1977-07-07

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration, from Tuesday, July 5, of the motion of Mr. Cullen that Bill C-27, to establish a Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be read the third time and do pass; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, when I was on my feet on Tuesday of this week, speaking on the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to refer the whole question of the qualifying period back to the Standing Committee on Manpower and Immigration, that is, the work period required for people with minor attachment to the labour force to make them eligible for unemployment insurance, I mentioned the fact that after the committee had completed its deliberations I had written to all the premiers and major trade unions across the country. I thought that was the right thing to do for any member of the House who wanted to make some constructive suggestions on any bill at any stage.
When I was speaking last Tuesday, I read into the record the first letter I received, which was from the Premier of New Brunswick, Mr. Richard Hatfield, who, I believe, is a Conservative premier. He wrote a very honest letter, part of which 1 read into the record. I also read from the brief his views with respect to the report stage of the bill and committee hearings on it. I pointed out that Mr. Hatfield was concerned about the fact that there seems to be no meaningful consultation among the federal and provincial governments with respect to legislation. Mr. Hatfield pointed out that Bill C-27 and the superimposition of 54 regions with respect to unemployment insurance reflected this very dramatically.
The whole point he made was that the government always
responds in an ad hoc way to criticism of legislation. The
premier was particularly critical of the fact that while the
government recognized regionality in the amendment brought in by the minister whereby in three years a qualifying period of 14 weeks will be required before a person will be able to obtain insurance benefits, the opposite seemed to be true, and the premier said that amendment was unacceptable to his province and to his government. He raised the question as to whether the government expects regional disparities to disappear overnight in three years' time. Surely, if the argument for disparity exists now as a result of the inaction of the government, it will exist in three years' time. So why should the government propose the elimination of regionality? I admit that I do not share Mr. Hatfield's political ideology or philosophy, but I certainly appreciate his honesty and the manner in which he responded to an opposition member from this corner of the House. He was co-operative and informed me of the kind of thinking that is going on within his government.
In the committee the United Auto Workers very clearly outlined labour's response to Bill C-27. The message that came through loud and clear from the UAW was that this is not the time for the government to be tampering with the Unemployment Insurance Act, and that the government ought to be going about the business of stimulating the economy and introducing policies which will create employment opportunities. The government should not be blaming victims for their own predicament at this time. The UAW made a very moving appeal in its brief. The brief said, "We want jobs. We want employment opportunities". In a very emotional way, the UAW made the argument that the right to work is as basic to Canadians as the right to education, free speech or organization. I think this government has far too long used the unemployed and unemployment in its fight against inflation. The government has used the unemployed as scapegoats in its effort to remain in power. That is what this debate is about. The government thinks it can get off the horns of this dilemma easily, but 1 hope the people of Canada will focus on what is taking place in this House.
I hope the people of Canada will realize that unemployment does more to disunite the country that it does to unite it. For the last two days there have been many pious speeches and there has been much rhetoric about loving each other. It has been said that the way to solve our problems is to love each other. Suddenly we are going to have a national love-in, and that is supposed to cure the problem of disunity. The youth of Quebec are experiencing 16 per cent unemployment, while the national youth unemployment rate is 13.8 per cent. That is a great disincentive to unity. When one part of the country has a high youth unemployment rate, that is certainly a disrupting influence and is a cause for disunity.

