1975-12-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity resulting from the sincere and welcome statement made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) to a delegation from my constituency last week representing some hundreds of constituents who oppose the present plan of the government to expand, at a cost of $30 million, the St. Lawrence Islands National Park by acquisition of additional land, and particularly arising from the minister's public statement after the meeting in which he guaranteed those present that his department and the government would not attempt to negotiate the purchase of any additional land in the area before consultation with people in the area took place.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the Minister of Supply and Services immediately advise the House whether his department has been approaching certain property owners in the area of the St. Lawrence Islands National Park offering on behalf of the government of Canada to purchase their land and, as a specific example, why a William Fraser and a Robert Fraser, claiming to represent the Department of Supply and Services, recently approached the owners of island number 52 offering to purchase it on behalf of the government of Canada, in direct violation of the orders issued by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whose department is responsible for Parks Canada; and further, that the House requests the Minister of Supply and Services to forthwith order his staff to desist from such practices if such are in progress.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous
consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that Canada is rated among the most important importing-exporting countries of the world; considering that the volume of Canada's exports of grain, oil, minerals, lumber and other commodities is constantly increasing; considering that our economy would benefit from it and that it has been hardly mentioned in the last Speech from the Throne, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the government take immediate steps to ensure that Canada will give itself a merchant marine as soon as possible.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a motion of interest to the Minister of Transport, and I do so as an active flying crew member of some 34 years. The matter I consider to be of urgent and pressing importance, one which I hope will meet with unanimous consent, is this. In light of the fear and uncertainty left by the minister yesterday in his statement, as recorded at page 9997 of Hansard, that the criterion with respect to air regulations and procedure is not that of safety, and since the matter concerns bilingual air traffic regulations in one of the provinces of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That this House, and the government by giving unanimous consent to this motion, reaffirms the invariable and long standing practice of the government, and in particular the Department of Transport, in the bringing about of any changes or alterations or additions in regulations and procedures respecting the control of air traffic in Canadian air space be based on the sole and exclusive criterion of safety of the hundreds of thousands of air travellers and all air traffic using Canadian air space throughout Canada, including the province of Quebec.

December 16, 1975
Official Languages


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 this motion requires unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.

[ Translation |



MANPOWER


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion under Standing Order 43.
Considering the steep increase in unemployment, especially among young people in Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That this House unanimously ask the government to provide an exhaustive revaluation of make work programs now in effect to make this fight against unemployment really effective and encouraging for our young people on the labour market.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Rod Blaker (Lachine-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent necessity.
Considering that articles published this morning in a number of Quebec newspapers indicate that some members of the Public Service of Canada will not supply their services to English-speaking people in Quebec, that such action is condoned anyway by the alliance as a bargaining technique, and that such denial of linguistic services in both our official languages is in fact a form of blackmail and a despicable means of confrontation which may only result in antagonizing and irritating part of the public;
[Englishj
I move, seconded by the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard-Cote Saint-Paul (Mr. Campbell), and in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board I would address my motion to the Prime Minister:

That the Prime Minister do now, before this House, restate and reaffirm this government's intention to assure all our citizens equal access to federal government services; and further that the Prime Minister reaffirm that everywhere in Canada the government will enforce the right of citizens to have access to either of our two official languages; and, finally, that wherever in Canada federal civil servants attempt to deny to Canadians that access to both official languages, those civil servants will be suspended without pay until they have agreed to conform to the legislation passed by the elected representatives of the people in this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This motion being pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
(English 1

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister who said yesterday:
-there have been, will be and are various forms of irritants that we are always working to overcome.
Is it the view of the Prime Minister that a trade deficit with the United States of possibly as much as $2.5 billion this year in respect of auto parts is an irritant for this country, or a matter of real urgency that demands some significant initiative and, if so, have formal talks on auto parts been arranged and when will they be held? I direct this question to the Prime Minister in view of the significance of the problem involved?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that any such talks have been arranged.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-POSSIBILITY OF RENEGOTIATION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that it is high on the government list of concerns to negotiate or renegotiate certain aspects of the auto pact. In light of the Prime Minister's confidence, as manifested yesterday, that our relations with the United States are very healthy, during the recent visit by Mr. Kissinger was the question raised about renegotiating the auto pact or, if not, is it the intention of the Canadian government to seek a renegotiation of this auto pact? I direct this question to the Prime Minister in view of its importance to the country.
December 16, 1975


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kissinger did not raise it with me, nor did I raise it with him. I will inquire to see if it was raised in his meetings with other ministers.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am simply stating the facts and not trying to be sarcastic. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister apparently does not seem to know anything about these matters, I would ask him whether he would request the Secretary of State for External Affairs to seek a first opportunity to make a full statement as to the irritants that are under active discussion between our two countries, including the two matters to which I referred.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thank-and I do not mean to be ironic- the Leader of the Opposition for the suggestion.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister with regard to two specific cases; one, the joint sub-committee which is meeting today and tomorrow to hear from a number of prominent Canadian businessmen, and whether or not action will be taken by this government to ensure that adequate representation will be given to the new policy initiative taken in foreign investment before this important sub-committee; second, he indicated he would also look into the matter of the reconvening of the joint ministerial committee which has not met since 1970.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, may I deal with the first question. It is my understanding that this committee of the United States Congress is meeting because they are considering a similar kind of legislation to our own. We have had no request from the administration to have any officials there. The secretariat of the committee did inquire whether it would be appropriate to have a Canadian official appear before the committee and we said that in accordance with longstanding practice it would not be appropriate. There are some inquiries going on as to whether academics or businessmen from Canada might wish to attend.


STEPS TO RECONCILE VIEWS OF AMBASSADOR PORTER AND THOSE OF THE ADMINISTRATION ON CANADA-UNITED STATES RELATIONS
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very different governmental situation that exists in Washington compared to our own with divided responsibility between the administration and Congress, and in view of Ambassador Porter's remarks which specifically were directed toward the growing sense of unease in Congress and in the media and as a result of the minister's answer concerning the lack of participation in this important subcommittee, I am wondering whether the Prime Minister
Oral Questions
can indicate what steps are being taken to reconcile the statements made by Ambassador Porter, later confirmed by the State Department, with the views of the administration apparently presented to him over the last few months by President Ford and Secretary Kissinger.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can only refer to the preamble as stated by the hon. member and say that it does not reflect the facts as they exist. Since yesterday's exchange in the House my office communicated with the White House and our Secretary of State spoke with Secretary Kissinger in Paris. It is quite apparent to me that the facts are as I stated them in the House yesterday, that Ambassador Porter was not conveying a message form the administration as the hon. member indicates in his question.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I did not put the question clearly enough. I was asking whether or not the Prime Minister had taken steps to ascertain whether or not the views taken by the Congress and the media in the United States are such as presented by Ambassador Porter and confirmed by the State Department, in view of the importance of the congressional decisions or developments which might take place in that country during a presidential election year.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I must again take exception to the question as asked when the hon. member says it was confirmed by the State Department. Mr. Speaker, I assure the House my information from the administration, from the White House and from the source I indicated in Paris is to the contrary.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD PRE-NOTIFICATION OF PRICE INCREASES-REASON FOR USE OF TWO PER CENT AS BENCH MARK
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising from the announcement made by Mr. Pepin yesterday. I should like to ask the minister why it was decided that a 2 per cent bench mark figure would be used in the case of pre-notification for increases in prices for products in a particular product line but there was no percentage or bench mark given in the case of individual products. I would ask the minister why that decision was made and why also it has been left up to the companies on their own initiative to decide when a significant increase has occurred in the case of an individual product.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, without having discussed this with the board, and given the fact that the board is exercising the discretion given it by the government, I cannot give a full explanation of all the terms or the decision taken by the board in this regard. This has obviously been done on their own judgment. I would assume from it that this reflects in part the degree of difficulty involved in having to monitor what could be literally hundreds or even perhaps thousands of

December 16, 1975
Oral Questions
price increases. But it was the board itself, in carrying out its mandate, which has determined these two factors.


INQUIRY WHETHER ALTERATION OF QUALITY OF PRODUCT WOULD INVOLVE PRE-NOTIFICATION
John Edward Broadbent: Can the
minister tell us that in cases where a company decides to reduce the quality of the product it is making or subtracts some of the components from the product it is selling and decides to continue to sell the product, without modifying the price at the same time, such changes, which would ultimately result in higher profits on individual lines of products, will require the submission of pre-notification of this kind of behaviour to the board?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think it would be undesirable to give an interpretation in detail except to point out to the hon. gentleman that if the profits exceed the net profit margin which the company is entitled to make, under those circumstances it would, of course, be in violation of the guidelines and subject to action under the law.


John Edward Broadbent: In a final supplementary question I should like to ask the minister for clarification on that precise point. Is the minister saying that a company which chooses to operate within the program under the terms provided for a clearly identifiable product line is also subject to the 95 per cent procedure for assessing whether or not they have exceeded the guidelines? My understanding was that it was an either-or proposition and they were not subject to both requirements.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think the hon. gentleman is confusing the application of one of the three alternative means of control, either the direct cost pass-through rule technique, or if that were not possible the net profit margin rule or, in the case of distribution trades, the gross margin profit rule. It may be that in relation to certain lines of products the net profit margin rule may apply and in relation to other lines of products it may be possible to apply the net cost through rule.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister stated, following the statements by the former U S. Ambassador to Canada, that Canada is not a U.S. colony. Yet, it was announced last night that the U.S. State Department had confirmed that their ambassador's statements were in accordance with their policy.
Mr. Speaker, here is my question. If we are not a U.S. colony, does the federal government or the Prime Minister have anything to say or any action to take in respect of a

government like, for example, the government of Mr. Bou-rassa in Quebec who is squandering the province's natural resources for the benefit of Americans, and is spending his time in the United States trying to borrow for the James Bay project, for Quebec Hydro, etc.? Does the central government have anything to say to prevent Quebec from becoming a U.S. colony?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I can answer the whole question, but as regards the first part of it, I want to assure the hon. member, as I think I did a moment ago, that the alleged statement by the Secretary of State that ambassador Porter was authorized to say what he said, that so-called news is false and that the Secretary of State himself, Mr. Kissinger, is not of that opinion. Now, it would be surprising that his department would have a different opinion from his.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
I just spoke of the province of Quebec. To enable it not to become an American colony, would the federal government allow it to borrow directly from the Bank of Canada, at home, instead of it having to borrow from the Americans to develop our natural resources?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall make sure Premier Bourassa is acquainted with the advice the Social Credit leader is giving him.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have one last supplementary.
Is the Prime Minister aware of the statement made by the Americans, since the Social Credit victory in British Columbia, that the results of the election are giving American investors renewed confidence in that province and even throughout Canada? Does the Prime Minister intend to take steps similar to those taken by the Social Credit Party in British Columbia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say to whom the results of the election have inspired confidence, but I do know they have considerably reduced that of hon. members sitting to the right of the hon. member.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. It relates to the motion by the hon. member for Lachine under Standing Order 43 at the beginning of the proceedings and to the reports today of the intention of certain federal public servants to embark on a policy of supplying federal government services in Quebec in one language only. Having regard to the policy of the government, and indeed, the expressions of this parliament with respect to the matter, can the President of the Treasury Board assure the House that the government intends
December 16, 1975

to insist on federal service being made available in both languages in accordance with the established guidelines of this House?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty in asserting that those who have bilingual positions in the province of Quebec will have to comply with the legislation of Parliament and offer services in both official languages. Moreover, the problem is being discussed with the National Council, but we have made some progress on this problem. We are not in a position to come to an agreement with the union at this time and the negotiations with the union representatives are proceeding. Once we have come to an agreement, we will announce the change if necessary but I do not intend to yield to threats, be it on January 1, 2 or 3 next.


Walter David Baker: Since the question seems to have arisen as a result of a demand for a pay differential for second language skill, which the President of the Treasury Board and, indeed, the Minister of Public Works have indicated is now before cabinet in the form of a proposal and upon which they have also said no decision has been made heretofore with respect to that problem, would the President of the Treasury Board advise the House what is the policy, if any, on the question at this moment, and is the government contemplating any change in the existing policy at this time?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have already advised the House and the committees that, as far as I am concerned, if someone has to work in both official languages, this adds to the difficulty of the task. It can be seen very easily: when I use the other official language of the country, I must make a little more effort. We decided to consider this aspect and to add certain points in the classification of employees who must work in both languages, but this problem is not solved at this time because we are discussing with the union the mechanisms which are to be established. Once we have found mechanisms which are acceptable to the representatives of both the employees and the government, we will act but we are not in a position to announce the solution of this problem at this time.


INCREASE IN CURRENT ACCOUNT DEFICIT-GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO OVERCOME
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and I should like to welcome him back from his odyssey to France where he has been searching for orders which seem harder to find day by day. As the $250 million increase in our international current account deficit in the third quarter was caused largely by rising imports and falling exports, has the minister any plans for correcting this very serious situation, and if so, when may we expect to hear of them?
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, obviously this is a continuing campaign and program, and unlike what the hon. member seems to have suggested, I think we made a very good start on changing that situation in Europe. The 30 top businessmen who were with me rolled up orders amounting to several millions of dollars. The forecasts are for a substantial increase in trade between the two countries in the immediate future, and I hope to repeat that in other countries as well.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer sounds good but I am afraid it has a very close resemblance to the broken record of his predecessor which he played during the past three years while imports kept rising and exports kept dropping. May we expect something a little more concrete than we have been told we could expect over this period?


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like my question to be answered by the President of the Treasury Board.


An hon. Member:: So would we.


Simma Holt: In view of the restraint programs to which we as a government are committed and in view of the reported, or rumoured, plans to cut back on LIP, OFY and hopefully Canada Council and other grants, and since there are members like myself-the hon. member for Vancouver East, the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour and others-who have large sums of unused public moneys left over from our LIP allocation-


An hon. Member:: Oh you have, have you?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: -because we rejected phony make-work applications, would the President of the Treasury Board consider restoring these unused public funds to general revenues for all Canadians rather than them being allowed to go into a slippage fund, as was the custom in the past?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the generous offer she makes to the government, and I will discuss it with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.

December 16, 1975
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister which is really supplementary to the one asked by the Leader of the Official Opposition. In view of the recent statement by the United States Secretary of State, Dr. Kissinger, that the United States cannot remain indifferent to Soviet and Cuban intervention in Angola and that continued intervention could have serious consequences for east-west detente, I should like to ask if this matter was discussed during Dr. Kissinger's visit to Ottawa and if the Canadian government, in the interests of world peace, has sent a note of protest to Russia and Cuba imploring those countries to stop their militaristic imperialism in Angola?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has repeatedly-and particularly at the United Nations-made statements protesting this type of foreign intervention in local conflicts. That remains our position and it applies to all countries intervening in whatever conflict. I know of no specific note having been sent to the countries mentioned by the hon. member.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the report of Statistics Canada to the Agriculture Outlook Conference yesterday that net farm income might drop by as much as 25 per cent next year, can the minister inform the House what specific programs he might announce to prevent such a sharp drop in farm income?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, if I could predict world conditions I would also be able to say what these figures actually mean. Some of the figures given last year were wrong and I am hoping they are wrong again this year. What they said was going to happen last year did not happen.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question. At the same conference the president of Dominion Stores predicted that food prices would rise 10 per cent or 15 per cent during the next year despite the predicted fall in farm income. If that is the case, can the minister assure the House that if farm income is to fall he will see to it that the price of food at the retail counter will also go down?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if the report given to me is the same as the one the hon. member speaks of, the person he is talking about said it would not be because of what farmers receive for the food but it would be other costs involved in handling that food that would raise the price.
|Mr. Chretien.]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, during this session-and I wish to ask my question to the President of the Privy Council-I put forward a motion that appeared to rally the views of all hon. members concerning the session periods within a year.
My question is the following: can the minister tell us whether he had any consultation about that and whether studies have been made as promised concerning the organization of the business of the House, by taking into consideration the school calendar as far as possible throughout Canada, in order not to experience situations such as the one we are faced with every six months when the time comes to adjourn the House?
* *
*


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware that the cost of some cattle foods and in particular brewery grain, is skyrocketing because certain suppliers seem to be in the process of forming a monopoly and in consequence many calves are being slaughtered at birth because it is impossible to raise them economically? If the minister is aware of this, is he prepared to have it referred to the Anti-Inflation Board for study?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it has not been brought to my attention that distilled mash or grain is being sold at an exorbitant price but I shall look into it. In light of what the hon. member has said, I am sure the efficient Anti-Inflation Board will investigate.
* *
*


POSSIBLE REVISION OF CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-REQUEST FOR INCLUSION OF PARTS INDUSTRY AND PRICE PARITY FOR VEHICLES
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that a committee within the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is studying possible revisions ot the autopact, will the minister assure the House that this committee will, as a priority, study carefully the position of the auto parts industry to see if this industry group can be brought in under the autopact in any autopact revisions recommended by the committee?
December 16, 1975


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the hon. member means by being "brought in under the autopact" because, of course, it already is, for all practical purposes. There may be some distinctions that I do not understand from the question but I would be glad to consult with the hon. member on it.


William James Kempling: A supplementary question. Can the minister assure the House as well that although the automobile price parity is outside the autopact, the committee will carefully study this subject and determine whether it can be brought into the pact or whether separate letters of commitment can be secured from the manufacturers to assure price parity as soon as possible?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to take note of the hon. member's representations.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Is the government giving consideration to the transfer of certain responsibilities currently exercised by the Department of the Secretary of State to the Department of Communications, such as responsibility for the CBC, which was being contemplated apparently at the time Pierre Juneau was appointed minister of communications?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the distribution of responsibilites within the government rests with the Prime Minister.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, could I refer this question to the Prime Minister? I am not sure if he heard it. Is consideration still being given to transferring some responsibility which currently comes under the responsibility of the Secretary of State, such as the CBC, to the Department of Communications as was apparently intended at the time of Pierre Juneau's appointment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to receive suggestions from the other side on the reorganization of the administration or portfolios but at the present time nothing is being contemplated.


DATE OF APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF RADIO-TELEVISION COMMISSION
Henry Perrin Beatty: A supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister tell the House why the CRTC is being required to drift without a permanent chairman since August 29 when Pierre Juneau was appointed minister of communications and when does the government intend to announce the appointment of a permanent chairman for the CRTC?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the intention has been to wait until the minister was appointed to proceed with that appointment. As the hon.
Oral Questions
member knows, Mr. Juneau did not remain minister long enough to confirm that. I am sure that the new minister, in discussions with me, will be able to appoint a permanent chairman very soon.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the usual Christmas postal rush and the backlog of mail remaining from the recent Post Office shutdown which, until as recently as yesterday, included the hundreds of bags of mail stashed away on Parliament Hill, why did the Department of National Revenue find it necessary to send out millions of personal income tax forms, when they will not be needed for several weeks at least and some people probably do not care if they ever get them?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I want him to know how efficient the department has become. We want to send the material out as soon as we can, so that people can see how easy it is to fill out income tax forms.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Since, because of his efforts, juggling and dealings with personnel of the committee, we are to have mandatory sentences for second or third breathalyzer offences, and as the former minister of justice said he did not favour mandatory sentences for crimes such as extortion with kidnapping, is it now the minister's policy to bring in mandatory sentences for crimes of violence like kidnapping with extortion, or any crime committed with the use of firearms.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there are no minimum mandatory sentences for these offences. The minimum mandatory sentences for second offences of impaired driving have been in the Criminal Code for some years, and there is no change in that regard in Bill C-71.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since section 247 of the Criminal Code deals with kidnapping and since the words "liable to imprisonment for life" mean in law that an offender may be imprisoned for one day or for life, I ask again, will the minister's new policy call for mandatory sentences in cases of violent crime, and will he implement this policy in the same way as he seeks to implement law and regulations with respect to the breathalyzer test?

December 16, 1975
Oral Questions


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, whatever legislation will be brought down, will be brought down in due course, and sentences will be shown in it. I assure the hon. member that, in my opinion, there is not an argument generally for having long mandatory sentences included in the Criminal Code.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board a question following others which were put to him previously in the House.
Considering that the Official Languages Act grants parity of salaries to civil servants working in bilingual positions throughout Canada, and considering that secretaries working in bilingual positions in Quebec are paid the 7 per cent bonus granted for bilingualism, can the President of the Treasury Board tell the House if the representatives of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and those of the Treasury Board are agreed and will rush through the discussions so that the salary scale for civil servants working in Quebec in positions classified as bilingual may be reviewed before the end of this year?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this is a major problem which does not concern only such civil servants who are working in Quebec; it concerns also all civil servants working in both languages throughout Canada. We are making progress and hope a solution will be found very shortly. On the other hand, as far as the reference to bilingual secretaries is concerned, the policy which had been announced several years ago to meet an emergency was an exceptional one. As for other functions, we intend to follow a different path than the one which was then followed, namely granting a 7 per cent bonus.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I shall direct a supplementary to his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In the absence of the former minister, may I direct my question to his parliamentary secretary? Is the minister aware of an application from Swift Canadian Co. Ltd., to purchase the property and equipment of Checkerboard Foods Ltd. of Ingersoll, Ontario, which is presently before the Bureau of Competition Policy of his department, with interviews scheduled for tomorrow, and is he aware that failure to process this application by January 1, 1976, will result in 160 people being laid off in Ingersoll as of that date?
[Mr. Woolliams.)


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur John (Art) Lee: I am aware that an application for this acquisition is presently under consideration by the Foreign Investment Review Agency. In the course of their review process the agency seeks the advice of the Bureau of Competition Policy in my department as to the competitive effects of such acquisitions. The director of the Combines Investigation Act has already provided the Foreign Investment Review Agency with his views on the proposed acquisition. However, both the Foreign Investment Review Act and the Combines Investigation Act require that their proceedings be carried out in private until such time as such proceedings may become public in the ways allowed under the legislation. I am not aware of the details relating to this matter and I am not aware of any reason why the target plant will be closed on January 1, 1976.


