1975-04-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the statements of former Auditor General, Maxwell Henderson, concerning the blatant disregard of his warnings of irregularities in the dredging industry by the public accounts committee. I therefore move seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the government refers the question of irregularities in the dredging industry back to the public accounts committee for a thorough and objective inquiry and further that the government directs that committee to exercise its duties with the respect for the recommendations of the Auditor General and the objectivity necessity to function as government watchdogs, rather than government lapdogs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of extreme urgency which requires our immediate attention.
Because there is now a real crisis in the Canadian labour sector, which crisis is to a large extent caused by the uncertainty in which Canadian workers live with regard to job security as well as the cost of living, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House study, as soon as possible the Social Credit proposals for the adoption of a guaranteed annual income to be paid all Canadians, to give them access to economic and material security and thus put an end to the present crisis in labour relations.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, the motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


HISTORIC SITES
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 arising out of the urgent and pressing necessity of permanently preserving great moments in Canadian history. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
In view of the Prime Minister revealing last week in an answer to a written question that it was on May 27,1974 in Etobicoke, Ontario, that he made the solemn commitment to "wrestle inflation into the ground", the House requests the government to declare that place a national historic site with a suitable plaque to be erected thereon commemorating the greatest broken promise in the history of Canadian politics.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister now in a position to inform the House as to the precise nature of the inquiry that he has announced is going to take place with respect to Air Canada, its terms of reference, its scope and other pertinent details involving what particular phases and aspects of Air Canada's operations will be examined?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the only answer I can give at this moment is that it is not going to be an in-house inquiry, but a governmen-

April 21, 1975
Oral Questions
tal inquiry. I have to submit to cabinet tomorrow the form it is going to take. I think that tomorrow we will know the terms of reference and the person who will be in charge of the inquiry.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will be able to assure the House tomorrow that this inquiry will be public and not necessarily limited to this particular incident, but will include such matters as labour relations and accounting procedures. Perhaps the inquiry could also look into the pay and prerogatives and privileges of those in Air Canada's upper level of management. Will the minister consider taking this under advisement?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, in the question which the hon. member directed to me the other day, he revealed something which was very important as far as Air Canada is concerned. That is why I reacted immediately. If he is now asking me to make an inquiry into the whole Air Canada organization, I do not think that would be in the public interest. I do not know what the terms of reference will be. Cabinet will have to approve them. As soon as I know, I will communicate them to the hon. member.


FARE INCREASES-SUGGESTION CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION HEARINGS BE EXPEDITED TO DETERMINE JUSTIFICATION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I hope this will be a public inquiry and not strictly limited to the narrow aspect of what Air Canada is doing. I wish to direct a related question to the minister. In view of the precarious position of Air Canada, with its load factors dropping and deficit increasing, will the minister expedite hearings by the Canadian Transport Commission to determine whether fare increases are necessary and justified and, if so, will he act on this as quickly as possible?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In fairness, I cannot honestly say that is a related or supplementary question.


PROPOSAL CERTAIN ASPECTS OF OPERATION BE REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a follow up to that asked by the hon. member for Central Nova. Without prejudicing in any way the eventual decision of the government for a wider inquiry into the Air Canada charges, will the minister put the matter to his cabinet colleagues that there are certain other matters concerning Air Canada that should be dealt with by parliament? Some of these matters were referred to in the statement made last night by Maxwell Henderson on the show W-5. These matters are clearly within the prerogative of parliament to decide, not an inquiry. Without prejudicing what the decision will be of the government inquiry, will the minister consider putting these wider political matters referring to the economy of Air Canada into the parliamentary committee set up for that purpose?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the House will have an opportunity to inquire

into Air Canada. The Standing Committee on Transport and Communications will probably call Mr. Pratte as a witness. Hon. members will be able to put any questions they want to Mr. Pratte. Outside that, there is the general air policy being reviewed which will include Air Canada and civil aviation policy, which the House will have an opportunity of discussing. So I do not see why we should mix all that up with this popular inquiry referring to something which apparently seems abnormal. We have so many opportunities that I do not think it would be useful to lose sight of this popular problem which is a very precise one; we know the terms, we know what happened-or we think we know. We shall deal with the aspect as fast as we can. For the rest, I have no objection at all to discussing the case of Air Canada.


U410) DATE OF DECISION OF MR. PRATTE TO APPEAR ON &quot;W-5&quot;
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: should like to thank the minister for the tenor of his answer because it is exactly what I was hoping he would say; the subject matter of the inquiry he is setting up is one thing, but parliament has its own function to perform, and that is another thing. And that is what the minister has pledged to do. I think the minister is aware of what my next question is going to be. It is really simple. Was the decision of Mr. Yves Pratte to go on "W-5" made some weeks ago before this fuss started and, if so, was the inquiry which was agreed to here last week a device for him not to give the information which he was prepared to give there last night?


Jean Marchand: I do not
know what the result of the inquiry will be. I do not think there is any charge against Mr. Pratte. I think that one of the vice-presidents was involved in the transaction which was referred to by the hon. member for Central Nova. I think that Mr. Pratte can go on "W-5". He is in charge. He is president of Air Canada. If some day we think there are good reasons to remove him from that position I think the government is going to do it. But for the time being he can go on "W-5" and answer the questions of the newspaper men.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON PROPOSED MEETING OF COMMONWEALTH TRADE MINISTERS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It arises out of the report which Mr. Arnold Smith, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, has prepared for the Commonwealth meeting in Kingston, Jamaica, in which he suggests there be a meeting of Commonwealth trade ministers. In view of the fact that the Canadian representatives at the Rome food conference last November took the position that trade matters should be dealt with exclusively by GATT, I want to ask the minister whether the Canadian government is prepared to support the idea that a meeting of Commonwealth trade ministers be held in order to assist the developing parts of
April 21, 1975

Oral Questions
the Commonwealth in establishing outlets for commodi- [Translation]
ties at reasonable prices?	POST OFFICE


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I have not seen the report to which the hon. member refers but I am sure the Prime Minister, who will be attending the meeting of first ministers at the Commonwealth conference within the next ten days, will want to take that suggestion under advisement.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON INTERNATIONAL COMMODITY AGREEMENTS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that the Canadian representatives at the Sugar International Agreement Conference held in Geneva in 1973 are accused of being among those who stonewalled efforts to reach agreement on sugar prices with the effect we have all noticed-domestic sugar prices have quadrupled since that time-is the Canadian government now prepared to discuss international commodity agreements which would stabilize trade with respect to both price and supply throughout the developing countries of the world?


Alastair William Gillespie: We are, of course, prepared to discuss these questions at any time. One of the reasons the conference to which the hon. member has referred was not successful was that the producer countries did not feel it was in their interest to conclude an agreement at that time. They felt that prices would continue to rise. I think it is important to recognize that there are many more people in the developing countries that are sugar importers rather than sugar exporters.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I put my final supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the speech which he made at the Guildhall dinner in London recently in which he made a plea for sharing the world's goods, particularly with the underdeveloped areas of the world, what initiative is the Canadian government going to take with respect to developing international commodity agreements, and what leadership will the Canadian government be prepared to give at the Commonwealth meeting at Kingston, Jamaica in order to assure these countries that they will get prices for their raw materials which bear some relationship to the durable goods which they have to purchase?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question which was raised at the previous Commonwealth conference held in Ottawa and regarding which we took the initiative of asking the Secretariat to prepare a series of reports. We in the Canadian government have also been studying this question, and we will take in Kingston, Jamaica, the position which will carry out best the aims and objectives that this government wants to follow.


MONTREAL STRIKE-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General.
In view of the rather difficult situation in Montreal, which is due to the postal conflict, and since we are receiving phone calls almost every minute from Montrealers who are asking whether negotiations are progressing, is the minister in a position to say whether the negotiations now going on between the department and the union are improving or deteriorating?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might be asking two questions. If he means the negotiations between the government and postal workers, they are proceeding smoothly. If he means the negotiations between the minister and those who work in the Montreal building, productivity has improved and I believe the backlog of one million letters is already down to about 500,000.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary.
I have heard yesterday on the news that a union official, the president I think, had charged the government with a certain provocation, arguing that they had hidden parcels and letters in some warehouses in the vicinity of Montreal; is there something founded in that allegation? Can the minister tell us whether this union president is a liar or whether he said the truth?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, rather than reply in my sidewalk French, I might say that the reason we have been putting the mail in locations other than the main post office is that if we put any more in the main post office you could not get in the door if you did want to work.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the right hon. Prime Minister and it is about his sharing concept. Does the sharing concept indicate that the government is now anxious to compromise in its position about sharing the revenues in the marginal areas of the seabed, as hoped for by many nations at the Law of the Sea Conference, and would such revenue sharing not mean perhaps that many countries would then accept Canada's position?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question is a legitimate one, Mr. Speaker, but it does have to do with the whole process of putting together a series of agreements and understandings on the law of the sea. The hon. member will understand that some countries are prepared to give up something in return for something

April 21, 1975
Oral Questions
else. I imagine this is how every country is proceeding at that conference. Each country is trying to get a law of the sea accepted by all, but one in which that particular country's participation will not be unfair to itself as opposed to what others are prepared to give up. The hon. member knows that this is how these discussions take place. He will have to see what package Canada is prepared to accept when the whole package is put together, but he would not expect me to give him our official position on any one element of that package now.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, would the right hon. gentleman not agree that time is running rather late for a compromise Canadian package?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hope again, Mr. Speaker, that time has not run out until the last card is on the table.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport that is somewhat supplementary to questions asked previously, and it is in connection with the "W-5" program last night on CTV when a statement was made quoting from the 1974 annual report of Air Canada. Can the minister explain why members of parliament have not received this report when apparently certain people in the news media have received it? When will the report be tabled? Can the minister give us the assurance that Air Canada officials will appear before the Committee on Transport and Communications and when can we expect that appearance?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the next time I will bring my pencil to take notes as there are so many questions asked about the same thing.


An hon. Member:: You couldn't answer anyhow.


Jean Marchand: I think the committee can ask Mr. Pratte to appear before it at any time, and I do not think he would refuse to appear. As far as the report of Air Canada is concerned, it all depends on to which report the hon. gentleman is referring. If it is the financial report, it has been postponed for about two years along with the CN report because there was not approval in the House here. That is the reason you do not have it. If there is a public report of Air Canada, there is no reason you should not have it.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that it would have been easier to ask my questions in logical order than to ask supplementary questions. Let me inform the Minister of Transport that the report I was referring to was the 1974 annual report from which some figures were quoted. Apparently, it must be ready or some of the people of the press would not have been using those figures on the

program. I am wondering when that report will be tabled and why it has not been tabled up to this point if it has been released in part to the media?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the indulgence of the House in saying that if my memory serves me well this report has to be produced before May 5.


An hon. Member:: The 1974 report?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: This is 1975.


Jean Marchand: Was he referring to last year's report?


An hon. Member:: The 1974 report.


Jean Marchand: And you do not have it?


Jack Burnett Murta: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: I am going to institute a departmental inquiry.


POSSIBILITY OF SOME PERSONS BEING SUSPENDED UNTIL COMPLETION OF INQUIRY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the allegations of serious improprieties on the part of top management of Air Canada and what appear to be serious contradictions between statements by a former marketing vice-president and Mr. Yves Pratte, I would ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government to suspend any person or persons while the inquiry referred to by the minister is underway?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am going to do what I promised the House I would do. Tomorrow, I intend to recommend to the Cabinet that we institute an inquiry. Do not ask me to make this inquiry here in the House, as I am not going to do that. When the inquiry officers have been nominated and the terms of reference and the time established, then at that moment perhaps you can put questions, but I am not going to tell you that we are going to fire a man who may be charged wrongly. I do not know that. If we knew all these things we would now only have to make a decision.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It covers the general question of the accountancy proceedings of Air Canada, certain payments made, contractual measures and authority of vice-presidents. Is the right hon. gentleman aware that when his Minister of Transport in the House used the term "a government inquiry" in English in any event this has an innuendo to the effect that it would be some type of government, departmental or in-house type of inquiry. Is the hon. gentleman aware that some of us in any event on this side of the House would be satisfied
April 21, 1975

with only a judicial type of public, open or royal commission investigation of this matter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


POST OFFICE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. In view of recent cost of living figures which indicate an annual increase in the cost of living of some 11.3 per cent what steps is the Postmaster General taking to adjust the contracts of rural route mail drivers, those locked into five-year contracts, when the agreements normally are not increased at least until after an initial two-year period?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. gentleman for his courtesy in having given me notice of the question. He is quite accurate in saying that in initial contracts the law at the present time stipulates there will be no increase for the first two years but a contract can be adjusted annually after that. Those contracts which are renewal contracts can be adjusted annually. We are very conscious of the fact that the increased cost of petrol, gasoline and maintenance has in many instances created a degree of hardship and we are contemplating changes in the act which might reduce the two-year period.
We are certainly giving maximum consideration to those requests which have been made and some people forget they have the right to request adjustments. Inflation is taken into consideration in readjusting the contracts.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the general transport index is up even higher, to 12 per cent, and auto operation and maintenance cost is up to 14.3 per cent and that on October 11 last, as recorded at page 345 of Hansard in answer to a similar question, the minister indicated to the hon. member for Gaspe that "there may be other ways in which we can take into consideration the effect of inflation on this particular group of contractors", since the minister has had this under consideration for something over half a year, when will we in fact have a program to alleviate a very serious problem in respect of these rural route mail drivers?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think the reference is very accurate. The continued rate of inflation means more urgency in respect to introducing the required amendment. In the meantime greater consideration to costs has been taken when adjusting these contracts considering what they have suffered in the fixed two-year period through inflation.
Oral Questions TRADE


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON INTERNATIONAL COMMODITY AGREEMENTS
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might press the Prime Minister a little about the government's position with regard to international commodity agreements and ask him to indicate to the House what is the general disposition of the government toward these agreements at the present time. Does the government regard a general approach to the international commodity agreements as desirable or not in general?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker; that is I think quite simply answered by saying the government's position throughout has been that we are preparing any international commodity agreements to cover both consumer and producer groups. Very recently we have refused to participate in a union of countries trying to get together on a producer basis. It has been our consistent effort, whether it be in wheat, sugar, ferrous minerals or any other commodity, to ensure that there be a meeting of producer and consumer interests instead of confrontations between them.


INTERNATIONAL COMMODITY AGREEMENTS-ALLEGED STATEMENT OF MINISTER OF FINANCE ON CANADIAN APPROACH-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: The report out of Teheran quotes the Minister of Finance as having said that the price of all raw materials, whether they be oil, bauxite or wheat, should be fixed by agreements between producers and consumers. I have no way of knowing whether that is an accurate report, but perhaps the Prime Minister would indicate whether that statement represents government policy and whether it represents, on the part of the Minister of Finance and the government of Canada, an effort to extend to the international area the consensus that the government is seeking inside Canada in so far as the prices of raw materials are concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not
know any more than the Leader of the Opposition what were the exact words used by the Minister of Finance, but it seems to me that the intent of his reply as quoted by the hon. gentleman is to the same effect as was my reply, that is that we prefer agreement by consent and co-operation between all parties rather than a cartel type of approach which imposes prices unilaterally on consuming nations.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps another day the Prime Minister may have an opportunity to check out what the Minister of Finance did say, and we can look into it then.

April 21, 1975
Oral Questions
Now, I would like to ask the Prime Minister or the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government of Canada has indicated to those countries which participated in the Paris Conference which commenced on April 7 its desire to see a compromise reached and whether the government has communicated its views to those participating countries, and what precisely is the attitude of the government now with regard to the inclusion of other commodities in these discussions?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I have said in reply to other questions from the Leader of the Opposition, the government is anxious to reach a compromise on this particular issue. The conference that we had in mind, and that we would have supported, would have been one dealing essentially with energy, but we feel it might be possible to reach a compromise by including some other items, provided that the emphasis of the conference is not lost. The great danger, of course, is that the conference will be concerned with all materials and that the particularly urgent question of energy might get lost in the wider sort of conference that might emerge. These views, which I have expressed publicly, are of course now known throughout the world.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the suggestions that some of the 1,600 Canadian troups presently serving with the United Nations peacekeeping teams in Cyprus and the Middle East may have to be recalled to Canada to provide security in the 1976 Olympics, would the minister advise whether this information is correct and also how many troups would be withdrawn and from which peacekeeping assignments will the withdrawal be effected?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the information is not correct. In fact, before the committee last week I indicated that we could provide sufficient forces to assist in providing security at the Olympic games without withdrawing any of our peacekeeping forces.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In the absence of the Minister of Finance and of the acting minister, would the Prime Minister accept the recommendation that either the acting minister or some other delegated person make a statement to the House this week on the decline of the Canadian dollar, the prediction that the dollar will decline
[Mr. Stanfield.)
further, the relationship to Canada's adverse position on current account balance of payments, and so forth, or must we await the undefined date of the budget before we can have an explanation of what is happening now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar question last week indicating that the Canadian dollar was floating freely in response to market forces. As to predictions regarding what will happen with the dollar, surely the hon. gentleman does not expect that kind of prediction in the budget.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My question relates to the decline of the Canadian dollar that is forecast as a result of reduced borrowings abroad and to the adverse balance of trade. The budget is to be brought down some time towards the end of May, but not necessarily so. That is more than six weeks away.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. gentleman is suggesting that the budget, whenever it is brought down, should include some predictions and forecasts about how the Canadian dollar will behave. Surely, the Minister of Finance will not want to do that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He always does.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. gentleman wants to speculate on the future of the Canadian dollar, he should do that on the basis of his own knowledge.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Read the minister's former speeches.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the announcement last week that $127 million will be spent on extensions at the Toronto International airport, including a five storey parking garage, and in view of my recent inquiry in the House which revealed that the parking garage at the Vancouver international airport will be closed and the outdoor lot extended, can the minister tell the House by what logic his department plans to provide covered parking in Toronto, which will reduce the walking distance to the terminal by half while at the same time the garage at Vancouver is to be closed, resulting in the walking distance to the terminal being doubled?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: They need exercise in Vancouver.


