldwin: I am charging the government with deceit.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You do not have the courage to do that personally.


Gerald William Baldwin: I will repeat, I am charging this government with deceit in their practices in relation to this matter.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Why don't you have the guts to make the charge directly? You don't have the courage to do it directly.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have made it directly, Mr. Speaker, and I have proven it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this question of financial responsibility, not only with regard to evidence taken before this particular section of the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee-and I will adhere to your ruling-but at a time when I had the honour to be chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, this question arose about the question of Governor General's warrants. The Auditor General made statements in 1962, 1963 and again I think in 1968 which were virtually the same as he has made in other meetings which are now not to be referred to in this House.
At that time the hon. gentleman pointed out, and he was supported by the Public Accounts Committee, that this was an exceedingly iniquitous practice. The first time that the Auditor General had occasion to refer to it, to my knowledge, was when dealing with the Governor General's warrants issued by a government which was of another party. It is not a question of a political issue; it is a question of belief as to the purity and sanctity of the manner in which the finances of this country are managed. In 1957, for example, Governor General's warrants were issued and complaints were lodged by hon. members now sitting on the other side of the House. As a result, the then minister of finance, Mr. Fleming, introduced legislation for the purpose of amending the Financial Administration Act.
I have read the proceedings of that debate. At that time, an amendment was introduced and passed by parliament and what is now section 23 of the Financial Administration Act was inserted in place of the former section 28 and became section 28. In reading the debates, it is interesting to note that the minister admitted that the purpose of the amendment was simply to put in more modern and conventional form the wording of that section of the Financial Administration Act which gave this power to a government. The wording of the then section 28 was:
Where an accident happens to any public work or building when parliament is not in session and an expenditure for the repair or renewal thereof is urgently required, or where any other matter arises when parliament is not in session in respect of which an expenditure not foreseen or provided for by parliament is urgently required for the public good,
That makes perfectly plain what, prior to 1958, was the intention and the circumstances under which Governor General's warrants could be used. No one can seriously disagree that succeeding governments have invaded that principle. It is true that the act was changed and the
Unemployment Insurance Act
wording reduced to "urgently required for the public good". Mr. Speaker, it was surely never intended to permit any government, particularly this government with its record of illegality, to be free to legislate by Governor General's warrants. But that is what they are doing, Mr. Speaker, there is no question about it.
There was a statutory limit of $800 million. I know that my friends opposite are seeking ways and means of evading this particular limitation. They are now saying that they do not proceed under section 137 when there is a statutory limit, they simply proceed by way of an appropriation. I call to the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker, that in the order in Council they used words that made it quite plain that it was an advance. The wording in the Governor General's warrants and the wording in the Order in Council was:
such advance to be repaid in such manner and such terms and conditions as the minister of finance may prescribe.
How can that be deemed anything but a loan or advance to be made to the Unemployment Insurance Commission by the government. Of course, it is an advance; there cannot be any other interpretation. The contention that the government was not proceeding under section 137 but was proceeding, instead, in some airy fairy way which it cannot describe, is simply an attempt to circumvent the positive restrictions in section 137, subsection 4. There is no way at all by which the government can extricate itself from this dilemma. It obtained, by governor general's warrants, the alleged right to advance to the Unemployment Insurance Commission an additional $454 million over and above the $800 million set as a statutory limit. That was to be repaid on such terms and conditions as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) may prescribe. Those words were included, in contemplation that the government would come back to this House and attempt to make legal what is illegal. It was an attempt to bring the government back under section 137 of the act. Mr. Speaker, section 137 reads:
(1)	Where the amount standing to the credit of the Unemployment Insurance Account in the Consolidated Revenue Fund is not sufficient for the payment of benefits and costs of administration under this Act, the Minister of Finance, when requested by the Commission, may authorize the advance to the Unemployment Insurance Account from the Consolidated Revenue of an amount sufficient to meet the payments required to be made in the operation of this Act.
(2)	An advance made under subsection (1) shall be credited to the Unemployment Insurance Account and be repaid in such manner and on such terms and conditions as the Minister of Finance may prescribe.
The government made a barefaced attempt to evade the provisions of section 137 by saying, "This is simply a grant; we will use the same words as are used in section 137 but come back to parliament later on, after we have won the election, shove this bill through, and make legal what was illegal so that these moneys shall be deemed to be an advance under section 137." That is what the government has attempted and that is what it is now asking this House to do. It is asking this House to legalize an illegal action, to ratify and confirm an action which was wrong and which had the effect of evading the financial responsibility and accountability of the government to

January 24, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act this House. That is what the government is now asking this House to do.
As I said earlier, surely ways and means could be found of doing this properly. We have no intention, if we can help it, of countenancing the government's attempt to perpetrate this illegality. Surely, ways and means could be found, either through supplementary estimates or by other means on which there could be a common meeting ground, to arrange for the funding by way of advances or otherwise of such moneys as may be required by the Unemployment Insurance Commission to meet its commitments under the existing legislation. I object to the government using this type of blackmail and saying, "If you do not pass this bill legalizing this illegality and raising the ceiling to an unlimited amount, the unemployed will not get their money." We have made our position clear. We are prepared to meet the government in order that this may be done properly. If the government does not offer amendments, we will. This matter can be dealt with in a better way than by passing this legislation without amendment.


Erik Nielsen: We will not ratify deceit.