APPLICATION OF SWIFT COMPANY FOR PURCHASE OF CHECKERBOARD FOODS-REASON FOR REVIEW BY BOARD
Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, may I address my supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce? With further reference to the same application of Swift Canadian Co. Ltd. to purchase only the real estate and equipment of Checkerboard Foods Ltd., why is it necessary that the Foreign Investment Review Agency approve of this transaction, when no inventory, stock or accounts receivable are involved, acknowledging that if the target company were to have shut down and laid off its staff a few months ago a sale of the property now would not come under the purview of the Foreign Investment Review Agency?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if I may give chapter 2 of the reply?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As hon. members know, it is not appropriate to discuss matters before the Foreign Investment Review Agency; but I am sure note will be taken of the hon. member's representation.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour who is responsible for the program of multiculturalism. Since the O'Brien report and the Canadian Consultative Council on multiculturalism stressed the absolute necessity for third language teaching in schools, if the multicultural character of Canada is to survive, why has the minister downgraded such help for language training in schools?
December 16, 1975


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I did not downgrade it. Actually, I indicated to the voluntary sector working through the grant program, and people in the ethno-cultural groups who are prepared to assist in this regard, that such assistance will remain a component of the program. Actually, we shall be able to put more resources into it. But I indicated the reality of the situation. Certainly, the educational system is the responsibility of the provinces, and it seems to me that they should extend the type of aid of which the hon. member talks.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister explain the apparent change in policy, evident from speeches he has made? Apparently he has done this without meeting formally with the Canadian Consultative Council, which the government appointed. The minister seems to have done this either by consulting with a few of his officials, or engaging in informal discussions with members of the council or other people.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have been meeting with the Canadian Consultative Council on an ongoing basis. I have been meeting people all across the country and talking about the various aspects of the policy and the direction in which it should go. In addition, I have met directly many ethno-cultural groups of this country. As late as last night I was talking to the Germany community in Kitchener about this aspect of the policy.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. What is the status of the proposed medium and maximum security penal institution in the municipal district of Sturgeon, Alberta?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, we are re-examining that particular site for a penitentiary but we would like to stay there. We have already purchased land and spent a good deal of money on development. We have already spent $213,000, and when we went to that site, we had the support of the provincial government. So it would be with great reluctance that we would withdraw from the site. But we are considering representations.


Peter Elzinga: In view of the fact that the construction permit issued by the municipal district has expired, and bearing in mind the minister's statement that if the general public in the surrounding area were opposed to the prison he would alter his proposal, would the minister explain why a sum in excess of $200,000 was spent on feasibility studies before the public had an opportunity to express their opinion with regard to the choice of this site?


William Warren Allmand: Well, Mr. Speaker, we started working on this site more than a year ago and although it was known,
Oral Questions
or should have been known, that we were doing so, no objections were raised until very much later. As a matter of fact, the local authorities and the provincial government, gave us the go-ahead. A lot of work had been done before any protests were made. They came much later.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that on Sunday evening, November 30, the CBC saw fit to portray a television play "The Six Years of War" which emphasized out of all proportion the lewd side of service life rather than the honourable intentions of the many who volunteered their services in time of war, I should like to ask the minister on behalf of the many veterans and others who have officially protested this presentation through the Royal Canadian Legion whether he would intercede with the CBC with a view to seeing that future presentations which are in extremely bad taste will be prohibited from being viewed on our national network?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I will make sure that this representation gets to the corporation.


NATIONAL PARKS
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and a short supplementary to the Minister of Supply and Services. I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister of Indian Affairs for the courteous almost two-hour hearing he gave representatives from my constituency concerning the expansion of the St. Lawrence Islands Park.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: While the minister guaranteed that no negotiations for the purchase of private property would take place in the area until certain studies had been made, can the hon. gentleman tell the House why persons claiming to represent the Department of Supply and Services have been negotiating and attempting to purchase certain islands and land in the area? Has Parks Canada become aware of this?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: As I stated to the hon. member earlier, approximately 20 individuals have come forward and offered their land and there have been discussions.

December 16, 1975
Oral Questions
However, subsequent to the meeting to which the hon. member referred I asked that a hold be placed on any negotiations and that nothing further should be done. There is one problem: we may have reached a point at which we have a legal obligation toward three of these individuals. I am not certain of this yet and have asked that it be verified.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? In view of the fact that there are only 15 days left before the end of International Women's Year, will the right hon. gentleman advise the House specifically what he has done for the women of this country during the past year?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Let's hear it, Pierre!


AIR TRANSPORT
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? Is he or his department considering placing any restriction on the licensing of unilingual English-speaking pilots flying into the Province of Quebec in Canadian air space or on uniligual French-speaking pilots flying from the Province of Quebec into the remainder of Canadian air space? If not, is it the intention of the government to impose any such restrictions?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: The existence of English and French controls throughout the country makes a simple negative to the first part of the question straightforward. As far as the second part of the question is concerned, the only issue at the moment is the broad one of the pilot's basic ability to perform the functions which are required having regard to the control facilities which are available.


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ENSURE SAFETY WHEN ADOPTING BILINGUAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL REGULATIONS
Erik Nielsen: In the light of the answer given by the minister, may I ask what precautions or extra safeguards are under consideration by his department in order to avoid tragedies which are inherent in the examples of near-misses which come to our attention-there was one recently when a matter of a mere 20 to 40 feet separated two jumbo aircraft in the United States where only one language is being used. What extra precautions are being taken by the department to avoid this additional safety hazard which his policy will likely cause?
(Mr. Buchanan.]


Otto Emil Lang: The main precaution I think I shall have to take is to avoid misapprehensions which the hon. member may create in trying to relate particular instances to the language question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: As he pointed out, the incident to which he referred occurred in another country where one language is in use. Canada has a record, I think I can safely say, as having one of the safest procedures anywhere in the world with respect to air space and flying procedures. It is our intention to uphold that standard. We are confident we can do so and, in addition, better meet the needs of people using both languages.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In November, 1974, the former Minister of Finance predicted that real growth in the economy in 1975 would be four per cent and that a quarter of a million new jobs would be created. As there are now only 15 days left in the year, and since only 123,000 jobs have been created to date, would the minister indicate what is likely to be the real growth in 1975 and what will be the shortfall as compared with the prediction of the former minister with respect to job creation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As
the hon. gentleman will recall, in the budget of June, 1975, my predecessor had something to say on the same question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would the minister indicate what his prediction is for 1976 concerning real growth in the Canadian economy and job creation in that year?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would say that my aspiration is 5 per cent. But there are a lot of factors, of course, which are beyond my direct control.


NATIONAL PARKS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would the hon. gentleman advise the House whether the parks branch has dedicated any funds to having studies made of the question of relocating the divisional headquarters of the CNR and its facilities away from Jasper National Park? What has been done with regard to consulting the people of Banff and Jasper and neighbouring regions with regard to this matter?
December 16, 1975


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, an extensive study has been under way for the last 12 to 18 months involving the citizens of Jasper and employees of the CNR. A very substantial report has, I understand, just arrived and a summary is being put together for me.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: When does the minister expect to make any definitive announcement taking into account the traditional history of the park and the CNR, recognizing that the park was created for the railroad and that people ought to use the park, not just the bears?


J. Judd Buchanan: I hope to be able to do that shortly after the turn of the year, Mr. Speaker.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege pertaining to remarks made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) yesterday, as well as on previous occasions, when attempting to answer simple and straightforward questioning. As the Chair will recall, I rose on a point of order yesterday on the same matter and suggested that the minister in question once again implied in his statement what I believe to be racial overtones against me. The Chair then asked that, if there was any information to that effect, it should be brought to the Chair's attention. I would, therefore, like to refer back to other statements which this minister has made in this House to show, by a course of conduct, that his statement made yesterday suggesting that my questioning of the Olympics, in his words, once again "hides ulterior motives", ties in with his previous statements relating to the same subject matter.
On March 8, 1974, as reported at page 332 of Hansard, when referring to me and to my involvement in Olympic questioning, the minister, who was then the postmaster general, said:
-he continues to throw mud to discredit Quebecers. This is the typical way to act for some members of the Progressive Conservative party.
Another statement accredited to the same minister, again referring to me and my party:
They unduly and incorrectly pestered us in committee through the voice of this member who keeps on sullying Quebecers. The PC party continue to divide people in this country-
And yet a further statement made in this House by the same minister, again referring to my party and myself, to quote Hansard once again:
Privilege-Mr. Jelinek
They are opposed to everything stemming from or directed to the province of Quebec. The Progressive Conservative members are against French Canadians and they always have the odd greenhorn to sully people.
There is no question in my mind, when the minister said yesterday that as a result of my questioning on the financing and staging of the Games I was trying to hide ulterior motives, that through a course of conduct tied to his previous statements he was implying, once again, by racial overtones, that I am not only anti-Olympics but antiFrench Canadian and anti-Quebec as well. If the minister would take time to check the records he would find that his implications are totally and absolutely incorrect and unjustified.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: There is no question that a pattern of not only racial overtones but direct racial accusations has developed from the minister's continuing statements relating to my Olympic questioning. One can only assume that the reason for this attitude is to attempt to hide the obviously incompetent manner in which the government has handled the Olympic situation from the outset, par-ticuarly during the period the minister held the Post Office portolio.
I have made plain the basis of my question of privilege, and if it were not for the fact that this session is drawing to an end, with much important government business to be attended to, I would move a motion to have this matter referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Instead, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will take this opportunity to withdraw the racial implications which he continues to make against me.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to the question of privilege, I should just like to ask permission of Your Honour and the House to allow the minister to answer this point when he is next in the House. Today he is in Montreal on official business; he is opening an office for consumers. I know he would want to deal with this matter very seriously, so if it is acceptable I would ask that the matter be stood over till tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems only reasonable, before any decision is made by the Chair, that both sides be heard. Notwithstanding the fact that no motion is attached to the hon. members question to give the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) an opportunity to make a contribution to the point. Therefore, the point will stand over until that time.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse on a point of order.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During the question period you recognized me to allow me to ask a question, and I thank you for it. My question was directed to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if the simultaneous translation

December 16, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Jelinek
might have been effective but, in any event, knowing the usual courtesy of the President of the Privy Council I am convinced in advance that he would have answered my question.
Since the question I asked related to this Parliament as a whole and was supplementary to a question I have previously asked in this session which seemed to meet the approval of all colleagues in this House about setting up a calendar for session periods which would correspond as much as possible to the school calendar in order to allow parliamentarians to be able to live a family life during two or three periods in the year, especially as there is now a private bill before this House which was tabled by an hon. member and which is also in agreement with the proposal I had made on that occasion, and since the President of the Privy Council at the time stated in this House that he would recommend to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization that it examine that question, which is very serious not only for parliamentarians themselves but for the efficiency of Parliament as such because I consider that when we have in advance a well determined calendar I think that every parliamentarian will do all he can to give his full effort to meet the obligations he has to meet in the given period.
So my question was this: Can the President of the Privy Council say today where things stand in respect of that matter, and will the government be introducing soon a session calendar so that we can work with more efficiency, more assurance and waste less time on useless discussions: Are we going to adjourn or are we not going to adjourn?
That is my point of order, Mr. Speaker. And if you allow the President of the Privy Council to be kind enough to answer my question I would be very happy about that, and I thank you in advance.
[English |


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member, but either I was inattentive or the translation facilities were not perhaps working properly and I did not catch the introduction to his question. I am very sympathetic to the hon. member's desire to be able to know when we can leave this House for our constituencies and for home. For example, by Friday of this week-I have given notice of this over and over again-it was the desire of the government to rise. However, it is not really for me to say whether we will or not, since there is some government business still uncompleted. I am still hopeful that that will be the case.
I should also like to say to the hon. member that in the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, on which his party has a representative, we have established a subcommittee on the management of time, and I am hopeful that that subcommittee will be able to arrange affairs in such a way that we can have a more definite idea when we can go to our constituencies.


Mr. Olivier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lon-gueuil (Mr. Olivier) on a point of order.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege concerning the decisions you make so that members on this side are not recognized during the question period. I would respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if we consider the jurisprudence used in England, members have the floor in turns no matter which party they belong to. No matter which party we belong to, Mr. Speaker, we are all equal. Mr. Speaker, some months ago you ruled that a parliamentary secretary could not ask questions. Today you followed the practice whereby only two government members are entitled to ask questions. I think that this is illogical and that you violate the member's privileges.


Mr. Speaker:: I only wish to tell the hon. member that perhaps he felt better yesterday when I think three or four government members asked questions. It changes with each sitting.


Mr. Baldwin:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member may have a good point, but probably members on the government side could take 15 minutes before their Wednesday caucus in order to get the answers in caucus.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege having to do with a question I asked during the question period today, a short while ago. It seems to me a very serious matter when a minister of the Crown, in this case the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan), has announced a freeze on the purchase of private land in the St. Lawrence Islands area and advises the public accordingly, by public statement, while at the very same time another minister of the Crown, purportedly the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), apparently permits two persons, claiming to be his representatives, namely, William Fraser and Robert Fraser, to go contrary to this freeze and as recently as the last few days attempt to negotiate the purchase of some of this very same land.
My question of privilege is that the Minister of Supply and Services should either disassociate himself completely from this event or, if it has happened, I think I am in order to suggest that he should explain to this House why he, by his very behaviour, would be going contrary to an arrangement made by another member of the cabinet and an understanding given to the public and members of this House.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lon-gueuil (Mr. Olivier) on a point or order.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to ask you to look into the statistics and you will realize that 10 per cent more members from the opposition side are recognized than from the government side, and that by your own decision.
So, when you say that government members are allowed to put three or four questions, I think you have not taken a
|Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).]
December 16, 1975

good look at the figures. May I suggest you review the statistics and you will realize that, during the question period, you continually recognize the opposition. It is wrong to pretend that government members are granted the same privilege.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier), let us not forget that the oral questions period lasts only 45 minutes. And according to tradition, its purpose is to allow members of the opposition parties to put questions to the government. That was how things worked when we had a Progressive Conservative government. I know what I am talking about because then also I was in the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I think government members have nothing more to do than phone the ministers and let members of the opposition have the floor to ask the government questions so that democracy be respected.


JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Fifteenth report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Lachance.
|Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,331, 3,469, 3,508, 3,511, 3,585, 3,615, 3,624, 3,631, 3,636, 3,637, 3,643, 3,648 and 3,658.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Brisco: What measures have been taken by the Ministry of State (Fisheries) to ensure that sports fishing amendments for 1976 will be gazetted before the end of May thus avoiding the unwarranted delay which was experienced this year?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: amendments to regulations are processed through the Fisheries and Marine Service with a minimum of delay, once proposals are received from regional or provincial offices. Provincial authorities have been requested to present their proposed 1976 amendments as soon as possible after the close of the 1975 sports fishing seasons. To date these have not been received from any of the provinces.
Order Paper Questions POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	What is the pay range for (a) POl (b) P02 (c) P03 (d) P04 (e) P05 (f) P06 (g) P07 (h) P08 (i) P09 (j) PO10?
2.	How many employees were there in the Post Office Department at the levels (a) POl to P05 (b) P06 to PO10 in (i) 1966 (ii) 1968 (iii) 1970 (iv) 1972 (v) 1974 (vi) 1975?
3.	What is the job description of each PO level?
4.	(a) What are the duties of the employees of the Marketing Services Branch of the Department (b) at what level are they first appointed (c) how many have entered the Branch each year since 1970?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1.
(a)	$ 8,619- 9,078 '	
(b)	8,390- 8,828	The rates shown for(c)	8,786- 9,266	[DOT] P01-P05 will be amended on(d)	9,057- 9,579	signing of the contract(e)	9,224- 9,767	(f)	11,971-12,606	(g)	12,752-13,431	(h)	13,588-14,313	(i)	14,481-15,257	0)	15,844-16,695	
P03 (LC-MSC) $10,873-11,353 (Letter Carrier-Mail Service Courrier); P05 (SLC-MSC(R)) $ 11,416-11,958 (Supervisory Letter Carrier-Mail Service Courrier (Relief))
2.	31-3-71	31-3-72	31-3-74	31-3-75(a)	27,230	28,853	32,697	35,160(b)	2,904	3,028	3,281	3,660
Figures are not available prior to 1971.
3. POl-Postal Coders; P02-Mail Handlers; P03- Letter Carriers, Supervisory Mail Handlers, Mail Service Couriers; P04-Postal Clerks; P05-Despatchers, Supervisory Letter Carriers, Mail Service Couriers (Relief); P06- Postal Officers; P07-Postal Officers; P08-Postal Officers; P09-Postal Officers; PO10-Postal Officers.
4.	(a) The duties of the employees of the Marketing Services Branch of the Post Office Department are unique to Post Office Headquarters and the branch is exclusively a service branch. Marketing Services provides technical marketing assistance and expertise; to the Post Office in general, to the regions, and to other marketing branches; in the areas of: domestic and international pricing and methods; economic and market research; environmental forecasting; revenue and volume forecasts; rates and pricing analysis; analysis of sales results; marketing information systems; development and coordination of marketing planning activities; and in the preparation of official briefs to other government agencies or National Postal User Associations. Personnel of the Marketing Services Branch also manage the administrative functions of the Headquarters marketing directorate relating to personnel and budget matters, (b) As in any other branch in the public service, appointments can be made at various levels depending on

December 16, 1975
Order Paper Questions
previous job experience and level of education. The most common levels of entry are: CR3, CR4, ST-SEC-3, AS1, AS5, and ESI. (c) The Marketing Services Branch evolved as the result of a major conceptual and organizational change in the Post Office, Marketing Directorate in April of 1974. Eighteen existing positions and the people in these positions were reorganized under Director of Marketing Services. Five positions were created and staffed in 1974 to fulfil the new role of the Marketing Services Branch. This made a total of twenty-three people. Since that time eight people have left the branch and they were subsequently replaced.


Mr. Forrestall: Is the government aware of the cost in 1974 of shipping Canadian coal from Robert's Bank, British Columbia to Japan and (a) if so, what was it (b) if not, for what reason?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: see reply to question No. 3,511.


Mr. Forrestall: Is the government aware of the cost in 1974 of shipping Canadian mineral ore and concentrates to Japan and (a) if so, what was it (b) if not, for what reason?


Maurice Brydon Foster: 
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the Department of Transport's best estimate of the annual cost of so-called maintenance dredging at, and downriver of the Port of Quebec?
2.	Who will bear the cost of such dredging and how much of this can be apportioned to the taxpayer in Metropolitan Halifax and Saint John?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. In light of the recent unacceptably high bid which was received for maintenance dredging downstream of Quebec at North Traverse, and other factors currently under review, the Department of Transport is not in a position at this time to reply to this question. In any event, it would be prejudicial to the government to indicate any of its cost estimates prior to receipt of tenders for any work. Finally, as a matter of interest, the best quantity estimate for annual maintenance in the North Traverse after its deepening was
175,000	cubic yards.
2. Government of Canada, Department of Transport, Vote 10.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of National Revenue during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1.
None.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for the Farm Credit Corporation during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Eugene Whelan: The Farm Credit Corporation advises: 1. Cecil Branson, Sullivan, Smith and Bigelow, Yarrow Building, Victoria, British Columbia.
December 16, 1975

2.	Fees paid to lawyers used in the constituency of Victoria, British Columbia by Farm Credit Corporation are paid as follows: (a) by the borrowers upon their directions out of the proceeds of the mortgage loans in which case Farm Credit Corporation does not maintain records of amounts so paid; (b) by Farm Credit Corporation on mortgage proceedings-Nil.


Mr. McKinnon: 1 What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of Agriculture during 1973 and 1974?
2. By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Eugene Whelan: In accordance with section 4 of the Government Contracts Regulations, the department cannot contract for legal services.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for the Post Office Department during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Paul Edmund McRae: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for the National Energy Board during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Maurice Brydon Foster: National Energy Board reports as follows: 1. None.
2.	Not applicable.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): During the current fiscal year, have any payments been made by the Post Office Department to General Advertising Incorporated of Lachine, Quebec and. if so (a) in what amounts (b) on what dates (c) for what specific services?


Paul Edmund McRae: (a) The amount of advertising was $11,542.23; (b) Paid on September 17, 1975; (c) For Post Office truck signs.
Supplementary Borrowing Authority SAFETY INSPECTIONS AT RAE POINT AIR STRIP


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	On how many occasions was an inspection carried out of the expediting operations and air strip at Rea Point during the year prior to the Panarctic air crash?
2.	What department or government body had the jurisdiction for ensuring that regular safety inspections were made?
3.	Were findings and/or recommendations reported to the Department subsequent to the inspections?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. No
inspections were carried out of the expediting operations and air strip at Rea Point during the year prior to the Panarctic air crash.
2.	Transport Canada had not assumed any jurisdiction for ensuring that regular safety inspections were carried out at private aerodromes or for privately conducted operations.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Since the coming into effect of the $500 grant programme for new homeowners, has the government granted subsidies under the plan and, if so, in what amounts?
2.	How many persons have been eligible for such grant?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised by CMHC as follows: 1 and 2. To November 30, 1975, 66,389 applications had been approved for the $500 grant for new homeowners, in a total amount of $33.2 million.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill C-80, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority for public works and general purposes-The
Minister of Finance.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in respect of this bill. This is an unusual situation and maybe there is an answer to the point, but I note there is no Governor General's recommendation attached to this bill, nor have we had any message from His Excellency signed by his own hand. Usually, requests of this kind have been under supply bills based on the estimates, and that would be covered if it were done in that way. On the other hand, if it is a borrowing bill-and I have never heard of borrowing without it costing money- should there not be a Governor General's recommendation?