An hon. Member:: It makes a good over-all average.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, in order to satisfy the hon. gentleman, who seems to be well aware of all the facts-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 21, 1975


Jean Marchand: -and if he is not, he will be informed of them tomorrow-I will double check what he said to see if it is really what will happen.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the NATO council, composed of the ambassadors of the 15 member states, agreed on April 18 to hold a summit conference at Brussels on May 29 and 30, would the Prime Minister now comment on the timing of this particular conference, since it seems to have been his chief concern, and will he be informing the House of the position which Canada will adopt at this meeting before his departure since he did state it was his intention to attend?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Our position on the timing was stated publicly and it is on record. We thought that the timing was somewhat premature, but we also indicated that we would adjust to any timing that the majority preferred, and that is still our position. As to what position I will take at that conference, I will first have to know what is on the agenda, and then I will see whether it is in the public interest to make a statement before the conference is held rather than after.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Was he informed and did he give his prior consent to the presence on Parliament Hill during the January demonstrations last fall of Douglas Durham, a paid informer of the American FBI?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: I am told Mr. Durham came to Canada after the demonstration on Parliament Hill at the opening of parliament and that he was invited at the request of the Indian movement in Canada, and some of the people who were organizing that demonstration. His presence here in Canada at that time was not known by the RCMP until afterwards.



SUGGESTION UNITED STATES SEEK APPROVAL OF SOLICITOR GENERAL BEFORE SENDING AGENTS TO CANADA

Henry Perrin Beatty: Can the Solicitor General tell the House whether or not at that time Durham was working for the FBI and reported back to them, and also, can the minister tell the House whether or not he has been in touch with his
Oral Questions
American counterparts to instruct them that before American agents are sent to Canada he expects to be informed and give his consent prior to the coming of those agents to Canada?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Durham, I understand was a paid informer for the FBI, and he had been to Canada on previous occasions following requests by the FBI and consent given by the RCMP. However, since it is very easy for people to move back and forth over the Canada-U.S. border, he came on that occasion without any knowledge of the FBI or the RCMP, as I said, at the request of the Indian movement. But under the agreement we have with the FBI, they are to request the approval of the RCMP each time one of these movements is made, and I presently have this whole policy under review.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the department's expressed policy to give incentives to establishing industry or expansion of existing industry, could the minister indicate whether it is the policy of his department or of the government to give DREE grants to corporations being established as Crown corporations by provincial governments?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, there is no prohibition against such grants, and going by memory, I think that in a few cases we have actually done so. Basically, each case is judged on its merits, and the test is not whether it is a Crown corporation, but whether it will enhance the economics of the particular region or area. If the hon. member could be more specific, I will try to be more specific in my answer.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I would like to ask the minister whether, before making any final approval for the DREE application made by the Manitoba government respecting Crocus Foods, to be located as Selkirk, Manitoba, he will undertake to do a very careful analysis of what effect the establishment of such an industry might have on the dairy processing industry of Manitoba and specifically the dairy producers of Manitoba?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I can give the hon. member an unqualified assurance on that. I am now familiar with the case to which he refers, and such an examination is now being made. I have had some consultations with the government of Manitoba in this regard, but no decision has been reached.

April 21, 1975
Oral Questions



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Since the minister has repeatedly refused to hold a public inquiry into the SIU investigation, and now since, according to an aide, that report is concluded would the minister consider tabling the report, and if not, why not? And why was this announcement made by an aide outside the House?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it was not made by an aide, in the first place. I had an answer to give in the House on both Thursday and Friday, but the question was not put. When I went outside, a member of the press asked me the question, and I gave the answer. I do not know why it was reported that the answer was given by an aide. It may have been given by an aide after I had given my original response to the press. In any case, the report was rather a lengthy one which stated that all the allegations made by Dr. Shulman and others who had made similar allegations had been investigated.
The report also stated that there was no evidence to back up any of those allegations with respect to wrongdoing or criminality by members of parliament or ministers with respect to the SIU. The report was sent to me by the RCMP under either a confidential or secret label, and that was due to the fact that they repeat in the report many of the allegations made against many people, both members of parliament and others. It seems to me that we should not make that report public, but I will look into that once again.



REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE REPORT ABSOLVES MEMBERS AND MINISTERS OF POLITICAL IMPROPRIETY

John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank the minister for that part of his answer, but since there were allegations, not just involving criminal conduct or criminal matters, but also of political improprieties, can the minister assure the House, as he sort of reported outside of the House, that the report also completely absolves any member or minister of such improprieties as political misconduct or political indiscretion as compared with anything of a criminal nature?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, many people made allegations by innuendo, and it is difficult to know exactly what was charged and what was not charged, but any allegations which involved criminality were investigated by the RCMP. If the hon. member has in mind other charges, perhaps he should ask me about those charges, and we will certainly determine whether there should be any public inquiry with respect to them, but I would like to know exactly what he refers to when he says there were other allegations.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: To make it really crystal clear, separate and apart from criminality, can the minister state publicly in this House that the report now marked confidential makes no reference or recommendation as to anything of a political impropriety involving a member or a minister?


William Warren Allmand: In a nutshell, the allegations made by Dr. Shulman were that federal ministers and members of parliament were not investigating the SIU because they received campaign contributions, and for that reason they were not acting when they should have been acting or when someone asked them to act. These allegations were thoroughly checked into and found to be false.



INFORMATION


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, having heard the Solicitor General with regard to the release of information, and having heard the former auditor general last night, I would like to ask the President of the Privy Council if he will undertake to change the rather medieval approach of the government toward freedom of information and bring about a support for measures which will make this an open society rather than a secret society.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very fortunate that the hon. member has a bill which is now being considered by a parliamentary committee. I know he would not want to cast aspersions upon the members of that committee.


Gerald William Baldwin: I would like some support on it.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
Mb. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, although it could be that the Minister of National Defence or the Secretary of State might be involved. My question relates to the fact that the entourage which will be going north this week with Prince Charles is being transported by several airlines, one of which, namely, Transair, is strike bound. In view of this fact and in order to avoid any picket line difficulties for the members of that entourage-I am not talking about the Prince himself, I am talking about the entourage-will this matter be looked into in the hope that the contract with the strike bound company might be replaced by a contract with some other airline?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.
April 21, 1975



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, the President of the Privy Council. The February report on asbestos in the Great Lakes basin, released by the International Joint Commission, used figures obtained from the Ontario ministry of the environment showing the asbestos fibre content of drinking water in Thunder Bay North as 830,000 fibres per litre. In view of the fact that two universities', Lakehead and McMaster, studies show concentrations 20 times this amount, would the minister request that the IJC conduct an independent study to ascertain the real fibre content?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will give that request sympathetic consideration.



NATURAL GAS-PROPOSED MEETING WITH UNITED STATES ON EXPORT PRICE-POSSIBLE ATTENDANCE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF PRODUCING PROVINCES

Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is basically for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but in his absence I will put it to the Prime Minister. Given the fact that the United States government has asked for a special meeting almost immediately-and I understand that Canada has agreed that it take place within the next day or two-about the price of natural gas to be exported to the United States, can the Prime Minister tell us who will represent Canada at these meetings? More particularly, will there be observers or representatives from the producing provinces attending this important meeting in the next day or so?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question on behalf of the minister, and he will respond when he returns to the House.


James McPhail Gillies: There are reports that that meeting might well take place tonight or tomorrow morning. Is there any truth in reports that this meeting will take place that soon, or are these reports in the press perhaps not as accurate as they may seem to be?


Maurice Brydon Foster: The minister is just out of the House for a moment. He will respond as soon as he returns.
Oral Questions



PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister travel to and from Toronto last Friday at taxpayers' expense for the purpose of attending a Liberal party fund raising dinner, and can the Prime Minister tell the House when he will discontinue financing his political trips and holidays by dipping into the public pot?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



LACK OF MEDICAL SERVICES IN CHAPAIS, QUEBEC

Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since Chapais, a municipality of 4,000 inhabitants, is entirely devoid of medical services and since the Quebec government seems unable to solve that serious problem, I would ask the minister whether he has any responsibility at all for those people demanding a resident physician?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the distribution of health care, as the hon. member knows, comes under provincial jurisdiction and I think that the question he raises should be directed to the Quebec Minister of Health.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
When a province remains idle, is it not proper for the federal government to intervene?


Marc Lalonde: It is surely a curious interpretation of the constitution and if the Social Credit Party endorses that position, it would be interesting to have it join the next constitutional conferences.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister and is supplementary to the answer recently given by the Solicitor General. Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether there has been any investigation or inquiry undertaken into questions of potential impropriety involving ministers of the Crown or members of this House and the Seafarers' International Union. If there has been, will he tell us by whom that was undertaken and whether it has been completed.

April 21, 1975
Oral Questions
If it has been completed, will it be made available to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the only inquiries I know of are the ones to which the Solicitor General referred in his answer a few moments ago.


Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister want the House to understand that there has only been an investigation into criminal actions involving the SIU, or has there also been an inquiry into questions of impropriety that might not involve criminal action or criminal charges. Have there been two investigations.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the investigation which I just referred to and which was mentioned by the Solicitor General was one in response to charges made by Mr. Shulman, to the effect that there have been criminal actions of some kind. There was another proceeding-I do not suppose you would call it an inquiry-where the Department of Justice was looking at the suggestion made by the Attorney General of Ontario on the general question of a broad-reaching inquiry into the SIU. This was not, to my understanding, an inquiry into personal conduct, personal behaviour, as alleged by Mr. Shulman. Instead, this was an inquiry into whether this was an area where the federal government should set up a general inquiry rather than having the provinces and the police pursue an inquiry by their own means.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF TERMS OF REFERENCE OF ALL INQUIRIES INTO SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION

Charles Joseph Clark: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister to make available to the House, or table in the House, the terms of reference of the inquiry undertaken by the RCMP and of any other inquiry that was undertaken in reference to connections between the Seafarer's International Union and members of this House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if there were any precise terms of reference, they would have been given by the Solicitor General in one case and the Minister of Justice in the other case.



GOVERNMENT POSITION ON ADEQUACY OF RCMP REPORT ON ALLEGATIONS INVOLVING SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION AND MEMBERS OR MINISTERS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Is he content with the situation in which a charge is made which possibly involves members of this government-whether there is any merit or weight to it is another question-where the only report made is a report by a member of his government indicating that he has a confidential report from the police which absolves all members of government. Does the Prime Minister find that a happy situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do. I think everyone engaged in politics is used to this kind of general charge made against politicians of one side or another. When the charges are specific enough to permit inquiry, as Mr. Shulman's charges purported to be, I think the proper procedure is for the RCMP to look into the facts and see if they can find any cause for laying a criminal charge. The fact that they reported there was no such basis certainly satisfies me. I trust their capabilities in inquiring into such matters and I would think, if there is any distrust, that it should be levelled against those who have perpetrated charges without foundation.



INVESTIGATION INTO SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION BY MINISTER OF JUSTICE-REQUEST FOR REPORT

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. It is related to the investigation which is going on-or perhaps it is not going on-and the involvement of the Minister of Justice in looking into the SIU and its activities. Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether this investigation still is going on or whether it is contemplated. If so, will the report be made public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it would result in a report which would be in any written form. It would be a matter for the Minister of Justice. He, advised by his officials, would look at the general subject of whether the Ontario government and its police and the municipal governments are able to conduct this inquiry themselves, or whether it is an area where the federal government should step in. I do not know if the Minister of Justice has taken a final decision on this. He will be back in the House tomorrow and he will be able to answer the question himself.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of continuing communist aggression in southeast Asia, is the Prime Minister now prepared to instruct the Secretary of State for External Affairs to launch a formal protest or a condemnation of communist aggression by force against both Cambodia and South Viet Nam. If not, for goodness sake, why not. Are you supporting communism?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
April 21, 1975



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and concerns the brief submitted by the Long Service Pensioners' Association. Since the official definition of a veteran restricts veterans' benefits to someone who has served in a war zone, would the minister not consider our peacekeeping contingents as being in actual war zones. Would he tell the House if Captain Ian Patten's family is eligible for veterans benefits, as Captain Patten was killed in Cyprus, in the service of his country?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the last part of the question concerning the widow of Captain Patten, I will be able to give a full account of the payments, but I can indicate now that there will be a cash payment of some $33,000 and a monthly allowance of some $753. Concerning the first part of the question to do with the brief, we are studying that brief now and will have a further report to make about it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.



NATURAL GAS-PROPOSED MEETING WITH UNITED STATES ON EXPORT PRICE-POSSIBLE ATTENDANCE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF PRODUCING PROVINCES

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -I will restrain myself from directing a number of questions to my colleagues. I understand that during my momentary absence from the House the hon. member for Don Valley raised a question about the meeting between American and Canadian officials concerning natural gas export prices. I confirm that there will be a meeting of that kind tomorrow here, in Ottawa.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the House who will represent Canada at that meeting and, most particularly, will there be any representation or any observer from either of the producing provinces attending the discussions?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it will be officials of the Department of External Affairs, accompanied by officials of my own department and of the National Energy Board. There will be no provincial representation at that meeting.
Business of the House


James McPhail Gillies: May I direct a final supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister an agenda for that meeting, will discussions be limited precisely to the pricing of natural gas exports or will other items such as crude oil and pipeline construction be discussed?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is with regard to the regulation 11A report concerning natural gas export pricing only.


Gerald William Baldwin: In the west we are hewers of wood and drawers of water only.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked the Prime Minister a legitimate question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: It seemed to me as if the Prime Minister would answer. The government in the past has officially condemned acts of aggression in other parts of the world, but this government has not said anything so far about the aggression occurring in South Viet Nam. My point of order, or question of privilege, as the case may be, is this: are we, as Canadians, to condone the fact that this government has accepted communist aggression by force?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will realize this is not the first time this question has been put in recent days. Secondly, the hon. member was doing fine until he got to what he must clearly accept as a most argumentative suggestion.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this evening a gala concert is being given at the National Arts Centre in honour of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, to which members of this House have been invited. In order to enable hon. members to avoid the conflict that might otherwise arise between their desire to honour Prince Charles and their duty to be present in this House, I wish to suggest-and I know this has the support of the House leaders of the other parties-that when this House rises at six o'clock this evening, it stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact some hon. members turned down the
5032

April 21, 1975
Order Paper Questions
invitation last week because of committee meetings to be held tonight, can we now accept?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there is the other side of that question: what about committees tonight; will they also be suspended?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection, but the chairmen of the committees might not want me to make the rules for them.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 326, 1,171, 1,447, 1,526, 1,675, 1,688, 1,778, 1,780, 1,805, 1,823, 1,827, 1,885, 2,068, 2,069, 2,070, 2,131 and 2,225.
Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 1,247 and 1,702 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 2,083?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Coates: 1.	From 1968 to date, how many executive assistants who have worked at least two years for a Minister were transferred from the Minister's staff to the Public Service?
2.	What are the names, positions, and salaries of such executive assistants who have made transfers and are still working in the Public Service?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1 and 2. Executive Assistants who may have been appointed to the Public Service after having worked for two years for a minister would have received no preference in appointment and would, therefore, have had to become members of the Public Service through open competitions. Records are not kept in such a way that such persons can be readily identified and the necessary staff is not available to undertake a review of the files of all appointees since 1968 (approximately 170,000 in number).


Mr. Huntington: With reference to the Pacific Environment Centre that was planned for North Vancouver, what have been the expenditures made to date on
(a)	architectural services (b) engineering services (c) surveys (d) land options (e) land leases (f) department salaries (g) models and promo-

tion (h) other department expenditures (i) monies budgeted for future expenditures?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Department of the Environment is concerned: (a) $198,000; (b) $22,000; (c) $12,000; (d) Nil; (e) $241,402 net annually; (f) $150,000; (g) $4,000; (h) $198,000; (i) $22,000. In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned: (a) $136,394.06; (b) Nil; (c) $8,076.02; (d) Nil; (e) $4,021,688.40; (f) $15,800.00; (g) Nil; (h) $25,735.48; (i) $17,799.79.