Gerald William Baldwin: Before sitting down, I like to think that my friends on my left, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), believe in the financial responsibility and accountability of the government. The government is responsible to parliament. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) I believe feels the same way. My hon. friends may laugh and chortle.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is the mating call.


Gerald William Baldwin: If they go along with the government in all respects on this legislation, if they help the government to pass the bill in its present form and so sanction and legalize an illegality, they would be seriously inhibited, or even estopped, in future in complaining that this government is not acting as it ought to in accordance with parliamentary proprieties and its financial responsibilities. I seriously ask my friends to consider this when they state their position on this legislation.
I almost sat down, Mr. Speaker. I was so carried away with exhorting my friends to my left that I forgot to do what I came here to do, that is move an amendment. I have just made a few remarks preceding the amendment, Mr. Speaker. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey)-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member said, "seconded by the hon. member for Verdun".


Gerald William Baldwin: I did not mean the hon. member.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am still the member for Verdun. The hon. member for Saint Hyacinthe had a chance to change that, but did not do so.


An hon. Member:: You blew that, Jed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I was just drawing a long bow. I hoped my hon. friend would be so persuaded by my eloquence that he would say this is a great amend-

ment. The hon. member refused to second the amendment even before hearing it. It is seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), formerly a very distinguished and honoured member of the National Assembly for Verdun. I move that all the words after "that" be struck out and the following added:
This House, while accepting the need to provide funds for payment of unemployment insurance benefits to those entitled, declines to approve a measure which, on the one hand, removes all restrictions on advances under Section 137 of the Unemployment Insurance Act 1971, and, on the other hand, seeks to legalize and ratify the improper and illegal actions of the government in making advances in excess of the statutory limit.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will hear remarks on the point of order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in view of the time, if Your Honour wishes to wait until tomorrow, I will be happy to present argument then.


An hon. Member:: Come on, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If it is Your Honour's wish to deal with the regularity of the motion, I should like to raise a number of objections. There are several objections; but I will probably mention only one. If it is irregular on one point it cannot survive, even if it is perfect on all others. It really is not perfect in any aspect or from any point of view.
The amendment suggests an objection to the removal of all restrictions on advances under section 137 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is true that section 137(4) is to be repealed. Of course, this part of the amendment relates very directly to the clauses of the bill.
One of the well-know principles of moving reasoned amendments on second reading is that one cannot propose to amend on the second reading a clause of the bill. It Would be open to the hon. member, once the bill were in committee and once the clauses were under examination, to deal with the matter which he has attempted to deal with in this part of the bill, namely removing all restrictions on advances under section 137. If that is the subject matter of this amendment or part of the subject matter, it can be dealt with directly when clause 1 of the bill is under discussion. That course is open to the hon. member and can be done at that stage if he wishes.
I wish to make one furtner argument. The final part of the amendment is not relevant. This part of the amendment reads:
-and on the other hand seeks to legalize and ratify the improper and illegal actions of the government in making advances in excess of the statutory limit.
Any careful examination of the two clauses of the bill would fail to find any material in either clause which is related or pertinent to the subject matter of the bill. What the hon. member has done has been to confuse this bill with the subject matter that is now being dealt with in the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee. That committee has been asked to deal with the supplementary estimates, which include the warrants to which the hon. member has taken exception. There is no effort in this bill to legalize
January 24, 1973

and ratify actions of the government in making advances in excess of the statutory limit. There is nothing in clause 1 or clause 2 which attempts to do anything of that kind. It is not there.