December 16, 1975
Supplementary Borrowing Authority


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could speak to the question. The recommendation from His Excellency is required under the British North America Act, and the recommendation is specifically for the purpose of appropriating any part of the consolidated revenue fund, or public moneys, for the purpose of expenditure. The hon. member is quite right in saying that from time to time the executive has to appropriate money for the purpose of making payments on the public debt and that is done through the normal estimates process. A borrowing bill, however, is not an expenditure bill. It is a distinctly different process of acquiring the means to pay expenditures that have already been authorized by parliament. In that sense, then, it is not covered by the provisions of the British North America Act and for this reason the Governor General's recommendation would not be required.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not
satisfied.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raises a most interesting point of order about the bill, one that has occurred to the Chair and we have given it some preliminary examination. It is true that in the past a clause to extend to the government the approval of parliament for borrowings has been part of a supply bill which in fact has, therefore, been subject to the identical restrictions in respect of borrowing recommendations, the same restrictions sufficient to include it under that umbrella of separation as a result of the ruling last week.
A separate bill to deal only with borrowings raises, in a totally new way, the question of whether it is the kind of expenditure, in and of itself, that would require a recommendation of His Excellency in order to comply with all those restrictions that have traditionally surrounded financial initiatives of the Crown. For the moment, perhaps I might indicate that, being in some doubt about the matter, I should like to reserve on the question. I think it is important that the bill not be delayed, and I understand there has been an understanding or some agreement that the bill should go through all stages this afternoon. At the moment I should like to see the bill proceed while I give some consideration to the matter.
If the bill is to be given swift passage through all stages this afternoon, then I would for the moment, perhaps, be prepared to say that because there is on the face of it a separate statutory authority under the Financial Administration Act for borrowing, because in a sense the money that is being borrowed cannot be spent without that separate authority, and subject to the scrutiny of estimates and a supply bill, it would seem the borrowing of the money is not for the purpose of expenditures which have not already been authorized, scrutinized and approved by parliament but, rather, is in respect of those estimates and supply to which parliament has already directed itself and to which a royal recommendation has been appropriately attached. Therefore, it would seem that the safeguard in that respect is adequately provided.
Perhaps what I am saying, in another way, is that for the moment I should like to see this bill go ahead. If there is not sufficient time to study the matter in respect of this particular bill, the question ought to be held over for

argument at some time in the future when separate consideration can be given to the point. All my remarks to this point have been based on the understanding that the bill would go through all stages this afternoon.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it would have been my proposal, in my remarks on second reading, that unanimous consent be requested that this bill be referred to the committee of the whole House instead of the standing committee. I believe that is agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we agree to that. I suggest that if during the afternoon you come to the view that a royal recommendation should be obtained, it would not take very long to get it.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I admit to some confusion at this particular stage. We seem to have gone through first reading and are now about to have second reading, and I have not even seen a copy of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has not received a copy, there might be some difficulty. However, I understand that other members have received their copies.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-80, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for public works and general purposes, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before the House seeks to increase the statutory borrowing authority by $2 billion, retroactive to April 1, 1975. This is exactly the same increase in borrowing authority as that sought in clause 5 of the supply bill on December 9.
May I begin, Mr. Speaker, by addressing myself to the procedural questions which have arisen in this connection. The Financial Administration Act, part IV, section 36, requires that "no money shall be borrowed or security issued by or on behalf of Her Majesty without the authority of parliament". That, of course, is the provision referred to by yourself, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the point of order a moment ago, indicating that a specific statutory enactment is required if a borrowing authority is requested. Conversely, on the other hand, a royal recommendation is not, in my submission, required for borrowing authority. This refers to new funds-section 36 refers to new funds- since section 38 of the same act permits the borrowing of such sums of money as are required for the repayment of any securities that were issued under the authority of parliament other than section 39, and are maturing or have been called for redemption.
It has been the custom since confederation to include requests for new borrowing authority in one of the first Appropriation Acts for a new fiscal year. Furthermore, when circumstances have necessitated an increase in this borrowing authority, such increases have always been sought in subsequent Appropriation Acts. Any unused borrowing authority remaining at the end of a fiscal year is
December 16, 1975

cancelled when new borrowing authority has been granted for the new fiscal year.
The need for new borrowing powers during each fiscal year reflects several factors. It reflects the amount of expenditures approved by parliament in the main estimates, interim supply bills and supplementary estimates. It reflects the budgetary and non-budgetary financial requirements resulting from the difference between the expenditures approved by parliament and the sources of revenues approved by parliamant.
The prime justification for including the new borrowing authority in the appropriation acts is that borrowing powers to make up any shortfall between revenues and expenditures should follow fairly automatically since the shortfall and the borrowing requirements are a consequence of actions already taken by parliament. I realize that the position taken by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) the other night is basically that the Appropriation Act on that specific occasion was not the subject of debate, and I understand the House leaders are now discussing new procedures whereby we may have a discussion on that particular bill including the borrowing authority. It is the government's intention, subject to discussion, to continue the long-established practice of including requests for new borrowing authority in Appropriation Acts in the future.
As a result of the highly successful Canada savings bond campaign, the Government of Canada raised about $4,336 million in the current fiscal year to November 28, 1975. That is a gross figure from which must be deducted redemptions. Of course, redemptions of Canada savings bonds are taking place continuously and normally average about $100 million per month. In the absence of new borrowings, the government would, therefore, be well within its present $4 billion statutory borrowing authority by the end of fiscal 1975-76. However, unless additional new borrowing authority is authorized by parliament, we will not be able to raise the additional funds which we need in the remainder of this fiscal year.
In this connection, it will be recalled that I terminated sales of this year's series of Canada savings bonds on November 14. This decision was taken because it then appeared possible that net sales of Canada savings bonds might use up most, if not all, of the unused statutory borrowing authority. At the same time, the ongoing treasury bill financing program was brought to a temporary halt and it was subsequently decided not to raise new cash in the December 15 marketable bond refunding issue which was announced on November 28.
The borrowing authority of $4 billion granted by parliament not only reflected the shortfall between expenditures indicated in the main estimates and anticipated ongoing sources of budgetary revenues, but it also provided some margin for contingencies. In the budget presented to the House on June 23, budgetary and non-budgetary financial requirements were revised upwards to a figure of $5.3 billion. The various provisions introduced in the June budget were subsequently debated and approved by parliament. On November 14 I also informed the House that financial requirements for this fiscal year would be between $5 billion and $6 billion.
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
While the $2 billion additional borrowing authority sought in this bill reflects the higher level of financial requirements anticipated for fiscal 1975-76, new funds to be raised in capital markets during the balance of this fiscal year are expected to be substantially less than this amount. Without wishing to be too precise concerning the government's borrowing plans over the balance of the current fiscal year, I would say that, subject to prevailing market conditions, an amount equal to about half the increase in borrowing authority might be raised in the capital markets. The balance will provide a margin to deal with any unforeseen contingencies such as foreign exchange transactions, and to provide adequate flexibility in debt management and monetary policy.
It is the government's intention to recommence a regular borrowing program through the issue of treasury bills early in the new year, and to raise new funds through the issue of marketable bonds on February 1 when $150 million Government of Canada bonds will mature. It is for these reasons that an increase in the statutory borrowing authority is being sought before the Christmas recess. If opportunities to raise new funds in the capital markets are missed now, then additional burdens would necessarily have to be placed on capital markets in the next fiscal year.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need make any apology for the fact that we are now facing this special bill this afternoon as a result of the action I took in raising the question of order on the night of December 9, and consequent upon Mr. Speaker's decision with regard to the regularity of clause 5 of that appropriation bill. But I would say, first of all, I think the minister really is finding himself hoist on his own petard, in that he was the first architect, as government House leader in 1969, of the changes in House rules which eliminated the committee of supply. That was done ultimately under the sanction of closure, again a subject which is totally repugnant to me because, as a long-time member of the House, I feel it is the House which is in charge of its rules, not the government trying to impose rules in order to master the House.
So there is a difference of approach on this subject. Certainly we have seen the wheels start to turn the other way. I must say that my motive the other night-and, I think, a motive which will commend itself to hon. members this afternoon-was simply a reassertion of the fact that it is parliament which is supposed to control the purse strings, and not that parliament is to disburse money on behalf of the administration by simply pushing down the button on the cash register.
It is a slow step and there are some gains and some losses. I hope that this has been a gain. The minister may speak all he wants about customs since confederation, including authorizations for borrowing power under the Appropriation Act, but I would say that the abrupt change came in 1969 when the Appropriation Act which follows the study of our supplementary estimates must come before this House without debate or power of amendment.
A year ago, and then the other night, the minister's predecessor introduced into the supplementary estimates a
10056

December 16, 1975
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
clause, hitherto unreferred to and undiscussed, in which the government merely sought borrowing powers. What was that for? I asked the question last year as a point of order because I had seen that particular type of clause the first time in supplementary estimates under the Appropriation Act. I am told that it has happened on eighteen occasions in the past. But there are different rules, and I must say that if some of these things slipped through at that time, it must be remembered that prior to 1969 there was debate permitted on any clause in the clause by clause study.
I dare say, without going back to the records, that some people did make inquiries about borrowing. Last year the former minister of finance furnished an explanation, albeit a very brief one, in saying that the sales of Canada savings bonds had been so successful that the government, willy-nilly, had found itself forced through the ceiling of its borrowing powers. Today the minister has given us an explanation. Certainly some people may want to question it, and I would say that that is what is needed now.
I think the minister, and possibly others, have indicated that the House leaders are discussing ways and means of trying to avoid that sort of thing. All I will say is that I have a number of suggestions for him. Of course we can have a bill of this nature, leaving aside the question of whether or not a recommendation is necessary, but in any event we can have a bill that authorizes an increase in borrowing powers.
Also, I think it is possible that at the time of the tabling of the main estimates, when quite often the borrowing authority matter is raised, it might be referred to by the President of the Treasury Board on tabling the estimates. His whole statement then becomes the subject of discussion in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs or in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, wherever the minister appears. Therefore, that subject is discussed. The same approach could be used with regard to miscellaneous estimates. They could be referred to in the statement at the time or, although I am not a devotee of $1 items in supplementary estimates, it seems to me that a $1 item is the same as asking permission of the House to transfer moneys from one account to another.
This bill seeks not to spend money but to raise money if there is a deficiency. It is not even required for refinancing, but permission of the House is sought. The item is debatable in the committee. I hope that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization will come in for more fruitful discussion. I suggest to you, sir, that the appropriation bill, instead of being subject to restrictions on debate and amendment, should allow for debate in which ten o'clock is not seen and, if necessary, one could start a debate at, say, three o'clock on the afternoon of the last day, to be continued until 1.45 the following afternoon. But in any event, debate which would allow members to ventilate their objections to any and all items appearing in those estimates.
There would be full discussion then and culmination of a lot of work done in the Standing Committees on Miscellaneous Estimates. At present, as I indicated the other night and have on other occasions, the work of committees

studying estimates is totally frustrated, first by the inability to discuss them in the House unless a supply date is allotted to a particular subject; and, second, by the lack of even a simple expression of views. I suggest, with respect, that the Chair has missed the record with regard to the interpretation of the rules on the posting of items for a vote and the giving of priority to the government to restore items rather than having a vote as set up in the notice given by a member regarding estimates.
Since we have not had an opportunity of discussing this bill, I have to leave the procedural aspects to one side for the moment and I want to go into the matter of what we are doing. I have a list here going back to 1961 in which borrowing powers were referred to in the first appropriation bill and in subsequent appropriation bills. It has to be noted that there is no such thing as a residual borrowing power. Anything that is not used in any year lapses at the end of the year, so that the government cannot accumulate a series of unused borrowing powers. However, I think this March, particularly since 1970-71, the effects of inflation are to be seen. In 1970-71, the first appropriation bill asked for $2 billion. A subsequent appropriation bill sought $1 billion. In 1974-75, authority was sought for $3 billion in the first appropriation bill, and a year ago the amount was $2.5 billion. Earlier this year, in June, there was one appropriation bill for $4 billion, and now the minister is asking for $2 billion. Where in the past have we seen figures so high, except in 1967-68 when there was a supplementary appropriation bill seeking approval of an increase of $2.75 billion?
We should want to look at the public debt. An examination of the bank account tables with regard to public debt indicates that charges on the gross public debt currently are expected to increase by $598 million in fiscal 1976 compared with fiscal 1975. The 18.9 per cent increase in these charges is due both to higher average interest costs and to the fact that the size of the debt has increased markedly over the year.
Just as an indication of how our national debt has mounted, I have before me the Bank of Canada Review for November, 1975, and table 21, entitled "Government of Canada direct and guaranteed securities", indicates that as at November 12 the total outstanding debt was $35,885 million. If we go back five years to 1970, the figure was only about $25 billion. I should not say "only $25,746 million", because that is a lot of money. In 1964, when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) did not have his feet in the Department of Finance, the amount was $20,733 million. Over 11 years we have seen an increase of some $15 billion in the national debt, or a 75 per cent increase.
From the end of fiscal 1975 to November 20 of this year the amount of unmatured debt, as I have indicated, increased by nearly $4,300 million and has actually gone up-because my report here is more recent than the tables I referred to-to $37,384 million. Even using this shorter time period, less than eight months, unmatured debt has already increased by an amount in excess of the increase between fiscal 1973 and 1974, a total of $3,915 million. Based on current unmatured debt levels and current interest payments forecast in the main and supplementary
December 16, 1975

estimates, the average rate of interest paid on unmatured debt will be near 7.5 per cent in fiscal 1976 compared with nearly 7.1 per cent in fiscal 1975. Hon. members should note that particular fact, and certainly the public as well, in that already we are seeing the influences of inflation at work for 1976.
The average interest rate on government indebtedness this coming year is expected to be 1.5 per cent higher than it is this year. All that means is that private individuals, investors and corporate investors expect inflation to be that much higher because they are hedging their investments. If the remaining months of the current fiscal year show an increase in the level of unmatured debt while the interest payment figure remains constant, then the effective rate of interest will decrease. Further supplementary estimates for interest charges while the debt remains constant, or drops, will increase the rate of interest.
We should have had the opportunity of discussing the total debt of the Government of Canada at this time. However, the way supplementary estimates are handled through committee, and because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) can only appear at this time for a matter of about an hour and a half, it is almost impossible for any hon. member to do any questioning with regard to this subject. I hope that when we get to clause 1 we will go into the subject a little more deeply than is indicated in the statement of the minister.
I recommend that the House give this bill second reading so that it can go to committee of the whole, and that we agree that under the circumstances this afternoon we dispose of the bill entirely so that it may go to the other place and the government can be in a position to meet its financial responsibilities.
There are two bills before the finance committee this afternoon dealing with financial institutions. There is another one down the road, there is a report in the works with regard to metric conversion, and this is all to be dealt with by Friday. There is no possibility that this bill could go to the committee and expect to make it back to the House by Christmas, even if we sat there until the night of December 23. Under those circumstances, I urgently ask hon. members to examine this bill. The government has acknowledged that it committed an error and did something it should not have done. It tried to do something- perhaps it was induced by other factors, or was trying something on-but there was no way out and the best thing was to come clean, as the minister has done this afternoon. Let us get on with repairing the damage and then deal with other legislation.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to be very long at second reading of this bill. I wish, however, to put a few questions in committee of the whole. The bill before us will give the government the power to raise up to $2 billion by way of loans for public works and expenditures for general purposes. At the outset I should like to say that we are not talking about anything new: this is a routine, government borrowing bill. The government will be going to the money market or we are authorizing it to issue more Canada savings bonds, and so on.
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
In the past, this parliament has controlled the expenditures of the government by voting on new programs, by discussing the estimates and passing or amending them, by voting interim supply and supplementary estimates, and so on. So we have, in essence, made commitments to spend a certain amount of money in the fiscal year 1975-76. The government must now find the revenue it needs to carry out those programs. There is a shortfall, the government has to meet that shortfall, and at this time it does not have the authority to raise the money it needs. Therefore, I think this bill is pretty straightforward.
I understand that one reason we are dealing with $2 billion is that the government does not really feel it will need $2 billion, but some unforeseen circumstances-for example, changing exchange rates-may take place between now and the end of the fiscal year which will perhaps require the government to borrow up to $2 billion. That is my understanding. There are two or three things I wish to mention. Perhaps some of the money that is to be raised would not be necessary if the government considered some cuts in expenditures for the last three months of the fiscal year. I know there is about to be an announcement with regard to expenditure cuts in the next fiscal year, but we still have a few months to go in this one and perhaps all of us here could agree some programs could be eliminated or reduced which would save millions of dollars in this fiscal year.
For example, if the government is to get rid of Information Canada next year, why could it not do so a few months ahead of time and save some money in January, February and March of this fiscal year? There are several other programs like that on which the government could perhaps save money. It then would not have to go out and borrow money, pay high interest rates and increase the national debt. Another thing we should consider, when we have a shortfall in revenue, is revising the taxation system. I am still firmly convinced there are many tax loopholes which some wealthy people and some corporations can walk through. If the tax system were revised along the lines recommended years ago by Carter, there would be greater revenues.
Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the increase in the national debt and I am concerned about high interest rates in this country. When we talk about borrowing money, be it the federal government or any other government, we should look at the financial system and interest rates; we should get into a discussion about lowering interest rates and about foreign exchange controls. However, I do not want to take up the time of the House with a detailed discussion now, Mr. Speaker.
When I look at the question of borrowing money, I want to know why it is being borrowed. I do not want to see funds borrowed for general operating purposes or something that is not going to produce a return for the people of this country. For example, if money is borrowed to pay civil servants or electric bills or fuel bills, that seems to me an expensive proposition. If you borrow money for a capital asset, as Premier Blakeney is doing in New York to develop the potash industry in Saskatchewan, that will give the people of the province additional revenue in years to come. This was done by the former government when
211 30 - 15/4

December 16, 1975
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
they created the Saskatchewan Power Corporation, which is now providing benefits to the people of the province. But when you talk about borrowing money, I want to know what it is for. If it is primarily for investment in an asset that will be beneficial to the people, well and good.
Most of us borrow money to buy a house or some other major item. The government is doing the same thing when they borrow money to invest in order to improve the livelihood of Canadians. I hope we can ask questions at committee of the whole stage and receive more information from the government.


Mr. Beaudoin:: Mr. Speaker, I will take only a few minutes to explain my views in reply to the minister's statement on Bill C-80.
Bill C-80 is another version of clause 5 of Bill C-79 introduced in the House on December 9 last. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), with the support of all opposition members, noted that clause 5 of Bill C-79 was contravening the standing orders. The fact was admitted by the Speaker of this House whom we thank for his fairness and his great respect for the members' principles. We must also remember that clause 5 of Bill C-79 was withdrawn from the bill for those reasons and also because those $2 billion were for us a blank cheque given to the government which had not been discussed in committee nor by the members.
I would like to be brief. I want also to ask my questions later in committee of the whole, but I will add before concluding that we have agreed to let the bill pass through all stages today. I would also ask those who want to ask questions to put them in committee of the whole.
Bill C-80 leads us to ask many questions. First, what does the minister intend to do with the $2 billion? How will the money be spent, what interest rates will the government pay on that money and where will the funds be borrowed? I think that it is quite important since it is the objective of the bill now under consideration. I congratulate the minister for having introduced a special bill so that we may ask questions and be sure of what we are talking about.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Speaker, I was rising to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise for only two or three minutes in order to comment on what we are doing and, more particularly, on what I think we should do in the future. As everyone knows, we have this bill before us because the Chair found clause 5 of the recent appropriation bill to be out of order. It strikes me
| Mr. Nystrom.)
that the thing that was most serious about the inclusion of clause 5 in the recent appropriation bill was that it denied members of the House of Commons any opportunity to discuss what was being done by that clause. The provisions of that clause had not been referred with the estimates to the various committees, and accordingly we received the clause only at the last minute at the point where the rules prohibited any debate. In practical terms, I think that is the most serious thing that happened. It is also serious that something was put into a bill for which there was no authority in the resolution on which that bill was based. But what was denied was the right of members to discuss the matter at that time.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), in commenting on this bill, said that he understood discussions were under way to find some solution to the matter. I hope those discussions will continue amongst those of us involved, and that whatever we do we will at least find an opportunity for discussion of the whole question of borrowing authority, whether it is included in an appropriation bill or brought in by way of a separate bill.
I believe the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) should not only be commended for having raised that point of order, but I think he is also to be commended for suggesting that any discussion of this matter ought not to stop with this one point. We passed a motion the other day that continues the supply procedure experiment of this session into another session. I would hope that as part of that experiment we will find a better way to deal with a bill in its last moments. It is not quite as bad now as it was a few years ago when we sat here all night just saying, "Carried", "Carried", "Carried"; or, "On division", "On division", "On division". However, it is still a bit of a farce and I hope it will be corrected. If this whole incident has helped to bring that into focus, it has been worth while.
I shall not pursue any further the point of order I raised before the bill was called this afternoon. Mr. Speaker has reserved judgment on that, although I gather that if the bill gets to the final stage before he has given the official decision, he is prepared to let it go. However, I would stress the fact that it seems to me that it is a bill that will involve the spending of money. I know that the bill provides for borrowing authority, but it says that this borrowing may be done at rates of interest to be determined by the governor in council. Once you determine rates of interest, you will spend money.
Section 36 of the Financial Administration Act reads;
No money shall be borrowed or security issued by or on behalf of Her Majesty without the authority of parliament.
It does not say that once you have the authority of parliament, everything else flows from it. Actually, the act says again and again that the governor in council may do such and such, as provided in that act. If this bill provides for the payment of interest, I suggest it is a money bill.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Read section 45.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, I noted section 45, which reads:
December 16, 1975