Mr. Cossitt: Since the coming into force of the Official Languages Act, what is the total amount of funds in any way granted or distributed by the Secretary of State connected in any way with bilingualism and, of this total, how much involved contributions (a) to French Language or culture projects (b) to English language or culture projects?


James Hugh Faulkner: The
following funds have been distributed by the Language Programmes Branch to March 31, 1974, for (a) French language projects, $112,088,559; (b) English language projects, $145,209,226; (c) Projects involving the two official languages indiscriminately, $14,926,937. The following grants have been accorded by the Programme for Official Languages Minority Groups to March 31, 1974: (a) Grants to French-language groups, $8,505,494; (b) Grants to English-language groups, $292,025; (c) Grants to groups from both communities for inter-group understanding projects, $792,985.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What was the cost to the Department of the Solicitor General of the report by Ezzat Abelel Fattah called "A Study of the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment with Special Reference to the Canadian Situation"?
2.	Did Mr. Ezzat Abelel Fattah prepare any other reports or is he in the process of preparing reports for the government and, if so (a) what is the title of these reports (b) what is the cost to the government?
3.	(a) How many reports has the government had prepared on the subject of capital punishment (b) who were the authors and what were the costs of each report?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Department of the Solicitor General is concerned: 1. $4,990.
2.	Yes. (a) and (b): Mr. Ezzat Abdel Fattah, while working for a research contractor, was the author of one volume of a seven volume report rendered to the Department of the Solicitor General in December, 1974. The volume which he prepared was entitled "Etude de la main-d'oeuvre policiere Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver". The total cost of the project was $80,000, but no specific cost can be assigned to the one volume attributed to Mr. Fattah. Mr. Ezzat Abdel Fattah is now preparing a review of existing research literature on public attitudes towards capital punishment in Canada and will render a report. The cost is $3,000.
3.	(a) Two.
3. (b)
April 21, 1975

Report	Author	Cost,
A Study of the Deterrent Effects of	Ezzat Abdel	
Capital Punishment (mentioned above) 1972	Fattah	$4,990
Capital Punishment-New Material,	Bernard	
1972	Grenier	$14,400
In addition to the aforementioned documents made under contract, a report entitled "Capital Punishment: Material Relating to its Purpose and Value" was written in the Department of Justice and published in 1965. As it was of Departmental origin the authorship was not specified.
In so far as the Department of Justice is concerned: 2. Yes, for the Law Reform Commission: (a) "Deterrence"; (b) $2,000.
3. (a) As far as can be ascertained from Department of Justice records, one, "Capital Punishment, Material Relating to Its purpose and Value", (b) Prepared by the Department of Justice and issued in 1965 under the authority of the Minister of Justice. No record of cost is available.


Mr. Railton: 1.	What is government policy and the intention of the Department of External Affairs with respect to (a) the incident at the Peace Bridge involving the Buffalo police (b) the incident occurring at the British Columbia-Washington state boundary?
2.	(a) Was Captain Simpson, who skippers a fishing boat out of Kingsville, Ontario, stopped and boarded by a US game warden last October (b) did Captain Simpson proceed to Kingsville with the US game warden on board (c) what action will the government take in relation to this incident?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. (a) It is government policy to protect Canadian sovereignty. It is the intention of Canadian authorities to pursue discussions with the United States authorities with a view to minimizing the possibilities of a recurrence on either side of the border, (b) The Department of External Affairs considers the incident closed. The United States government acknowledged that the arrest of Mr. Anderson was made on Canadian soil, expressed its regrets, and returned Mr. Anderson to Canada.
2. (a) Captain Simpson's boat was boarded by an Ohio Wildlife Agent, (b) Yes. (c) The government has been in continuing contact with the United States government concerning the incident. The Essex County Crown Attorney has determined that the facts of the case do not warrant the laying of charges in Canada and the government does not plan to take any action bearing uniquely on this case. However, the government intends to meet with United States officials to review the situation and to seek to avoid the recurrence of such incidents on the Lake.
Order Paper Questions FRENCH LANGUAGE UNITS


Mr. Cossitt: How many unilingual French language units have been established in the Public Service (a) in what department, agency or Crown corporation is each located (b) what functions and duties does each perform (c) what is the total number of personnel and salaries involved in each unit?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: According to the data from the 4th survey on French Language Units, the latter number 736 units and subunits. (a) and (c) The attached table shows the distribution of FLUs by department as well as the number of employees and their total annual salaries, (b) The functions and duties assigned to each French Language Unit vary according to the responsibilities of the department or agency.
	Total	Total
	Number of	Annual
Department./ Agency	Employees	Salaries $Agriculture	995	12,471,287Public Archives	39	414,059National Revenue, Customs and Excise	1,279	15,466,712Consumer and Corporate Affairs	135	1,684,789Communications	103	1,331,680National Defence	612	5,295,603Environment	22(1	2,883,684Defence Research Board	293	3,214,685Supply and Services	403	4,258,508Veterans Affairs	548	4,302,372Veterans Land Act	2	20,217Energy, Mines and Resources	29	366,858External Affairs Canadian Government Printing Opera-	1	16,305tions	531	5,717,935Indian and Northern Affairs Canadian International Development	270	3,501,004Agency	104	1,464,044Information Canada	107	1,177,159Industry, Trade and Commerce	7	116,580Justice	07	1,021,282Labour ('anada	12	184,451.Manpower and Immigration	2,048	25,747,277Transport	1,341	14,389,169National Capital Commission	10	178,339National Film Board	92	1,415,086National Health and Welfare	478	5,434,451National Library	15	176,633National Museums of ('anada	19	294,438National Parole Board	80	999,075(Canadian Penitentiary Service	17	163,435Post Office	8,824	84,709,891Public Service Commission	1,410	19,669,580Secretary of State	1,161	14,815,973Statistics ('anada	17	193,425National Revenue, Taxation	709	8,709,817Treasury Board Unemployment Insurance Commission	7	162,677Administration	2,412	26,103,099T otal	24,400*	208,072,179
Source: Official Languages Information System (OLIS), January 1975, and mainoutput system (MOS), January 1975
'Approximately 7,000 employees should be added to this total, representing those in the employment of departments or agencies
29557 - 43)4
April 21, 1975

Order Paper Questions
excluded from Schedule 1, Part 1, of the Public Service Staff Relations Act (for whom Treasury Board is not the Employer).


Mr. Brisco: These departments or agencies include the following:
National Research Council National Harbours Board Science Council Royal Canadian Mint
National Defence (Armed Forces) RCMP (Police Officers)
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Laurentian Pilotage Authority
1.	(a) How many applications have been completed for Kootenay West under the DREE programme for expansion for each year Kootenay West has been designated (b) how much was each such application?
2.	(a) How many applications have been completed for new industry for each year Kootenay West has qualified under the DREE programme
(b)	how much was each such application?
3.	Other than expansion and new industry, have any other grants been awarded under the DREE or ARDA or special ARDA programmes for Kootenay West for each year Kootenay West has qualified under such programmes and, if so, what are such grants?


Mr. Saltsman: 1.	For each year 1950 to date, by industry, in actual dollars, and in constant uninflated dollars, what were (a) the total government expenditures on unemployment insurance (b) the same information for males (c) the same information for females?
2.	For the same years, by industry, in actual dollars, and in constant uninflated dollars, what was (a) the total government revenue in unemployment insurance premiums (b) the same information for males (c) the same information for females?
3.	For the same years, by industry, in actual dollars, and in constant uninflated dollars, what were (a) the per capita expenditures, revenue through premiums and net effect (b) the same information for males
(c)	the same information for females?
4.	For the same years, in actual and constant uninflated dollars, what were (a) the total and per capita unemployment insurance expenditures, revenues through premiums, and net effects for participants, with participants grouped by (i) increments of $1000 personal income per annum (ii) increments of $2000 of family income per annum (b) the same information for females (c) the same information for males?
5.	For unemployment insurance participants with males and females calculated separately and together, what are the overall Lorenz curves of benefits from unemployment insurance in the periods 1950-59, 196069, 1970 to date, calculating across each period and not for each year separately, and excluding all participants who ceased participation during the middle of a period?
6.	For each year 1950 to date, for unemployment insurance participants with males and females calculated separately and together, what are the Lorenz curves of benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Act?
7.	What proportion of female beneficiaries of unemployment insurance resumed their contributions to the plan after leaving the workforce to give birth?
8.	For each year 1950 to date, what were the mean per capita benefits, premiums, and net effects throughout their work histories of females who received benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act as a result of giving birth as opposed to females who did not receive benefits as a result of giving birth?
9.	For the same years, what were the mean family incomes of females who received benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Act as a result of giving birth as opposed to females who did not receive benefits as a result of giving birth?
10.	For the same years, by industry and overall, what were the total and per capita expenditures, revenue through premium, and net effects of unemployment insurance programmes in (a) the United States (b) Great Britain (c) Sweden (d) West Germany (e) Australia?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration and Statistics Canada as follows: 1 to 10. Information not available.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The
answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. Incentive offers accepted for the expansion of manufacturing and processing facilities in Kootenay West under the terms of the Regional Development Incentives Act:
Fiscal Year	(a) Number of accepted offers	(b) Estimated amount of accepted offers1969-70	2	$ 31,640 22,5601970-71	2	16,080 86,6771971-72	2	6,020 276,8001972-73	2	127,779 32,7111973-74 April 1, 1974 to January,	2	194,250 262,56031, 1975	1	52,600 $1,109,677
2. Incentive offers accepted for the establishment of new manufacturing and processing facilities in Kootenay West under the terms of the Regional Development Incentives Act:
Fiscal Year	(a) Number of accepted offers	(b) Estimated amount of accepted offers1970-71	1	$ 31,2401971-72	1	176,9511973-74	5	571,350April 1, 1974 to January 31, 1975	Nil	182,000 219,500 210,000 74,600Total	7	$1,465,641
April 21, 1975

3. Contributions paid to the province for projects carried out in Kootenay West under the terms of the Agricultural and Rural Development Act:
Fiscal Year	Project	Amount1967-68	Robson Irrigation District	*15,494.561968-69	Robson Irrigation District	3,812.26Raspberry Irrigation District	13,890.311969-70	Robson Irrigation District	2,737.581970-71	Robson Irrigation District	2,584.43Slocan Park Improvement District	24,181.301971-72	Slocan Park Improvement District	2,083.521972-73	Robson Irrigation District	8,372.891973-74	Robson Irrigation District	6,428.31April 1, 1974 to January	Slocan Park Improvement District	2,275.3731, 1975	Nil	Total HAINES-ALASKA ROAD	$81,860.53


Mr. Huntington: 1 (a) For the period November 1973 to May 1974, what was the cost to the government to clear snow on the Haines-Alaska Road, through British Columbia and the Yukon (b) to whom was this money paid?
2.	For the same period, how many (a) American cars (b) American trucks (c) Canadian cars (d) Canadian trucks entered Canada on the Haines-Alaska Road going north?
3.	For the same period, how many (a) American cars (b) American trucks entered Canada on the Haines-Alaska Road going south?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works and National Revenue as follows: 1. (a) The cost of snow clearance operations on the Haines Road from the Alaska/ British Columbia boundary to Haines Junction in the Yukon is $286,940. This includes such items as snow removal, snowfencing, culvert cleaning as required, control of gates to ensure that no vehicles are stranded. There is no breakdown into these items, (b) Government of the Yukon Territory.
2.	(a) 3,383; (b) 298; (c) 774; (d) 527.
3.	(a) 5,949; (b) 1,115.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) What is a full description of the nature and purpose of what is called the Jonquiere Course in the French language (b) what is the total cost since its inception?
2.	(a) What is the total number of persons that have taken or are taking such language training (b) what is the average cost per student including board and expenses?
3.	Is there a comparable course in the English language and (a) if so, where is it given (b) if not, for what reason?
Order Paper Questions


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. (a)
It is assumed that the Jonquiere Course refers to a proposed exchange of students between Fanshawe College of London Ontario and College de Jonquiere, Jonquiere, Quebec, (b) As the exchange has not taken place there have been no attendant costs.
2.	(a) Nil; (b) Nil.
3.	The exchange was to have been reciprocal.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the sale of 24 Air Canada Viscounts, or any portion of said sale, to United Services Ltd. and Beaver Enterprises Ltd. been cancelled and (a) if so (i) for what reason (ii) what are the plans for the affected aircraft (b) if not, on what dates are the companies to take delivery?
2.	Was one or more aircraft sold for the sum of $1.00?
3.	Who owns the Viscounts that are presently sitting unused on or near the property of Winnipeg International Airport?
4.	(a) What are the applicable rules governing the sale of used aircraft to individuals or groups of individuals (b) have any such individuals or groups offered to purchase any of the aircraft?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. The contract with United Aviation Services and Beaver Enterprises Limited terminated on March 31, 1975. (a) (i) Contract terms were not met by United Aviation Services and Beaver Enterprises Limited, (ii) The disposition of the 24 Viscounts has been under active consideration by Air Canada management since the March 31st contract termination date.
2.	One Viscount was sold for $1 to the National Research Council.
3.	Title to each of the Viscounts located at Winnipeg rests with Air Canada.
4.	(a) There are no rules governing sale of used aircraft to individuals or groups of individuals, (b) No individual or groups of individuals have submitted any economically viable offers which have resulted in a sale.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Secretary of State and the government aware that approximately 10% of the employees of the RCA Victor Company at Smiths Falls, Ontario are engaged in the production of stereo records under contract with Reader's Digest magazine?
2.	Is the Secretary of State and the government aware that the proposed tax change in regard to Reader's Digest could have the effect of loss of employment to between 30 and 40 persons working in the Smiths Falls plant of RCA Victor Company and, if so, will the government take this into account before proceeding further?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
The government is aware that the Reader's Digest Association (Canada) Ltd., has engaged the R.C.A. Victor Company at Smiths Falls, Ontario under contract to produce stereo records.
2. The government is not persuaded that its proposed changes to the Income Tax Act would cause grievous financial loss to the Reader's Digest Association (Canada)

April 21, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Ltd., such loss that its record distribution and other activities would either be dropped or significantly restricted. Reader's Digest is a highly diversified and very profitable company, and it is the government's view that it is well equipped to adapt to a changed Income Tax Act.


Mr. Cossitt: Did the Department of Veterans Affairs receive an application for a disability pension from Mr. H. T. Bowen of Brockville, Ontario in November 1974 and, if so (a) for what reasons is it taking so long to process it (b) will the government give this veteran immediate service by attending to his application?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The Canadian Pension Commission received an application for a disability pension from Mr. H. T. Bowen on November 28, 1974. Applications for disability pensions received by the Canadian Pension Commission are basically dealt with in the order of receipt although there are exceptions within a stated priority system. Priority is given to veterans of World War I and to widows as well as to claims where there is a demonstrated urgent medical or social need. In adjudicating on pension applications the Canadian Pension Commission is required to collect such relevant material as is available in the records of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada and to make such inquiries into the facts as it deems advisable to enable it to reach a decision. The Commission will consider Mr. Bowen's claim within its priority system.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,041 that stated in part that an October 1974 RCMP report mentioned that charges of fraud would be laid as the result of an investigation into Local Initiatives Programme Project 311-3520 in the Constituency of Mont-real-Bourassa (a) on what date have or will charges be laid (b) what are the names and addresses of all persons charged or to be charged and the nature of the charges?
2.	What are the names and addresses of all those who recommended acceptance of this Local Initiatives Programme application prior to its being approved by the Minister?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of the Solicitor General (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) and Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. (a) A court brief is in the hands of Crown Counsel for review. Until a decision is reached by Crown Counsel, it is impossible to state when any informations will be laid, (b) it is impossible to name those to be charged and the nature of the charge(s) until a decision is reached by the Crown Counsel.
2. Please refer to answer for question 1041 (f). Moreover "A question oral or written must not: (d) repeat in substance a question already answered or to which an answer has been refused (C. 128)". (Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms Fourth Edition, 1958, pg. 147, article 171.)


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,042 that stated in part that an October 1974 RCMP report mentioned that charges of fraud would be laid as the result of an investigation into Local Initiatives Programme Project H-2217 in the Constituency of Montreal-Bourassa (a) on what date have or will charges be laid (b) what are the names and addresses of all persons charged or to be charged and the nature of the charges?
2.	What are the names and addresses of all those who recommended acceptance of this Local Initiatives Programme application prior to its being approved by the Minister?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of the Solicitor General (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) and Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. (a) A court brief is in the hands of Crown Counsel for review. Until a decision is reached by Crown Councel, it is impossible to state when any informations will be laid, (b) It is impossible to name those to be charged and the nature of the charge(s) until a decision is reached by the Crown Counsel.
2. Please refer to the answer for question 1042 (f). Moreover, "A question oral or written must not: (d) repeat in substance a question already answered or to which an answer has been refused (C. 128)". (Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms Fourth Edition, 1958, Pg. 147, article 171.)