Erik Nielsen: You say.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I suggest that a reading of clause 1 or clause 2 will sustain that. I believe the amendment is quite irrelevant. It merely strikes out the repealing section which will make it possible after the expiry of the warrants in February to make advances. It does not have anything to do with what happens up until the moment of February 8 to legalize or not legalize.
Clause 2 merely asks the House to treat the proposal that is made in the supplementary estimates as an advance rather than as an appropriation. If that is not clarified and if the supplementary estimates and the subsequent appropriation bill are approved, the advances "authorized by the warrants" will find their way into the fund. Under the section of the Unemployment Insurance Act, if they find their way into the fund, they can only be used for payment out of the fund for administrative costs because they will be thereby defined under the section of the Unemployment Insurance Act as an appropriation. This is really to remedy that. It has nothing to do with an effort to legalize and ratify any alleged improper and illegal action of the government. Of course, I do not make a political argument that can be made as to the use of this kind of pejorative language in an amendment, improper and illegal action of the government. That is not an amendment. That is florid debate. I am surprised that a lawyer of the standing of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) would use such language in a purely legal framework.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon on the same point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, normally when we listen to the Government House Leader, we hear a more useful contribution on points of order such as this. This amendment does not deal with sections, as he is asking hon. members to believe. It does not deal with any specific sections of the bill, as he suggests. It is a general amendment which seeks to decline approval of this House to extending the purpose of the legislation, which is twofold.
The bill before us seeks to extend the ceiling that is now imposed by section 137(4) of the Unemployment Insurance Act. It also seeks to legalize something which, on the face of it, is unlawful. The minister indicated that he does not agree with this. He placed his argument on the basis that the second part of the amendment is not relevant.
The minister has been here and in government long enough to know that what he asked members to believe a moment ago, that once the supplementary estimate is approved and an appropriation bill is passed by the House, the money, by way of advances, would find its way into the unemployment insurance fund, is not correct. He knows very well that the money advanced by that warrant has already been spent under that vote of the estimates. With regard to the money advanced by the second warrant, a portion has been spent since January 4.
Unemployment Insurance Act
The illegality lies in the fact that payments are made by virtue of payments made under section 23 of the Financial Administration Act and any future requirements. One must take judicial notice of section 23 of the Financial Administration Act. On the face of it, the action is illegal. The vote of the House referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates is an ill description in terms of the law applying in terms of section 23 of the Financial Administration Act.
In my submission, what the amendment seeks to do is perfectly in order. It seeks the approval of this House to decline to ratify something which was done in a manner that was patently wrong. Let us forget about the terms illegality and impropriety. What the government has done is manifestly wrong on the basis of the existing Statutes of Canada. All the amendment seeks to do is obtain the approval of the House to reject the government's attempt, first to take away the parliamentary privilege of improving all appropriations and, second, to retroactively cure something they were not authorized to do in the first place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit for Your Honour's consideration that this amendment does not meet the rules that normally apply to a reasoned amendment on second reading. One of the standard principles with respect to such amendments is that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot both approve and disapprove of a measure before the House. This amendment is drawn in language that suggests that the movers of it accept a certain aspect of the legislation, namely the need to supply funds, but they are opposed to what the bill actually does. I submit therefore that it falls on that ground.
The second point I should like to make is in support of the remarks made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), although I shall bring forward a couple of citations. In looking at page 170 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, paragraphs (12) and (14) of citation 202, I find that paragraph 12 reads as follows:
An amendment proposing a direct negative, though it may be covered up by verbiage, is out of order.
Then paragraph 14 reads:
An amendment which would produce the same result as if the original motion were simply negatived is out of order.
I submit that is precisely what this amendment is. It is nothing more nor less than a direct negative. The movers of this amendment are opposed to the second reading of this bill. They can achieve the same purpose by voting against the bill. Therefore, this amendment, as a direct negative, is out of order.
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) tries to say that the President of the Privy Council is talking about the clauses of the bill rather than the bill itself. I submit the only thing this bill does is remove the $800 million ceiling.


Erik Nielsen: Oh, no.

January 24, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon.
member for Yukon says "Oh, no". That other clause he is dragging into the discussion does not do anything new. It has nothing to do with the way in which Governor General's warrants are drawn. It merely says that any money parliament appropriates by adopting the miscellaneous estimate now before the standing committee shall be treated as an advance and not as an appropriation.


Erik Nielsen: Then, you have not seen the arguments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon.
member is making the same nonsense from a seat which is not his own as he does from his own seat. This bill is as clear as a bill can be. It does one thing. It deals only with that $800 million ceiling. I accept the right of my friends in the Conservative party to argue that that ceiling should be maintained, but they can do so by voting against the second reading of this bill. It is, therefore, not proper for them to try to do it by means of a direct negative.
In respect of the third part of the motion, I will merely say what has already been stated. It seems to me it is irrelevant to the bill. It implies that in some way or other the bill is legalizing what has already been done. This bill does not do that. The legalizing of the Governor General's warrants will come when the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates submits its report and the House deals with it here. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on these three counts I submit that you should find the amendment out of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere, on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on this point of order. I agree with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said. However, I regret that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has only been drafted in English-besides being contradictory, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said.
Indeed, the first part of the amendment states that benefits should still be paid because he would not want to antagonize the recipients. Yet the rest of it is contradictory and amounts to a sort of nonconfidence motion.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has quoted paragraphs (12), (13) and (14) of citation 202, on page 170 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to your attention paragraph (15) of the same citation, which reads as follows:
(15) An amendment approving part of a motion and disapproving the remainder is out of order.
Such is the nature of the motion moved by the hon. member for Peace River. It tends to approve part of the clause because payment of benefits is desired, but on the other hand it is a sort of non confidence motion.
However, Mr. Speaker, paragraph (15) adds, and I quote:
On the 20th October, 1932, the Prime Minister moved that the House approve a Trade Agreement entered into between Canada and the United Kingdom. An amendment was moved that the

House welcomed certain terms of the Agreement and condemned several features of it. The Speaker ruled it out because (a) the portion of the amendment which approved the Agreement was useless as it suggested no change in the main motion, and also, (b), an amendment to disapprove what the main motion approves is nothing but an expanded negative.
This is why I suggest that this is not only a non confidence motion in disguise but a contradictory amendment and that, therefore, the Chair should rule it out.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) let me say that I have never disguised my lack of confidence in this government. In introducing this legislation, the minister made quite plain that the obvious purpose of the bill in part, particularly clause (1) which removes this ceiling, is to provide that there should be an opportunity to supply benefits to the unemployed which does not now exist. There is no question about that. He said that in his introduction, and it is quite plain that this is what it purports to do. It would remove a ceiling which has already been exceeded, and there would be an opportunity to make payment of those benefits. We are now carrying on the 1973 version of the battle of reasoned amendments.
Under citation 382 of Beauchesne-which is precisely the British practice and the practice carried on here-we find the following:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a Bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill.
In the first place, we are met here in this bill with two different principles, if there are any in the bill at all, about which I have my doubts. The first of two principles, if there are any, is the raising of the ceiling. Quite unrelated to that is the question of saying that advances made under Governor General's warrants shall be deemed to be advances made under the act. I shall come to that in a moment.
We approve that principle which we find in the legislation which says that because of the incompetence of this government in administering this act it is now in a position where, after February 8, benefits cannot be paid to those who are entitled to receive them. We say that to that extent we accept the principle.
Dealing with the other aspect of the bill, a certain ruling has been made over and over again, certainly in the United Kingdom and here as well. There was an occasion last session when Mr. Speaker indicated his approval of an amendment moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). We were saying at that time that if we do not like all the relevant and surrounding circumstances involved in a bill, but do not want to be placed in the position of rejecting all of it, there is reason to say that we accept part but do not like the other principles involved. Our declaration of that particular fact is on record. That is what we are doing.
We say we are ready to accept that aspect of the bill which says a way must be found-the government has provided a way which might not be the right way-to make available these benefits, but we do not like the other
January 24, 1973