The payment of all money borrowed and interest thereon and of the principal of and interest on all securities issued by or on behalf of Her Majesty with the authority of parliament is a charge on and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
That language seems to confirm my point. If charges are to be made on the consolidated revenue fund, the payment of those charges should either be authorized by parliament generally or covered by a Governor General's recommendation.
None of us wants to hold up the bill today. We are correcting an error made on December 9 and taking a few minutes to emphasize the point that this matter should be straightened out and put on a proper basis before it arises again. Most of all, putting it on a proper basis means that hon. members should have the right to discuss, for instance, the borrowing of $2 billion instead of having to vote for it without any discussion at all.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I feel the minister ought to give us further information concerning Bill C-80, to allow the government to borrow up to $2 billion in special or additional loans, as may be required for public works and general purposes. This means anything, anywhere and anyhow, for clause 2. (1) states:
The Governor in Council may, in addition to the sums now remaining unborrowed and negotiable of the loans authorized by Parliament, by any Act heretofore passed, raise by way of loan, under the Financial Administration Act, by the issue and sale .. .
The issue and sale of what? The minister does not say.
... or pledge of securities of Canada, in such form, for such separate sums, at such rates of interest and upon such other terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve . ..
Again, the minister does not say what the interest rate will be and from whom the government will borrow up to $2 billion.
. . . such sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole, the sum of two biT'on dollars, as may be required for public works and general purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I said that the minister should tell the House how he intends to borrow up to $2 billion. The minister is surely aware of the fact that Parliament is sovereign and that it can issue bonds for the financial needs which might arise at anytime.
Indeed, this special legislation authorizing borrowings up to $2 billion should be explained more fully, because under the Bank Act, the Bank of Canada is authorized to buy bonds from the federal government as well as from the provinces. And when the Bank of Canada buys a government bond issue, this buying by the Bank of Canada constitutes a reserve for the chartered banks, for the Canadian banking system.
It is established that the current reserve must be 6 per cent. Let us examine the case of the government issuing $2 billion worth of bonds sold to the Bank of Canada. So, as soon as the Bank of Canada buys the government bonds, the chartered banks can multiply that reserve, because the bonds become a reserve; the banks are entitled to multiply sixteen-fold, according to the law, that two-billion dollar bond issue; that gives the chartered banks the right to grant loans for $32 billion dollars, on the basis of the $2 billion the government would claim or of the bonds the government would sell the Bank of Canada. This confirms
Supplementary Borrowing Authority what we, Social Crediters, have been saying for many years. That discretionary power should be given the people's bank, the Bank of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the government is playing with fire when it asks Parliament to approve a bill such as Bill C-80, which grants even more powers to those who control money and credit, to those, as we often say, who control the economic blood of the nation. All the problems, as we know, all the problems of inflation, mentioned by the Minister of Finance, stem from the absurd financial system which forces us to pay back two or three times the amounts the government is about to borrow.
Now, the government does not want to borrow from the Bank of Canada. It will borrow from the chartered banks as usual, or resort to foreign investors, borrowing or begging from them, as Mr. Bourassa of the province of Quebec does so nicely, with so much elegance, it will go and borrow from the Americans every week or every month.
Mr. Speaker, this bill proves clearly, beyond a doubt, how right the Social Credit Party is in saying to the government: regain control over the issue of money and credit, appoint a national credit commission to make sure that at all times there is no more credit in circulation than real wealth in Canada.
But when we have real values, when there are public works to be done, why do we not use the method proposed by Social Credit and have interest-free loans from the Bank of Canada. If it costs $1 billion, the Bank of Canada can create credit as well as any American according to the same values and it could be repaid according to the depreciation of the works if they last 25, 30 or 40 or 50 years. The government should repay during that period so that we may get more credit and more achievements in Canada.
The government refers not only to public works but to general purposes. What does it mean by general purposes? To create an anti-inflation board to pay the bureaucracy required in other fields? But this bill, Mr. Speaker, is inflationary because if the government has recourse to loans at an interest rate of 10, 10'A, 103A and even 11 per cent over 20 or 25 years period, like the recent $200 million loan secured by Quebec Premier Bourassa in the United States at 10 per cent over 25 years, which means that in 25 years we shall pay only for interest $250 million in interest alone and still owe $200 million for the capital. If it is not inflationary, Mr. Speaker, what is it?
And the government urges the people, the workers to limit their demands to fight inflation. In the meantime, we feed that inflationary system, we encourage excessive interest rates, and we do not have the guts to turn down the financial exploiters of the Canadian people, and provinces.
Not later than yesterday evening, an Ottawa news report told us that the Hull municipality was going to raise its taxes by 28.5 per cent. The government does not say anything. Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin will have nothing to say either. Municipalities, provinces, are allowed to raise their taxes by 20, 25, 30 per cent. Natural gas in Canada will go up by

December 16, 1975
Supplementary Borrowing Authority 30 per cent. We find precise reasons to allow organizations to increase their prices, whereas the workers will not have the right to have an increase exceeding 12 per cent.
This is, Mr. Speaker, a flaw in the system, and I say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) that he will never fight inflation to the ground with bills such as the one we have in hand, Bill C-80. He will never subdue inflation as long as those who control money and credit will not be controlled. They should be controlled first, but the Minister of Finance pretends not to hear, he does not listen, he does not hear; it makes no difference to him provided the Canadian public let themselves be drugged by bills which enable the government, on the pretext of doing something necessary for Canada, to engulf further the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-80 is going to pass, because the government has the majority. There was a discussion between House leaders to have this piece of legislation prepared and put forward. It is not a complement, it is not a new invention. In Bill C-69, things were not clearly established, they were on the shady side of constitutionality, unlike in Bill C-80, which gives the government permission to borrow up to $2 billion, but I would like the minister to tell us where he is going to borrow the money and how and for what reasons, apart from public works.
Mr. Speaker, it would be good if we knew once and for all what is the purpose of the borrowings the government intends to make. Will the government be borrowing from the Bank of Canada without interest, or at an interest rate covering administration? Will the government be borrowing from chartered banks, or will it borrow in the United States? It would be good if the minister took note of these three points-the Bank of Canada, the Canadian banking system, or American financiers. Where will we be borrowing, for what period of time, and at what interest rate?


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went-into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
On clause 2-Power to raise loan of $2 billion for public works and general purposes.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might make a small correction to the material I put on record in the course of the discussion on second reading. I should like to bring it up to date. I stated that the outstanding indebtedness as of November 12 was some $37 billion. According to the Bank of Canada report of December 4, on December 3, 1975, there was a total outstanding of $38,041 million. This was made up of $6,200 million in treasury bills, $15,939 million in Canada savings bonds, and $15,902 million in all other direct and guaranteed securities.
The reason I want to put these figures on record is to draw attention to the preponderance of government savings bonds. We are aware of the average rate which has been quoted for these bonds; they are to yield just under 10

per cent for the next 10 years or so. It may even be longer. People talk about lower interest rates for housing. Where will they come from? The government has put itself on a hook by issuing Canada savings bonds this year which are to yield around 10 per cent for over 10 years. There is bound to be the cost of administration over and above that, so I cannot see federal government interest rates getting below 11.5 per cent unless there is a drastic cashing-in of those savings bonds because people do not wish to maintain them for the sake of accumulating interest.
I would hope one might find a little more diversification. These Canada savings bond campaigns provide short-term cash for the government. Certainly the bonds are more attractive for the investor because on every $100 bond he will be paid hearly 10 cents on every dollar for holding them, since they are immediately cashable at the bank. Indeed, I suppose that a bearer bond is easier to cash today outside a bank than a $100 bill would be. Has anybody tried to cash a $100 bill lately in a general business or store?


An hon. Member:: You cannot do it.


Mr. Rodriguez:: I never have one.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In any event, I thought I would put those corrections on the record. I hope the clause will now pass.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the discussion which took place on second reading. I am glad the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Edmonton West made it possible to separate this issue from a supply motion. I am grateful for the information provided by the hon. member for Edmonton West and his explanation of the way in which some of the borrowing is made. This fitted in very well with the observations made by the hon. member for Temiscamingue and his charge that much of this borrowing is highly inflationary. He indicated that Canada savings bonds accounted for $18 million, guaranteed borrowings amounted to $15 million, and there was another $18 million worth of savings bonds, presumably at the same rate of interest. In other words, there is a sizeable amount of money there.
Under the old system we were informed how such money was raised and spent. Although the members who sit on the various estimates committees may have some idea how the money is spent, the system does not allow members of parliament an over-all look at government expenditures. Up until now it has not allowed an over-all look at government borrowings, and this bill does not allow it either.
Perhaps we should adopt the Social Credit philosophy of printing the money we borrow, making it unnecessary to go to the lending institutions. It might be more advisable to do just that. Let us print the money, put it into the national debt, just as we do in time of war and for other purposes, and then if we get the money back through taxation we can take it out of circulation again. We would then not contribute to any inflationary spiral by borrowing money. It is foolish for the government to say it will cut
December 16, 1975

back on expenditures when one of the major items of government expenditure is interest rates. Canada savings bonds carry over 10 per cent, which means that in about seven years you have doubled your money.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You have paid for some of that money.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member says I have paid. I am not a chartered bank. I do what most other people do; I use a credit card and end up paying more than 10 per cent. The only people who make money in the end are the shareholders of the banks.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No.


William Arnold Peters: My hon. friend says no, but it seems to me that a very good investment for anyone who wants to make a little money is to buy the stock of the new bank.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And hold your breath for years.


William Arnold Peters: Not with the one the Mafia thought they would make a killing out of. They got the shares up to $17 and then they dropped right back to $3. But I am sure you can double your money very easily. After all, somebody must be getting this 10 per cent interest rate. That is what the Canadian public pays when the government borrows. It just does not disappear.
The Liberals should not find it hard to accept Social Credit philosophy. Some of their former cabinet ministers joined forces in British Columbia, so it should not be too hard for them to find a solution which, it appears to me, would eliminate some of these expenditures. However, my point is not so much that we borrow money, but that this House is being asked for borrowing authority. It is a little like your wife, Mr. Chairman, asking you to give her four or five times the usual money you give her for groceries, making a request that is retroactive to last April because she has overspent her grocery bill by a number of months and wants to recoup her losses.
If there is to be a new system for bringing in appropriation bills, I think the government would do us a service if they provided a breakdown of how the money is to be spent. The minister has indicated the revenue from Canada savings bonds, which are borrowings, and there are other ways of raising money, of course. But it seems to me that this appropriation bill is a sort of last ditch request for money.
I realize that expenditures are revealed in the estimates in one way or another and that we have approved expenditures for the year ending March 31, 1976. So why does the government ask for money in this manner, making a retroactive request to April 1, 1975? As I say, there should be an explanation given in the bill of what the money is for. It is possible that some of the money will be used for housing purposes, that some will be put in a revolving account, and that other moneys will go into the general revenue fund to meet expenditures listed in the supplementary estimates. But if this is so, the amounts should be specified and there should also be an indication of any amounts required for anticipated expenditure.
Supplementary Borrowing Authority
One of the problems of a member of parliament is to understand what happens to the revenue of the government and how the money is spent. This point was made by the Auditor General. Due to the change in format for the supplementary estimates, we do not know exactly how government money is spent. The explanations given in the estimates do not relate in a positive enough way to any specific item of expenditure as an indication of how that money is to be spent.
In the appropriation bill the other night the number of votes relating to transfers from one department to another had increased extensively. These transfers used to be effected by a $1 vote, and even in the days when the estimates were discussed fully such items were always looked at with a jaundiced eye because they were statutory items. You did not know what they were for or what the transaction was. There was a great deal of leeway. Now money is transferred from one department to another department and the transaction may or may not be covered in the estimates, either approved or anticipated. If the government gives a breakdown of its borrowings and indicates what the purpose is, we will at least know how the money is to be spent.
One of the most thorny questions that I have been asked by my constituents at public meetings from time to time is what the national debt is and what we are doing about it. I have not the faintest notion what it is and I do not think any other member has either. We have discussed it, but it becomes obvious that we do not know how much it is or what it is for, and we cannot give any consideration as to whether we pay it out or do not, yet we are being asked for this $2 billion. That is a sizeable amount of money. We are not told where we borrow it from, how we get it, what it is to be used for, whether it is just raised against the estimates, or very much else about what is going on. It is just being raised against the estimates, and the estimates have been monkeyed around with and tinkered with a great deal by the government and the various departments.
I suggest that all the statutory items in the estimates always have some connection to the transfer of funds. I consider that the $1 items represent the transfer of funds. Certainly the vote we had the other night related to the fact that we took certain funds from one item for transfer to another, and that certainly is tinkering with the expenditures. This monkey and tinkering with expenditures is not obvious to anyone studying the supplementary or interim estimates. I would ask the House leaders, when they are considering the change or format, to give some thought to some of these matters with which I am concerned, because the way it is now we are not likely to get answers to these questions by following the method under which we have appropriations. Perhaps that is the wrong word.


An hon. Member:: Pick any word you want.


William Arnold Peters: Perhaps "borrowing" under the Appropriation Act is more financially correct. It seems to me to be very difficult to ascertain what these borrowings will be used for, what the percentage of interest will be on any amount or even what the general interest will be on the

December 16, 1975
Supplementary Borrowing Authority money that we borrow. I understand from the hon. member for Edmonton West that it amounts to some $39 million. In that area it seems there must be a multitude of methods for raising money other than straight taxation. It would also seem that the cost of that money would vary from time to time and from item to item. These facts are not readily available to hon. members in relation to government requests for this kind of money. The amount of $2 billion boggles the mind. It certainly boggles my mind and I suppose it boggles the mind of pretty nearly everybody else I know. Even most of the rich people in this country have no conception of billions of dollars.
We are being asked to raise $2 billion as an afterthought to a bill which did not have any connection at all. We are being asked to raise this amount through a bare bones bill which does not indicate the interest, where the money is to come from or where it is to go. The bill does not indicate whether this represents the total anticipated government expenditure over a certain period of time, and it does not indicate any connection with the curtailment of expenditures which the government is now preparing. It does not indicate whether it anticipates a government decision to reduce my salary or whether such a reduction will lessen the $2 billion required. The bill does not indicate whether it anticipates a voluntary, or otherwise, 25 per cent cut in civil servants' salaries, a 10 per cent cut or a 10 per cent lay-off. It does not really tell me if such a reduction will make any change.
If my wife asked me for more money to pay for the groceries, and I found that groceries were going down in price, I would have some suspicion. If one of the kids left home and was not eating as much there, I would anticipate the grocery bill would go down. So far as this bill is concerned, it seems to me that no matter what we do, it will not make any difference to our borrowing. There is no indication that this is a final borrowing for a specified period of time. I am simply confused about what it is, and I do not think the minister will take the time to tell us today.
Many members sit here and do not really take any interest in what is going on. They would be well advised to interest themselves in what the government is doing with our money. It would seem that in an appropriation bill there should be a clearer indication of what are the expenditures. It may be possible to find this out in another way, but when we are asked to vote this kind of money it seems to me that type of information should be made available to all hon. members.
It is true that the hon. member for Edmonton West and others are members of financial committees of this House and have been involved in these matters for a number of years. They may know where to find this information. They may have officials in the treasury branch who are able to tell them about these things. I do not have that expertise or those connections with the treasury branch. But I would like to have that information, as I am sure some of my constituents and others across the country would like to have it. These sketchy explanations really do not enlighten me very much.


Mr. Friesen;: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


William Arnold Peters: Sure.


Benno Friesen: I was interested in his suggestion that it is just not good fiscal practice to borrow money to pay retroactive expenditures. I recall that the former premier of British Columbia hired the former member for Skeena as a consultant in British Columbia. He hired him in December but made the hiring retroactive to November.


An hon. Member:: And the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Benno Friesen: I was wondering if, as a result of the election in British Columbia last week, the hon. member for Timiskaming has learned this and is therefore using it in the House today.


William Arnold Peters: That is very interesting question, Mr. Chairman, but one that I think goes beyond the purview of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You have learned something.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Timiskaming has raised a number of questions about the nature of the public debt. Let me say to him, in respect of the question of analysis and perspective on the public debt, the document from which the hon. member for Edmonton West read was a monthly report of the Bank of Canada which set out an analysis of outstanding Government of Canada debt, for which the Bank of Canada is the agent. The bank publishes this analysis from month to month, along with reference to any events that may have occurred during the month.
Several other questions were raised. The hon. member asked whether the money has already been spent. The answer is no, it has not. It will, of course, be spent in the first three calendar months of 1976, which is the last three months of the 1975-76 fiscal year. This will really put us in funds for the purpose of making the remaining expenditures in the heavy end of the year. The hon. member asked why it was April 1, 1975. Let me say there was an issue of Canada savings bonds, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, that was extremely well received by the public. Indeed, it overshot expectations. However, depending on the balance of redemptions, there may be a temporary case of an overrun in borrowing during this period. In the event that this has occurred, this is really a retroactive authorization in connection with such borrowings.

The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) and the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) asked questions about the financing for the remainder of the fiscal year authorized under this bill. I think it cannot be said exactly what the interest rate or what the market will be, that is whether the financing will take place in Canada or on the international market, for the remainder of the year. It can be said that there will be financing made up of long term bonds on February 1 and also at that time there will be a study of the additional money for the expenditures of the government of Canada. There will also be for the same period of the remainder of the year studies of
December 16, 1975

treasury bills for the financing of the government of Canada. It is totally impossible on every issue, as on February 1, for example, for the Bank of Canada to take part of that issue from banks, funds, bonds.
I think that responds in a rather general way to some of the questions that have been raised.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, in order to assist the hon. member for Timiskaming, and to add information to that which the minister has given, I have a series of four tables which are not taken out of the Bank of Canada as the source but are private compilations showing, first of all, the interest charges on the public debt, the interest as a percent of government expenditures, the effective interest on the public debt in table two, the unmatured debt per capita in table three and the unmatured debt and GNP in table four all from the years 1968-69 through 1975-76. I take full responsibility for these tables and, rather than leaving them out, I would ask leave of the House to have them tabled as part of my remarks at this time.


The Deputy Chairman:: My understanding is that a private member cannot table documents.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that a private member may table tables like this. The alternative-and I say this to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Clerk as well-is that I shall read them. I would ask the Chair to reflect upon the decision given a few moments age. I have not referred to a public document. I have sought leave of the House to table these tables, and I would respectfully ask the Chair to reconsider its position on that.


Charles Robert Turner: Is it agreed by hon. members that they be printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The tables referred to are as follows:]


TABLE ONE
[Stage Direction]
INTEREST CHARGES ON THE PUBLIC DEBT FISCAL 1969 to 1976
	Interest &		Interest as
Amortization	Government	a Percent ofFiscal year	Charges	Expenditure	Government Exp.-MILLION-	68/69	1,473	10,767	13.769/70	1,710	11,931	14.370/71	1,819	13,182	13.871/72	2,132	14,841	14.472/73	2,147	16,121	14.573/74	2,587	20,039	12.974/75	3,169	26,055	12.275/76 (est)	3,767	29,895	12.6
Supplementary Borrowing Authority TABLE TWO
EFFECTIVE INTEREST ON THE PUBLIC DEBT FISCAL 1969 to 1976
	Unmatured	Interest	
Fiscal year	Debt	Charges	Rate (%)
	-Million $-		
68/69	22,101	1,206	5.4669/70	22,637	1,380	6.1070/71	25,201	1,520	6.0371/72	27,259	1,606	5.8972/73	29,038	1,759	6.0573/74	29,171	1,858	6.3774/75	33,086	2,340	7.0775/76	37,384	2,799	7.49(Nov. 20)	(estimates)	(projection)TABLE THREE	UNMATURED DEBT PER CAPITA	Fiscal Year	Population	Unmatured Debt Debt Per Capita	(millions)	($millions)	($)68/69	20.7	22,101	1,067.6869/70	21.0	22,637	1,077.95m	M	m	1,183.15 061.9972/73	21.8	29,038	1,332.0273/74	22.1	29,171	1,319.9574/75	22.4	33,086	1,477.0575/76	22.8	37,384 (Nov. 20)	1,649.65TABLE FOUR	UNMATURED DEBT AND GNP	Anual	Unmatured	Debt as aFiscal Year	GNP	Debt	% of GNP-Millions-	68/69 (68)	72,586	22,101	30.469/70 (69)	79,815	22,637	28.470/71 (70)	85,685	25,201	29.471/72 (71)	93,462	27,259	29.272/73 (72)	103,952	29,038	27.973/74 (73)	120,438	29,171	24.274/75 (74)	140,880	33,086	23.575/76 (75)	154,339*	24.2
Conference Board Forecast.
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Chairman, the minister was rather explicit in his answer but there is a detail of some importance missing. We would like to know the approximate rate of interest he will have to pay on that borrowing and whether he suggests he will be borrowing part of that money or whether banks will make part of that money available?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, it is quite possible that the Bank of Canada take up part of those bonds. How many? It depends on the monetary position of Canada, and on the monetary policy of the Bank of Canada at the present time. That may vary according to the market conditions for bonds and interest rates. But one cannot specifically state, for the time being, how much the Bank of Canada will assume.
The matter of interest rates remains to be determined with the Treasury Board officials at the time of issue of treasury bonds or long term debentures. It is impossible to be specific as to the interest rates at the moment. The latest bonds issued by the government of Canada carry an interest rate of 9'A per cent for long term investments and of 8V4 for short terms. This is only an example. That will depend, of course, on the international market, on the currency and on the market position in Canada in January, February and March.