July 7, 1977
Employment and Immigration
If the government really wants to put the boots to the separatists, it has to show the young people of this country that there is something to be gained from participating in federalism. Young people should be able to get jobs because of the initiatives of the central government. They should be assured that the central government is strong enough to direct the economy and to satisfy their aspirations and hopes in terms of employment opportunities. The government should be able to satisfy their dreams about material gain. Let us not forget that that is a very strong incentive these days. Hon. members opposite talk about incentive and about giving corporations incentive. When are they going to start talking about giving incentive to young, unemployed people and to the unemployed generally? Unemployed people want jobs so they can earn money to buy things that television tells them they are not complete without. The government should be providing jobs, not fiddling with the Unemployment Insurance Act and trying to tighten up when we are experiencing high unemployment.
In addition, last Tuesday I was discussing some of the serious problems within the country and hoping the government might zero in on those problems. One of our problems is that our country has developed a hinterland economy. I referred to Japanese-Canadian trade relations as a microcosm of the problem that faces Canada. I believe that problem was the reason for the visit of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to Japan some months ago. The problem is that 96 per cent of our exports to Japan are raw materials, while 95 per cent of our imports from Japan are finished products, primarily automotive products, cameras and electronic equipment. We have locked ourselves into the position of being producers of raw materials. Our people are hewers of wood and drawers of water. That is as it always has been. We mine raw materials and ship them out either in a semi-processed state or in a raw state. That is the experience in the area from which I come. We export raw materials and we export jobs along with them. We have no infrastructure for research and development. That is all found in the parent company countries. It is not found in Canada.
I am not the only one who is saying this. I am not an economist, and certainly not a corporate elitist, but it is interesting that as every day goes by we have more ammunition. We can pick up any paper or document, whether it be a Manpower publication or a private sector publication, and in those papers and documents we have ample ammunition for this debate on the question of employment in Canada. I would like to refer to an article which appeared in the Toronto Star of Monday, July 4, 1977. The article is headed "Lack of science means fewer jobs". This editorial quotes the chairman of the Science Council of Canada as saying:
Council Chairman Josef Kates says the impetus must come from governments, which account for 40 per cent of Canada's collective spending. And the main thrust must come from Ottawa, because the problem is national.
He was talking about the development of an industrial strategy to develop strong Canadian capabilities in science and technology; in other words, research and development. The article continues:

The areas in which Canadian know-how is weak, he says, touch every individual: housing, energy, natural resources extraction, communications and electrical transmission. Other areas, such as Arctic and oil sands technology, are ones in which Canadians should excel-and benefit from-but have been left to foreigners to develop and exploit.
The rewards for asserting what Kates calls "technological sovereignty" are many. "The economy will be strengthened, employment will be generated. We will have the capability to solve our own problems and adjust to change and we will strengthen the sense of Canada as a nation."
By failing to accept the challenge, Canada instead has a weak economy, high unemployment and a heavy reliance on outsiders to solve our problems and make our decisions.
Kates echoes the sentiments: "A selective 'buy-Canada' attitude should be reflected in policy formulation to ensure the long-term well-being of firms deemed essential to support technological sovereignty. Most industrialized countries have in place policies which favour indigenous companies over foreign firms."
There is more at risk than the loss of Canadian scientists, managers, entrepreneurs and other essential economic movers to the United States and elsewhere.
What's really at stake is the ability of Canadians to arrange their own economic affairs-and, by extension, their own political and cultural affairs-in a way that's best suited to Canadians rather than as an adaptation of somebody else's brain power.
That was the chairman of the Science Council of Canada speaking on the whole question of the need to develop Canadian technology, research and development. That is the very basis for creating an economy which will expand and provide jobs for the many gifted and talented young people our school systems are producing but who presently stay unemployed. Indeed, they cannot even find the necessary eight weeks of employment to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. Our amendment proposes that clauses 29 and 30, dealing with the qualifying period, should be referred back to the committee. We said this was a very serious step, moving from the eight-week minor attachment period to a regional rate that ranged from 10 to 14 weeks, depending on the unemployment rate in the 54 regions of Canada. We criticized this step because of the bureaucracy that will be needed. Members of parliament deal with unemployment problems every day and well know how complicated is the act. We can envisage the nightmare when 54 regions are superimposed on the act and the people who administer it have to sort out what the rate is on any given day and consider who has moved into the area, what their last address was, and so on.
Everything is blamed on the computer these days, not on the bureaucrats who put the information into the computer. Just as unemployment is the scapegoat for the inadequacies of this government, so is the computer the "fall guy', for the burea-crats. Even moving to the regional rate, going from the minimum 10 weeks to 14 weeks, depending on the rate of unemployment in a region, will place hardship on many of the unemployed who cannot find eight weeks's work, much less ten.
This matter was brought to our attention by L'Association des Travailleurs de Riviere du Loup who sent a brief to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration in which they pointed out that it is not easy for many people to
July 7, 1977