aspect of the principles involved. We do not like the other aspects and principles involved, so how else can we do it? I suggest this is the purpose of a reasoned amendment.
I have about 25 precedents before me, all of them amendments similar to mine, which were moved and accepted in the United Kingdom parliament. It may well be that this House does not want to listen any more to reasoned amendments. It may well be that we prefer to reach a yes or no conclusion, but I do not think that is a correct course of action. There should be ways and means by which hon. members can say that there are aspects of the legislation that are acceptable, but that they should be free to express their dissatisfaction with other parts of the legislation and should not have to wait until clause by clause study of the bill is reached.
These are my reasons for urging that this amendment be accepted. I do not want to take the time of the House and spoil the address of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who is champing at the bit, but I have a number of decisions before me, which were extracted from Hansard, citing particular amendments almost similar to the one I have moved.


An hon. Member:: Almost.


Gerald William Baldwin: They deal with subject matters debated in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom government would not engage in illegality of this kind. Since this will be an issue that will be raised over and over again, I ask the Chair to consider these, if he sees fit to do so, on the basis that I submit there is a good case to be made for the Chair to hold that an amendment in the terms of that which I have moved is one that is in fact acceptable, thus permitting hon. members to express an opinion with regard to principles contained in this bill that they do not think they can support.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I can indicate to the House that it is my intention to reserve my decision. Therefore, it might be helpful if the hon. member for Peace River were to give the Chair one or two examples of stronger precedents for my guidance when I sit down to make my decision on this very important matter.


Gerald William Baldwin: Does Your Honour wish me to do that now or shall I send them to you?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think some of them should be put on the record. After all, this may turn out to be a landmark decision.


Gerald William Baldwin: In the United Kingdom Hansard for February 9, 1970, Mr. Speaker indicated that he did not select the following amendment. I might point out that the practice in the United Kingdom is that a number of amendments are offered, and the fact that an amendment is not accepted simply means that Mr. Speaker, from among a number of amendments that have passed the test of legality, selects the one that he thinks is most appropriate. This particular amendment was moved by the hon. member for Buckinghamshire South:
Unemployment Insurance Act
That this House, while accepting the general desirability of equal payment for work of equal value, does not believe that legislation is appropriate in this field and declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which wholly conflicts with the view of the Royal Commission on Equal Pay.
As reported on page 230 of Hansard for November 10, 1970 this amendment, moved by Mrs. Shirley Williams, appears:
"this House, while welcoming measures to help families in poverty, believes the Government's Family Income Supplements Scheme will assist only a tiny minority, further extend the complex system of a means-tested society which is an essential element in the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and will do nothing to encourage employers to improve very low wages in certain occupations."
A further amendment, moved on February 8, 1971, by Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, reads as follows:
"this House declines to give a Second Reading to a measure which, in rewarding those engaged in intensive animal production of a kind which can in no sense be called agricultural, penalises the ratepayers as a whole."
There are about 20 more, Mr. Speaker, but I just give those few as examples. There are others which I think are an even closer parallel to the amendment that I was persuaded to move in the House today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Sudbury is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Jerome:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) started by saying that he never disguises his want of confidence in this government. What he was disguising I suggest, was his own knowledge of the rules. Perhaps, rather than disguising his knowledge of them, what he was in fact doing was parading his ignorance of them, except that I know differently. I know that he has an extensive knowledge of the rules, so he was not being cynical or any more cynical than one can infer from the remarks that he contributed to the debate this afternoon.


Gerald William Baldwin: Are you accusing me of deceit?


James Alexander Jerome: Clearly what the hon. member was doing, in his attempt to criticize the government for breaking some of the rules, was that he himself was breaking the rules that he knows so well, condoning his own breach of the rules in his attempt to criticize the government. I suppose that one's judgment of the correctness and sanctity of one's actions depends on which side of the House one sits. The hon. member seems to be able to excuse breaches of the rules on his part when he wants to criticize the government for what he contends is a similar breach.
The hon. member asked how else was he able to get on the record the question contained in this motion. He has several legitimate methods of getting his viewpoint on the record. First of all, as clearly pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) the effect of the motion is not in any way to amend the bill before the House but is simply to negative it. The reasons for so doing are properly a subject matter for commentary and debate.
What the hon. member is seeking to do, through what in no way can be dignified by being considered an amendment, is to do nothing more than to suggest that the