December 16, 1975
Supplementary Borrowing Authority


Léonel Beaudoin: A last question, Mr. Chairman. Talking about issuing the last bond issue, what do the expressions long term and short term mean?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, long term issues were for 20 years and short term ones three years.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions for the minister. Do I have the correct understanding that the Canada savings bonds issue that has been closed will not be reopened during the remainder of this fiscal year?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The issue was closed at the earliest possible date, which was November 14. As you know, we said the issue would be open until that date. It would have been unfair to some people who had made plans if we had closed it earlier. We did have an overrun for that reason. We will have a fresh savings bond issue at the same time next year.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Can the minister give us an idea of the mix of the borrowings? I refer to treasury bills. I notice the figure is $150 million. Would the minister be more specific about the sources from which the government hopes to borrow? Perhaps I missed something the minister said earlier, and if so perhaps he would enlighten me on that as well.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I cannot be very specific about the mix. I think it would depend on the flow of interest rates at the time. It is intended there would be a division between the treasury bills and long-term money. As I mentioned in reply to the hon. member for Richmond, there would have to be a refunding of outstanding obligations to February 1. It is very likely there would be new money issued in relation to that. As to the actual balance to be achieved between treasury bills and longer term obligations, that will be very much dictated by the state of the market as it proceeds through the remaining quarter.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have one or two last questions, Mr. Chairman. Could the minister comment on the question I raised about the possibility of scrapping some programs on which money may not have been spent, and cutting back on some programs in the last three months of this fiscal year that would coincide with the Prime Minister's announcement later this week about spending cuts? I do not know what is coming, and obviously he cannot tell us what is coming, but is there any possibility of saving some money there?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There might be some minor reductions in the balance of the year. I think I would have to say there is not a great prospect of cutting existing programs at the present time without at the same time incurring substantial liabilities. For example, the laying off of a substantial number of employees at short notice, that is to say on two weeks' notice just before Christmas, is not a policy we would like to follow. Therefore, since much of this expenditure will be in the form of wages and salaries it will be difficult to terminate this employment without some advance notice in fairness to all employees. I think the conclusion of my colleague, the President of the

Treasury Board, is that while there are some opportunities here of a minor character, there are no major cuts which effectively would be made in the period of the 1975-76 year.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have one final question. I assume the minister cannot be any more specific concerning what the money borrowed will be used for. I know he is talking about spending it for public works and general purposes. Can he be any more specific this afternoon concerning where that money might be spent? Will it be in operating costs, or are there any particular projects that still need some financial commitment for which he does not have the money?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I cannot be specific. I would have to go to the paymaster general to determine what obligations he expects to have in the balance of the year.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Chairman, I only want to ask a final question.
The minister just said in the House that there would have to be a refunding of the bonds which will come to maturity on March 1. Could he indicate what is the average rate the government is paying on those bonds which will come to maturity on March 1?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member mentioned March 1, but maybe he wanted to say February 1?	.


Léonel Beaudoin: As I said earlier, I meant March 1.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think it is February 1 . . . one moment please-
This issue must be paid on February 1 at a rate of 9 VS per cent.

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt)-Environmental Affairs-Request for clarification of statements on emission standards applicable to Syncrude; the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith)-Transport-Arrangements for
December 16, 1975

shipping wheat through port of Churchill; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)-Environmental Affairs-Request for funds for Fraser Valley flood control program.


Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to routine proceedings so I can present a report.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is it
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
And the House having reverted to motions:



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in both official languages-Mr. Comtois.
(English]

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments-Mr. McCleave.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, December 15, 1975, consideration of Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been some discussions, although not extensive, on the basis of which I wonder if the House would not be interested in taking some of the votes tonight. I refer to the recorded votes which have been deferred. I think there are three or four already which have been deferred, and there might be others. My suggestion would be that at 9.15 tonight we interrupt our proceedings, have a 15-minute bell and then take the
Unemployment Insurance Act
recorded votes on all motions the divisions on which have been deferred up to that time.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and I believe the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has much the same view.


Mr. Alexander:: Speaking on the suggestion made by both hon. gentlemen, we on this side of the House certainly go along with it. I think it is necessary to get on with the business of the House. It appears that a 15-minute bell will be satisfactory.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: It is
so ordered.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned the debate on this bill yesterday I was discussing the clause to repeal section 28 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Since that time I have had some discussion with a number of people regarding the effects of retaining or removing this section. I should like to clarify a point which I made last night regarding the difference between the operation of UIC in an urban area and its operation in a rural area. The indication is that the time it takes to process claims from an urban area, and the time it takes to process them in a rural area, differs considerably, to the detriment of those in the rural area.
I also mentioned that this section in the act had not been implemented in my area to any great extent, a fact which I confirmed in discussions with the district officers in my area. The reason that they give is simply that if it were applied and a claimant was given this three-week advance payment, there might be considerable delay in making regular payments at a later time. The minister was kind enough to send me a note stating some of the reasons it was desirable to remove this section from the act.
In my opinion, it is unfortunate for members of the House, and is probably a matter which should be brought to the attention of the chairmen of the committees of the House, that this matter received very little discussion in the committees, as is apparent when one looks over the proceedings of the committees. In discussing the matter with one of the members of the committee-to be specific, with the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander)-I found that at the time this bill was discussed, the committee members had a number of documents indicating how many people had drawn benefits under this section and indicating the effects of that. The documents indicated also-this has been brought to my attention by the minister-that the results appear to be detrimental rather than advantageous.
One of the reasons this has happened is that jobs are not very plentiful, particularly in areas where there is a large amount of unemployment of a temporary nature and
211 30-16>/2

December 16, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
where it would be anticipated people could get jobs if they were given sufficient income to enable them to move from one area to another. This clause would have been advantageous where very recently there was a shutdown. There were difficulties getting separation, and because the separation had to be issued two or three times before it was correct there was considerable delay in making the benefits available to the claimants. The claimants were under a very severe handicap because the cheques which were paid a month before the cessation of work at that plant had bounced. They received no money from those cheques and those who took them to the bank and had them cashed had to repay the money. They were unable to draw the last pay cheque because the company had no more money.
In addition to that, there was no vacation pay and none of the other things which normally would be forthcoming. I understand that it has been the practice, where this payment was made, that the additional moneys which might be available were not taken into consideration and that the three weeks provision was applied in the hope that the person would be able to look for a job outside his area, and that if he got a job he would be entitled to keep the money, and it would only be reclaimed if there was a subsequent claim.
The requirements which were necessary to establish this were quite stringent, in my opinion. They demanded a major attachment to the market. The job had to be terminated without any expectation of recall. It was necessary that there be an expectation of the person being able to find employment. Health requirements were originally not taken into consideration. I am sure this was something which could have been corrected, and probably should have been, because it would not meet the normal requirements of the act.
The minister indicated there will be some other method of trying to accomplish what apparently has not been very satisfactory in terms of section 28 of the act. I do not know how it worked in the minister's area, though his area is very much like mine. I am in the area of the Timmins, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie and North Bay unemployment insurance offices, and I found very little difference in any of them. To my knowledge, none of them was making any attempt to use this legislation. I think Thunder Bay was in somewhat the same circumstances, and it was not used very extensively there.
I think the officials of UIC should have given it a try in some areas. I understand that where it was used, it was not satisfactory. One of the problems I have in my area is that when a person is unemployed-and he does not have to be unemployed very long-he has no money to pay any of his expenses and he has to turn to municipal welfare. A number of these people have gone to the municipal welfare people asking for the use of an assignment and a payment by the welfare office. This has been of particular significance where the person agreed to get out of town and go somewhere else for employment.
In my area it has been normal for the municipal welfare department to give favourable consideration to those claimants asking for assistance where it means they move to one of the major communities where they can find employment. They have the same problem whether they

are unemployed or employed. Where a situation develops and work is no longer available and will not be available, it is absolutely essential they move out of the area.
I found that the assistance being given through mobility and the other programs has not worked advantageously. When a mine closed in my area, most of the people who moved out and got jobs did so in a fairly short period of time. All of them did it on their own, and almost all of them disqualified themselves from any mobility grants because they obtained jobs by themselves rather than through Manpower. However, in at least two or three cases that I know of, in order to do that these people were financed for transportation by the municipal welfare department. I suggest that if this three weeks' payment would obviate that situation, it certainly would be worth while.
My staff handles eight or ten cases per day, and they had never heard of the three weeks' payment. I suggested they telephone and find out why they had not heard about it. They telephoned and were told it was not used. In many areas it has not been given a fair chance, and I can see that it could be of some advantage.
In closing, I should like to say that I appreciate the indication by the minister that he has no intention of eliminating the emergency pay, because I can say that in my area it has been used. The officials have been very generous when there has been extreme difficulty, and it has been used on a number of occasions. I can honestly say that seldom has it had to be paid back. In other words, the insurance officers had enough information to assume that the claimant was going to be paid, and when the emergency payment was made it was usually made in good faith and received in the same way. I was pleased to learn that that is not to be cut off, because it has been very useful.
However, I am still of the opinion that if the three weeks had been used in some instances which come to mind in my area, it would have eliminated some of the difficulty which arose. The most recent example is when a sawmill closed and 400 or 500 workers were laid off. Bush and mill operations were terminated and the employees had not received any money for the previous month's work. They encountered considerable difficulty in getting their separation slips. This three weeks' payment would have been a godsend to almost everyone who worked in those operations. I suggest it may not be entirely due to the provision not having been used, and it may also be true that there had been abuses and that the record which was used indicated it did not accomplish what we wished. I am always hopeful that when we make a reasonable offer to the ordinary worker, such as an advance of three weeks' pay, most workers would be willing to take advantage of it if jobs were available in their area.
In reading the committee reports, I regret that I may have been somewhat stronger on this subject than it warranted. I should like to suggest to members of the committee, however, that the documents used in helping them arrive at a decision should be attached to the report so that other members when looking over the record would have
December 16, 1975

access to the expertise developed in committee which helped arrive at the decision.
I still believe that clause 28 could work to the advantage of claimants who have a long-term attachment to the labour market and were laid off without hope of recall by a company for which they had worked for a long time. They should have the opportunity of using UIC money for several weeks while they seek employment. I believe most of the people I come in contact with would use the money to advantage.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters) finds fault with the committee. He should have shown an interest when the committee was sitting. I am not finding fault with him in this regard because I know he is very busy and cannot be everywhere at once. We in this party reject the hon. member's motion most strongly. We have called for a public inquiry to determine what the disincentives in this act are and how they can be removed. It was pointed out to members of the committee that the three-week advance payment in clause 28 is a disincentive to work. The minister puts a figure of something like $5 million on it, but I am not interested in figures as much as I am in the fact that the government is creating disincentives in the act. The experiment was well intentioned, but I would respectfully suggest that it went sour. This three-week advance payment was meant to assist people in finding work, but that is not what happened. They took the money and left. In my estimation, after deliberation, these provisions played a significant role in destroying the work ethic.


Some hon. Members:: Huh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My friends say "Huh". I say it is a disincentive, it was being abused and it should go. We in this party will not vote for the hon. member's motion. Let me bring the hon. member up to date on what happened in committee. The committee was provided with a document prepared by the minister's officials which gave a history of problems and suggested solutions for all particular amendments that came in. It is unfortunate that the hon. member was busy and that members of his party have not shown the document to him.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He always "peters" out.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He means well, but at times we have to straighten him out.


William Arnold Peters: Would the hon. member mind tabling a copy?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by reading into the record a portion of the Unemployment Insurance Commission information paper on Bill C-69. On page 2 under the heading, "Subject: Advance Payment-Present Legislation", it reads:
The present legislation provides for a three-week advance payment of benefits to major attachment claimants after the two-week waiting period. This payment is made to claimants who have been laid off from their employment and who are not expected to be recalled by their previous employer within five weeks of the interruption of earnings. The payment is also provided irrespective of earnings and the active job
Unemployment Insurance Act
search and availability obligations during that period.
When this provision was introduced, it was thought that it normally took five or six weeks for people to find new jobs. The purpose of the advance payment was, therefore, to provide a strong incentive for claimants to find work quickly in the early weeks of their claims and draw no subsequent benefits.
Problem:
It was found in 1974, however, that 85 per cent of the recipients of the advance payment were still on claim in the sixth week, whereas only 66 per cent of the non-recipients remained on claim at that point. This led to the conclusion that the original purpose of the advance payment was not being achieved.
Proposed Amendment:
In order to encourage recipients of advance payment to find work more quickly, it is proposed that the provision be removed from the legislation.
I questioned the minister, my good friend, about the meaning. I will not misquote him or take him out of context. I said, "Mr. Minister, are you stating that in fact"-mind you, the word "disincentive" is not within the confines of the document that I just read-"or are you suggesting that you found, as a result of your studies, that this particular clause is a disincentive to work?" The minister said, "Yes." Be that as it may, and keeping in mind on this side of the House we want an act that is cognizant of the disincentives that have been destroying the work ethic and that we should have them removed, I repeat that we accept the government's statement in this regard and reject the hon. member's motion.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to say anything on this-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: "But".


John R. Rodriguez: -but I have been convinced, after listening to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) that I ought to say a few words because this question is important. All I heard from the hon. member for Hamilton West in committee was "incentives" and "disincentives," and the minister talked about "the work ethic" and "disincentives." Why is it that members of parliament, who enjoy probably one of the highest incomes in this country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: -feel that having subsidized meals in the House of Commons restaurant is not a disincentive?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John R. Rodriguez: I recognize the sensitivity of hon. members-


An hon. Member:: Give your increase to charity.


John R. Rodriguez: Why is the increase to parliamentarians and senators not called a disincentive to work? Why is it that we call moneys handed to multinational corporations incentives-


An hon. Member:: Does he come from northern Ontario?

December 16, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that the hon. gentleman who is now speaking uses more of the facilities of this House than anybody else, and has accepted the salary and is always talking about it.


John R. Rodriguez: That is exactly my point. These are exactly the same birds who will turn around and say that giving the unemployed advance pay is a disincentive to work.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You are preaching to the wrong people.


John R. Rodriguez: No, I am preaching to the right people. If the government wants to introduce a restraint program, let it show those who are eligible for advance pay claims that it is putting its money where its mouth is. Yes, let us bring in a bill either to defer members' increases or cancel them altogether. You talk about restraint. That is the kind of restraint I want to see from the other side.


An hon. Member:: Silence.


John R. Rodriguez: An hon. member says, "silence."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Epp:: You had better explain yourself to the poor.


John R. Rodriguez: And you had better go back to your samovar.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. Would the hon. member please address the Chair.


John R. Rodriguez: Who are these people whose incomes we want to restrain? We discovered in committee that 70 per cent of those on unemployment insurance earn $6,000 a year or less; and we are moving in on them. Earlier in the debate we saw how the government wants to restrain the less fortunate, those 65 years old and over. Yes, it is moving in on those people, too. It has already moved in on low income earners by cutting back the dependency allowance. Wasn't that a fine thing to do? The government wants to restrain the little people, the women and children, those 65 years old and over, and the poor.
Consider the people of the area I represent. The minister knows what kind of people they are. He represents a northern Ontario constituency and knows what it is like. He knows how poor the area is. As soon as a person loses his job and applies for help from the Unemployment Insurance Commission, he is told that he must actively seek work.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: He must do that first. The hon. member to my right has complained about people being forced to travel from the farm to the city to look for work.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Me?


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, you.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I did not.


John R. Rodriguez: As I say, the commission says to the people, "You must actively seek work." But if a person is poor, how can he move around? We know that he lacks assets in the bank. How can he survive the next two weeks of waiting, let alone afford money for travel? How can he travel around looking for work? The mobility program is to be limited because the government claims its resources are limited. The Department of Manpower and Immigration, which also falls under the minister's responsibility, is cutting back its mobility program and no longer willing to move people around the country. So here we have low income earners who more than likely do not belong to a union, are not protected by collective bargaining, and are at the bottom of the income scale, being told to seek work actively. The advance pay program would enable them to make ends meet. But this must be done properly. I suspect that the experiment the minister and his nabobs carried out was not well promoted.
I wonder how many in my constituency are aware of the advance pay program. When people fall six to eight weeks behind in benefits they have the devil of a time getting their local office to write cheques and keep them off the welfare rolls. The program is no good if it is inadequately promoted. If people do not know about a program, the government can say that the program was not popular and not successful. Therefore, if you are to introduce an advance pay program you must promote it among the unemployed. Low income earners need advance pay in order to seek work actively. Only recently have local UIC offices been given authority to write cheques to claimants who have such a need. Indeed, the problems in my area were so great that it was necessary for me to meet the regional director of the area, the local manager and the UIC commissioner, in my office in the Confederation Building in order to straighten out some of the difficulties the local office is encountering. I am referring to the willingness of the office to issue cheques to claimants in need.
Obviously, in times of high unemployment jobs are scarce and the need for the advance pay program is greatest. Those with the least education and skills will most likely be unemployed, or the longest out of work, especially in areas of traditionally high unemployment. Those lacking skills are the most difficult to employ; those, therefore, will stay longest on unemployment insurance. Therefore, the minister's statistics are not surprising. So by and large we are dealing with poor people, with people who are poor materially and poor in skills.
When the advance pay program was first introduced in 1971, between 3.8 per cent and 4 per cent of our work force was unemployed. If the rationale behind the program was valid then, how much more valid is it now when unemployment is on the rise and people are losing jobs through no fault of their own? What do people mean by disincentives? Falconbridge announced that it will lay off 450 people in the Sudbury basin. They did not ask to be laid off. Falconbridge has received grants from the government, retraining grants from Canada Manpower and DREE grants for its plant at Becancour, Quebec. All the same, the company will lay off some 450 people in the new year. Really, I do not know what people mean by incentives. I suppose it depends on how you look at it. If the advance pay program were properly promoted and used, it would
December 16, 1975

help claimants in a meaningful way. Naturally, I am talking of legitimate claimants. Advance pay would help them. But they also need help with their claims.
That brings me to my other point. There is no claims assistance service in the Sudbury office. It is strictly a factory operation, with people coming in, making an application, being referred to a claims officer and going through the usual procedures. But there is no claims assistance procedure in the office. The unemployment insurance office is in the suburbs and the Canada Manpower centre is downtown. There is no bus service between the two. Indeed, the unemployment insurance office is located on a busy thoroughfare. What happens? A man is laid off. Here, in one part of town, is the office which is supposed to help him find a job, help him make his application and see that he is presentable for an interview. The UIC office is on the outskirts of the city, miles away. And, as I have said, there is no claims assistance service in Sudbury; merely a factory-type operation.
Surely if we wish to make this program work we ought to offer proper counselling and help the unemployed person find a job, not necessarily in his own area but anywhere across Canada. If the rationale for this kind of payment was sound in the past, it is as sound today as it was then. It is probably more needed today. The step proposed is a retrograde one. The minister told us he had tried an experiment. As far as I am concerned the department never experimented much in my community. I never heard of anyone benefiting from it. It is difficult enough for people to get the pay the UIC owes them after they have been unemployed for six weeks.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) pointed out that no one gets paid in less than six weeks. Since he made that statement everyone has been coming to his door trying to prove to him that it is not six weeks but four. Even four weeks is a very long time for a person earning $6,000 a year to wait before receiving the payments which are due to him under programs to which he has contributed.
It is easy for people who earn between $26,000 and $30,000 a year, and for those who legislate and earn $34,000, to embark upon programs of restraint and say, "We will drop this group, or that group." There is something very odd about people earning salaries which are among the highest in the country deciding that a $6,000 a year person should not be entitled to a three week advance pay if he is in financial difficulties, or to assistance in finding work.
The nabobs of the Unemployment Insurance Commission who sit up there in the gallery and feed information to the minister, and give advice, most of it bad, think of the unemployed person as a statistic, not as a human being who must find a job and support a family. Many of them have never worked out in the working world with their hands. Many of them went straight from university to jobs in the administration. All the bumboys of the administration end up in the bureaucracy. These are the people who are saying to constituents of mine that they shall no longer enjoy certain benefits.
Unemployment Insurance Act
What wonderful workers we have in this country, Mr. Speaker. What incentive do they have to work for $6,000 a year with the cost of living as high as it is now? We are very fortunate to have workers of this kind, because certainly they have nothing to look forward to, and in many cases unemployment is not a matter of choice. It comes without being sought. Lo and behold, these are the persons who go to the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
The UIC should not be content simply to pay out benefits. It should be asking the question: how can we get these people back to work? The Commission should ascertain what skills these people have and offer them a program of assistance. This would be of more value than having them make an application, processing that application, and then sending the benefit control boys after the poor claimant. As it is, when a file has been processed they proceed to the next aspect; the leashes are untied, and there go the benefit control boys. I am sure they go to work to see how many disqualifications they can come up with in a day. I am sure they must work on a quota system; they must select groups for special attention by the control officers.
We are told from time to time in committee that the UIC has adopted a new approach-helping the claimant out of the maze. That was the fantastic sign I saw in an Unemployment Insurance Commission office. It said, "Let us help you out of the maze". Well, Mr. Speaker, I suspect claimants were deeper into the maze when they left that office than when they entered it, given the kind of program we have. Then they start on this kind of-


An hon. Member:: Vendetta?


John R. Rodriguez: Vendetta, if you wish to call it that. The minister has referred to it as part of the restraint program. As I said before, if the government is really interested in restraint, let it not pick this group of people as the first victims.
If we were really interested in saving money we could save a million dollars right off the bat by cancelling the increase in the wages of members and Senators which is due to come into effect in January.
The hon. member for Hamilton West talked about removing what he called disincentives. I do not think the little fellow at the bottom is exposed to any disincentives if we give him three weeks advance pay. Indeed this is likely to be one of the best ways of diverting money from the federal government to those in the low income sector. It might be the most efficient way of doing it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: You will hear it all again.


An hon. Member:: I didn't listen the first time.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I was persuaded to enter this debate by the remarks made by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


An hon. Member:: We will get him to withdraw.

December 16, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act


David Orlikow: I was surprised to hear him say he would vote against this amendment because he thought it would act as a disincentive to people who were unemployed, in other words, discourage them from going back to work. I get the impression-I hope I am wrong-that the hon. member and many of his friends really believe there are a large number of people who are unemployed and who are drawing unemployment insurance benefit although in fact they do not wish to work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Right on!