find work for those extra weeks. In fact, 9,205 people are registered with the local Manpower centre at Riviere du Loup, out of a potential labour force of 33,000. This means 30 per cent of the labour force is actively seeking work. The figures do not include those registered in Manpower training programs or those receiving social welfare assistance, even if they are able to work. They are a minority. Job opportunities in the community are very limited and people cannot even find eight weeks' work, much less the ten weeks that is being proposed.
The question of the importance of work has been discussed in this debate. Some would have us believe that people do not want to work today, that they are work-shy or are not interested in working. I disagree with this view. There has been talk of loss of the work ethic, but I do not believe this has happened at all. It is a fact, however, that the government does not have the ability, the foresight or the will to do things with the economy that would put people to work, so it finds all sorts of excuses for its lack of ability. To reinforce this, I should like to quote from a paper entitled "Jobs and poverty: a report on Canada's working poor", published in June, 1977, where the following passage appears:
Work means more to most people than simply making money. Above and beyond the income it produces, and the things money can buy, work brings self-respect and personal satisfaction and defines a person's position in his community and the wider society. Where and how we work strongly influences most aspects of our lives, from friendships we maintain and places we live, to the way we raise and educate our children. Along with the family, work is a core institution which provides order and meaning to our daily lives.
We see that for many people who are unemployed, and for the poor, work is a very important pastime because it gives them dignity and a sense of belonging in the community. I want to comment, now, on why the government felt it had to tamper with the qualifying period. The minister and his bureaucrats all said it was a disincentive to work.


Mr. Alexander:: You said all that before.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, when we were in committee-


Mr. Hogan:: You never seem to get the message.


John R. Rodriguez: We will give it to you now.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Oh, sit down.


John R. Rodriguez: The Canadian Labour Congress appeared before the committee and presented a brief. A rather interesting exchange took place between the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and Mr. Chafe who represented the congress.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't be selective; read it all.


John R. Rodriguez: I want to quote from the passage which related to the qualifying period, as follows:


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It has been brought to our attention that as a result of studies, whether or not we are talking about the comprehensive review, the eight-week eligibility period or qualifying period, as the case may be, was a disincentive. It has been pointed out that those who were working were really taking advantage of the act because they could have worked longer but in certain instances they did not, and the commission or the minister, as the case may be,
Employment and Immigration
found as well that when the benefits ran out, as a result of being involved with an eight-week eligibility period, it was not too long thereafter that these persons were able to acquire employment. Have you any reply to those, I believe, correct statements made by the minister.
The hon. member for Hamilton West thinks the eight-week minor attachment period is a disincentive to work, but he did not produce any facts to support that view. Mr. Chafe gave him what I consider an appropriate answer when he said:


Mr.   Chafe@: Well, Mr. Alexander, if I might deal first of all with the popular phrase "disincentives to work", in our view, having looked at most of the material that has been produced in this respect, that the studies we refer to, which were done largely by economists and people in the academic field, are not at all positive about that. In fact, there have been glaring inconsistencies in some of the studies done. One of them, in particular, was done on the basic premise that all unemployment is voluntary in the first place and he went from there to try to reach a conclusion that the new Unemployment Insurance Act of 1971 had a disincentive effect that would increase, I believe, the average unemployment rate by 1.5 per cent. To be quite blunt about it we think these studies that were done in that respect are far removed from reality, that the people who are doing them are largely doing it on a theoretical basis and that they know nothing about the realities of "joblessness".
There have been other indications of similar activity on the periphery of unemployment insurance and nobody, in our estimation, yet, has presented any kind of concrete proof whatsoever that the minor-attachment claimants, under the present act, are the perpetrators of all of the so-called difficulties that seem to be attributed to the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is a matter of record, with the Unemployment Insurance Commission, that the minor attachment claimants in the system are a minority of the claimants.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John R. Rodriguez: Who said no?


An hon. Member:: Everybody said no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) on a point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the hon. member did not know who said no, and so that there will be no mistake on the record, it was I, the hon. member for Hamilton West, who said "No" to the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: You should be ashamed of yourself.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which is now being discussed reads as follows:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That", and by substituting therefor the following words:
"Bill C-27 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration for the purpose of reconsidering clause 29 and 30 thereof."