January 24, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act
members of the House vote against the government and give a reason for so doing. As he knows, that is the function of debate, and this is one way that he can place his viewpoint on the record without putting forward what I suggest is an illegal amendment.
The second thing he can do is to move that the bill be not read the second time now, but that it be read some other time. He can also put forward a different principle from that urged by the government in its handling of this particular situation, since he does accept that it is a problem that has to be handled.
Another thing he can do-and there are many others-is move a motion that the matter be given further consideration and study in order to determine whether the principles that he wishes to put forward should gain support from some other committee or group already designated. All of those methods would give the hon. member, as he well knows, the legitimate right to put forward his views.
What the hon. member is attempting to do by quoting precedents to the effect that members are entitled to give their reasons for being opposed to second reading in an amendment is to attach a privilege to the giving of reasons in an amendment, thereby legitimizing any amendment that contains such reasons. If one were to follow that argument, then I suggest it would be a trap that would lead one to the curious situation where any amendment put forward that happened to contain a paragraph taken from any other accepted amendment would have to be accepted by the House, regardless of how many other ways it offended the rules that are before us.
I submit that clearly the interpretation of those precedents is that an hon. member is entitled to give his reasons for objecting to second reading at this time, provided his amendment on second reading stage is in order. This is the very point to which the hon. member refused to address himself during the course of his remarks. I suggest that obviously the amendment that he has put forward is nothing more than the negation of the motion and therefore is not in order. The fact it attaches reasons makes it all the more offensive and in no way supports his argument.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would like to thank those hon. members who have taken part in the discussion of this interesting point of order. My decision is reserved. I now call on the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I earnestly hope that in my contribution to this debate I shall be able to avoid participating in the charges and countercharges that have marked a good deal of the discussion that has taken place this afternoon. Indeed, I want to thank the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) for giving me a cue for the opening of my remarks. He said at the end of his speech, at the point where he had forgotten to move his amendment, that he hoped I would demonstrate my belief in the rule of law or my belief in the accountability of the government, or whatever the phrase was, and that is exactly the point I want to make.
We believe in the rule of law. The Unemployment Insurance Act is a law of this land, passed by this parliament. That act provides very clearly that the benefits set out in the act shall be paid to those who are entitled to receive them. Lest there be any doubt on that point may I draw attention to Section 135(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act which reads in part as follows:
There shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and "charged to the Unemployment Insurance Account
(a)	all amounts paid as or on account of benefits under this Act; and
(b)	the costs of administration of this Act.
(2) Notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, amounts referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) shall be paid by special warrants drawn on the Receiver General, issued by the Commission, and bearing the printed signature of the Chairman and Secretary of the Commission.
That is part of the fundamental law of this land, that unemployment insurance benefits are to be paid. I submit that if the government found itself in some difficulty because of misleading estimates, because of bungling here and there, or what have you, it still had an absolute responsibility to keep that law and to pay those benefits. If there were any difficulties that stood in the way it was bound to find a way to get around those difficulties.
I say to you that if because of a negative amount in the unemployment insurance account the government had broken that law by refusing to pay unemployment insurance benefits, I do not know what the Tories might have done-


Erik Nielsen: You know very well.


Gerald William Baldwin: We would have done it legally.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -but we would have raised the roof and the people of this country would have said it is up to the government to keep the law. The government, as I say, had a clear responsibility to pay these benefits, and when it discovered there was not enough money in the unemployment insurance account, or perhaps I should say enough credit in that account to pay them, or when it found there was going to be a negative figure in due course, it had a responsibility to find a legal way to put that account into a position so that those benefits could be paid. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that it was only doing its duty when it relied on Section 23 of the Financial Administration Act.
A short while ago the hon. member for Peace River pointed out, as I intended to do for a different reason, that the terms of the Financial Administration Act were altered in two or three respects around about 1958. The hon. member for Peace River earlier today quoted that section of the Financial Administration Act as it used to read. It implied that it was to be used mainly in the case of an accident to a bridge, a building or a public work. The hon. member said that the change in the wording dropped that and put it in general terms.
I submit that dropping that miniscule sort of provision in respect of a bridge, a building or a public work, and putting that sanction in broad general terms, had the effect of giving the government the power to cope with