Mr. Marshall: Does Canada have a contingency plan to support the government's statement that if agreement is not reached at the Law of the Sea Conference with regard to a continental shelf limit, Canada will take unilateral action to declare such limits and (a) if so, will the government Table such plan (b) if not, for what reason?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows. I am not aware of the government's statement to which the hon. member refers. It is the long standing position of the Canadian government that Canada's continental shelf extends to the continental margin both by virtue of Canadian legislation and international law.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Did the government grant permission to Aerospatiale of France to fly Concorde supersonic aircraft to Gander, Newfoundland for test flights and, if so (a) on what basis (b) was the government aware that Finnish environmental associations took strong issue with the Concorde landing in Finland?
2.	Has the government studied the protests of the Finnish environmental associations to see (a) what was the basis of their opposition (b) whether their complaints were applicable to Canada in general and Gander in particular?


Jean Marchand: 1. Yes. (a) That the aircraft would be operated only at sub-sonic speeds, while in Canadian airspace, (b) Yes. However the Ministry is not aware of the reasons for the Finnish position.
2. No.
April 21, 1975


Mr. Herbert: For the fiscal year 1973-74, what was the total cost of assistance to the 11,019 persons relocated under the Manpower Mobility Programme?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The total cost of assistance to 11,019 persons relocated under the Manpower Mobility Program for the fiscal year 1973/74 was $8,230,966.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): What was the name and address of every group or organization receiving assistance from (a) Recreation Canada (b) Sport Canada (c) Sport Participaction Canada in each fiscal year (i) 1971-72 (ii) 1972-73 (iii) 1973-74 and what was the amount of assistance received in each case?
Return tabled.



NATIONAL EXCHANGE PROGRAMME FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. Elzinga: 1.	In 1974, what was the amount of money spent throughout Canada on the National Exchange Programme for senior citizens?
2.	How much was spent in each province and who received the grants?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications) moved: that Bill C-5, to establish the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission, to amend the Broadcasting Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Gérard Pelletier: that Bill C-5 be read the third time and do pass.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I intend later to make a few remarks on this bill; however, at the moment I am rising on a point of order. I am a little surprised at the minister. Perhaps he is not going to say
Broadcasting
anything at this stage of the bill; I see he is not moving too fast. The bill has gone through committee, where some amendments of a technical nature were made. I take it, from the minister's stable position in his seat, that he does not intend to say anything about Bill C-5 at this time. It is relatively clear-as clear as anything ever is in this House-that the minister intends to speak later. Therefore, I would like to make a few comments now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since we are on third reading the minister cannot speak twice. As he moved the motion, that constitutes his speech, unless he makes it now. We may give unanimous consent to a speech later, but I think Your Honour is familiar with the rule that there is no right of reply on third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point raised by the hon. member is well taken. The fact that the minister did move the motion, even if only by nodding his head, is participation in the debate. If he wishes to speak a second time, he must have unanimous consent. It will be up to the House to decide at a future time, because the minister does not seem to be indicating that he wishes to speak at this time.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stood up. Because of that, without getting into the technicalities of the rules, I was surprised the minister did not say anything, having fathered this bill which has had a long gestation period. He has not indicated any of the highlights which the bill in its present form contains. The minister may reply, with unanimous consent; however, we will have to wait and see what happens when this stage of the debate draws to a close.
I say, with all respect to the minister, that the fact he has not seen fit to say anything at this time is symptomatic of some of the problems in this bill and in the field of communications generally. I am speaking strictly in terms of the minister as a minister. I do not want my remarks this afternoon to be misinterpreted as criticizing the generous personality and philosophic nature of the minister in a personal way. But the fact that nothing is being said on third reading of this bill is symptomatic of the whole problem in communications. Since 1968 with the Broadcasting Act, through the terms of office of various ministers-and of course the present ministry of communications was only created in 1969-there has been almost a vacuum in terms of discussion in this House of a subject as vital to this country as the whole topic of communications.
If the minister has the chance later on, he will undoubtedly say that Bill C-5 is just a housekeeping bill, a bill to merge the functions of the CRTC with the telecommunications functions of the CTC, and creating a new agency, bureaucracy or commission combining all those communications functions. The bill is not a lengthy one. It uses big words. At first blush one might be prepared to accept that it is only housekeeping but, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, if the minister persists in telling us that this is a housekeeping bill involving a merger of regulatory functions, that is really part of the disappointment which

April 21, 1975
Broadcasting
members of the House share about this field of communications.
Regardless of what members feel as to the state of communications and/or the communicativeness of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier), outside this House, in the experience of interested parties, be they in the field of commentary, the field of cable or the field of broadcasting, it has been the silence or the inactivity of the Minister of Communications which has really, with all respect, created a good many of the problems. I say this advisedly, and I shall try to support my argument with certain basic facts.
If this is only a housekeeping bill-and it does provide for the merger of certain regulatory functions-I say that this in itself is an indictment of the Minister of Communications who, rather than do housekeeping even at this time in the spring of the year when so many homes across Canada are engaged in spring cleaning, should have been exercising leadership, showing initiative and stimulating his imagination to tackle some of the fundamental problems in communications, rather than paper them over with Bill C-5. If this is housekeeping, as the minister said in committee, then it is housekeeping in a house built with termite timber, on a weak foundation, with some very relevant questions to be asked about the paternity and the powers of the housekeeper of the house.
I have often sat in the committee with the minister and I appreciate some of the problems he faces in trying to reconcile conflicting views in various areas of communications. However, the fact that since 1968 not a single legislative enactment has been dealt with by the House-the Department of Communications was created in 1969-is testimony to the absence of leadership and, in effect, the abdication of real responsibility in this field. The minister may wonder what I mean by termite timber, weak foundations and questions about the housekeeper. I say termite timber because of the CRTC regulations or the powers and regulations of the CTC. You don't really have very strong timber in a house when you find one of those agencies, the CRTC, acting, as is so often the case, unilaterally and making pronouncements about broadcasting.
The most recent pronouncement of the CRTC caused great agitation across the country. After a year or so studying cable regulations, the CRTC announced on February 17 or February 19 that the proposed regulations were to be gazetted; I think the date was March 4. Written responses to what had been gazetted were supposed to be in the mail and back by March 17, albeit that during some of that time there was something called a postal strike. I guess we are going through another phase of that strike today. Some of the parties concerned, who would have been very interested in attending that public hearing in March, as well as on April 8-I understand there is to be another on June 10-did not even get the announcement by the CRTC in the mail prior to the date by which the formal reply was supposed to be in. So part of the timber of this house, which the minister says is just housekeeping legislation, is ridden, I suggest, with termites in terms of regulations and procedures.
The bill itself is one of a hybrid nature. The agency is to use CRTC procedures when broadcasting is involved, and CTC procedures when the telecommunications functions

of the CTC are concerned. What could cause more confusion than to see a big, new agency using different procedures for different arms of its authority? The number of commissioners is, of course, increased. There are to be nine full-time members on this board and ten part-time members. They are going to wonder which hat they are wearing on any one day-whether they are going to follow CRTC procedures or CTC procedures. The whole problem of trying to balance and reconcile conflicting views between the broadcaster, the common carrier and the cable operator is so complex that surely, in a housekeeping bill to put these functions together, there should be some consensus about the procedures to be followed by the new agency, rather than compound the confusion and complexity by adopting dual procedures depending upon which function the commission is considering at any particular time. If this bill as it stands is not a breeding ground for more confusion, I find it difficult to picture what is. I cannot imagine another government agency working with different procedures depending upon the subject matter before the agency.
I could say much more about termite timber, but I want to turn now to the foundation-the shaky foundation. I say it is a shaky foundation because the problem of federal-provincial relations is completely ignored. There is no recognition given to whether or not the provinces even have an interest in communications, let alone in cable transmission. If there is any doubt about that, I need refer only to what was said in the Ontario legislature not too long ago.
I am sure that when the minister is in Quebec at the annual meeting of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters which is to be held early next month, he will deliver a very interesting speech on some aspect of communications. I understand his counterpart in the province of Quebec, Mr. L'Allier, is also to speak on the same day; I don't know whether it will be on the same symposium or panel. It will be very interesting and stimulating. I have not read what Mr. L'Allier said about the recent pronouncements of the CRTC on proposed cable regulations, but the minister in Ontario, Mr. Rhodes, in the legislature on Friday, March 14, expressed in fairly strong language his irritation at the unilateral pronouncements of the CRTC on proposed cable changes. I think it would be relevant to read a portion of what Mr. Rhodes had to say. At a time when there is a new attempt to have a second federal-provincial conference on communications, Mr. Rhodes said:
In the meantime, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission issued policy statements and proposals on February 17. These are more far reaching in their policy implications than anything put forward to date by the federal government in its 1973 green paper on communications policy, at the first federal-provincial conference, in correspondence with the provinces or in private discussions.
These proposals-
He is referring to the CRTC proposals.
-would appropriate to the federal government all areas of cable communications, including those areas which have previously been considered by the provinces and also the federal Minister of Communications as being the responsibility of the provinces. We are confronted with a situation in which the regulatory agency, without clear legislative authority, is zealously acting to consolidate the maximum of de
April 21, 1975

facto federal jurisdiction, regardless of existing provincial activities and legitimate claims. This is all going on at the same time as the federal minister is denying the provinces an opportunity to discuss jurisdictional matters.
I have expressed my concerns most strenuously to the Minister of Communications and told him that the CRTC action surprised and disappointed me and left me angered. The premier has also written emphasizing this government's concern.
That is pretty strong language. In another part of his remarks the minister had this to say:
The proposals of the CRTC are not federal government policy statements. They are unilateral actions by an appointed regulatory agency. I would have expected the federal government to put forward such proposals itself so that the people of Canada and the provincial governments could effectively discuss them with the responsible federal minister as a matter of important public policy.
We do not accept that such far reaching actions can be taken by a regulatory body which apparently considers itself beyond the need for political control and which appears to be beyond the control of the federal government.
I am making public today the letter I wrote to the federal minister on Monday requesting a public clarification of the federal government's position on the subject of consultation between governments on policy issues. I have asked that the federal government make its position known on the issues and proposals of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. I have also asked that the initiatives of the CRTC be indefinitely deferred until there has been a resolution of the major policy issues involved by the federal and provincial governments.
There are many more things that could be said. The letter was tabled in the Ontario legislature. It is a very succinct and interesting document outlining the very real concern of one minister of communications in one of the provinces, a concern also shared by a good number of ministers of communications right across this land. Yet this housekeeping bill to merge these functions does not admit, recognize or even suggest there is any provincial involvement in the field of communications or telecommunications.
I suggest that this housekeeping bill is built upon such a shaky foundation that it is not the type of legislation that this Minister of Communications should have brought forward. He has had a long period as minister. He has had bilateral discussions with his provincial counterparts, he chaired the first federal-provincial communications conference in November, 1973, and fortunately has now finally called a second federal-provincial conference for May of this year. He has had the benefit of the studies on telecommunications and the green paper. Yet he has come up with a housekeeping bill which, in effect, insults the provinces because it does not even recognize that they exist and have an interest in this field.
I question whether that is the type of federal leadership required in such a complex, complicated field. The minister has been charged with the responsibility of helping resolve some of these problems of communications affecting all Canadians, rather than trying to paper them over with this charade of a housekeeping bill. In terms of who is the housekeeper and/or the powers of the housekeeper in a bill supposed to be a housekeeping bill, we get into the whole question whether the minister is calling the shots, the chairman of the present CRTC is calling the shots, or that great, august body, the House of Commons, is calling the shots on this question fundamental to all Canadians, namely, communications policy.
Broadcasting
I appreciate the problem of the Minister of Communications in the House and I know it is shared by other ministers of communications in provincial legislatures. Communications is not a very sexy subject to get all steamed up about. There are many other facets of parliamentary life that can excite the id and the pancreas, and other portions of the human anatomy, in terms of real parliamentary debate. Really, we have not been very partisan or political in terms of any discussion of the present problem of communications; but apart from discussing the economy and all its ramifications, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and his so-called consensus, or the group of seven who were in the Prime Minister's office until they were kicked out, there is not another subject that more fundamentally affects the life-style of Canadians from coast to coast than this whole subject of communications.
I think it is a very relevant subject, and it is a very relevant question to ask who is the housekeeper in this house that the minister says is being cleaned by Bill C-5. Is it the minister who is calling the shots, is it the chairman of the CRTC, or is it that great, august body, the Parliament of Canada? I do not know whether it is the minister. I suggest he has not been calling the shots that he should have been calling and that he has the authority to call. The chairman of the CRTC is a public servant of the highest integrity and administrative competence. Yet because the minister is not leading the way, you have the situation where the chairman of the CRTC is moving into a vacuum on policy, in terms certainly of cable.
It is not just this minister who has to share responsibility for this, but also his predecessor. The government has to share the collective responsibility. The sadness, to me, of an admission by the minister that Bill C-5 is only housekeeping is the fact that this government has been charged with this task since 1967-68, when the broadcasting bill was passed. That was the last initiative shown on this subject in a legislative way by this government.
At that time the federal government through this minister and his predecessor, could have moved into the field of communications, set down some terms of reference and outlined some guideposts pointing to the direction in which we as a country should go on the subject. Instead, we had study, review, commission, re-commission, telecommission, pause, hesitation, vacillation, consultation and more vacillation. We have had no federal initiative. The ministers of communications in the respective provinces have roared into the vacuum, and now instead of having a unifield, national consensus policy so that Canadians know where they are heading, we depend on the strength of the various provinces, not just Ontario or Quebec but other provinces as well.
Now we have the advent of socialist governments in the deep west. I see the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) in the chamber. He is a resurrection of a socialist government in the west. A resurrection could start here in the House of Commons. However, I will not get into that as it would divert me from my very serious and relevant remarks about this very tricky field of communications. There are many problems in respect of communications, yet the federal government has been sitting, marking time. It is much like the pause before the railway crossing. But this government would make this
5040

April 21, 1975
Broadcasting
minister look like Rip Van Winkle: he would never get across the crossing, because he really never makes a decision, just as he has not come to grips with fundamental problems in respect of communications, albeit at times he has tried.
I think this minister is sometimes misinterpreted, because individually and personally he is a very congenial man, but in some ways I think he has been too gentle as a minister, particularly at times when he has been inclined to attempt to resolve some of these problems with his provincial counterparts.
Here we have a housekeeping bill for a house which I suggest has timber problems because of the different types of termites eating away at the structure and the forms. It has a very shaky foundation because there has been no recognition of federal-provincial involvement. We have a housekeeper of questionable paternity and doubtful power because we really do not know who is calling the shots in respect of communications in this land. We read about Mr. Rhodes, and sometimes about Mr. Farran of Alberta and other provincial ministers. We hear more from them than we hear from this Minister of Communications who should be leading the country.
The one great sadness of this bill is that it is only a housekeeping bill, which really illustrates the paradox in the whole field of communications. It is a field where communicability should be of paramount importance, and the whole paradox is that the ministers charged with resolving problems of communication are not even communicating. With all deference to the minister, I think he must accept a great deal of the responsibility for this situation.
If anyone who is listening to my moderate comments doubts the veracity and substance of the unfortunate charge I make against the minister, who has diddled and daddled and almost fiddle-faddled in coming to grips with these problems, he has only to look at the record. The trouble with this diddling, daddling and fiddle-faddling is that this matter involves a national system. I do not think this minister believes in communications, and I do not think any successor will ever again get control of our communications problems. This whole matter has been growing and expanding and fragmenting almost like division itself. So much has happened that I doubt whether any federal minister for a long time will be in charge of these things so that Canada can have a national communications policy. It will be a very long time before any federal minister can resolve these conflicting jurisdictional problems while at the same time balancing the conflicting interests of the broadcaster, the common carrier and the cable operator.
A review of the recent, relevant legislative history is testimony to the indictment I make against this minister. In 1967-68 the Broadcasting Act was passed establishing the CRTC which was supposed to have a new outlook for all broadcasting and communications interests. The Department of Communications was established in 1968-69 when we had our first minister, Mr. Kierans. On September 18,	1969, the then minister of communications
announced plans for a comprehensive study to be under-