July 7, 1977
Employment and Immigration
Realizing now that clauses 29 and 30 should be reviewed and amended, 1 consider this amendment should be supported and I will briefly state why it should be done.
To require that a claimant should have worked at least 12 weeks to be entitled to unemployment benefits is to lay a direct charge against the unemployed, leading us to believe that they are responsible for their own predicament. This new clause to the legislation proposed by the government directly affects the poorer workers since most workers who qualify with a minimum number of insurable weeks of employment are the following: the older workers, the less educated who keep their jobs for a shorter period, because available jobs are often for a short period. Students who do not wish to pursue their education and who, as a first experience, choose to work in the summer, find themselves unqualified for benefits due to this new provision, and so do the workers who pick fruit, vegetables or tobacco in various provinces of Canada.
This provision does not take any account of modern requirements in terms of personnel hiring in private, public or near public enterprises. More and more frequently, a business will need skilled workers for a short period of time. These skilled workers are generally hired for a specific type of work of short duration. The bill under consideration provides an increase from eight to twelve weeks of insurable employment to qualify for benefits. The government and its supporters want to make us believe that the majority of unemployed who qualify with a minimum of eight weeks of insurable employment are chronic unemployed.
It is obvious that with the provisions of this bill and many others, the government intends to make a viable enterprise with an insurance that eliminates factors involving the greatest insurance risks. A social legislation, such as the one which deals with unemployment insurance, should not be administered with the same standards which apply to private enterprise, especially when workers are footing the bill.
Over the first few years after its adoption, the Unemployment Insurance Act was in line with the economic requirements of the period. In spite of occasional tensions, the economy started to recover strongly in the post war period, and over the first few years of operation, the unemployment insurance scheme came out with a surplus. Through its 1971 amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, the government has considerably strayed from the basic principles of a truly social legislation, the purpose of which was mainly to redistribute incomes. By setting the eligibility minimum requirements at eight weeks of insurable employment, without taking either regions or type of employment into consideration, the government should have foreseen that the workers of richer areas would pay for workers of not so rich areas where the rate of unemployment is very high, due to seasonal unemployment. Over the past couple of years, however, the government has been compelled to supplement heavily the unemployment insurance fund. As a matter of fact, a high rate of employment and a dramatic reduction in the number of available jobs have considerably increased the deficit of the unemployment insurance fund.

Seasonal unemployment in some areas of Quebec such as the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspe peninsula rose slightly because of the lack of significant investments which could have reduced the unemployment rate by creating new jobs. Each winter, we experience a period of chronic unemployment and there are practically no jobs available for workers. In spite of this fact, the Unemployment Insurance Commission keeps disqualifying claimants who are not actively seeking jobs. This is nonsense, but unfortunately such are the results of this inadequate legislation.
This situation further deteriorated to the extent that in February 1977, there were 932,000 unemployed, according to Statistics Canada, an unemployment rate of 9.1 per cent which is a precedent in Canada since Statistics Canada started to compile data. Unemployment has so increased, both in scope and frequency that it has now become impossible to consider it as a risk in terms of an insurance. The unemployment problem is no longer a probability, but a cyclic and permanent reality. With this in mind, the whole philosophy that prevailed when the unemployment insurance plan was set up should be reconsidered and brought in line with the 1977 new conditions of a recessionary economy.
In adopting Bill C-69 in December, 1975, the government excluded claimants 65 years of age or over and repealed the section dealing with increased rate for breadwinners. Bill C-27 follows the same path in that it aims at disqualifying claimants who have worked 8 to 11 weeks while reducing the benefit period for all categories of workers. The objective of this bill is to save about $275 million, so that all claims can be paid out of the Unemployment Insurance fund without direct government intervention.
However, it is easy to understand that the real cause for unemployment is not the excessively large number of unemployed people who are entitled to benefits, but rather an oversupply of workers in an ailing economy. A jobless worker should not be considered as a lazy man but rather as a victim of present economic fluctuations. So, we must reorganize that sad system, that topsy-turvydom, and enable everyone who is willing to earn a living honourably to offer his services to employers capable of giving them jobs. There are so many things to be done in Canada! Generally, Bill C-27, even amended, clearly represents a step backwards as compared with the present act. Instead of improving it, every decision being taken is such as to make things tougher for the unemployed. That legislation comes at the wrong time since all government studies foresee an increase in unemployment.
Just about all the studies made by civil servants, at top and lower echelons, forecast higher rates of unemployment in coming months and years. So, in view of that, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), advised by officials of the government, decided to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and cancel the right of thousands of people to unemployment insurance benefits. To my mind, that is the wrong approach. Allow me to point out, in passing,-yes, I do want to point it out-that doing away with the rule on four consecutive weeks without benefits susceptible of interrupting
July 7, 1977