David Orlikow: The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) says "hear, hear". I do not suggest for one moment that there are people who are unemployed and drawing unemployment insurance although they do not want to work. If I or the hon. member for Provencher were to believe that, we would have to assume there are more people in Newfoundland ripping off the system than there are in Manitoba. Over 20 per cent of the people of Newfoundland are unemployed, and the situation is almost the same in New Brunswick. Are those people more rapacious than the people of Manitoba or Saskatchewan? I do not believe they are.
There is a larger percentage of people in Quebec east of Montreal who are unemployed than there are between Montreal and the Ontario border. Are they ripping off the system more than the people in Montreal? I do not believe that. In November of this year 734,000 people in Canada were unemployed. This means there were almost 200,000 more people unemployed last month than there were in November of 1974. Are all these people less interested in working than they were in November 1974? I would not accept that for a moment.
There is less unemployment in cities like Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, and Toronto than there is in that part of Thunder Bay represented by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), or in St. John's, Newfoundland, or in many other one industry towns. The reason for this is not that the people in these places are less desirous of finding work; they are unemployed because the economy does not work to their advantage.
Members of the official opposition have joined with us in criticizing the government over the number of housing starts in Canada, which is substantially lower than last year. The number of housing starts in the United States, which buys a large part of its lumber needs from Canada, is down dramatically.


Mr. Blais:: Is this a housing bill?


David Orlikow: If the hon. member would open his ears and listen for a change, instead of interjecting as he does so frequently, he would very quickly catch the point I am trying to make. I have not yet spoken for five minutes, Mr. Speaker, so I do not think I am abusing the time of the House. The fact is that the lumber industry is in a depression. This means that lumber workers in Canada, not just those in British Columbia which had an NDP government but those also in North Bay, are unemployed and are now

drawing unemployment insurance benefits. They want to work but the lumber market has gone soft. There were 750 miners in Sudbury recently laid off by Falconbridge and they are now drawing unemployment insurance benefits. They are unemployed because the international demand for metals like zinc, copper, and nickel has dropped.
I did say that in November 734,000 people were unemployed, but that figure is not a complete one. I do not blame Statistics Canada or the Department of Manpower and Immigration, but the fact is that we do not include our native people in our unemployment figures. I am sure I am not far wrong in saying that 80 per cent of our native people in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and northwestern Ontario are unemployed. I do not accept the suggestion of any hon. member, whether made inside or outside the House, that our native people do not want to work. The reason is that we have not developed programs that give them the opportunity to work.
When hon. members say they are opposed to this amendment because it will be a disincentive to work and will encourage people to stay on unemployment insurance, I say that in 95 per cent of the cases that is sheer nonsense. We would have full employment in Canada if the government set full employment as its objective. For the benefit of members who are so good at interjecting but so bad at making their own speech I shall not repeat the remarks I made last night when I quoted extensively a cabinet minister who had the fortune, or perhaps the misfortune, to be the manpower minister in 1971 when the last amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act were debated. At that time he bemoaned the fact that we had over 4 per cent unemployment, and he promised the people of Canada that the Liberal government would make as its major objective the decrease of unemployment. He said that figure was too high and was a disgrace for a country endowed with the resources Canada had.
We agreed with him at that time, yet today with the same Liberal government we have more than 7 per cent unemployment. Next year we could have between 7l/z per cent and 8 per cent unemployment, perhaps more because none of us has yet been able to calculate the effects of the anti-inflation program implemented by the government which will undoubtedly mean more unemployment.
I know it is unpopular to tell the truth these days; in times of difficulty people like to put the blame on to somebody else. I have heard many people who are employed say that people who are not working could do so if they wanted. I say that is not the case. Secondly, I say that if we had a government that believed in full employment and which provided programs to put people to work, the number of people who cannot find work would be reduced very markedly.
Let me close by suggesting to the minister that he examine a proposal being made by Senator Hubert Humphrey of the United States. He came within one half of the one per cent of the votes required to be elected president of the United States. He has introduced a bill in the United States Congress, which will be debated very shortly, and which if enacted would make it the responsibility of the U.S. government to see there is full employment in that country. If private industry cannot be induced to employ all people who want to work in the United States, then the U.S.
December 16, 1975

government would be responsible for devising programs to put these people to work.
The situation in the United States is much more serious than ours. Their depression has been much more severe than ours. If Senator Humphrey can propose full employment for the United States, surely we should be discussing, planning, and implementing proposals for full employment in Canada. We should not be passing bills which have as their basic principle the concept that large numbers of people in this country do not want to work, and that they have to be penalized and driven back to work, I suppose by hunger. I do not accept that argument and I think the minister is moving completely in the wrong direction.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to indicate that I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that we cannot support this amendment.
When we studied this matter in 1971 we pointed out our great reservations about this idea of the three-week period. At that time the period was increased from one week to two weeks, and the suggestion that the three weeks be used as a sort of a lump sum seemed to nullify the savings obtained by the change from one week to two weeks. By eliminating this change it would make the bill somewhat better as a truly insurance scheme, and should not in any way take away from the individual who is unemployed and genuinely seeking work. I think it is better if it is done this way.
It has been my experience that people living in rural areas have not had the opportunity of collecting unemployment insurance because of the application of the residency rules. This is obviously the result of officers, probably as a result of departmental prodding, attempting to hold the line. This is difficult to argue one way or the other, but certainly there are a great number of people paying unemployment insurance premiums who will not likely ever collect under these rules. That may be unfortunate but it is true. This change will make this a more true insurance scheme. Therefore I cannot agree with the amendment proposed by the hon. member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London-East)):: Is
the House ready for the question, which is on the motion by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), that Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 8?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Unemployment Insurance Act The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)): Pursuant to Section 2 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the hon. member's motion stands deferred.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. Is the House ready to proceed with motion No. 10, or would members prefer to call it six o'clock?


William Arnold Peters: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


David Orlikow: Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be amended in Clause 9 by striking out line 36 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"thereof and the extended benefit period (described in section 34) shall not exceed the maximum".


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in respect of motion No. 10, on the basis that the said motion excedes the Royal recommendation as contained in this particular bill. I draw your attention to the fact that motion No. 10 seeks to change Section 29 of the said act. Proposed sub-section (5) of Section 29 reads as follows:
"(5) Where benefits are claimed under this Act by reason of
(a)	pregnancy, or
(b)	any prescribed illness, injury or quarantine, or
(c)	pregnancy and any prescribed illness, injury or quarantine,
the maximum number of weeks for which such benefits may be paid in an initial benefit period and the re-established portion thereof shall not exceed the maximum number of weeks for which initial benefits may be paid pursuant to Table I of Schedule A."
Motion No. 10 seeks to amend that sub-section by adding at line 36 the words:
-thereof and the extended benefit period (described in section 34) shall not exceed the maximum.
Effectively what the amendment seeks to do is add an additional category, namely, a benefit that can be claimed not only during the initial benefit period or the re-established portion of that period, but also during the extended benefit period, and by allowing a claim for any extended benefit period this would infringe on the Royal recommendation.
What occurs is that presently one can obtain benefits if one is a female and pregnant for a period within the initial benefit period, but that benefit is not available during the extended benefit period as otherwise provided under the act. My submission is that the amendment proposed for making that extended period of benefit available to the claimant, namely 15 weeks, which otherwise would not be available under the present statute, would increase that particular benefit with a resulting additional impost or duty imposed on general revenue.
In effect there are a wide number of claimants who otherwise would not be eligible but now would become eligible. As an example, there are a number of members here, who make representations on behalf of their constituents.' Let us take the case of an applicant who makes

December 16, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
application for sick benefits which are only available now during the initial benefit period, and there is a determination that the initial benefit period has expired-therefore there are no sick benefits available to the claimant. Under this amendment the claimant would now seek to claim sick benefits and the possibility of benefits under the initial benefit period or reconstituted initial benefit period, but would not now have access to this. Under the proposed amendment in motion No. 10 the claimant would have access to the sick benefits to the full amount as indicated in Table 1 of Schedule A, being the full 15 weeks.
As another example, if the initial benefit period had expired, the claimant under the present statute would be entitled to that portion commensurate with the unexpired benefit period corresponding to Table 1. With the amendment the claimant would be entitled to the full benefit, namely, 15 weeks, although the portion of reconstituted initial benefit had expired, just as long as the claimant was entitled to the extended benefit period under Section 34.
I draw your attention in this instance to Citation 246 (3) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition which states in part:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all.. . not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
May I call it six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Once and for all it is six o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned for dinner I was citing sub-paragraph (3) of citation 246 in Beauchesne. I indicated that I was coming to the juicy part which reads in this way:
In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
I stress:
... if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication ...
In this instance the Royal recommendation sets out that this bill is authorized to provide in the manner prescribed for changes in qualifying periods, benefit periods, entitlement to benefits, and rates of benefits. One of the prescriptions is section 29, sub-section 5. There is an attempt by the government pursuant to the Royal recommendation to extend the benefits for sickness or pregnancy to those who are not only in the initial benefit period as previously, but also in the reconstituted benefit period. What motion No.

10 seeks to do is extend that entitlement not only to the 39 weeks under this particular bill but away out to the 51-weeks that would be available under the extended benefit period.
I simply want to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the cases I cited before dinner where there is an additional burden on the general revenue, as there would be in respect of this proposed amendment. It would entitle a greater number of individuals who otherwise would not have access to sickness or pregnancy benefits. In that sense it is not prescribed by the Royal recommendation and any attempt to deal with it infringes the rules and the precedents. It also infringes Standing Order 62 which speaks of this House not dealing with any measure or bill which does not contain an appropriate Royal recommendation. Inevitably the Royal recommendation in this instance which I have read to Your Honour does not include the extended benefit from 39 to 52 weeks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to impose on hon. members but it is my feeling that motion No. 10 has some procedural relation to motion No. 13. Unless members have different opinions I wonder whether the procedural discussion on both of these motions could not be taken at the same time, and then I would make my ruling.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the only point I wish to make is to draw your attention to the fact that, when we commenced the report stage of this bill, Mr. Speaker gave his view both in general terms and in specific terms concerning the report stage amendments. He found only two of them definitely out of order although he expressed his concern about a third one. The two he felt were out of order were motion No. 4 and motion No. 6. Then he said that he had some concern about motion No. 13. What he said, as reported at the bottom of the first column on page 10006 of Hansard, was in these words: "The remaining motions seem to be in order." A little later, when he was lining up the debating and voting on the motions, he said:
Motions 9, 10, 16, 21 and 22 ought to be discussed and voted on separately.
I am reading that from Hansard of yesterday. I realize that it is not part of the record, but he was good enough to send around to us his memorandum regarding the various motions and in that memorandum there is a reference to a string of motions, including motion No. 10, as appearing to be in order. I do not want to press that too hard. This was not a final decision, but certainly we started debate yesterday on the understanding that what Mr. Speaker said would apply, namely, that he would find it difficult to accept motions Nos. 4 and 6, and he would find some difficulty with motion 13, but that the remaining motions seemed to be in order. I think it is a little unfair to have that plan upset by this point of order being raised at this time.


Mr. Andras:: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais) has placed before us very cogently the reasons why motion No. 10 appears not to be acceptable. You, Mr. Speaker, have
December 16, 1975

made the suggestion that the principle, if accepted in our argument against motion No. 10, might also apply to motion No. 13. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has suggested that motion No. 10 was passed by in Mr. Speaker's comments yesterday but that motion No. 13 was identified as causing some doubt. I think the principle of unacceptability on motion No. 13 almost applies in exactly the same way to motion No. 10, and I do not think that one ruling could be consistent without applying to the other motion, as you have suggested.
In addition to the very significant reason placed before the House by the parliamentary secretary, I want to make another point. The parliamentary secretary has indicated that this motion makes the payment of sickness, pregnancy unemployment insurance benefits available in the-extend-ed benefit period, and all the arguments he made are absolutely correct. It widens the risk in time, and it also adds a financial burden to the benefit pay out by virtue of including those people whose payment entitlement would have ceased due to the fact that the re-established initial benefit period had lapsed.
There is another cogent reason as well. Section 136(2) (a) of the Unemployment Insurance Act as amended in 1971, to which there are no amendments whatsoever in Bill C-69, clearly indicates that the government bears the cost of all extended benefits paid, and while the threshold for the initial and re-established benefit period at which government costs take over has been amended in Bill C-69, there is no suggestion in the bill that the government not continue to pay the total cost of extended benefits. In technical terms, the wording of both motion No. 10 and motion No. 13 would have the effect of paying sickness and pregnancy benefits in the extended benefit period, therefore being a charge to the government cost which was not intended in the Unemployment Insurance Act, and indeed not at all contemplated in Bill C-69.
For this reason, in addition to the very significant reasons presented by the parliamentary secretary, I submit that both these motions are in fact not receivable.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have a clarification on two specific cases. One is the case of a gentleman who is working and whose job ceases. He receives benefits and two weeks later he suffers a heart attack, following which he receives sickness benefits. When these benefits run out, his doctor tells him that he is not sufficiently fit to go back to active work, but his job is waiting for him. On what does that fellow live? Does he get any benefits whatsoever?
The second case is that of a fellow who has a heart attack during his working hours. I know of two such specific cases. He is laid off and he receives sickness benefits. In the 15 weeks he is not able to go back to work, his doctor tells him that he is not well enough. The problem is that if he wants to go on pension, it is months before he can get it. What provisions are made to cover a case of this kind?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the point of order let me say that the clause which resulted in our motion No. 10, in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), is one in which the minister
Unemployment Insurance Act
recognized there was a problem. The act recognizes that there is a sickness provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act which permits claimants to collect up to 15 weeks of sickness benefits.
What we have attempted to do in this amendment is to extend the period so that a person may get the 15 weeks of sickness benefits and does not have to get them within 39 weeks. In effect, the minister pointed out the problem quite correctly. An injured person may, for example, receive 10 weeks of regular benefits and then return to work. If this person falls sick within the initial benefit period, his or her entitlement to sickness benefits is restricted to five weeks. When that situation occurs a person stands to forfeit several weeks of benefits to which he or she would be entitled.
What the minister has done with his amendment is to extend the initial benefit period by 10 weeks. But of course that does not solve the problem; it extends it. If a person under the act is entitled to 15 weeks of sickness benefits, what we have attempted to do is to say that he or she should be able to collect 15 weeks of sickness benefits, irrespective of whatever other claims he or she may have had on the fund.
That is the point of sickness benefits, to give people a replacement of their earnings because, as has been pointed out, what happens if a person runs out of weeks under the minister's present amendment and is short of, say, 10 weeks of sickness benefits? What do they do? Do they fall on the tender mercies of the welfare department? I say that the minister should not hide behind the formality of the act. If he wants to be Scrooge, let it be out in the open so we can vote on the amendment. I urge, Mr. Speaker, that you rule that this amendment is in order, and then members of the House can decide whether or not they want the act as amended.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think I am now in a position to make a judgment, unless hon. members want to pursue some further points.
With regard to the last point made by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), I should like to remind him that it is not the responsibility of the Chair to decide whether or not an act or a bill is just, or meets the requirements or standards which it was meant to achieve. The Chair is only here to try to judge as to whether or not a motion, or an amendment, or a bill is procedurally acceptable.
Of course the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) raised two specific cases on which the Chair cannot comment. This bill may in its application be sometimes unjust to some persons, but is not the responsibility of the Chair either to pass judgment on the act or interpret it. This has not been my concern.
In my opinion the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) did not make a very strong argument as to the acceptibility of both of these amendments, with the exception of the point he made about Mr. Speaker's comments with regard to the acceptability of motion No. 10. Of course the hon. member did mention that Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
December 16, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
Speaker further indicated that he had some reservation as to the acceptability of motion No. 13.
Perhaps it might be simpler for me to start with motion No. 13 in this case, taking into account the fact that Mr. Speaker has indicated a caveat or a reservation as to the acceptability of that motion. In making a decision on motion No. 13, I think hon. members will later come to the same conclusion I have on motion No. 10 because of the close relationship of one amendment to the other with regard to what they both seek to achieve.
In referring to motion No. 13, Mr. Speaker made the point that it sought to go beyond the scope of the bill which is before the House at this time. That is the only argument he made at that time, but the hon. member must understand that, at the outset of any report stage debate, after a general and rapid examination of the amendments the Chair makes suggestions on groupings and on the acceptability of some of the amendments. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and other hon. members would be the first to complain about a rigid decision at that time from the Chair without any hon. members having been heard. So I think that we can take the words of Mr. Speaker for what they are, and in the context of the time they were uttered to the House at the outset of the debate without precluding the rights of hon. members.
I am sure hon. members will agree with me that motion No. 13 suggests the elimination of subsection 36(1) of clause 11, which is really a section in the act and not in the bill in front of us, and that what the hon. member is trying to do is to eliminate a clause which has not been brought before the House for discussion or modification. If hon. members will take the time to read a citation in May's eighteenth Edition at page 508 they will find that an amendment is out of order if it is beyond the scope of a bill, irrelevant to the subject matter, or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration.
Clause 11 of the bill proposes to eliminate subsection 33(2), but there is no mention of subsection 36(1). On that ground alone I feel that motion No. 13 cannot be accepted. Although it was not mentioned by Mr. Speaker, the Chair had been concerned also about what would be achieved by the elimination of subsection 36(1), which is proposed in motion No. 13, but it had not noticed at that time that motion No. 10 was attempting to achieve the same purpose.
Because of the intricacy of the act and the difficulty for the Chair is seeing all the implications behind such a complicated piece of legislation, it was felt that instead of bringing it to the attention of hon. members early in the report stage in a procedural debate, the Chair should wait and at least invite hon. members to participate in a procedural argument when we came to motion No. 13. This debate has now come earlier because of the point of order raised by the hon. parliamentary secretary, and I am sure that even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who is well known for his competence in the interpretation and application of the rules of the House, and for identifying precedents upon which decisions can be made as to the acceptability of amendments, would argue with difficulty against the points which have been made by both the minister and the parliamentary secretary. The citation put

forward by the parliamentary secretary, citation 246 of Beauchesne, is very clear in paragraph 3, and I do not wish to read this paragraph again.
If some hon. member could have convinced me that these amendments would not bring a financial burden on the Crown, I would have been ready to let the motions come to a vote and to let the House decide. However, considering the basic principle by which a proposal, which definitely commits public money, has to be accompanied by a recommendation to support the expenditure of money, it is impossible for me to accept either of these amendments.
Just to be clear, because of everything I have said, which has been supported by arguments put forward by some hon. members and by the references to which I have referred, I declare that motions Nos. 10 and 13 are not acceptable.
We will proceed now to the consideration of motions Nos. 11 and 12 which are to be debated together and are to be disposed of by one vote on motion No. 11.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) moves:
Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be amended by deleting Clause 10.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) moves:
Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-69, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be amended by deleting Clause 10.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to be long with respect to my motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If I hear clapping from the other side I am likely to be extremely repetitious in terms of what I think is wrong in the thinking of the government when it comes to dealing with our senior citizens.
My motion once again registers extreme concern about the position the government, through its minister, is taking regarding our senior citizens. I am endeavouring to wipe out clause 10, with some sympathy from the minister who perhaps could show some compassion in this regard, but knowing he is involved with those in the bureaucracy who advise and counsel him, perhaps he cannot lean my way. I know that the minister has some sympathy in this regard.
What I should like to point out in reference to this particular clause is that in order to appease the senior citizens after having thrown them off the cliff, after having disenfranchised them regarding unemployment insurance, then the government wants to give them, as in the prior bill, a three week bonus. At the same time clause 10 amends section 31.(4) of the act to read:
Any benefit period established for a claimant under this part if not earlier terminated under this part terminates-
This is the important word, Mr. Speaker.
-terminates at the end of the week in which he attains the age of 65 years.
December 16, 1975

I say shame to that, Mr. Speaker. Look at the minister over there-his conscience must bother him.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It should.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If it does not, it should. These people have made a magnificent contribution to the development of this country.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, no!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As a result of it many of us are either standing at this particular instance, or sitting. This minister wants to cut them off-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -send them out to pasture.


An hon. Member:: Callous.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not know how the minister can sit there and smile.


An hon. Member:: That's easy; he's a Liberal.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have made my point with respect to this matter. I think it is wrong, unjust, callous-


An hon. Member:: Cruel.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is another good adjective-cruel. There is no compassion shown for our senior citizens who have done so much for our country. As I said before, the government wants to give prisoners who are incarcerated some sort of relief and bring them into the unemployment insurance picture after they are discharged from jail or the penitentiary.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I hear the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen). The government seems to have more compassion for those who are incarcerated than for those who are abiding by the law. I do not understand that, but I will not let the minister distract me from what I want to bring home to the government. Look at the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). He has his problems and I do not want him to disturb me because 1 do not want to disturb him. He has problems with Skyshops, with Air Canada, with air traffic controllers-I am glad he interjected. Let me tell him that it can never be said that we on this side are not concerned about safety. I will stop there and get back to my original point, Mr. Speaker.
The minister is intelligent but it is unfortunate that his intelligence does not show with respect to his portfolio.