taken by what was to be known as the telecommission: it was to study the present and prospective outlook of telecommunications in Canada.
That commission actually compiled a lot of interesting and fundamental information on the state of telecommunications in Canada. It produced more than 40 separate studies organized by a committee of officials from the Department of Communications, the Privy Council office and officials of the CRTC. As a result of that telecommunications study and the 40 separate studies, a number of interesting facts were collected-I think, quite frankly, more than put together by any other country. The Minister of Communications is to be complimented on the fact that these studies were finally boiled down into what is known as the "Instant World" summary on telecommunications, which in summary form is one of the most interesting and sometimes conflicting assessments of communications in Canada which we have seen. If anyone wants a bird's eye view about communications, "Instant World" is required reading because the individual would never have the time or the technical knowledge to fully assess or assimilate all these telecommunications studies.
Those studies were all commissioned in 1969-and this is 1975. What has happened during this time? The throne speech of 1970 suggested there would be a white paper on communications. Nothing happened. We did see other people moving in this field because they were not prepared to sit still; one cannot blame them, because nature abhors a vacuum. In June, 1971, the Quebec green paper on communications was tabled. It was not a study; I suppose that provincial government had carried out its studies before then. We had the Speech from the Throne which stated there was to be a communications policy in 1970-71. Our studies continued. In May, 1972, the report of the Canadian computer and communications task force called "Branching Out" was made public. Finally, in March, 1973, not quite two years after the Quebec green paper on communications, the federal green paper on communications was tabled in this House. In April, 1973, the computer and communications policy set out 29 recommendations for computer policy and the report was published.
Finally, after all this effort which started with the Broadcasting Act back in 1968, and certainly the creation of the Department of Communications in 1968-69, the Minister of Communications had before him all the necessary work-I appreciate that there was a lot of it-and convened the first federal-provincial communications conference in the Conference Centre down the street for November, 1973. That conference was intended to discuss various national policy problems-the minister knows better than I the results of that conference-and there was the difference of opinion as to whether ministers were to meet again six months later. They have not met since. I appreciate that there was an election in between. Finally, it has been stated that the ministers of communication are going to get together again in May of this year. That, certainly, is a positive step.
My point is that in view of the legislative history- really, the Broadcasting Act of 1968, with all the studies since then, including telecommunication reports, bilateral discussions and a federal-provincial conference-surely this minister should have come up with something more
April 21, 1975

than a housekeeping bill. I think the litany of legislative inaction other than studies bears me out in my indictment. The fact is that this is an important and fundamental field which involves radio, television and cablevision all across the country. It also involves common carriers-and we all know about Bell Telephone rate applications. There is nothing more fundamental than this matter, yet the government is just marking time.
I could perhaps use the analogy of another department in respect of our economic problems. Other ministers have been charged with the responsibility of doing something about our economic problems, but all we have seen on this side of the House is a government marking time. That is really an objective comment, because those of us on this side of the House could, quite rightly, say a great deal more. Certainly, we have seen no move in a substantive way on the part of this government in the field of telecommunications.
Even if this is a housekeeping bill, which I suggested earlier is a sad admission, the real question is whether it will help meet some of the problems, or really aggravate them. Without repeating everything I have said, the first, fundamental flaw is that the bill does not recognize in any degree any provincial interest in this field. As I say, I shall not repeat all the problems involved in that respect. The minister may wish to comment on this question; however, it is the most profound and serious indictment one could make in respect of this bill.
Bill C-5-and there was some discussion on this matter in the committee when the minister was there-increases the number of full-time members of the executive council to nine, while the part-time members remain at ten. There is no suggestion that the part-time members will be provincial or regional representatives. When one looks at the bill, one asks oneself if there is to be some form of tokenism in respect of provincial or regional input to this new commission, with the change from five to nine fulltime members. I realize the minister attempted to deal in part with this matter in committee. When one looks at the bill, it would appear that the full-time members take on even more power because now, instead of there being merely five full-time members on a 15-man board, there will be nine full-time members on a 19-man board with power to set up special and standing committees to do, I suggest, in effect the substantive work of the commission.
The fact that the number of full-time members has been doubled means there will be a dilution of the input of the part-time members. I wonder whether this was the intent; it might have been. In effect, if that will not be the result of this new commission, I do not believe it will help resolve regional problems and/or conflicts or help in respect of provincial representation if the provinces are to be represented through appointments to this board. Something else which gives concern is the procedure which is outlined in this bill under which the new commission is supposed to function. I alluded to this earlier. There will now be two streams of procedure under the new commission. There will be the present CRTC procedure, which is non-adversary in a sense if the matter involved is a broadcasting matter, and there will be the present CTC proce-
Broadcasting
dure, which is adversary in nature because it involves the hearing of witnesses and conducting cross-examination.
In effect, the commissioners of this new commission will wear two different hats: one day they will wear the CRTC hat and another day they will wear the CTC hat. They will have to be sure they get into the right room so that they will know what procedure is to be applied to the subject matter being discussed on a given day. There are no guidelines here in respect of how this problem might be solved. However, with the two new vice-chairmen of the commission there might be one vice-chairman to look after the former CRTC procedure and another vice-chairman to look after, in effect, the former telecommunications, CTC procedure. The two procedures will flow from the two vice-chairmen and, in effect, there will be two parallel streams within the one body which is supposed to be a body to rationalize the complex and complicated field of communications.
I wonder what purpose is to be gained by having two parallel streams under two vice-chairmen. Another question flows from that. If there are two vice-chairmen with two different streams of procedure, will this remove the chairman that much further from his function of keeping a finger on the whole work and function of the commission? Even though I have suggested that the chairman of the CRTC sometimes has moved into an area where there is a vacuum, because of inaction on the part of the federal government, to help make, in effect, almost legislative pronouncements in a sensitive area involving broadcasting and/or communications, at least he is there. But if we have two parallel streams within one commission, under two vice-chairmen, if I were involved in the industry as either a broadcaster, a common carrier or a cable man I wonder whether I would be worried, in that situation, that the chairman would be so far off, in his rarefied, ivory tower, that he really would not be involved.
We have the present situation where the chairman is so sincere and hard working that sometimes he becomes involved in physical participation in the function of the commission. Now it would appear that we are to move to the other extreme of removal because of the two vicechairmen and two parallel streams of procedure. I suggest this is just as bad as the other. The minister may be able to make some comments on that matter. When we have the two streams, will we have rotation within the commission between the streams, or will four full-time commissioners be assigned to one stream and the other four assigned to the other stream, with all the built-in biases and attitudes that prevail when commissioners or members of a commission hear just one type of problem?
When I first read the press release and the green paper of the minister, I thought one of the reasons for the merger of the regulatory function was not only to create more input-which is not being done by this merger-but was perhaps to bring together, rather than divide, the three elements, broadcasting, cable and common carrier. If some of my fears are justified in practice, one really wonders what will be accomplished by this merger if we are to have two parallel streams, one dealing with the CRTC function and the other dealing with the telecommunications function of the CTC. Those are some areas which create real concern in respect of this bill.
29S57 -44>/2

April 21, 1975
Broadcasting
I come back to my earlier question: Who is really calling the shots? In all of this there is one fundamental question: Who is really regulating the regulator? Is it the minister who looks after what the CRTC is doing and who is suggesting that in administration sometimes they are not really up to scratch? Is it right to have licence applications for cable outstanding for six to eight years, as was the case in Saint John where they waited for six years, and also in Regina and Saskatoon where they waited for eight years? Is it right that our cities should be waiting so long for the CRTC to make a determination on their cable applications? As the hon. member who represents Pembroke knows, that city has been waiting for a number of years for the CRTC to decide on microwave in that area. In many other areas there are interminable delays caused by administrative red tape.
It is obvious to me that the Minister of Communications should involve himself more-without in any way interfering with programming-in the actual administrative function of the commission, and he should be much more receptive to the complaints from coast to coast about the administrative red tape and other problems which the CRTC creates. It seems that sometimes the commission is its own worst enemy. The CRTC officials often come before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts and they use that great escape clause or scapegoat and say, "Gentlemen, your questions are good, very interesting, penetrating, etc., but we are just trying to interpret the will of parliament under the Broadcasting Act and if you want to do anything you will have to change the act".
So what do we have? We have a brand new bill, a housekeeping bill which does not get down to any of the fundamental problems. As I have said, it creates many more problems and it does not give more authority to the Minister of Communications to regulate the regulator any more than has been the case up to the present. Many more things could be said at this stage but I know that other hon. members will want to contribute to the debate. Let me only say that one of the saddest things with regard to this bill, perhaps because of the technical and complex nature of the whole field of communications, is that while it vitally involves all Canadians in the use of cable, in the rates they pay for telephone service under this bill, or in the broadcasting signals, and while it involves the very life-style of all Canadians, it has not stimulated the type of debate either in the committee or in the House that it should have. The last real debate in the whole area of broadcasting was on the Broadcasting Act in 1968.
My colleague, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), who is here in the House, is very familiar with that debate: he took a leading part in it, as did the then secretary of state, Miss Judy LaMarsh, who piloted the bill. At that time there were no obvious solutions to these fundamental problems, but members from all sides of the House contributed in trying to seek solutions in this complicated field. Since then there has been silence in the House in terms of legislation, but not outside the House. One might ask, why are we dealing with a so-called housekeeping bill when so many fundamental problems are there to be solved?

I hope the minister will reply at some stage in this debate to some of the questions that were raised in committee and which I have asked today. I have directed my questions to him in his ministerial capacity. I believe that, after the legislation brought in in 1968 and all the studies that have been carried out, the housekeeping bill before us is a rather pathetic piece of legislation on a matter that is so fundamental, one which involves Canadians in all parts of the country. Perhaps the minister will be able to comment on that matter when he speaks later in the debate.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to make any comments on this bill on third reading, but after I heard the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) I thought I would make a few points. I made many of my criticisms of this bill on second reading and in committee. To a large degree, I sympathize with the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) because of the problems that he, as federal minister, is facing in this very complex, difficult and important area of communications in the country. Indeed, there have been federal-provincial conferences to try to iron out some of the jurisdictional problems between the federal and provincial governments. Sad to say, there does not seem to have been much progress made at those conferences.
Meanwhile, we seem to be drifting, in terms of a communications policy. I believe we need a strong federal presence in communications, because often we are concerned about the economy of the country, control and ownership, but if our broadcasting system does not meet the needs of Canadians but relies on foreign programs and foreign ideas, then we are eroding the cultural and national fabric of this country.
It seems to me very important that we move speedily in the area of communications to set up a national communications policy and iron out the problems of jurisdiction. Therefore, I was disappointed in Bill C-5 which has turned out to be just a housekeeping bill-although sometimes I wonder about housekeeping bills: often they are sleepers; in other words, some of the administrative changes that are made have far reaching implications.
On the issue of jurisdiction, I would have hoped that Bill C-5 would have done more than just amalgamate the communications part of the Canadian Transport Commission with the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. I had hoped there would have been some recognition of the need for provincial input in determining policy. Again, I think ultimately the final jurisdiction must be in the hands of the federal government. The minister well knows that if he wanted to, he could take the case to court and the Supreme Court would find in favour of the federal government in a case, for example, involving jurisdiction over cable.
I commend the minister for trying the consultative approach in seeking some kind of accommodation with the provinces, but I do not know how long we can follow that route because if we cannot reach that kind of agreement and just keep postponing, meanwhile we will only be drifting in trying to find a communications policy for this country. I hope we can strike a balance-that the federal government, through its regulatory agencies, can have the power to regulate broadcasting across this country and, at the same time, that the federal government will recognize
April 21, 1975

that because we are such a diverse nation and have so many regions, provinces should have some kind of input in determining policy and some kind of control over distributing broadcasting signals to the more remote parts of the province where, for example, an expansion of educational television could take place beyond the very narrow definition that applies in this area.
I mentioned many of these points at second reading. I do not want to dwell on them again except to say I am disappointed that the bill does not go further: it is only a housekeeping bill. However, I think it does acknowledge that the federal government and the provinces are at a stalemate; they are not making progress. This will certainly hamper the whole country in regard to a national broadcasting policy.
I would like to re-emphasize a few fears I have about the bill just as a housekeeping bill. I hope that because the Liberal members of the committee and the minister have not chosen to make amendments along some of the lines I have suggested in my remarks at this time, they will keep these points in mind for future legislation. I worry about combining the telecommunications aspect of the CTC with the CRTC into this new, super agency because, as I stated earlier, there are parallels where this has happened in the United States with the federal communications commission. Where there is a big agency, there is a tendency to have a fixation on technology and to be worried about the technical aspects of cable distribution, distribution of signals, the kind of equipment and all those nuts and bolts kinds of worries and to lose sight of some of the very important aspects of content. I think the CRTC, the old agency, is to be commended for its stress on and concern for Canadian content in radio and television, and I hope that with the new, super agency we will not slide into the kind of danger and pitfalls the American super agency has fallen into.
I have some concern about the number of full-time and part-time directors on the new board. I think the number should be increased. I know there is a heavy workload for those in the existing agencies. But, more important, I think we should have an expansion of the support staff. There are the appointed directors, but much of the real work is, of course, done by the support staff. I do not see any indication in the bill that the support staff will be increased.
Perhaps my greatest reservation about the bill, even though it is housekeeping, is the lack of provision for consumers to have a say in determining policy, especially as it relates to rate increases. One of the great criticisms consumer associations and citizens across the country had with the old Canadian Transport Commission when it came to telephone rates was that Bell Canada had its battery of lawyers and experts and could produce stacks and stacks of very technical and detailed documents, but the ordinary consumer group of a dozen individuals-or even some of the larger, national consumer groups-did not have that kind of resource background nor the finances to present their side of the story.
This has been a great weakness in our regulatory legislation and it will remain a weakness in this bill. I hope
Broadcasting
that in future policy, perhaps by regulation, the minister will see fit to provide moneys and support staff expertise to be available to consumer groups so that when they want to come before this new Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission on matters related to broadcasting, they will be able to present their arguments, especially on rate increases for cable television also and on other areas of policy.
We hear of the Ontario government having a royal commission on violence shown on television. It seems to me that consumer groups and citizens' groups should have direct access to the commission to present their views on matters such as advertising or violence on television. I see that as a fault in this bill. I hope that in the future we will find some provision for consumer advocacy in the field of broadcasting and telecommunications.
To reiterate, the position of the New Democratic Party is that, as a housekeeping bill, we can go along with it. Perhaps the bill says more about this government's failure or lack of progress in the field of telecommunications. I sympathize with the minister. I will not be totally negative and say he has failed, or that he should resign, because I know how difficult it is in this country to reach agreement with ten provinces and with ten ideas of what communications should be about. But if we are not making progress in conferences and in federal-provincial meetings, then for the sake of broadcasting and for the sake of national unity I suggest the minister will have to take strong action perhaps to test some of the powers in the courts which, under the constitution, the federal government has, to make it very clear to the provinces that we must move ahead and that policy must be ratified.
So we will support Bill C-5. We have expressed our reservations. We are saddened that the minister does not have more support staff and consumer advocacy bureaux for the new commission, but perhaps in the future, as Canadian citizens make their point known, the minister will move in this direction.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak on Bill C-5 longer than is necessary, nor do I want to monopolize the time of the House, but as we know, after third reading, this bill will become law.
The bill orders a type of reorganization of Canadian radio-broadcasting and television. At the time when the minister introduced Bill C-5, some provinces were opposed to.. .