the period does improve slightly the present system. That may be the only improvement in the bill, because, as I stressed to the House, it took two years of work, a team of civil servants and another minister to understand at last that this article terminating a benefit period after a four-week non-qualifying period should be modified. Then it was realized that this would adversely affect workers who seek employment or who could accept a job to such an extent that several people in my area called me when they could get a job without knowing how long it would last. I advised them to stop during the third week or else the civil servants of the Unemployment Insurance Commission would terminate their benefit period. The act is so silly that we were sometimes forced to make suggestions so that people would not be deprived of income, not knowing for sure whether they could work three, four or five weeks at a time, when the unemployment rate is high. This qualifying requirement from 10 to 14 weeks of employment is an improvement in comparison with the initial legislation. It is nonetheless a definite step backwards in comparison with the present system which provides for a universal qualifying period of eight weeks of insurable employment.
Precise details will have to be incorporated into the final draft of the legislation such as entitlement conditions of a worker going from a low to a high unemployment area. I remember asking this question at the Standing Committee on Manpower and Immigration and the senior official of the department took a lot of time to answer me. He made quite a phraseology. He spoke for 15 minutes and could not tell what would happen to an unemployed man who would leave Gaspe-sie with a certain amount of weeks to see his friends or his parents in Toronto and he could not tell whether that man would have a chance to find himself a job. But once there, he is still unemployed. Would he still be eligible for unemployment benefits? Therefore, given the circumstances, it is absolutely essential that this piece of legislation be clarified so that it may be implemented.
What seems particularly alarming in this new way of assessing entitlement to unemployment benefits is the relative nature of statistics. By raising the entitlement conditions, the government eliminates many unemployed, which artificially reduces the unemployment rate, but I insist on the fact that it is only an artificial reduction. The result of this measure will be a longer qualifying period, which will make entitlement to benefits more difficult for people out of work who are not on the Manpower centres records.
A lot of people as well as various groups concerned with this legislative measure have addressed a number of briefs to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, for example groups of lawyers from the legal assistance services in the area of Sherbrooke, Montreal and particularly in the lower St. Lawrence area, from Riviere-du-Loup to the Gaspe peninsula. These people are constantly dealing with problems arising from this unduly complex legislation. Every Monday morning, at the commission's offices in Cabano and Riviere-du-Loup, I meet lawyers from the legal assistance
Employment and Immigration
offices in Cabano and Riviere-du-Loup who are there to defend unemployed people caught in a bind, and there are dozens of cases like that regularly. Why? Because we have a legislation which hardly applies at all. Agreed, the Unemployment Insurance Commission has paid out millions of dollars to unemployed people those last few years, there is no question about that, but why? Because there are thousands of unemployed people in Canada. But that is not a reason good enough to try and change the legislation to get rid of part of them, since they will still remain unemployed and have to resort to social assistance because they will have no other source of income. That is not the best way to run the affairs of the country in the interests of the workers in Canada. Most of them are willing to work and try to earn their living honourably. We must provide them with the chance to do so.
I would like to quote from the conclusion of a brief which has been prepared by representatives of the legal commission in my region. It says that finally, the unemployment insurance legislation was at the outset based on the principles of an insurance against a risk, namely the temporary and occasion-nal loss of one's job. With the development of the scheme, and more particularly with the extension brought about in the legislation in 1971, the government has changed it into a social legislation for redistributing the income of workers favoured with full employment to workers living in high unemployment areas.
We find it unacceptable that the government decide to change the current system by reducing the coverage at a time when the number of claims has risen dramatically among workers. The government should have considered increasing revenues rather than reducing benefits. Further, a true economy-priming policy would have reduced the number of claimants and boosted revenues. Keeping this in mind, and despite a few minor improvements such as extended right of appeal, and even with the amendments brought forward by the minister on April 26 last, Bill C-27 is a step backward. There may have been abuses, but the proposed remedy is out of proportion. It affects mainly those workers who have the largest exposure to unemployment, those in high unemployment areas.
I have in my files hundreds of cases of all kinds. This morning I dictated no fewer than ten letters, all pertaining to unemployment problems.
They originate in a UIC office in my area, either Riviere-du-Loup or Levis, and then go to the arbitration board and the Federal Court, always because of a badly drafted law. How can we then feel inclined to support such a legislation, when we know it will make things more difficult for the unemployed? We cannot. If I could cast 100 votes against it, I would.
Recently, the National Council of Welfare put out a brief concerning employment and poverty. I would like to quote from the last page of the brief, to give an idea of the interest taken by those people who follow the situation all over Canada. They know the problems. It is their job to take the public's opinion, to make surveys and try to make practical