January 24, 1973

any financial emergency that might face it. That is precisely the effect of Section 23(1) of the Financial Administration Act in its present form. I should like to put it on record as it now reads:
Where a payment is urgently required for the public good when Parliament is not in session and there is no other appropriation pursuant to which the payment may be made, the Governor in Council, upon the report of the President of the Treasury Board that there is no appropriation for the payment and the report of the appropriate Minister that the payment is urgently required for the public good, may by order direct the preparation of a special warrant to be signed by the Governor General authorizing the payment to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
How anyone can argue that the terms of that section have been violated is beyond my comprehension.
It is crystal clear that the time came when the unemployment insurance account was running into a deficit position. The Unemployment Insurance Act says that benefits must be paid. That law had to be kept. I submit that if anything ever met the definition of "public good" it is that. In the name of the public good, these unemployment insurance benefits had to be paid. At the same time, there was no other appropriation on which the government could draw to put credit into that unemployment insurance account. It had used up the $800 million the Minister of Finance could extend by way of advances. He could not advance any more money that way. There was no other appropriation on which the government could draw.
Therefore, I submit that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration at that time, the present hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), and the President of the Treasury Board were quite within their legal rights. In fact, they were only doing their duty when they took before the Governor in Council the need to pass the appropriate Governor General's warrants so the law which required the payment of unemployment insurance benefits could be kept.
If we are going to talk about keeping the law and maintaining financial accountability, I suggest we put it on the proper basis. It would have been a case of breaking the law if the government said it had no money in the fund and could not pay these benefits. What would have happened in this country if that had taken place in the middle of the election period? I submit it would have been a lot more serious than what happened because of the backlash against unemployment insurance which was fanned and developed during the election period.
I submit that for time to be spent in this session trying to accuse the government of breaking the law is missing the point altogether. That is what Section 23 of the Financial Administration Act is for. It does not follow the wording of 100 years ago, that you can draw special money only to repair a bridge that has been hit by lightning. It is there for any emergency in which the public good has to be met and where there is not an appropriation on which the government can draw.
I may point out, although it is not completely relevant to the point I am making-yes, maybe it is-that another change was made in 1958 by the Conservative government at that time, and I give that government full credit for it. Prior to 1958 the Financial Administration Act, and before that the Consolidated Revenue Act as it used'to be
Unemployment Insurance Act
called, permitted Governor General's warrants to be used when parliament was not in session. There was no necessity for those warrants to be confirmed later by parliament. I remember, when we were going out of here for the 1958 election, I put the question to the then prime minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker), as to what he was going to do about Governor General's warrants during that election period. He made the promise, either here in the House or out on the hustings, that if his government came back, it would amend the law to require that Governor General's warrants be confirmed by a succeeding session of parliament. I give him full marks. He kept the promise, and the law was changed.
So now, we have the benefit of that change. It is now in the law. It is there in later subsections of section 23 that the money obtained by a warrant must be approved by a supplementary estimate. That is what is happening in the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee right now. I am not a lawyer as is the hon. member for Peace River. I have to look at these things in a very practical, commonsense, way. But as I read the law, it seems to me that the members of the government, faced with the tremendous social problem of unemployment insurance benefits having to be paid-granted, because they had no plans, no policy to deal with unemployment-found a legal way to do it, and it is now going through the further legal process of getting parliament to approve those warrants that were passed at that time. I submit that the roasting or the shadow boxing to which they are being subjected now is nothing compared with the opprobrium that would have been heaped upon them if they had not kept the law and paid the benefits as they should.
Because I have some memory of these things around here, I also find it strange that members of the Progressive Conservative party are complaining about executive action when parliament is not in session. I happen to remember very well the events of June, 1962, just after the election of that year. As hon. members will recall, everything was rosy just before the election of June 18, 1962, but right afterward there was a dollar crisis, a crisis in trade, and so on, between this country and the United States. So the minority government of that day passed by order in council a surcharge on imports, order PC 1962902. The effect of this was to increase import duties. This was done by executive action. How did they do it? The law of the land does not permit the members of the cabinet to raise duties on imports or to pass an order-in-council for doing something which does not have statutory basis. However, they were pretty smart in those days. They passed a double-barrelled order in council.
On the one hand, they looked into the Customs Tariff and they found that although they could not raise duties, they could transfer categories of goods from one column to another and that this could have the effect of increasing the duties charged on those goods.


An hon. Member:: That is called cooking the books.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So, they transferred certain categories of goods from one column to

January 24, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act
another. But the trouble with that was that it raised the duties by too much. It raised them by 20 per cent or 25 per cent in some cases, and they did not want to do that; they wanted them raised by only 5 per cent, 10 per cent or 15 per cent. So they looked in the Financial Administration Act-this Bible which is now being quoted-and they found in a section which is now section 17 the power to remit or to forgive taxes or charges. So they passed a blanket provision that these duties, which they had raised by transferring them from one column to another, were to be forgiven to the extent necessary so that they would be brought down to duties of 5 per cent, 10 per cent or 15 per cent for the various categories listed in that order. This is about as devious and unusual an order in council as we have ever had. I remember being at home in Winnipeg just after the election and hearing about it on television. I just could not believe it.
Well, we came down here that fall for the session. Some hon. members from the Liberal side, or one or two of them who have gone to their reward-in some cases it is to another world, in some cases it is to another place- picked up the cue from us. We were sitting over where the Social Credit party now sits. They fought this order bitterly. They said it was an illegal order in council. The right hon. member for Prince Albert said no, that they had the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, they had the opinion of the Department of Justice, that this was a perfectly proper order in council. We fought hard, the Liberals and our party, but we got nowhere with them. In due course the session ended, there was an election, and the Liberals came to power in 1963.


An hon. Member:: What's the difference?


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the meantime, of course, some pretty big companies in this country which were affected rather seriously by these higher duties of 5 per cent, 10 per cent or 15 per cent, decided that they would go to court claiming that the order in council was invalid.
So the Liberal government, which was by then in power, went to the same law officers of the Crown, to the same people in the Department of Justice, and asked: What is your opinion now? These were the very same law officers of the Crown who had told the Tories that the order in council was legal. Now, they told the Liberals that it was not and that they had to do something about it.


Mr. Jamieson:: Same old gang!


Stanley Howard Knowles: So the Liberals brought in a bill. In this situation big sums of money were at stake. I want to say that if the 1972 election had gone the other way, the Tories, who are now complaining about these Governor General's warrants, would have got them themselves, in order to pay unemployment insurance claims. Or if they had found warrants already there that had been passed by the Liberals, as probably would have been the case, they would have brought in supplementary estimates approving what the Liberals had done. They would have had no other course.
So let us not have this nonsense about getting legal opinions. I am not going to use the man's name, but the actual official in the department who one year said it was

legal was the same official who the next year said it was illegal.