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to report that the translation system from French to English does not appear to be working. I wonder whether there could be a rectification.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will look into it immediately.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the sound is back. As I was saying, Bill C-5 provides for a revision or reorganization of radio-broadcasting throughout Canada. This bill is extremely important because, like most federal hon. members I feel that we should have some measure of unity in

April 21, 1975
Broadcasting
telecommunications and communications across Canada. As I said earlier, at the time the minister introduced Bill C-5, people-as are indeed still found in Quebec-protested against the intervention of the federal government in the provincial area. Furthermore, a written as well as an oral fight was in fact staged on all Quebec radio and television stations and in newspapers charging the federal Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) with interfering in strictly provincial business. That is not the only area where people in the provincial government oppose and fight the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, those provincial interventions always happen after the federal government decides to take action. That is true not only in this area, but in all areas. The federal government goes ahead with something at a certain moment, and the province says, that belongs to us, not Ottawa. The minister, Mr. L'Allier, says telecommunications and communications in Quebec concern only the province of Quebec. Ottawa is somewhat tolerated but that concerns Quebec. We have quite an outfit in Quebec with respect to broadcasting. They are all lost in there not even knowing where they are going. In Ottawa, in both French and English, I think the provinces-Quebec as others-can reach agreement with the federal government to benefit from a single communications policy for all Canada. There is room for that without having storms in teacups.
Mr. Speaker, nothing prevents the province of Quebec from using radio and television stations when it needs to or when other provinces need to. Everyone recognizes that education is a provincial area. I do not think anything in the Broadcasting Act prevents provinces from drawing benefits from it. Then I say Ottawa must respect provincial autonomy but to hear them cry every time Ottawa takes action becomes somewhat irritating. Ottawa is always accused of duplicating expenditures. Mr. Speaker, I have not seen one single area as far as the province of Quebec is concerned, where I live, in which the province did not duplicate what Ottawa decided and did every time, and after that they want to replace that duplication by saying, that belongs to Quebec, not Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, no later than this last weekend people like Mr. Levesque in Quebec would want to isolate Quebec from the rest of civilization. Every time Mr. Levesque says: A civilized people, as if Quebec was not civilized. He keeps repeating the same thing.
Mr. Speaker, Ottawa has given an example to all provinces. I regret that Bill C-5 does not provide for agreements between the federal and the provinces in certain areas. However, as a Canadian, I think we should have a broad policy in matters of broadcasting and communications across Canada. For instance, if we have to come to terms with a foreign country, Canada is Canada, it is our country. We hear about noisy brats who say: Well, we will make arrangements independently from Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, these people are causing) the Quebec people, the Canadian people and Parliament to lose a lot of precious time.
I suggest again that more could have been achieved with Bill C-5 by expressing the true ideas of Ottawa. If all hell

breaks loose once this bill is adopted, a bill which will give rise to increased expenditures, and if we must later make new distributions and grant increased powers to the provinces, we shall have authorized additional expenses which all may be eventually wasted the day we withdraw from the area of communications to allow its take over by the provinces.
Broadcasting is extremely important from the point of view of education. In my opinion, this new commission, which will carry hardly more authority than the CRTC, will have to act promptly to meet the needs of the Canadian people.
People of my area have been calling for improvements for about fifteen years. The improvements have not yet been achieved. In the Lac-Saint-Jean-Saguenay area, in that of Chibougamau, Rimouski and around, permits were asked to improve the systems, the matter has not been solved, it is under consideration, a small commission was formed and inspectors have been going back and forth three or four times a year and no decisions are reached.
Radio Nord Inc., in my area, is now making an application to expand to serve the southern part of Temis-camingue and old Pontiac. The southern part of Temis-camingue includes the city of Temiscaming, Fabre, Bearn, the area close to the Ontario border to the south. There have been requests for improvements in the area of Matagami, between Senneterre and Chibougamau. The CRTC does not reply or says: We are making a study.
Mr. Speaker, time has come to stop the studies doing something. Improvements have been asked for fifteen years. Radio Nord Inc. is prepared to update its system, perhaps not as much as I would like it to, especially in television and I am wondering whether the commission would have the power to tell the company what to do. I have been asking them for two years to provide CKRN with colour TV cameras, but instead of providing them, maybe they are too poor to do so, the boss of Radio Nord, a millionaire who claims to be a socialist in Montreal, when the time came to renew the equipment, went and bought old black and white cameras from Channel 10 in Montreal. We have them in our studios now in Rouyn, Mr. Speaker. At the same time as licenses are granted, let them think about equipment, let them update it so that we are not 15 or 20 years late. The fault does not lie with the government, it lies with those who have jurisdiction over broadcasting and communication. With respect to asking for improvements for them, I would ask the Commission or the CRTC at the same time to suggest that they improve their equipment and provide people over there with the same kind of services as they provide people throughout the province and the rest of the country.
Mr. Speaker, those were the few comments I wanted to make about Bill C-5, which will show us to what extent the minister can reach an agreement with Mr. L'Allier from Quebec or with the authorities from the province of Ontario. The problem seems to be purely a matter of parliamentary or political jurisdiction. Let people know where they stand, let Ottawa work to give provinces satisfaction, all right, but a province should by no means be allowed to go its own way, against or beside other provinces, and I think in that case we should tell Mr. L'Allier: Listen, you stick with us and stay where you are.
April 21, 1975

We are in Canada, we are not in Cuba. The Prime Minister or someone else said last night on television about separation-I think it was Mr. Bourassa-: While in Europe people are realizing that they must unite and form some kind of federation, here in Quebec we have dummies who would like to throw away everything and start having the same troubles as Europe.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we should not tolerate the broadcasting and communication systems to be used to destroy what we hold dear, what we love, what allows us to be what we are, absolutely free to say what we think, to write what we want.
Therefore, if Bill C-5, with the new commission, aims at achieving better understanding among the people and the provinces, I shall be happy to support a bill which will unite Canadians instead of destroying them as certain people try to do. Let us work for the progress and the development of all Canada which will also enable the provinces to strengthen their position.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us Bill C-5. Apparently, its aims are simplicity itself. It seeks to establish the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission. There is a marvellously devious preamble to the bill. It contains the existing letters of the organization and its abbreviation, CRTC, even as it somewhat manages to alter the structure of that organization.
One suspects that the operation, as well as being housekeeping, is also a case of tightening the ship somewhat for the anticipated confrontation between the federal government and the provinces over the issue of broadcasting and broadcast control. That confrontation, at least as it affects my own province of British Columbia, may be a little further away than the minister anticipated when the bill was prepared and as he began to pilot it through.
At one time there was a feeling that the confrontation would develop over educational television. That always seemed the most natural ground on which the confrontation of broadcasting could develop because the provincial jurisdiction in education is absolutely clear and the federal jurisdiction in broadcasting is equally clear. They came together at that particular point and it looked as if the battle could be fought out there, if it was to be fought out anywhere. There has been a lack of development in educational television in recent years. It has not proved to be the effective way of transmitting knowledge, concepts, ideas, morality or anything else that its proponents held it out to be some years ago.
I have always had the gravest doubt about the efficiency and usefulness of the role of television in education. I subscribe to the theory that the prime use of television is for entertainment. I think that all our government problems with this rather thorny, elusive and ephemeral medium would be simplified a great deal if everyone came around to that way of thinking and realized that the role of television is primarily the distribution of entertainment to those who desire to be entertained. Educationally, it has been and continues to be a disappointment. It, like almost
Broadcasting
all the other aids to education, serves the purpose of placing something between teacher and student. It is one of the reasons why, in North America, people are concerned about a return to savagery. This concern is continentwide. Only human contact can make people humane or fully human.
Attempts in the field of education to place something between teacher and student, be it film, slide or television screen have in many instances served a negative purpose, limiting what has already been greatly limited by changes in programming, namely, the contact between teacher and student. At one time it was felt that educational television would allow a master teacher to teach thousands of students at the same moment. Unfortunately, we tended to lose the concept of the master teacher in the classroom. I contend that the need is greater now than it ever has been to have students meet, confront and be taught directly by master teachers. There has been a loss of excitement over educational television. In my province, the Kamloops school district pioneered a great deal of work. About eight years ago, there was enormous excitement about the development of local television programming that would be educational.
Provincial and other governments have come to realize some of the questions involved. The kind of programming that needs to be developed, and its dissemination, simply could not be handled by a group of teachers knocking around after school. They had to be professionally prepared. The information had to be disseminated, and in many ways this became very expensive. Therefore, the bloom is off; the excitement has died down.
If Friday's edition of the Ottawa Citizen is to be believed, we can assume that the takeover of B.C. Telephone by the British Columbia government has been greatly delayed. Hon. members may recall that takeover was promised immediately following the success of the NDP in the last provincial election. There was concern expressed in the province that the culmination of a takeover of B.C. Tel, a move into educational television and the setting up of what would amount to a provincial broadcasting system, would place in the hands of a somewhat doctrinaire political regime an extraordinary power it did not have before. There was a looking to the CRTC and the federal broadcasting control to provide something of a safeguard against what many people found to be a rather frightening possibility.
It seems there will be a delay in the hope of the British Columbia government to take over B.C. Tel. I imagine that will not be a great deal of comfort for people who have just received the news that an application is going forward for a 20 per cent increase in telephone rates in that province.
One thing that bothers me very much about this bill is that the CRTC, along with its other duties, will be spending its time determining the level of rates for telephone subscribers. This has already been alluded to by the previous speaker. The CRTC has been very much preoccupied with cablevision regulation and broadcast regulation in terms of licensing. Determining the channels available and how they are to be distributed for federal television and radio takes an enormous amount of time.

April 21, 1975
Broadcasting
As members of parliament, we receive on our desks copies of all applications that are made across Canada. Some time later we receive copies of the decisions, or notice that a decision has been delayed. The number of applications in the whole country is such that one wonders when the commission, no matter how much it might be increased in size, finds time to do anything except handle them. As earlier speakers have said, even the ones being presented are not always immediately handled. There can be many delays amounting to years.
If you were to ask the average Canadian the work of the CRTC, he would probably reply that it has something to do with licensing. He would probably say it is the body which denied a licence to expand or a licence for another channel for the cablevision company involved. I recall the Broadcasting Act debate in 1968 which led to the change in the act. Arguments were presented in this House against any move to have the federal broadcasting authority in the cablevision field which had grown up without restriction. I sometimes wonder whether the one, lonely individual who seemed to be fighting most of the battle did not have more of a point than was conceded at that time.
I should like to quote one or two lines submitted to us by the Canadian Television Association; part of the discussion paper sent to the minister. This appears on page 5, in item 19:
Unnecessary restraints on cable companies have created a gap between public expectation and the delivery of cablevision services.
I know for a fact that this is true. People in isolated areas, for example, Elkford and Sparwood, cannot understand why the new technology cannot be used to deliver a clear signal to them by cable. The expectation is there. The little community of Yahk suddenly found that the cost of wiring a cable connection had increased beyond all expectation and was obliged to withdraw the proposal that cable coverage be extended. Yahk is the kind of isolated community where older houses have been purchased by retired persons. Winters are long, and television is expected to provide entertainment during the years of retirement. Disappointment is great. The gap mentioned in the brief is a very real one. It is difficult to explain to such people why there should be such long delays or why their applications are denied.
I suspect that in the back of the minister's mind-I have little doubt this applies also to the CRTC-there is a feeling that somehow this method of transmission will take something away from the off-air broadcasters and in some fashion limit the development of Canadian nationalism through the CBC; that it will prevent the development of what is described as truly Canadian television.
I contend, and I have said this before, that the load of maintaining Canadian nationalism has been placed on those communities which are removed from the United States border and from the major metropolitan centres. For some reason, these people find themselves regarded by the powers that be as responsible for the maintenance of Canadian nationalism; the load is placed on their shoulders in order to salve the consciences of all of us who live in centres where any number of channels, from 5 to 13, can easily be received. Somehow, we all feel better for know-

ing that certain smaller communities are receiving only one flaky CBC channel, thus ensuring that all is well with Canadian nationalism.


Mr. Paproski:: A flaky CBC program; that is a hockey game that's a week old!


Howard Earl Johnston: Applications for better service are set aside though there often does not appear to be any good reason for doing so, apart, of course, from this vague fear that Canadian nationalism would in some way not be served if action were taken. Thus, a decision is not made, action is delayed for another year, possibly in the hope that in the interim a study will be undertaken which will show that in some way we are better, as a nation, for refusing these applications. However, I doubt whether that will ever be demonstrated to anyone's satisfaction. If Canadian nationalism burns brightly at all, it is in some of the smaller communities, and if it is to be dampened down it is probably dampened down because the people who live in them do not see any connection between their patriotism, their pride in their country, and the fact they are denied the quality of coverage they desire.
There is one other aspect of this subject I should like to mention in closing, and that is the whole question of violence on television programs. I have the feeling that if the CRTC has not been spending a great deal of time on this area in the past, it will be spending even less time on it after taking on increased responsibilities. If the government of this province has found it necessary to appoint a commission, naming as chairman a former member of this House, to look into the entire question of violence and terrorism on TV, it is a sad commentary on the way in which the CRTC has regulated broadcasting in this land.


An hon. Member:: An electioneering gimmick.


Howard Earl Johnston: There are members across the way who are calling this an electioneering gimmick. I suggest they should read the material which is available in the library of parliament. A few weeks ago a list of new material acquired was published by the library. Included in that list was a book I had requested, one which deals with this very question. I think it is called "Where do you Draw the Line?"
It is difficult to ascertain just what can be done to control pornography, for example. The book deals specifically with violence on television. I suggest to hon. members opposite that they should borrow the book and read the comments it makes. If they doubt that it is a matter of great concern, let them go back to their constituents and listen to the people who are talking about the need to reintroduce capital punishment. I am not one of those advocating the reinstatement of capital punishment, but we have to admit there is some connection between the wave of violence sweeping this continent and the fact that night after night we have permitted our television services to carry a compendium of crime.
I am sure that some time in the future, historians will look back on us and wonder how we could have been so simple as to allow the nightly portrayal of violence and criminality to all who care to watch, including the young people of this country. When a province like Ontario reacts, I would say it is high time we began to pay
April 21, 1975

attention. It is almost certainly an indictment of the federal role in broadcasting, of the manner in which th federal authority has been exercised, and of the way in which the federal regulatory authority has carried out its work. Having regard to the quality of the programming now in evidence, it is not surprising to me that a provincial government should find itself constrained to set up this kind of commission.
I would hope that the CRTC, with its added concern for telecommunications, would find time to carry out the role which I believe was implied in the former designation, Board of Broadcast Governors, a body which I believe carried out as part of its duties the governing of broadcasting right to the programming end. It does not matter at all what we do with the hardware, the software, the off-air or cable broadcasting; if what is distributed to the subscriber at the end is not worth the effort, then we have truly failed. I am very skeptical that there will be any time left in the organization seriously to consider the most important aspect of all in public or private broadcasting.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) was kind enough to recall to the House that I had been in the broadcasting committee when, among other things, Miss Judy LaMarsh and I exchanged poetry, at a time when the House passed the Broadcasting Act a number of years back. I am not going to recall the poetry; I am too much of a gentleman even to publish what she sent to me. Neither will I go over all the reasons why I still bear scars from that particular occasion. This has nothing to do with Miss LaMarsh but it has a lot to do with broadcasting in Canada.
There is one feature I should like to deal with in a very brief intervention in this debate, and this is the question of cablevision-actually cable television, but cablevision since it may include radio channels as well-in the less populous areas of Canada. When this session commenced, or shortly thereafter, I put a star against a question of mine. It was a very brief question and I thought I would get a very brief answer. My question, No. 781, asked simply this:
Has the Canadian Radio-Television Commission a policy to enable Canadians in less populous areas to receive cable television and, if so, what is it?
As I say, I expected that the answer would be as brief as my question. Instead, as members can observe for themselves, I received a veritable blizzard of paper in response to my question. It not only included a recent reply as provided by the commission to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier), but also some of the decisions made by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. As a result, I might have said to myself that the government had no policy at all, the answer was so large and I thought, in some respects at least, obtuse. I am still somewhat inclined to that opinion and I have to apologize to several bare acres of erstwhile Canadian forest which have been levelled in order to provide the paper that provided the answers given so generously not only to myself but to other members of the chamber, consisting of about 100 pages, I would guess.
Broadcasting
Then I decided to take a second look at the matter when this particular debate came on. I have done so, and I want to review what I think are the points that the Canadian Radio-Television Commission has been operating on in regard to providing Canadians in less populous areas with cable television. Then I want to make a suggestion as to how almost everybody in Canada can receive cable television.
I make this argument because, even though my constituency be in the older, settled province of Nova Scotia, there are large parts of Halifax-East Hants which are outside the cable systems operating in the constituency. I know that as one goes across Canada, with very few exceptions this is the case. The metropolitan ridings in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver would perhaps be exceptions, but generally members must have people in their ridings who do not have the advantage enjoyed by their big cousins of receiving cable television.
I do not know whether I should be arguing the merits of cablevision and whether it is worth while receiving. There is a lot to be said for getting away from television in any shape or form, but I think most people regard it as one of the things they would at least like to have the right to turn off, if they do not already have that right, or, for that matter, the right to turn on.
The answer from the CRTC was given to the minister and tabled by him in the House in response to my question dealing with the commission's view of cable coverage in lower density areas. The first principle that I could discern from the answer of the commission was that where, in its opinion, economic conditions are such that there is little probability of a second service extending on-air coverage in the foreseeable future, the commission's view is that cable should be allowed to act as a means of bringing television to the public, and that this is sometimes the case in less populated, isolated areas of the country. I think that makes reasonable sense and explains itself. Secondly, the commission replied as follows:
Concerning the extension of existing licensed cable television systems into adjacent, less densely populated areas, existing policies require the service to be provided to any residence already provided with municipal services.
In other words, if your residence is supplied with sewer or water lines, then surely you are entitled to be on a cablevision line. The commission goes on:
While the commission has refrained from forcing the extension of services to clearly uneconomic regions, which could jeopardize the stability of licensed systems, they have always encouraged mature, well developed systems or those with a high degree of potential growth to expand into neighbouring territories even if such expansion is only marginally viable.
As the answer presented to me by the minister points out, in this regard one might refer to decisions granting licences in Sudbury and Timmins, where in both areas licensees were required to extend service throughout the respective regional municipalities. The Timmins licensee was also required to provide service to Cochrane and Iroquois Falls, notwithstanding that he had in fact not applied to service those areas. Thirdly, in looking at the policy of the CRTC as it was then and ever more shall be until royal assent is given the measure we are now considering, we find this statement:

April 21, 1975
Broadcasting
It should be pointed out that many less populated areas while having a sufficient population base to ensure a potentially successful cable television undertaking, were they able to receive sufficient television signals off-air, could not possibly survive, given the requirement for a microwave delivery system, without a significant degree of support from larger centres.
If you want that to be boiled down into simple English, Mr. Speaker, let me go back to the Toronto Maple Leafs' defence of the 1930s, where little King Clancy had to have big Red Horner alongside him so they could operate effectively as a team. The little fellow could not do it by himself; he had to rely on the bigger fellow to help him.
I think these three citations are the requisites of the policy set forth by the CRTC. When all of them are examined together, I think what they amount to is this, that where lots of people live in houses connected to sewer and water lines, or there are people in remote areas which somehow are adjacent to big cities, then those people can have cable television; otherwise they will have to wait for a new policy. I hope the minister will take this point very seriously and perhaps act as a communications source with the new commission, and that the 19 people or whatever who are on the commission will appreciate the point I am making.
If we are to appear absolutely fair to all Canadians in the developing of communications by cable television, we will have to seize a particularly grisly nettle. It is a grisly nettle if you happen to be a member on the government side, because you have to recognize that not only is it very logical to require services where there are municipal water and sewer services, but you must not judge communications interests on the basis of whether someone runs a sewer line into a particular area. It must be recognized that these services must be provided in certain areas whether the authority wants to provide them or not. They must generally be provided where Mother Bell has already provided her services. The marginal areas have now all been exhausted. We have to tell these people, when their licences are renewed, that they must go out beyond the limits of the metropolitan areas; that they must go out ten miles here and another ten miles there until everyone is covered.
The CRTC has found it can tell people to extend services and undertake greater jurisdiction than they originally wanted. We have to tell these people to provide services wherever the people need communications. They have to provide these services where other communication services have gone before. There must be wider limits in respect of cable television than have existed before, at least according to my understanding of the situation. These companies must match the services provided by our telephone companies, including the Bell system in Quebec and Ontario, the provincial systems in western Canada, the Maritime Tel and Tel, the New Brunswick telephone system and the Newfoundland system. I think the matter is as simple as that.
I also suspect that some kind of directive from the federal government will be required. The government cannot look askance at this new commission if it expects to open up the unserved areas of Canada. This can be done through the operations of the existing telephone compa-

nies, because the hardware is already in place to provide service to the remote parts of the country. I think you will find that wherever there is a telephone system there is also the technical and technological ability to provide a cablevision system. This is a choice that has to be made by the government and by this commission, and until the choice is made there will be large areas of Canada not served by cablevision. I make that point as my only point to the Minister of Communications in respect of this new commission.
Perhaps the only other thing I might add by way of a philosophic comment is that it seems very strange, in an age when communication is so very important to us all, that we only get measures such as this one to deal in a fundamental way with communications in the vast areas of this country. It seems strange that in this important area of bringing the people together, with all our new techniques, innovations and technological changes, we should only take such a small step once every ten years. This must be a commentary on our ability to communicate with each other.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I realize I have only a few minutes this afternoon at my disposal, and I know the minister is anxious to make his position clear. However, I am sure he will want to answer some of the questions I should like to pose, as well as the questions asked during the substantial contributions made by others during this third reading debate. I hope in due course the minister will answer the one or two questions I would like to put to him this afternoon.
One of the things I have observed during the 9Vi months I have been in this House is the tendency on the part of the government to create administrative tribunals, bodies or agencies to deal with very important segments of governmental responsibility. To use the Department of Transport as an example, since the parliamentary secretary is here and I want to take advantage of that fact, parliament seems to have lost control of certain areas of transportation as a result of the government's delegating responsibility to agencies, Crown corporations and departments.
When an individual member of parliament attempts to obtain information about the operations of an agency involved in transportation matters, the civil servant tends to adopt a very cursory or arbitrary attitude. The civil servant or bureaucrat, if I may use that term, is inclined to take the attitude that in fact it is none of the individual member's business but, for example, is the basic concern of the agency, such as the CBC. I use that as an example as I see that the minister responsible is here, and I would like to take advantage of that fact by again letting him know that this kind of response does not sit well with individual members of parliament.
The point I am making is that while it has been pointed out that this bill in fact is a housekeeping bill to create a new commission with expanded authority over communications in our country, the fact of the matter is that there is nothing in the bill to indicate that this House or the executive in cabinet will have any input in the deliberations of that commission. This fact intrigues me and perhaps the minister in due course will explain why there has not been provision for the government to give direction to the CRTC in matters of policy.
April 21, 1975

Government leadership is very much required in respect of communications services in this country. If we are to have a viable country in which one part feels as much a part of Canada as another, it seems to me that the institution of services across the country should be the result of government policy and there should be a mechanism or a provision within the bill by which the government can, in fact, give direction that certain services must be provided to certain areas.
This leads me to a rather parochial observation, if I may be permitted to make it at this time. I refer to the services that have been provided over the years in that great province of Saskatchewan. It seems to me that the CRTC in the past has misinterpreted its jurisdiction in respect of broadcasting. It is apparent that the CRTC understands that its responsibility in respect of broadcasting relates to the area 50 miles north of the United States border. The fact of the matter is that in some of the major centres in the province of Saskatchewan there has only recently been the development of a second television station, and I suggest that the size of these cities, with their reasonably large populations, would demand dablevision service.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are about to rise because it is almost five o'clock, so I will take the opportunity of calling it five o'clock now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unless the hon. member seeks the unanimous consent of the House to carry on for a few minutes, I must call it five o'clock. With the unanimous consent of the House, I will not see the clock for a few moments.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Perhaps I might ask that Your Honour does not see the clock, in the hope that we might be able to deal with the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Realizing the attention I have received, and the importance of this matter, I appreciate the indulgence of the House in allowing me an extra couple of minutes to bring these things to the minister's attention. If the minister intends to reply, I hope he will elucidate a little in respect of the apparent lack of a provision in the bill which would allow the government and parliament to give directions regarding broadcasting policy.
I understand the basic principle involved and that in the area of broadcasting the government would be very leery in this respect, but I do not think a responsible body or government would abuse that particular prerogative. I think on occasion, however, the government must be in a position where it has the ability to issue directives to a body such as the CRTC. It should have the power to say, if it should be considered a matter of national interest, that service shall be provided to a certain area. If the government, for example, should decide that there should be cable service in Saskatoon, which I believe to be of great national importance, it should be in a position to deal with that matter.
I merely wished to make these few observations in respect of this bill. I hope the minister will have an
Social Security Policy
opportunity to address himself to some of the matters raised by hon. members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I think there would be agreement to take motion No. 35 standing in the name of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it also agreed that the motions preceding this one shall retain their position on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that an essential part of any social security policy is a program of adequate care, compassion and opportunity for Canada's disabled, the government should give urgent consideration to initiating, in co-operation with the provincial governments, and voluntary groups, specific programs for chronically sick and severely disabled Canadians including (a) mandatory building standards designed to provide easy access to public buildings, schools and universities (b) special housing facilities and adequate educational vocational and employment guidance service and opportunity, making it possible for the disabled person to be creatively employed to the degree that his/her handicap permits (c) the provision of technical and electronic equipment so that handicapped persons might be released from helpless dependency by controlling their immediate environment (heat, light, radio, telephone, TV, typewriter, tape recorder, etc) (d) income maintenance sufficient to enable the disabled person to enjoy a reasonable standard of living (e) the general coordination of policies and programs designed to aid this group i.e., policies that combine the ingredients of a sound rehabilitation program, the medical, social, vocational and educational aspects, in a positive approach that will enable large numbers to be released from static expensive institutional care to a creative life in the family and community.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the debate on this motion is a continuation of a debate which took place in this House on

April 21, 1975
Social Security Policy
February 19, 1973. On that occasion the motion was phrased in terms similar to those of the motion today. The whole basis of the motion was to draw the attention of the House and of the government to one of the most urgent social problems confronting Canada at the present time. It is appropriate that for the debate this afternoon we have a representative group from across Canada present in the Speaker's gallery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The technical aids committee which is sponsored by the Canadian rehabilitation Council for the Disabled has been in session throughout this day in an endeavour to come to grips with some of the problems outlined in the motion before us. Specifically, it has been concerned with making available the growing number of technical aids so that they may be put into service for the severely handicapped and chronically ill citizens of Canada, of whom there are many.
I trust that those who will take part in the debate this afternoon-and I am glad to see a representative attendance in the House-have taken the trouble to read the discussion which took place in 1973. That discussion took place at the beginning of the exercise of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) based on the presentation of the orange paper which resulted in a dialogue concerning social and health problems over the past two years which is about to come to a conclusion. We anticipate that some legislative recommendations will result from that long discussion between government and representative groups of the people of Canada.
During the previous debate I suggested that a logical method of handling the complex issues embraced in a rather lengthy resolution would be to refer the matter to a committee of this House, preferably a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons, which could examine in depth all the problems relating to adequate policies and programs for the disabled population of Canada, so that representative groups could appear and a body of information could be brought together, and on the basis of the recommendations of that committee, policy recommendations could be co-ordinated to meet the need.
On that occasion the government declined to accept the recommendation. Now that the discussions with regard to the orange paper are reaching a point of action, I would hope that the recommendation would be accepted during the debate this afternoon so that after a period of two years we might have a body that would move toward implementation of the urgent needs that are set out in the resolution before us.
To tie into the debate on that occasion, let me point out that one of the main points I stressed was that the motion is designed to establish an atmosphere in society where there is genuine respect for the handicapped; where understanding is unostentatious and sincere; where, if years cannot be added to the lives of the very sick, at least life can be added to their years; where needs come before means; where the mobility of disabled people is limited only by the bounds of technical progress and discovery; where the handicapped have a fundamental right to par-

ticipate in industry and in society according to their abilities; where socially preventable distress is unknown; and where no man has cause to feel ill at ease because of disability.
Several members took part in that debate, including the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) and the former hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, Mrs. Grace Mac-Innis who is no longer with us. On that occasion also I quoted the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the effect that he was giving priority emphasis in his policy considerations to the needs of the handicapped. I believe that is still his emphasis. I quoted at that time from the speech that he made to the Montreal Chamber of Commerce on February 5, 1973. He said:
In the first place, the social security plan shall ensure to persons unable to work, the elderly, the blind and the disabled, an annual guaranteed income that is fair and compassionate.
This principle is already embodied in a whole series of measures which go back as far as 1927.
These programs, drawn up to meet special needs, have never been fully integrated; on the one hand, because they were adopted at different times for different purposes, and on the other hand, because it happened that the same program came under different jurisdictions.
Recently, the minister made a speech to the Empire Club of Canada. These are interesting and important groups in Canada and it is noteworthy that the minister is using these forums to press on with his crusade. The speech I refer to was made on October 31, 1974. In it he continued the emphasis of his earlier statement in 1973; he referred to the decisions that were about to be made with respect to the upgrading of the health and welfare program of the government, and said:
There will be a lot of decisions, and they will be difficult ones. What, for example, is the best way-the most humane and most efficient way-of meeting the income needs of those who are unable to work: the physically and mentally handicapped; the single mothers who must remain at home to raise and care for their children-
He listed a whole series of people in this category. I merely want to underline the stress on the physically and mentally handicapped. Later in the same speech the minister said:
Above all, how can we design the social security system so as to provide adequate income support, and increasingly a combination of income support and income from employment, to people who are handicapped and otherwise unable to achieve full independence, while at the same time ensuring that people who are able to work are found employment, thus enabling to achieve income security through income from employment.
You will see that this emphasis is continuing right down to the present moment. Much progress has been made since the initial debate in 1973, and perhaps it would be most useful at this time if I indicated some of the things that have happened since that time. For example, in March of 1973 there was a conference on technology and the handicapped. This took place with the support of the Department of National Health and Welfare at the Brooke Claxton complex, so obviously it had the official blessing of the government and the department. As a result of that conference there is much additional useful information upon which the government can base urgent action.
Also, since that occasion a committee known as the health care delivery committee was set up as part of the Canadian Association of Physical Medicine and Rehabili-
April 21, 1975

tation. The members of the committee are outstanding people in the field, such as Dr. Frank Murdoch from British Columbia, Dr. Veronique Susset from Sherbrooke, Quebec, Dr. Doris MacKay from British Columbia, and Dr. David Symington who is the professor and head of the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine at Queen's University. This group, which has now been operating for over a year, has been compiling information that has become available to the government and to the Department of National Health and Welfare.
With respect to the objective of the technical aids committee, we have in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon some of the most active people in the field of rehabilitation. I will not name them personally; I tried to do that when I initiated this topic back in 1973, but on such occasions one tends to miss some names. However, I will say that they are representative of such groups as the Canadian Paraplegic Association which has always provided outstanding leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: They also represent the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled, and other representative groups from across the country.
Last August, in the city of Vancouver, under the aegis of the Kinsmen Rehabilitation Foundation, the first international conference on technical aids for the handicapped took place. This was a major milestone in Canada's involvement in this increasingly important field of endeavour on behalf of the handicapped. As a result of that conference, a publication is now available which will be in the hands of the government and, I think, will provide all the necessary guidelines to come to immediate grips with the problems of implementing as quickly as possible, in terms of the resolution that we are debating today, a program of electronic and environment controls that is geared to meet the needs of the severely disabled and the chronically ill. It is the feeling of the committee that once we have a program of such controls for the severely disabled, there will be a positive approach to the care, treatment and rehabilitation of the severely handicapped, and I quote now from the last part of the motion-
-that will enable large numbers to be released from static expensive institutional care to a creative life in the family and community.
I want to pay tribute this afternoon to the leadership which has been provided by the Kinsmen Rehabilitation Foundation in the province of British Columbia. That foundation is one of the affiliated agencies of the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled, and it is largely because of the leadership they have provided in implementing the program in the province of British Columbia that we have been able to move forward in the technical aids committee to the point where we are now able to make specific recommendations to the Government of Canada.
I know that mentioning names is always risky, but I think it should be placed on the record that people like Mr. Ed Sherwood of the Kinsmen Rehabilitation Foundation, who was with us in the gallery today, has provided leader-
Social Security Policy
ship. As this is Women's International Year, we should not forget to mention that Miss Margret Perry has been very active in this program as well. She is an occupational therapist who has considerable experience in implementing technical aids programs for the physically handicapped of Canada.
I want other hon. members to participate in this debate this afternoon, but I want to wind up with three major points to bring the whole argument into focus. First, there has been renewed leadership on the part of the physically handicapped themselves, and the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled has brought together a conference of the handicapped to deal with the problems of meeting their own specific needs. The first conference took place in the city of Toronto a little over a year ago. I must give credit where credit is due; it was funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Out of that initial conference has come a continuing committee of the physically disabled which is continuing to explore the areas I have outlined in my resolution, that is, transportation facilities, housing facilities, educational facilities, technical aids, income maintenance and general co-ordination of all these problems.
I should point out, too, that there have been specific policy recommendations in this area both from the opposition party and, as I have already indicated, from the minister representing the government side of the House. Again we have reached the important stage of development where, instead of the non-handicapped sitting in conference and committee to recommend solutions for the handicapped, the handicapped themselves have taken control of their own destiny and have come up with some excellent recommendations which have been given to the government for its consideration.
All this, of course, requires funding. Up to the present moment, in meeting the needs of these various activities to which I have referred funding has been on an ad hoc basis. Whenever a request has been made to the officials of the government of Canada who are concerned with the area of rehabilitation, there has been a positive response. But I am sure the minister, or whoever is speaking for the minister this afternoon, will agree that the time has come when there has to be a specific program and a policy which moves beyond the ad hoc approach, and what I have tried to do this afternoon is to point out that there has been considerable input into this subject since this debate last took place in 1973.
I hope the government will respond in a positive way to the recommendations of the CRCD, which has put forward positive budget recommendations which, if accepted by the government, will make it possible to expand the exce-lent program already under way which I have outlined briefly this afternoon. But fundamentally and primarily, 1 hope that as other hon. members take part in this debate this afternoon we will obtain support from all sides of the House for the setting up of a committee, preferably a joint committee, which will be authorized to deal in depth with the subject of rehabilitation. There are any number of agencies in the field. What is needed now is policy co-ordination. I hope this recommendation will be accepted and that it will be one of the positive outcomes of our discussion this afternoon.

April 21, 1975
Social Security Policy


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I want to give my strong and unqualified support to the motion presented this afternoon by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). One of the ways to make one's support effective in private members' hour, of course, is not to take too long, and I will try to abide by that principle. I should like to join with the hon. member in welcoming to the gallery today the members of the delegation which is with us, and to join with him in commending them and their various organizations on the tremendous work they do in the field of rehabilitation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and I have managed to break the rule about referring to people in the gallery without, thus far being chided by Your Honour, may I go just one step further and say to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris that I personally am delighted to see his son in the gallery today as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I may say so,
it was my honour and privilege a couple of years ago, in another capacity, to confer upon Mr. Gunnar Dinsdale the degree of Bachelor of Arts at Brandon University, and all of us who know this young man know what an achievement it was for him to reach that status.
Mr. Speaker, the motion of the hon. member is well put. It does seem to cover everything. I think there is only one word missing, but it is probably covered by implication. In the main, the hon. member has done well to point out that such things as income maintenance at an adequate level must be achieved if we are going to help the disabled, the handicapped and the severely ill, but there are many other things we must do. In the main we must co-ordinate the services and the assistance which will enable such people to get out of static conditions in institutions and to live a normal life, or as normal as possible, in the family and in the community, if I may use the words of the hon. member's motion. The only word I do not see in the motion is "transportation", which may be covered by certain other phrases. It strikes me that transportation needs to be organized for the handicapped so that they can get to their places of education, employment, and so on.
All told, and I shall stand by my commitment to be brief, I think the hon. members' motion is excellent. We know how difficult it is to get any motion through in the time allotted for private members' hour. I hope, if it does not get through, that at least positive consideration will be given to the suggested establishment of a joint committee which can work on this matter and push it forward.
I thank the hon. member for his kind reference to my former colleague, Mrs. Grace Maclnnis. I am sorry she is not here to speak in the debate on this important motion. We miss her in this House. She, by the way, is on a cruise in the South Pacific. I thought hon. members would be glad to know this. On her behalf and on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I register my strong support for this excellent motion.