An hon. Member:: He is sitting on it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I told the minister what I thought of this particular clause. He has played Scrooge for our senior citizens, and Santa Claus for the prisoners. We will not accept that attitude, and I know that the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) will have more to say about this. Our senior citizens have every right in the work force, not
Unemployment Insurance Act
because they enjoy work or that it is a hobby but because they have responsibilities to their families. As a result of the government's attitude toward inflation these are the people who are being hurt most by the high cost of living, by the two figure inflation. The government says they are not being forced out of work. All it wants them to do is not pay premiums and not draw benefits. I have not been so angry since I came here, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). He just had a little conference with his colleagues at the provincial level to see whether they would accept a human rights commission in principle. He should direct his attention to that and see whether legislation can be brought in to assist Bell Canada remove hate messages from the wires. That would be a service to this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Read their communique.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I will ask the minister a question about this tomorrow. On a matter of such seriousness I resent members of the front benches interjecting. When I am talking about the plight of our senior citizens they make light of it.
Why single out the senior citizens, Mr. Speaker? I direct that remark to the minister. We have the benefit control system, and if they are abusing the system they can be caught and let out of the system. Look at the minister smiling. There is something about him that reminds of Kojak, but I cannot think what it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Why pick on the senior citizens? Benefit control officers can find out if they are abusing the system and take steps to correct it, but why cut them off? In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, as I look at the handsome face of the Minister of Justice-


Erik Nielsen: You look at what?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I will not be much longer. As a matter of fact I will sit down right now and my colleague, the hon. member for Dauphin, will carry on, but I must say that we resent the attitude of the government regarding our senior citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since I sit across from more sedate cabinet ministers like the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), and my friend from Winnipeg, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson), perhaps I will find it easier to stay on the subject than did my friend, with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) facing him and interrupting his remarks.


Stanley Ronald Basford: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-

December 16, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Bas-ford) on a question of privilege.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I regard that remark as a very sad and unfair reflection both on my very good friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), and myself. We are both sedate, and I took the inference from the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that we were not. I think my friend would agree with me that we are both sedate.


An hon. Member:: Sedentary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the smile I just got from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I think only someone of his capacity could make an appropriate reply to that question of privilege so I will leave it to him to be dealt with later. As for the state of sedation of ministers opposite, perhaps we can leave them until they are 65, when they might be concerned.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: When we read that point we will be, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some of us need not worry about waiting for that point.
In debating motions Nos. 11 and 12 we are, in effect, discussing the other side of an issue we debated yesterday when discussing motions Nos. 1 and 2. In both cases the sponsors are the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). We are expressing our concern about the unfairness the government proposes to inflict on persons between 65 and 70 years of age. The debate yesterday revolved round the proposal to change that part of the Unemployment Insurance Act which permits those persons to contribute to unemployment insurance. Now we are debating changes in the act which will deny people between 65 and 70 years benefits under the act. In other words, the two provisions go together; and we suggest that they do a great disservice to Canadians between 65 and 70 years old. I speak of those in that particular age bracket because those 70 years old and more have already been excluded from the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance act, whereas this bill, as it now stands, will put those between 65 and 70 in the same category.
We all appreciated the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), who suggested that as the Unemployment Insurance Commission employs controls and methods to prevent people from abusing the act, if those controls can be applied to people in their thirties and forties they can be applied to workers between 65 and 70, and that it is unfair to single out persons over 65 years old who may be working and say to them, "You will not get benefits which other workers who happen to be one or two years younger are getting."


Mr. Bechard:: What about those over 70?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would take the same view. It so happens, if the hon. member is not aware of it, that his government a few years ago took this

right away from persons of 70 or over. The Unemployment Insurance Act in its original form had no upper age limit at all. Persons in the labour force had the rights of all other workers, regardless of age.


An hon. Member:: What were the benefits then?


Stanley Howard Knowles: They were a lot less than they are now. Really, I am waiting for my hon. friend to make a speech. He has put a good many words on Hansard in the course of this debate, but always from his seat.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: They do not pick up comments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know how he sounds sitting down. I wonder how he would sound on his feet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because we feel that certain parts of the bill are unfair and discriminate against workers on the basis of age, we feel that those portions of the amending bill should not be passed in their present form.
As I argued yesterday, much more needs to be done for people as they reach the age of retirement. At present we make retirement compulsory, whether people want to retire or can afford to do so. At the moment, 65 is the age of retirement. Surely it is possible for us to devise means whereby Canadians can retire when they want. That is why pensions ought to be available at age 60, although not universally as they are at age 65. I suggest that pensions ought to be available for those who choose to leave the labour market.
If people choose to stay in the labour market when they are between 60 and 65 years old, they should have the right to do so; but they should also have the right, throughout the decade 60 to 70 years of age to contribute to and draw benefits from the unemployment insurance legislation. It is as simple as that. As I say, yesterday we debated the paying inside of the proposition; now we are debating the benefit side of the same legislation.
I was twitting my hon. friend across the way a moment ago about his frequent remarks from his seat and saying I should like to hear him on his feet. That is just part of our exchanges back and forth here.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Hurrah, he is on his feet!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member opposite, for whom I harbour no animosity, wants to know what I think of the bill, he need only look at my speech on second reading. He was in the House, although I do not think any of his colleagues were. As the hon. member's leader said not long ago, we are the party in government and must show more responsibility.
December 16, 1975


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for having a second time in my speech provoked a point of order which, obviously, is not a point of order.


John R. Rodriguez: Obviously the hon. member opposite is not spending enough time in the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My referring to the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) was a preamble to my saying that the person from whom we really want to hear in this debate is the minister. Of course he may tell us that he spoke on second reading and appeared before the committee.
When we adopted the provision for report stage debate we provided for the mover of the motion to speak for 40 minutes, and the minister to reply for 40 minutes. Everybody else may speak only 20 minutes. We recognized that when a serious proposal is made by way of report stage amendment, the minister should be given a special opportunity to reply. He has said very little, yesterday and today, in this report stage debate, and he had nothing at all to say on the taking away of unemployment insurance protection from those aged 65 years and over, when we discussed the subject yesterday. I hope he will enter the debate today, or enter it at an early stage. No doubt he has arguments to advance in support of the validity of this measure; otherwise he would not bring it before us.
Having heard the arguments made by members of all parties in this House, to the effect that this provision should not stand, I invite the minister to enter the debate. And when I speak of all parties I remind him that the members of the Progressive Conservative party want to rescind the cancellation of benefits at age 65; we want to do it, too. My friends in the Social Credit party take the same position, and at least one Liberal member, the hon. member for Davenport, took this position openly yesterday. I understand that when the vote comes, several Liberals may vote with us. So, in all corners of the House members think this measure unfair, and I hope the Minister of Manpower and Immigration will say something to us about it.
Sir, as I said yesterday, we have come a long way in the decades I have been here in improving the lot of our older people, particularly in terms of pensions, medical care and housing. But that is no reason for taking away from them their right to be part of the work force, if that is their choice.
In removing the right to participate from workers over the age of 65 we are taking away a right which applies in the case of workers in a younger age bracket and I hope, therefore, that when the vote comes on these two motions, despite the fact that we are pretty well along the way, the House will this time decide that Canadians between the ages of 65 and 70 should remain eligible for participation in the unemployment insurance program. Surely that is their right.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has stated fairly well what all members of
Unemployment Insurance Act
the House think about the abolition of unemployment insurance benefits for individuals aged 65 or over and even 60 or over.
Mr. Speaker, workers are now paying their unemployment insurance contributions and I think they are entitled, as long as they have opportunities for employment, to those benefits if for one reason or another, they become unemployed. Pensions are denied to workers of 60. We have been advocating that in the House for some fifteen years, however, the government maintains it is unable to pay those pensions to individuals over 60. For purely financial reasons, it is suggested that at 65 people are unable to work. We have considerable evidence that some individuals of 65 or over even of 70 and up to 75 can still perform paying work which is considered as adequate. I have in mind the case of an 85-year-old Rouyn-Noranda man who was sawyer 40 or 50 years ago. Last year, a north western company needed such a man; they went and hired him at 85 years of age to continue to saw in this Rouyn-Noranda sawmill.
Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that any person of 85 can do the same thing. This citizen was not contributing at that time to unemployment insurance, because he was over the required age. However, nothing prevents a great number of persons, 65 to 70 years of age, to accomplish a sensible and essential task in many cases. While there are young people who cannot or will not assume working responsibilities, there are people 65, 66 or 67 years old who are employed.
Mr. Speaker, if these working people who are 65 and paying unemployment insurance premiums became unemployed while remaining able and willing to work, there is no reason why they should not be paid unemployment insurance benefits.
I feel that my colleague the hon. member for Kamouras-ka (Mr. Dionne) who is well informed about work and unemployment insurance has clearly expressed the position of the Social Credit Party on this unique legislation which the government has introduced in Parliament. And I sincerely believe that hon. members from both sides of the House want that citizens 65 years of age and over in their ridings be allowed to work if they want to. On the other hand if they decided not to stop working or to leave the labour market and receive some annuities or pensions, then it would be all right to discontinue payment of these benefits. Yet, if this citizen chooses to go on working rather than draw old age pension, the government should be respectful towards those Canadian citizens who are the agents of the normal development of our country with their own work. Instead of penalizing them when they reach the age of 65, let us grant then the right to decide by themselves about their work and their life and not by a unilateral act of the federal government.


William Gordon Ritchie: I should like to say a few words in connection with this amendment, Mr. Speaker. In effect what it is saying to the Unemployment Insurance Commission is that workers should retire at the age of 65-that they are not needed in the work force any more. I think this is a wrong attitude to take. Many workers over the age of 65 have important responsibilities. But the attitude of the Commission is: this is a bad-risk group so

December 16, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
let's get rid of them. It is rather like saying that all drivers under 25 are bad risks so they should be prevented from driving cars.
Approximately 25 per cent of the total cost of unemployment insurance consists of extended benefits. Those who continue working will still have to pay their share of the tax dollar wich goes to defray the cost of extended benefits. In effect, the right to pay in and take out is being denied to these older workers, but they will still have to pay through general taxation a sizeable portion of the cost of unemployment insurance. This is a serious mistake and I believe it will discourage older workers from remaining in the work force. Nevertheless, I think we are going to need them. A recent study conducted in England showed that older workers were, on the whole, more reliable and diligent than younger workers, and performed their duties better.
The thinking of the Unemployment Insurance Commission seems to be based on the fact that benefits drawn by members of this group amount to approximately $2,800 as against approximately $1,800 in the lower age groups. Some weight was also given to the idea that they were all getting approximately $1,000 a year from the Canada Pension Plan.
The question has been raised as to the effectiveness of benefit control officers in relation to the claims of older workers. Mr. Speaker, it is my experience that control officers are usually more severe with older workers than they are with youthful workers. If there is any discrimination on the part of the officials it is my experience that the older worker is discriminated against-he is often expected to meet conditions which do not seem to apply to younger workers.
If it were decided that unemployment insurance benefits ought not to be paid to those over 65 on the basis that they receive payments from the Canada Pension Plan, there is ;ln obvious way out. It is that the person concerned should not be obliged to accept Canada Pension Plan payments but would be permitted to remain in the work force, pay unemployment insurance, and receive benefits if he became unemployed and met the appropriate conditions. Thus he could remain in the work force while building up his Canada Pension Plan contributions.
I also take exception to the fact that severance pay is not given those who retire at 65. In the present act the cut-off age is 70. This really means that anyone who is unemployed in their sixty-fifth year will be denied the three weeks' severance pay, or a portion of it, and I think that is wrong. The argument is made that those over 70 have suffered the same experience, but in point of fact not too many people over 70 are working these days, whereas many people are still working when they reach 65. So the government is saving a week or two severance pay at the expense of these people, and this is not a good thing.
If there is to be severance pay, let everyone receive it equally, whether they are 65 or over. If they are 64 they should not be discriminated against in this regard.
I think this clause is ill-advised. It decreases the incentive of older workers to remain in the work force, with a consequent loss of productivity to the nation. This means

we lose the benefit of what age brings with it, namely, experience and reliability. Such a provision is prematurely removing people from the work force by making them no longer welcome.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to sound repetitious but some things have to be said again and again to the government, things that bear repeating. I do not know what it takes to get through to the bureacratic nabobs who advise the minister. Certainly there is not much use my directing my arguments to the minister; I have to direct them to the bureaucracy which is guiding the minister in his fight against inflation.
During committee study of the bill the minister and his bureaucrats put forward two basic reasons for dropping the 65 to 69 year olds from coverage under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The first reason given by the minister, which doubtless he will give again on third reading, was that the government has improved old age security, the Canada Pension Plan, and the guaranteed income supplement. In committee the minister admitted that the maximum a person could collect under these three plans would be about $3,000. The minister talks of the social security program as though it replaces the income of a 65 year old who has dependants.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has recognized that the Canada Pension Plan is only a supplement to private pensions that workers contribute to while employed. Less than 40 per cent of the workers of this country participate in a private pension plan, which means the great majority do not enjoy any kind of contributory pension plan.


William Arnold Peters: As a miner I had to join this place to get a pension.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) points out that as a miner he had to join the House of Commons so he could enjoy a pension plan. And what a pension plan it is! Certainly it is an incentive to come back here again and again.


William Arnold Peters: And we pay for it.


John R. Rodriguez: That is right. The government claims that its social security programs are a replacement for income, yet the health and welfare minister recognizes that the Canada Pension Plan is supplementary to pensions in the private sector. As I have pointed out, most workers do not have a private pension plan. When they reach 65, 66 or 67 they must continue to work instead of retiring. It is essential that they continue to seek work and try to earn a living in order to keep themselves and their families. After all, it is not unusual for a 65 year old to have dependants. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will have dependants when he is 65 so I am not talking about an unreal situation, though he will not have to worry about unemployment insurance.


An hon. Member:: He may in 1978.


John R. Rodriguez: Who knows. The government has
embarked on what it calls a restraint program. But against whom is its restraint directed? The government usually picks on those least able to defend themselves, the aged,
December 16, 1975

children, and women. It never picks on the rich and powerful. The government is going to announce shortly what it intends to do to fight inflation, but what bothers me about the government's fight against inflation is that it is always fought on the backs of the poor. We have seen this in the elimination from the Unemployment Insurance Act of the over 65 year olds. We have seen it in the proposal now before the House to eliminate the dependency rate. We have seen it in the proposal to eliminate advance payments. I point out that 70 per cent of those who collect unemployment insurance earn less than $6,000 a year, and it is against these poor people that these provisions are directed.
Although many of these arguments have been made before, it seems to me absolutely essential that they be made again and again. I have no respect for a government with the majority it has that uses its power in this way. The unemployment insurance program is a social program, not an insurance program at all. It is one of the most direct ways of transferring funds to those who earn the least amount.
I know one of my colleagues in the opposition also wishes to say a few words this evening, so at this point I will take my seat.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, during the few minutes we have left to discuss Bill C-69, which is very important for the class of workers over 65, let me, on behalf of the official opposition, ask the government to give benevolent consideration to citizens over 65. Many of them have come to see me in my constituency, and I am sure that similar representations have been made to government members, I would even say, to request government compassion, and to say how much they think it is important to defeat this amendment.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, and I sound the alarm at the last moment, because I am sure that hon. members from my province and from other provinces as well have made the same representations to beg for more understanding and compassion on the part of the government, which seems to be too hard on that class of people who not only deserve but are entitled to the continued enjoyment of unemployment insurance benefits. May I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, in the few seconds I have left, to appeal to the minister, to beg of him to understand the importance of being just towards them. My colleagues of the Social Credit Party, the NDP and the Progressive Conservative Party agree with me that it is unthinkable that we should stand alone on this side of the House, when I see people like the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy), who received representations from their ridings, but who did not even speak to this bill. Other hon. members on the government side did not even have the courage to ask the minister to understand. I see the hon. member for Laval-
Mr. Speaker, I know my time is limited, but allow me to cry out for help on behalf of those people of 65 or more. I ask the minister to understand the importance of cancelling this amendment that is unjust, discriminatory and unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for
Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, before-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Albert Béchard: You hear the members of the opposition: it is a perpetual muzzle-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. member for Joliette a question-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is difficult for the Chair to make a decision concerning a point of order. Because of the din, we did not hear anything on this side of the House.
I shall call upon the hon. member to present his point of order after we have disposed of various questions.
Order. It being 9.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings pursuant to the provisions of the order which was passed today so that the House may proceed to the deferred votes concerning any motion aimed at amending Bill C-69, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.

The question in on motion No. 1. Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.		
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Alexander) negatived.		
The House divided on motion No. 2 (Mr. Knowles (Win		
nipeg North Centre)) which was negatived on the follow ing division: (Division No. 90)
 YEAS Messrs.		
Alexander	Cadieu	ForrestallAlkenbrack	Caouette	FortinAllard	(Villeneuve)	FriesenBaker	Clarke	Gilbert(Grenville- C arleton)	(Vancouver Quadra)	HallidayBaldwin	Cossitt	HamiltonBalfour	Crouse	(Swift Current-Bawden	Darling	Maple Creek)Beatty	Dick	HargraveBeaudoin	Dionne	HeesBenjamin	(Kamouraska)	HnatyshynBlackburn	Douglas	HowieBreau	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-	HuntingtonBrewin	The Islands)	HurlburtBrisco	Epp	JarvisBroadbent	Fairweather	Jelinek
Abbott Allmand Anderson Andras (Port Arthur) Andres (Lincoln) Appolloni (Mrs.) Basford B^chard Begin (Miss)
++NAYS
Messrs.
Dupras
Duquet
Fleming
Flynn
Foster
Fox
Francis
Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier)
Gendron
Goodale
MacFarlane
Mackasey
Marceau
Marchand
(Kamloops-Cariboo)
Martin
Mclsaac
McRae
Milne
Munro
(Hamilton East)
Blais	Goyer	Nicholson (Miss)Blaker	Guay	O'ConnellBlouin	(St. Boniface)	OlivierBoulanger	Guay	ParentBuchanan	(Levis)	PearsallBussieres	Guilbault	PelletierCafik	Harquail	PennerCampagnolo (Mrs.)	Herbert	PhilbrookCampbell (Miss)	Holt (Mrs.)	Portelance(South Western Nova)	Hopkins	PoulinCampbell	Isabelle	Prud'homme(LaSalle-Fmard-Cote	Joyal	RailtonSaint-Paul)	Kaplan	RainesCaouette	Lachance	Reid(T6miscamingue)	Lajoie	RichardsonCaron	Lalonde	RobertsChretien	Landers	RobinsonClermont	Lang	RompkeyCollenette	Langlois	RoyComtois	Laniel	(Timmins)Condon	Lapointe	RoyCorbin	Leblanc	(Laval)Corriveau	(Laurier)	SaltsmanCote	LeBlanc	Sauv6 (Mrs.)Cullen	(Westmorland-Kent)	SharpCyr	Lee	SmithDanson	Lefebvre	(Saint-Jean)Daudlin	Loiselle	TessierDemers	(Chambly)	TrudeauDionne	Loiselle	Trudel(Northumberland-	(Saint-Henri)	TurnerMiramichi)	Lumley	(London East)Douglas	MacDonald	Watson(Bruce-Grey)	(Cardigan)	YanakisDupont	Macdonald (Rosedale)	Young-115


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.		
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The vote on motion No. 1 should have been announced as yeas, 74; nays, 127.