An hon. Member:: He got his reward.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, he did not. He is now in the academic world somewhere.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us not get
lost in this argument about what is legal and what is illegal. The basic fact so far as the law is concerned is that the unemployment insurance benefits had to be paid, and that there was a provision in the Financial Administration Act that enabled the government to cope with the crisis which, I admit, had come about because members of the government bungled the administration. They had received poor statistics from the Department of Finance, Statistics Canada, or somewhere else, and fundamentally they had not really come to grips with the problem of unemployment. If they had not allowed unemployment to become so high this whole problem would not have arisen. The hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) is perfectly right when he points out that that is the real issue, and not the Unemployment Insurance Act.
When people talk about the law and make these complaints about whether it is being kept or not, I want to refer to something else. When Mr. Benson had before us that big bill amending the Income Tax Act, which I think we passed in December, 1971, it provided a change with respect to the income tax exemption for senior citizens. The provision in that bill was that at age 65 every taxpayer would get an extra $650 exemption. That became law effective January 1, 1972.
That is still the law, Mr. Speaker. It has not been changed. That is the law for 1972, that the extra exemption for taxpayers 65 years of age and over is $650. But last May 8 the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in his budget speech proposed that that figure of $650 be raised to $1,000. No bill to make this change was ever introduced, but it was promised, and the promise was that it would be effective as at January 1, 1972.
This got thrown around a lot during the recent election campaign. In fact, it was even mentioned in the literature that went out with the old age security cheques. You know, Mr. Speaker, the government never puts propaganda into the literature it sends out, but there it was. It said, "We have asked parliament for this increase to $1,000 and, if parliament agrees, this will apply as of January 1, 1972. It is a good provision. I like it and welcome it. But, Mr. Speaker, it has not been passed. It is not the law of the land. The law of the land is $650.
I wonder if any hon. members have looked at the income tax forms that have recently been issued. The new income tax form says that at age 65 the exemption is $1,000. Why don't my Tory friends get up and raise the roof about the fact that the government is breaking the law, that it is letting the Department of National Revenue put out an income tax form that is at variance with what the law says? Like all of us, they are the friends of the old
January 24, 1973

age pensioners. They wanted us to adjourn for a day a while ago. What good that would do for the old age pensioners I do not know. But in any case the Tories are not saying a word about this departure from the law, or maybe they are not aware of it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not a fact, and I put this forward for a purpose, that some time this year whatever government is here-Liberal, Conservative or New Democratic-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Or Social Credit.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Or a combination thereof.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to show my impartiality and so I had better mention Social Credit too-is it not a fact that that law will be passed, and that at some point that change from $650 to $1,000 will be confirmed? I cannot imagine that the government, after our older people have all filed their income tax returns according to that form, would send out a notice saying, "You have to pay so much more because you did not conform with the law." No, Mr. Speaker, parliament will make the law conform with the form. This goes on all the time. We complain about it, but it goes on. Money gets spent before it is actually approved. Taxes are imposed as of midnight on the day the Minister of Finance makes a budget speech, subject to their being approved later.
I am glad that that exemption is there on the income tax form for the old age pensioners, in the knowledge that this parliament will approve it, as we shall certainly do. I think that with respect to unemployment insurance the situation is parallel, that what the government has done has been to find a way to pay that money, knowing that this parliament would approve of that action.
I submit that even my hon. friends in the Conservative party, who want to lambaste the government for what it is doing, have shown by their very motion that they do not dare vote against the approval of the money that was used to pay unemployment insurance benefits. That is what it is all about, Mr. Speaker. For those reasons it is our intention to endorse the course the government has taken in this respect, and to vote for this bill, Bill C-124. This does not mean that we approve of the way in which the government has handled unemployment insurance, and I give notice to the government that Bill C-125 is a different kettle of fish. We don't like that bill at all. Don't look to us for support on that. If you want support on that one you will have to get it from the Tories.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: If anything, that bill is an appeal to the Tory backlash. So, if you want support on that get it from them.
This bill, Bill C-124, as I pointed out when we were on the point of order, really does just one thing. It removes the $800 million ceiling. Frankly, I think it ought to be removed. I don't think it should ever have been put in there.
Unemployment Insurance Act
This afternoon the Minister of Manpower and Immigration gave good arguments as to why it should be removed. I noted his arguments as to why it was put there. He said it was put there in the belief that it might exercise some form of control. Of course it did not do that at all. I do not suppose we will ever really know why it was put there, but I have a suspicion of why it was put there. I think that figure was put there so that the then minister of finance would not have to give any estimate of how much he would have to pay out in unemployment insurance benefits. In other words, he would not have to give any estimates of what future unemployment might be. So, he protected himself, as he thought to the limit, by giving the figure of $800 million as a limit on advances at any one time. But it did not work, and now we are in this trouble.
I submit that if the Unemployment Insurance Act, the law of the land, says that if people meet certain conditions then they get unemployment insurance benefits, there should not be any law anywhere else, or any $800 million ceiling, or any other provision that could have the effect of denying them the right to draw those benefits. I call on my hon. friends in the Conservative party to support that position, that whatever benefits are provided to our people should get through to them without any question of financial limitation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we think that this bill should be passed quickly and sent to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, so that it can come back here and become the law, and so that we do not have to worry about that $800 million ceiling. Remember, all we are talking about is advances, which for the most part get paid back in due course.
We also think that the other transaction, the Governor General's warrants, should be approved quickly so that there will be no question along about the 8th or 9th of February about the government running out of money to pay unemployment insurance benefits. Parliament is sitting here now, and under the terms of the Financial Administration Act Governor General's warrants cannot be sought. The government has to depend on parliament. I hope parliament will realize that it has a responsibility to see that this law is upheld, to see that the commitments in the contract involved in the Unemployment Insurance Act are kept so far as the people of Canada are concerned.
We know that there are other changes that might have to be made to the act, perhaps some rather sweeping changes. But they are not the changes that are in Bill C-125. They are not the changes my hon. friends to my right would like to see. We think there should be more guarantees as to the rights of the people who come under that act. We hope that when Bill C-125, or its subject matter, gets to committee we will be able to go fully into this question. As it stands, we cannot and will not support Bill C-125.
However, that is not before us at the moment. We are on Bill C-124, and what is before us is simply the question of the $800 million ceiling. I could join in the lament about the bungling, about the lack of sufficient statistical information, about the fact that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration were probably getting their statistics from different sources, and about the fact that there was a lot of confusion and