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join in thanking the members of the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled for the wonderful work they are doing. I wish to assure them that we are all appreciative of their work and are certainly attentive to their recommendations.
The motion proposed by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) asks the government to give urgent consideration to the rehabilitation of disabled persons by means of providing the necessary income and services to enable them to integrate into Canadian society. While I support the hon. member's intention, I hope we will not slow down the work of the committees. I have faith in the ability of our federal and provincial governments to act on this matter and to implement suggestions of the kind the hon. member has brought forward. Perhaps we can make recommendations, but we should not do anything to slow down the progress of committees.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to quote part of the speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to the conference of federal and provincial ministers of welfare in February, 1975. He said:
-a concerted effort should be made by federal and provincial officials alike to persuade employers to adapt their employment practices and work arrangements so as to make possible the part-time employment of single parents who are unable to work full-time outside of the home, and the employment of handicapped people who are unable to adapt themselves to normal work arrangements. Efforts of this kind have already been begun in several provinces but they need to be expanded and generalized. The community employment strategy proposed in the working paper on social security, and administered by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, was created for this purpose.
Rehabilitation and training programs must be expanded so as to ready for employment people who are handicapped in terms of personal capabilities or of their training and experience. The Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act and the Canada Assistance Plan provide federal assistance to this end, in so far as my ministry is concerned, but proposals for their expansion and integration will be advanced before the completion of the social security review this summer.
It gives me great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to speak on this motion today because I feel the federal government can take real pride in its accomplishments so far in this area. After the First World War it became interested in disability because of returning war veterans. Many Canadians tend to forget our Canadian war heroes. We tend to forget the two boys who grew up in Almonte, Ontario, in that little one-roomed school. I am talking of Tait MacKenzie, the sculptor, who is responsible for many of our great pieces of athletic sculpture, and of James A. Naismith who invented the game of basketball. Those two boys skipped a stone off an old rock, as the story goes. One of them eventually went to McGill. Tait MacKenzie, after leaving McGill and having left James A. Naismith in charge, so to speak, sent him to Springfield. He went to the University of Pennsylvania and became a medical doctor. He was instrumental in developing, at the instruction of the president, rehabilitative devices for the American armed forces.
We in Canada did the same thing after the war. Before this some voluntary organizations had taken an interest in the disabled. Since that time we have demonstrated a continued interest in the needs not only of the military disabled but also of the civilian disabled. The national health grants program was instrumental in permitting the establishment of rehabilitation programs, the purchase of
April 21, 1975

equipment and the training of personnel. The crippled children's grant encouraged the organization of crippled children's societies. In addition, programs such as the Old Age Assistance Act were set up to assist the disabled financially. That act gave assistance to blind persons as early as 1937. This program was followed by the Blind Persons Act, the Disabled Persons Act and the Unemployment Assistance Act.
As Canada evolved it was felt that these programs were too restrictive, had little flexibility and did not provide for services to alleviate dependency. For these reasons the Canada Assistance Plan was introduced in 1966. The government was also interested in vocational rehabilitation. In 1952 it established the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons program, first under order in council then as a separate piece of legislation. It permits the provinces to provide the disabled with a comprehensive program of services which are necessary to assist disabled persons to become employable, thus enabling them to become integrated with society. In 1973 this program was transferred from the Department of Manpower and Immigration to the Department of National Health and Welfare because it was felt that this would permit closer co-ordination of services to the handicapped, particularly in view of the welfare services provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan.
I recognize the interest of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris in the area of technical aids for the disabled, and will therefore begin my remarks on the subject which is closest to his heart. As I mentioned, the government has had a continuing interest over the years in the needs of the disabled, and the Department of National Health and Welfare has been particularly interested in the area of technical aids. We sponsored a Canadian conference on technology and the handicapped in March, 1973, at which the hon. member was a keynote dinner speaker. Various recommendations of this conference dealt with the need for a national information centre. We are presently supporting a feasibility study for such a centre undertaken by the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled and the Centre for Applied Research and Engineering Design at McMaster University-a university which, as the hon. member will realize, is close to my heart.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am a graduate of McMaster.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: In addition, we supported an electronic control seminar last August at which the hon. member made the opening remarks. This conference acquainted participants with the various electronic aids available. Through the prosthetic services division we are concerned with the manufacture of artificial limbs, braces and orthopaedic shoes and we provide fitting services for these devices. The production, engineering, testing and training unit tests appliances and components developed in various research centres across the country and develops them for general use.
We also provide consultant services on all aspects of prosthetics and orthopaedics to provincial governments and agencies, to commercial and institutional organizations and to clinics. More recently, we have undertaken to put TOSC into production. This is the touch-operated selector control for persons who have limited use of all limbs. It was developed, as the hon. member mentioned in
Social Security Policy
this House last year, by Mr. Bud Cairns, a quadraplegic. By use of two remote switches, the handicapped person can request assistance, use an intercom system, unlock a door, receive and make phone calls and control appliances, including radio, TV, lights and dictating machine.
This has been an exciting development and has been acclaimed as one of the breakthroughs which will permit the severely disabled to leave institutions and live with some independence. These units are now being disseminated throughout Canada, one to a province, in cooperation with the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled and, I understand, the Canadian Paraplegic Association.
The hon. member is also aware of our interest in the national technical aids committee of the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled of which he is the chairman. This committee is representative of Canadian experts including scientists, engineers, physicians, federal and provincial government officials and agency personnel. We have funded a meeting of this committee in order to gain a better understanding of this complex question and to assist in preparing guidelines on the financing of special devices, some of which are very expensive.
For the benefit of other hon. members here this afternoon who may not be as aware of the technology which is assisting with the everyday problems of the disabled as is the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, I should like to mention a few devices: they include communication aids for the speech-impaired, environmental controls, such as TOSC, and wheelchair designs incorporating new, lightweight alloys. There is even a device available to enable a blind person to read regular print.
The problem lies in the lack of co-ordinated prescription, production and delivery systems for this hardware. Inventors seem to be developing these aids with little knowledge of each other. This is indeed unfortunate as the whole area of modern technology holds great promise for increasing the life, skills, independence and employability of the physically disabled. What is needed now in a coordinated approach to the development and delivery of technical aids, and this is the reason we are supporting the consultations with the members of CRCD technical aids committee.
The great majority of handicapped aspire to be as normal as possible. This desire is expressed most frequently in terms of employment. The work ethic is alive and well and living among the handicapped. It expresses itself in a rejection of inertia, a rejection of make-work activities, a rejection of unnecessary sheltered employment, a desire for training and placement in regular jobs. The brief submitted to the provincial ministers of welfare by the national steering committee of the physically disabled, a group of disabled persons, also reaffirms the right of the disabled to employment as a means of obtaining income but also as a means of self-expression and integration into the community.
There was a great example of this last Saturday. A blind student I had seen at McMaster for three years was able to make his way around the campus. Although not a member of my constituency, he arrived at my office last Saturday.

April 21, 1975
Social Security Policy
As it was not like the old office, he bumped into things. He sat down and told me his story. He did not want to be in employment where he could not give anything. He has had that for two years. He has a pension about which he could not care less. He had done his work at McMaster and wanted to know if there was something I could do for him. This boy wants to work at something useful. Although I tried to do as much as I could for this boy while at university, I had not realized I was not doing anything to make certain, when he finished, that he could do what he wanted to do. This is indeed a responsibility we must bear in mind. People with this kind of disability want to work as an expression of themselves, not just to do their work.
For many of the disabled, work gives meaning to their lives. A citizen has commented to me that work has a primary role to play in the way his family sees him, the breadwinner. He said, "A man or woman has to feel that he or she is still a man or woman even though disabled. Work also gives me the satisfaction of not being dependent. Work gives me self-satisfaction, self-respect and the pride essential to a human being." Another disabled person was not for work as much as he was against not working; he said, "I work because if I don't, I feel sick. I just don't feel the same. I never wake up all day; I'm in a sleepy mood because I'm not using my energy. I feel dopey."
As I have mentioned, the government has been active over the years in providing the disabled with the necessary training and services to permit them to become employable. This has always been the goal of the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act. VRDP permits the provinces to offer comprehensive vocational rehabilitation services which include medical, social and vocational assessment, counselling, restoration services, provision of prostheses, training, maintenance allowances, and the provision of tools, books and other equipment. These services can be provided directly by the province or they may be purchased from a voluntary agency.
The act recognizes the uniqueness of each disabled person's problem and allows for individuals to be provided with the services required on an individual basis. In addition, it permits the individual disabled person himself to be involved in the planning and processing of his own rehabilitation. He participates in setting rehabilitation goals for himself in employment and in the means by which he is to reach that goal. Services are available to a person on the basis of his disability and his need for services rather than the financial need of the individual and his family: there is no financial test under VRDP.
Service delivery is co-ordinated under a provincial coordinator and the program draws on the resources of all levels of government, the voluntary sector and the private sector; for example, training on the job in private industry. It is supplementary and complementary to existing social services and other related programs. The Department of National Health and Welfare has been pleased to be a part of an interdepartmental committee which is presently studying employment in the public service for persons with special needs. Demonstration projects will soon be set up in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and the national capital area with the dual aims of increasing the

employment in the public service of persons with special needs, and of providing data on barriers to employment.
When we speak of employment of the handicapped it becomes necessary to speak of sheltered workshops, of which there is a wide variety. The Department of National Health and Welfare has been pleased to collaborate with the Canadian Council of Rehabilitation Workshops in formulating guidelines for the operation of workshops. The vocational needs of disabled persons are similar to those of other people. They, too, seek employment in the world of work at a level compatible with their abilities and potential. At one time or another, all of us have required some assistance in achieving employment and social participation. The disabled person, as is the case of the non-disabled, expects society to provide a reasonable level of assistance in helping him or her to prepare for and obtain suitable employment. When the limitations of the individual do not permit him or her to meet the demands of traditional work settings, alternative work opportunities appropriate to his or her level of capacity should be available.
Many vocationally disabled individuals are able to function effectively in normal employment situations. Others can only do so with the aid of specialized preliminary vocational services to the handicapped, ranging from intensive assessment to ongoing sheltered employment to activity programs where work is one of the several program components. It is important for us here to think of the person being rehabilitated. We should be very careful about getting involved in the sheltered program all the time because many of these people do not want a sheltered program; they want to work on their own and to be accepted into society. We should have programs which try to bring them into that situation.
We also have to think of institutional care. I wish to say here, in a few short words, that while it is important to have institutional care, there are some people who say some pretty strong things about it. A young man said in a letter that he felt he was continually surrounded by people who were going to leave him, people going to the great beyond, people who were going to die. He said he wants to be on his own where he can make his own way. It is terribly important that we should develop the independence of the individual and provide the funds for that individual to grow up in family surroundings, not necessarily in a confined, controlled area.
Another young man in a chronic care hospital said, "It's a lonely place. The main recreation is watching your room-mates die." We should not take those words lightly. These are sincere words; they are not of a person crying in the dark but of one who wants to get out and live and be part of the world, which is justly his or her right.
I have not touched on the mentally retarded; I have been talking largely on the physical. However, it is terribly important to think of these people. I had a wonderful opportunity last Saturday evening. I was invited to a dance in aid of a local initiatives program which I thought was fantastic. I am very proud because this was in my district. In Hamilton Mountain there are some people who work for the Royal Botanical Gardens. Sometimes these people have just been released from mental institutions. If they are given a task where there is not too much pressure
April 21, 1975

with someone over them telling them what to do, it becomes their task. Within a short period they become rehabilitated and can go out to work. There is a program where these people work in these gardens. They know their area of the garden and they take pride in bringing it on. These people work in a calm surrounding where they do their own thing.
An invitation was sent out to people of all political backgrounds, as well as those involved in the community, to attend a dance in a small centre last Saturday evening. They had Colonel Sanders' chicken and an open, pay bar for those who wanted a drink. The admission was $2.50. Among those attending were persons being rehabilitated as well as those who work in the hospital in nursing and social services. Even the young people who clean the wards were in attendance. There were also businessmen there who were willing to take those who had completed the garden project into the normal work force. We were actually being made to feel part of the scene by the people who were being rehabilitated.
This is the most important thing we can face in this life. We always think we should bring along our children; we feel we should pave the way for them; we feel we should show them the bright prospects as well as the dangers down the road. We must look after those in our country who are disabled for one reason or another, whether it be physically or mentally. We should be prepared to say; "My God; here are our brothers and our sisters. Let us walk forward with them because we need them and we need their help."


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this point to speak for a few minutes only, because I firmly believe the motion should pass this afternoon. This is a subject in which I am deeply involved. I wish to commend its sponsor for introducing it today. Of course we received no notice of it. This is why I have no wish, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that the carrying of the motion be presented by prolonged debate.
What is requested here is simply that the government establish a mixed committee to study once more the problems of the disabled social security efforts should concentrate on services adapted to the disabled and more human treatment. Placement especially should be studied; its seems at this point, Mr. Speaker, that studies should be brought to a halt. Emphasis should be put on looking at the facts. 1 believe that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) deserves commendation, because the trend is more and more to the practical side. All the disabled ask for is an opportunity to live their lives, to work, to earn their living, to try and live as normally as everyone else. I find evidence of that in my constituency, where a sheltered workshop has been in existence for some years. We benefited from some LIP projects, and we often took part in the minister's demonstration project. I mention the fact only to remind the minister that he promised these projects would become permanent. We had once again this year a splendid LIP project to submit for the disabled in my area. It was
Social Security Policy
turned down by the provincial government for the reason that there was another project. We immediately thought of the project the minister had promised to bring in on a permanent basis. We wish that this project be permanent for this group of disabled persons. I believe the situation is the same throughout Canada: we have been waiting for two or three months. These disabled have nothing more to lose because the LIP project was turned down, and I urge the government to continue its move forward. Studies are a good thing. So is the establishment of a committee, but I am not overly confident on studies at this point. What is needed is practical moves, action. What I want is industries, housing needed by the disabled, but above all jobs that will allow them to live as any other Canadian. When I saw these handicapped people work, I was amazed at the fine pieces of work they could do.
I talked to these people who are happy to be alive. A number of young ones told me: "Sir, we are just starting to live."
I hope the minister will listen to these appeals and provide these people with jobs on a year round basis and help them live like all other Canadians.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni).


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, I wonder whether I might ask the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) to give up the precious right to speak so that there might be time, in the name of the handicapped of the country, to take a decision on this important matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think such a request is in accordance with our practice. An hon. member may move that another member be heard, but that is a different matter.


Walter David Baker: We just want to get to a vote, that's all.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have already spoken several times in this House regarding the needs and aspirations of the handicapped. A private members' bill-alas, far down on the order paper-appears in my name. I am humbly grateful to be able, now, to speak on this motion.
Some years ago, Mr. Speaker, I was paralysed. It is a sobering thought to realize that if I had been elected at that time it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for me to take my seat, since I could not have manoeuvred my wheelchair into this chamber. Indeed, had it not been for the grace of God and the indefatigable efforts of skilled doctors, I would not even have been able to go the visitors' gallery. On that point, I am saddened to see only three wheelchairs in the gallery today; thank God three of them made it. We might start putting our own house in order by building a ramp so that the handicapped could visit that gallery, or any others if they want to, without having to perform acrobatics.

April 21, 1975
Social Security Policy
I have promised some good news and now I am happy to give it. I would like to make particular reference to point (e) of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). It gives me great personal pleasure to assure the hon. member, and indeed the entire country, that the government is not only concerned about sound rehabilitation programs, but is now about to undertake concrete steps aimed at fostering and promoting them. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read excerpts of a letter dated March 26, 1975, which I received from the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). Speaking of various rehabilitation activities and government procurement programs already under way in his department, the minister said:
I recognize the positive and valuable rehabilitation work carried out by the sheltered workshops and am prepared to take similar initiatives to ensure that they have every opportunity for obtaining work contracts. To further encourage sheltered workshops to compete for government business I have instructed my officials to undertake a review of our present source lists to ensure that workshops interested in doing work for the government will have an opportunity to do so.
I am very happy to say that the letter I have read came from this side of the House. It is tangible proof of the interest taken by the government in the well-being of our handicapped citizens.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock, pursuant to the order made earlier this day, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.


Walter David Baker: Shameful. You people talked it out.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order made this day.

Tuesday, April 22, 1975