December 16, 1975

Unemployment Insurance Act
The question is now on motion No. 7, which by previous order and agreement is taken to be a vote on motions Nos. 8, 14 and 15 as well.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare motions 7, 8, 14 and 15 lost. Motion No. 7 (Mr. Alexander) negatived.
Motion No. 8 (Mr. Rodriguez) negatived.
Motion No. 14 (Mr. Alexander) negatived.
Motion No. 15 (Mr. Rodriguez) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 9, standing in the name of the honourable member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).
The House divided on motion No. 9 (Mr. Peters) which was negatived on the following division.
Allard
Beaudoin
Benjamin
Blackburn
Brewin
Broadbent
Caouette
(Villeneuve)
Caouette
(Temiscamingue)
(Division No. 92)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Dionne
(Kamouraska)
Douglas
(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Fortin Gilbert Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)
Lambert (Bellechasse) Leggatt Nystrom Orlikow Peters Rodriguez Rondeau Symes-21
Abbott
Alexander
Alkenbrack
Allmand
Anderson
Andras
(Port Arthur) Andres
(Lincoln)
Appolloni (Mrs.) Baker
(Grenville-Carleton) Baldwin Balfour Basford Bawden Beatty Bee hard Begin (Miss)
Blais
Blaker
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
++NAYS
Messrs.
Brisco
Buchanan
Bussi^res
Cadieu
Cafik
Campagnolo (Mrs.) Campbell (Miss)
(South Western Nova) Caron Chretien Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Clermont Collenette Comtois Condon Corbin Corriveau Cossitt Cote Crouse Cullen Cyr
Danson
Darling
Daudlin
Demers
Dick
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Douglas
(Bruce-Grey)
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Epp
Fairweather Fleming Flynn Forrestall Foster Fox Francis Friesen Gauthier (Ottawa-V anier)

December 16, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
Messrs.
Gendron	Lefebvre	PelletierGoodale	Loiselle	PennerGoyer	(Chambly)	PhilbrookGuay	Loiselle	Portelance(St. Boniface)	(Saint-Henri)	PoulinGuay	Lumley	Prud'homme(Levis)	MacDonald	RailtonGuilbault	(Cardigan)	RainesHalliday	MacDonald	ReidHamilton	(Egmont)	Reynolds(Swift Current-	Macdonald	RichardsonMaple Creek)	(Rosedale)	RobertsHargrave	MacFarlane	RobinsonHarquail	Mackasey	RocheHees	MacLean	RompkeyHerbert	Malone	RoyHnatyshyn	Marceau	(Timmins)Holt (Mrs.)	Marchand	RoyHopkins	(Kamloops-Cariboo) (Laval)	Howie	Marshall	RynardHuntington	Martin	SaltsmanHurlburt	McCain	Sauve (Mrs.)Isabelle	McGrath	SchellenbergerJarvis	Mclsaac	ScottJelinek	McKenzie	SharpJoyal	McKinley	SkoreykoKaplan	McKinnon	SmithKempling	McRae	(Churchill)Knowles	Milne	Smith(Norfolk-Haldimand)	Mitges	(Saint-Jean)Lachance	Muir	StanfieldLajoie	Munro	StewartLalonde	(Esquimalt-Saanich) (Marquette)	Lambert	Munro	Tessier(Edmonton West)	(Hamilton East)	TowersLanders	Murta	TrudeauLang	Neil	TrudelLanglois	Nicholson (Miss)	TurnerLaniel	Nielsen	(London East)Lapointe	O'Connell	WagnerLa Salle	Olivier	WatsonLeblanc	O'Sullivan	Whiteway(Laurier)	Paproski	WiseLeBlanc	Parent	Woolliams(Westmorland-Kent)	Patterson	YanakisLee	Pearsall	Young-178


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Motion No. 9 (Mr. Peters) negatived.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do so not to dispute any vote which has taken place but to seek your guidance in connection with future votes. I am referring to the fact that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) was not in his place at the time the Whips sat down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps members opposite would quieten down. It did not affect the outcome of the vote, but I cannot recall any instance since I have been here when a minister whose vote was recorded was not in his seat at the time the Whips took their seats, and since there is the possibility of dispute in the future over this kind of question, I seek your guidance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Hon. members over there can settle down for a moment. I am seeking guidance for future situations so that there may be no misunderstanding. I do not know whether the Minister of Justice has anything to say about

this tonight, but it might be helpful if Your Honour would inform the House as to the view of the Chair on this question. Must a member be in his place for a vote according to the traditions of this House when the two Whips sit down, or is moving around in the chamber after the Whips have taken their places in order?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) raising this matter in order, as he says, that Your Honour might give guidance to the House on this issue. I do not have the rule in front of me but I believe it says that members must be in the House at the time a vote is called. I want to assure honourable members that I was in the House. I apologize to Your Honour for not being in my place at the time you called the vote. I was discussing a matter of urgent public and state importance with the honourable member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have always regarded him with high esteem, and his conversation was so engaging that I apologize to Your Honour for not realizing you had called the vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) raises a point of order which certainly is worthy of consideration, and he is totally accurate when he indicates that I would not propose to deal with it at this time. The question of whether or not the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) was in the Chamber is one I noted carefully when the matter first arose. Certainly the minister was in the chamber at the time. However, there are clear restrictions against members moving about during the taking of a vote, the obvious reason being, of course, that members who move about during the taking of a vote even after casting their ballots make accuracy very difficult. Therefore respect for the rule is expected.
The Minister of Justice has apologized to the Chair for what is a very rare occurrence. Presumably it would affect the first vote; those thereafter I presume will be valid because the minister was properly in his seat. The Leader of the Opposition does not challenge the vote in any way; that is clear. The vote having once been taken and recorded, it cannot be challenged in any event. The Leader of the Opposition has asked the Chair to take the point of order under consideration. This I will be pleased to do and perhaps will reconsider it at a later time.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
December 16, 1975

Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to see the House vacating itself so quickly. I am aware of what happened in British Columbia last week, but I am delighted to see that some of my hon. friends are remaining.
This matter arises from a question asked of the former minister of the environment on November 14 dealing with the ecological effects of the tar sands development in Alberta. The minister answered a variety of questions over several days, and as reported at page 9016 of Hansard, she answered my question as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that we do not feel we have a conflict of interest. Quite to the contrary, it is precisely because we have some involvement in that project that any activity at that site falls within government policy, under which environmental impact studies must be produced to the satisfaction of the Department of the Environment.
That answer was given to protect the government from the allegation that, in view of the heavy investment made by the Government of Canada in the Alberta tar sands project, its ability to protect people of the area, in the Northwest Territories and in Saskatchewan, from the probable effect of excessive S02 emissions in developing the tar sands is inhibited.
My point in again raising the issue tonight is to get the government to come to grips with a serious ecological problem associated with that development, and also to challenge the abandonment by the government of any kind of ecological leadership, particularly in view of the recent decision to eliminate the Department of the Environment as a separate department, in a sense drowning it in the Department of Fisheries.
We have been concerned for some time, in this party and on this side of the House, with what appears to be an eroding attitude in respect of protection of the environment. In fact what we have been faced with is really a policy paralysis in ecological matters. When I and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) asked the government, specifically the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), to explain why the federal government had not yet had a representative on the board of directors of the tar sands project, and why no final agreement had been signed, his answer was that it had not been signed yet, but an agreement in principle had been reached on February 3 of this year.
During that ten-month period decisions which will have important environmental effects have been taken by the management committee which is running the day-to-day operations of the tar sands projects. One of these important decisions taken by management was to enter into an agreement with the Alberta government which allows the Syncrude project to emit 287 long tons of sulphur dioxide per day, in spite of the fact that experts within the Department of the Environment had said in 1974 that 140 long tons a day was an unrealistic figure, but that 40 long tons were O.K. in terms of existing technology.
If, as the minister says, the government has representation on the management committee which signed that agreement, I can only suggest that their impact on that
Adjournment Debate
important decision was ludicrously feeble, or that the government has given them inadequate direction or, worse, that the government does not really care about the environment when it interferes with making money on that project, at the expense of the health of the community.
Another possible explanation is that the leadership in the Department of the Environment has been confused or feeble in its ability to get its interests across to a Cabinet that is now hot in pursuit of energy and profit from the Syncrude project. Certainly confusion characterizes the answers we have received in this House about S02 emissions and the role Environment Canada had and should play in guaranteeing clean air and good health to the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta, who are now living under the threat of ecological disaster.
In answer to a series of questions I put to the then minister of the environment regarding national emission standards, the minister said that such standards were provincial matters. Later she said that any activity within Syncrude fell within standards established by the Department of the Environment.
The key question is, why have there been no emission standards taken or adopted as if there had been no environmental standards declared under the Clean Air Act? After the minister left her portfolio, and we now have a vacant portfolio, a declaration was made. It appeared in today's paper and has regard to asbestos fibre standards finally coming into force under the Clean Air Act. Yet significantly nothing has been done with regard to S02 emissions from the tar sands project.
Why is it that the government continues to drag its feet? In this case of the tar sands it must be a matter of justice not only being done but appearing to be done, and that conflict of interest we have charged the government with is now demonstrated by inactivity in terms of enforcing ecological standards in respect of the tar sands. Again the management committee, with federal representation, has agreed to standards which the Department of the Environment rejected a long time ago. This is a clear erosion of the kind of environmental standards to which Canadian people are entitled.
There is in the long term, and I think Mr. Maurice Strong said it recently, in times of economic uncertainty or economic recession, a tendency for the environment to be the first thing to go. The government has demonstrated a lack of leadership and a feebleness toward that subject which the people in the tar sands area, and indeed the people of Canada in general, are going to remember long unless significant change takes place very quickly.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond to my hon. friend this evening on behalf of the Acting Minister of the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc), and the parliamentary secretary. The former minister's statement in the House in response to questions by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), clearly indicated the approach we have taken with regard to this project.

December 16, 1975
Adjournment Debate
The government of Alberta, which has the primary responsibility for the control of air emissions from the Syncrude plant, has worked and continues to work in close co-operation with the department in ensuring an adequate and realistic assessment of the potential environmental impact of the project and the best means of effecting the controls found to be necessary.
The former minister tabled in the House in November, 1974, the department's review of the environmental assessment prepared by Syncrude for the Alberta Ministry of the Environment. I should note that the government of Alberta requested our review of the report, and this was in keeping with the spirit of co-operation that exists between the two governments in environmental matters. Both governments, not surprisingly, found the report deficient in a number of areas. A project of this magnitude using new processes has potential effects on all facets of the environment, and the preparation of an environmental assessment that will satisfy all questions posed by the scientific and technical community and the public is probably an unreachable goal, but is a goal that we will continue to strive for.
The department now has in operation an environmental assessment and review process to deal with major projects such as this involving government financing. The process is designed to avoid duplication of effort by utilizing assessments that may have been initiated by provincial governments, as is the case with Syncrude, where federal financial involvement was announced earlier this year.
We have taken steps to plug the gaps in scientific knowledge revealed by our review, with regard to the potential impact on the environment in the tar sands area. The $40 million joint program with the government of Alberta referred to earlier in the House is largely devoted to this task. However, by their very nature, such scientific studies require time. Even with such research completed, when one considers the complexities of ecological systems, we will still have uncertainties. It is because of such uncertainties that the policy of the department is to promote the prudent approach of containment at source, utilizing best practicable technology.
Our review of the environmental assessment prepared by Syncrude lead to the conclusion that practicable technology was available that could reduce emission of S02 substantially below that authorized by the Alberta government in July of 1973. The technical review by the department in 1974 was based upon limited technical information available at that time. Since that time, meetings with both Syncrude and the Alberta Department of the Environment have continued in order to exchange technical data which will allow for more precise technical assessments and the reconciliation of differing viewpoints as to the practicality of control methods. We fully expect that substantial reductions in sulphur dioxide emissions will result.
While direct discussions have continued between the department, the Alberta Department of the Environment, and Syncrude in order to assess the control approaches necessary, the department has also drawn to the attention of Energy, Mines and Resources, the lead federal agency in this project, the need to ensure that environmental safe-

guards are given appropriate consideration by the management committee in line with federal policies in regard to pollution control.


TRANSPORT-ARRANGEMENTS FOR SHIPPING WHEAT THROUGH PORT OF CHURCHILL
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, tonight I should like once again to raise the issue of the port of Churchill in terms of its potential capacity for grain shipment. I do not like to sound repetitive, but I feel it is necessary for me to speak on this topic again especially in light of the fact that those responsible on the government side have paid seemingly little attention to the half dozen other speeches I have made in this House concerning the port of Churchill.
It is indeed unfortunate that I must stand up time and time again to try to sell such a unique northern facility like Churchill, not only as a member of parliament for the Churchill constituency but foremost as a concerned citizen of northern Manitoba. I shall continue to haunt those sitting across from me so that in time they may see the light and buy the idea of a northern port being used to capacity.
When dealing with this great mid-Canada inland seaport, it is not difficult to see that Churchill has many positive aspects, due mainly to its geographical location, that make this port most conducive to the shipment of large quantities of grain. Churchill itself boasts a railhead, an airport suitable for jet service and, of course, the deep water port, well protected with direct access to the sea.
These are important characteristics which the government seems to ignore. The port of Churchill, for those who are not familiar with its climate, location, and facilities, provides Manitoba with a unique distinction among the prairie provinces because of its access to the sea. There are 3,065 feet of wharf, with five deep sea berths and one coastal berth. The climate is in itself a major factor which makes Churchill an ideal grain port. The present shipping season usually starts around July 20 and lasts for the duration of the summer months until October 20, and the winter throughout the rest of the year provides superlative storage conditions because of low temperatures and humidity.
As I have said on previous occasions, farmers from Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta benefit from the port because it provides ready access to European markets. Figures from the Canadian Grains Industry "Statistics Handbook '75" indicate the cost savings of shipping grain through the port of Churchill as opposed to other Canadian ports are indeed significant. To show just exactly how prairie farmers would benefit by moving grain through Churchill, I have the following examples.
To ship grain from Scott, Saskatchewan, to Rotterdam via Churchill rather than east coast ports, a saving of 32 cents per bushel would be realized. From Scott through Churchill as opposed to shipping through St. Lawrence ports would mean a saving of 18 cents a bushel. Churchill instead of Pacific coast ports would mean a 15 cent per bushel saving to the exporter.
December 16, 1975

You can see my point, the statistics speak for themselves. Besides its accessibility to European markets, Churchill has definite locational advantages with regard to Arctic supply and also the supply of possible pipeline materials and distribution. Churchill has been called "The Gateway to the Central Arctic".
Then there is the railway that links Churchill with its southern neighbours. Most of the railway that runs from the Pas to Churchill has been upgraded during the past few years to the point where it is now capable of handling light aluminum hopper cars which exist for transporting grain. CNR officials have informed me that at present their facilities are capable of handling between 30 and 40 million bushels of grain without difficulties. I feel that the Wheat Board should be forced to make maximum use of this line, and I would go as far as to say the CPR should be allowed running rights by CNR.
At present the facilities at Churchill can handle 5 million bushels of storage. Although the port has the capability of handling upward of 40 million bushels in a shipping season, only about 22 million bushels are actually exported. If the facilities were upgraded and expanded it would not be an exaggeration to say that up to 14 million bushels of grain could be handled each month during the three month season.
There are many other pertinent reasons that come to mind when I think of why the port facilities should be upgraded. From the perspective of the prairie grain farmer a great deal of money could be saved if the bulk of his grain could be shipped through Churchill. There is also the point of reducing overhead costs. By shipping 40 million bushels-remember that is double the current quantity that is moved through the port-the overhead costs could reciprocally be reduced. There is also the question of simple economics that further strengthens my conviction that Churchill should and could be used to peak capacity.
The port is the only bright prospect for the community of Churchill. In fact the port is an important part of the economy of the entire north. The federal government has invested a lot of money in Churchill to revitalize the community. What is needed, though, is an economic base to support the existing facilities, and additional funds to upgrade these facilities further.
The advantages of shipping grain through Churchill are easy enough to comprehend. Why then has the federal government not accepted the fact that there are these advantages? The people of central Canada cannot seem to get the government to understand, although we have been trying for long enough, but we cannot get the government to realize that we have a sea port in central Canada that has not been utilized to its full capabilities.
The estimates for the past year indicated that $12.5 million will be spent on the port of Churchill during the next four years. This amount will cover little more than maintenance. It is because of a lack of funds that port authorities cannot keep the port in operating condition. It is unfortunate that the government did not stick to its election promise.
Adjournment Debate


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


Cecil Morris Smith: Could I not finish, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: It has
expired.


Mr. McKinley:: One minute only.


Cecil Morris Smith: Thank you. Now that I have touched upon the reasons why the port of Churchill could become a more highly utilized terminal in terms of its capacity for grain movement, I feel I should make a few suggestions as to how the port could reach that state. At the port of Churchill the arrival and departure of ships should be better co-ordinated. At the present time the government does not see fit to co-ordinate the arrival of ships at the proper time. I feel that perhaps the government should be offering an incentive for grain handling ships to come into the port of Churchill, thus speeding up the movement of grain out of that port.
In closing I should like to say that I, for one, am convinced that Churchill could move double the amount of grain which is currently handled. For example, the shipping season this year opened July 23, but the first grain ship did not arrive in the port until August 18. The harbour board was still able to ship 22 million bushels of grain from August 18 to October 18. This proves beyond any doubt that Churchill could easily handle 40 million bushels of grain.
Henry Hudson discovered the bay which was named after him in 1610, and the site of Churchill was inhabited some 19 years later. One wonders-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Cecil Morris Smith: I just have two words, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: I am
sorry.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I very much enjoyed the contribution of my hon. friend this evening with respect to the port of Churchill. I, and many others on this side of the House, have had the opportunity of hearing him speak on this subject on previous occasions in the House, and I can assure him that his representations do not go unnoticed.
As the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) informed the House on December 12, it is always the object of the Canadian Wheat Board to ship as much grain as possible through Churchill. In the 1975 shipping season, as my hon. friend just mentioned, 22,710,000 bushels of grain, all of which was barley, was shipped from Churchill. Unfortunately, in both of the last two years shipments from Churchill have begun rather late in what is a short season. In 1974 the first vessel did not arrive until August 11, and this year it was August 15.

December 16, 1975
Adjournment Debate
While every effort is made by the Canadian Wheat Board to increase the level of shipments from Churchill, it must be recognized that the board as seller cannot dictate to buyers the type of grain they are to buy nor the port from which delivery is to be made. Buyers purchase grain out of Churchill only to the extent that it is economical for them to do so, taking into account the cost of financing their inventories, ocean freight, and the cost of marine insurance.
Churchill is ideally located to service western European markets, the U.S.S.K. and eastern Europe. However, shipments out of Churchill during August, September and October arrive at destinations during or just after Europe has harvested its own crop. The storage facilities of these buyers are full or nearly full at that time, and there are extra costs to them in financing stocks which are not required for consumption for several months. As a result, these buyers have some difficulty in utilizing Churchill as fully as we would wish.
The trend toward increasingly large vessels in the grain trade is another factor which affects the level of shipments from Churchill. On the other hand, there are definite advantages to the Churchill route, including the shorter rail haul, and others my hon. friend mentioned this evening. The Canadian Wheat Board is fully aware of these advantages and is continuing, and will continue to move as much grain for shipment from Churchill as possible.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-REQUEST FOR FUNDS FOR FRASER VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL PROGRAM
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, December 4, I pointed out to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) that the Fraser Valley was experiencing serious flooding, and areas were still in imminent danger.
Officials of the Department of the Environment have already informed me that inflation had completely eaten up the entire budget of the Fraser River Flood Control Program and that completion target dates had been put back to 1979-80. They mentioned also that the department had gone to the Treasury Board requesting further funding for this very important project. My question, therefore, to the President of the Treasury Board was as follows:
Will the minister give this high priority in view of the fact that a dike broke yesterday in the eastern part of Surrey and the South Westminster district is facing imminent flooding?
The answer was not only inadequate, in part it was also condescending and gratuitous. I am thankful he did allow that:
... when we are dealing with emergencies like that one, we take the necessary steps if we have to pay for our share of responsibilities.
That in itself is acceptable and encouraging. But then the minister went on to say:
I hope the hon. member will inform the leader of his party that he is pressing us to spend more money.
You bet I am! I make no apologies for that. When the needs that I have brought to the minister's attention cry for solution I will continue to press for funding.
[Mr. Goodale.)
The minister's answer brings into sharp focus the whole problem of the government's distorted priorities. I am talking about a community of 600 to 1,000 people who have endured a building freeze since 1968 because of poor drainage and sewage facilities. These people cannot get building permits to upgrade their homes because one or other of the levels of government has decided that money spent on proper drainage is not a good investment at this time. Meanwhile we get the latest model cash registers in the dining facilities here on Parliament Hill, and we get a $36,000 carpet to cover the marble floor in the parliamentary dining room.
I am talking about a community where the water table rises and falls with the tide but the flood boxes and the pumps are not working properly. Meanwhile, not too many miles away, the CBC is planning to erect a French T.V. station. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the people in Bridge-view would gladly sacrifice that TV station if only they could get proper drainage.
I am speaking of a community where the ditches are up to five or six feet deep, they are open, and they have algae in them. They are increasingly filled with water because the higher ground to the south of Bridgeview has been subdivided, and now all that run-off is bestowed on the people of Bridgeview. These ditches surround the community playground, are adjacent to the school and community centre, and parallel all the streets on which the children walk to school. There does not seem to be enough money to drain these ditches, but there is plenty to pay for the thousands of square feet of unused government leased office space across Canada.
I am speaking of a community that really does have a community spirit-where neighbours talk to each other and help each other out-where the community hall is a busy place both for social events, recreation, and business meetings. These people have an esprit de corps and sense of kinship as few communities have today. In a day when most people are so busy they have isolated themselves from each other, we find a community where people stick together. Adversity, I suppose, has done this for them.
The joint federal-provincial program to provide dikes and drainage for areas like this is already far behind where it ought to be. The provincial government has asked the municipality of Surrey to buy up the right of way to build and improve dikes. The municipality has kept its part of the bargain and proceeded to do this. Now they are told that funding has been cut, partly due to lack of federal funds. And now the minister says, "You are asking me to spend more money." I most certainly am. But I am asking for more than that.
I am asking for a re-ordering of priorities. I am asking the President of the Treasury Board to remember that we are not talking about asking people to wait for luxuries. We are talking about people and very fundamental needs that they have-needs like safety from flooding or drowning, needs like hygiene, needs like the opportunity to build up their community so they can be proud of it. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the municipality of Surrey is doing its part, the people are doing their part, and now they are waiting for the federal government to do its part.
December 16, 1975

In closing, as we are to hear from the all-purpose parliamentary secretary who tonight is covering for three different ministers, I suppose we could exchange him for a cassette tape recorder.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, my response this evening would have been somewhat more jovial if my hon. friend had refrained from making his last comment. Once again this evening I am responding on behalf of the Acting Minister of the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc).
The Fraser River Flood Control Agreement was signed on May 24, 1968, and at that time the estimated cost of the total program was $40 million and the cost to the federal government was $18 million. In 1974 the federal cabinet approved an increase in the federal contribution to $30.5 million, thereby almost doubling the available funding to this program.
Construction costs have increased rapidly in the lower British Columbia mainland area and this, along with demands from local authorities for improvements to drainage systems, has resulted in a further increase in the amount of money required to complete the work. Additional time will be needed as well, since the original agreement was to terminate on May 24, 1978.
As the former minister of the environment has already informed the House, Environment Canada has made a submission to Treasury Board for funds to cover federal-provincial cost-shared agreements on water programs. The department is working on a specific submission for fund-
Adjournment Debate
ing of the Fraser River diking project, consistent with approvals on this over-all program.
With probable financial constraints it will not be possible to provide complete protection to all parts of the valley, nor to correct inherent drainage problems in sparsely settled areas. Highest priority is being given to diking for the purpose of reducing possible loss of life and property damage. Environmental factors are also important, and conservation of areas important to wild life and fisheries and fish habitat must take precedence in some areas in determining dike locations.
Contributions to the Fraser project represent a large part of our total flood damage reduction program and are indicative of the high priority the federal government places on flood protection in the lower Fraser River Valley. It should interest the House to know that, with the works now currently under way and those already completed, a high level of flood protection is being provided to approximately 80 per cent of the residents of the lower Fraser who are subject to flood damage.
Provided that additional funds are made available, it will be possible to continue this work to reduce even further the flood damage potential of the Fraser River.
Environment Canada, at the same time, is also actively pursuing its flood damage reduction program jointly with provinces by providing flood risk mapping in the major population centres affected by flooding across the country. The department is also actively engaged in flood prevention works in Ontario, Saskatchewan, as well as British Columbia, and in planning studies which will lead to reduction in flood damage in Quebec and New Brunswick.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
10089

Wednesday, December 17, 1975