January 24, 1973
Unemployment Insurance Act
inefficiency. I could talk about the ways in which they yielded because of the backlash during the election campaign, but we can sort all that out later. What I insist on right now is that we have had enough of this playing with the unemployed by suggesting that it was illegal for the government to get their payments to them when, in point of fact, the law required that this be done. Let us now tell the government to get on with the job of coping with unemployment itself. That is the real problem.


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to waste the time of the House because I feel that the bill now under consideration is a mere joke.
During the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, I stated that I was surprised by the cheekiness of the government members who said one thing, but acted otherwise.
Today, once again the government shows its inconsistency. When I compare the comments of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) in his statement before the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates with the bill now under consideration, I am disgusted.
A press release dated January 17, 1973 and entitled "Comments on proposed amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act concerning total advances" reads in part as follows:
This bill recommends the elimination of the $800 million ceiling on total advances. Such a ceiling is not realistic since it is based on unstable factors such as national and regional unemployment rates, average income rates and labour force expansion.
In committee the necessity of ceilings is confirmed while in the House it is denied. One could believe that the government is taking us for clowns or more exactly for chickens. It is intellectual indecency or unconsciousness on the part of the government. Perhaps you think that I am joking but I will quote the President of the Treasury Board.
On page 25 of issue No. 2 of the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates you will find the following question from the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and I quote:


Erik Nielsen: There seems little purpose in having a ceiling at all in the act under those conditions.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Chairman, I suggest there is a very good purpose in having a ceiling. This particular ceiling, I suggest, was .put in in order that Parliament would have an opportunity to examine the reasons for the circumstances surrounding any sums in excess of this, which is precisely what we are engaged in now.
It was precisely what we were also engaged in at that time. This is what we were doing. We were trying to determine why the $800 million ceiling had been exceeded. But those lines were hardly printed when the government rejected any studies of this kind. They want to establish an arbitrary system, without ceiling and intended mainly to prevent parliament from looking into the matter. And I further quote the minister:
I do not want to make a great thing of this. Parliament would have an opportunity . ..
. . of inquiring into the operation of the fund if the amount of the advances exceeded $800 million. If the ceiling had been set at a hypothetical figure, $5 billion, there would have been no occasion
for the issue of Governor General's warrants. There would have been no occasion for a parliamentary examination of the operations of the fund or the commission. By placing this limitation, the executive is required to come before Parliament to explain how and why it happened and what changes should be made.
Mr. Speaker, what is the purpose of all this? Why should a minister who claims to be responsible bring forward such an argument when his own party suggests the opposite? Is that cabinet loyalty? No wonder problems are never solved. Are government members striving to get us mixed up or are they themselves so mixed up that they don't know what to do?
Overnight, ceilings are removed and the worst of it is that, although there is no money, they are promising reimbursement plus interest.
To seek to remove the $800 million ceiling because it is impossible to make accurate estimates, to make an adequate assessment of the fluctuations of unemployment rates, well and good. I am even prepared to accept the minister's indirect recognition of his department's inefficiency.
In fact, whether there is a ceiling or not on the estimates is irrelevant. Workers do not want to know which measures the government intends to take to control unemployment insurance to its advantage but they do want means to be taken so that the government will fulfil its commitments on their behalf.
Even if in committee the official opposition wanted to be overcritical about the illegality of the procedure and even if today the government tries to cover up its mistake by bringing in this bill, we want action, amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, a speedier procedure for payment of benefits and especially deference for the right of the worker to the benefits which he has paid when he was working and which are now due to him. These are the things we ask for.
Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to accept the proposal of the government, but why promise reimbursement plus interest when we already know the preference of the department? Once again the worker will be penalized by the accountants and employees of the state.
Mr. Speaker, has anyone ever heard of a civil servant working for the Unemployment Insurance Commission having to wait for 15 weeks to get his salary? No. The one who pays is penalized; he has to wait; he is made to play hide-and-seek. But we make sure the parasite is reimbursed, and we even pay him interest, dividends. But who pays the bill? Again as always, the taxpayer, the worker.
Mr. Speaker, is this bill going to change the worker's situation in any way? It does nothing positive. It only gives the government the guarantee of being able to dig into the pockets of taxpayers without parliament-according to the President of the Treasury Board-asking any questions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Gilles Caouette: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday. January 25, 1973