July 7, 1977
Employment and Immigration
suggestions to the government. Here is the last sentence of their brief:
In Canada, 60 per cent of the poor are working, without being able to earn a decent living.
One can see that in addition, working conditions are difficult.
In a society which distributes a large part of its wealth on the basis of work, the plight of low-wage earners is shocking and unjustifiable. The latter have been deceived by work ethics and deprived of minimum fringe benefits and working conditions which most Canadians now consider as a right.
The kind of legislation now before us is not likely to improve the lot of those people. As long as they have the opportunity to work, their wages are not even adequate and they cannot draw unemployment insurance benefits whenever they are unemployed. It must be kept in mind that since their wages are not very high, the rate of their benefits are not either.
In the Montreal La Presse of Tuesday June 14, an article dealing with the brief I have just quoted reads as follows:
In a society which distributes a large part of its wealth on the basis of work, the council added, the plight of the poor is both terrible and inexcusable.
To meet the problems of low income people, the very first thing to do would be to develop a plan under which they would at least be garanteed an income at the poverty line. This is the very first step to take.
It is unfortunate that a real guaranteed income program, a real legislation which would ensure a guaranteed income to everybody, has not been brought forward in Parliament. We have heard about it for ten years and even more, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, (Mr. Lalonde) has occasionally put forward specific proposals which he intends to implement. This is a step in the right direction, but it is far from being a real legislation on guaranteed income which should be enforced in a country such as ours, which likes to distribute its wealth around the world-and I have no objection to it, I am quite willing to help those who face difficulties. But we, Canadians, should be clever enough to provide all Canadians with a standard of living that will enable them to look forward to the future with enough assurance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.

A nd more than five members having		risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.		
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg		
North Centre) which was negatived on		the following division:
(Division No. 72)
 YEAS Messrs.	
Beaudoin	Dionne	LapriseBlackburn	(Kamouraska)	LeggattBrewin	Gilbert	MuirBroadbent	Hogan	OrlikowCaouctte	Jones	Peters(Villeneuve)	Knowles	RodriguezCaouette	(Winnipeg	Rondeau(Temiscamingue)	North Centre)
NAYS Messrs.	Symes-19.Alexander	Friesen	MacFarlaneAndras	Gauthier	Martin(Port Arthur)	(Ottawa-Vanier)	MazankowskiAndres	Gendron	McCain(Lincoln)	Gillespie	McCleaveAppolloni (Mrs.)	Goodale	MclsaacBaker	Goyer	McKenzie(Gander-Twillingate)	Grafftey	McRaeBaker	Gray	Milne(Grenville-Carleton)	Guay	MunroBaldwin	(St. Boniface)	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Beatty	Guay	MunroBdgin (Miss)	(Ldvis)	(Hamilton East)Blais	Haidasz	NeilBlaker	Halliday	Nicholson (Miss)Blouin	Harquail	O'ConnellBoulanger	Herbert	OlivierBreau	Hnatyshyn	PaproskiBrisco	Hopkins	ParentBuchanan	Huntington	PattersonBussi&res	Isabelle	PearsallCaccia	Jamieson	PelletierCadieu	Jelinek	PhilbrookCafik	Johnston	Pigott (Mrs.)Campagnolo (Mrs.)	Joyal	PinardChrdtien	Kaplan	PortelanceClark	Kempling	Poulin(Rocky Mountain)	Knowles	RailtonClermont	(Norfolk-Haldimand)	RitchieCoates	Lajoie	RobertsCrosbie	Lalonde	RobinsonCullen	Lamontagne	RocheCyr	Landers	RooneyDanson	Lang	RynardDarling	Langlois	Sauve (Mrs.)Daudlin	Lapointe	SavardDawson	La Salle	ScottDe Band	Lavoie	SharpDick	Lawrence	SkoreykoDouglas	Leblanc	Smith(Bruce-Grey)	(Laurier)	(Saint-Jean)Drury	LeBlanc	StanfieldDuclos	(Westmorland-Kent)	StevensDupont	Lcfebvre	StolleryDupras	Loiselle	TessierEllis	(Chambly)	TowersElzinga	MacDonald	TrudelEpp	(Cardigan)	TurnerFairweather	Macdonald	WatsonFaulkner	(Rosedale)	WhitewayFleming	MacDonald (Miss)	WhittakerFox	(Kingston and the	WiseFrancis	Islands)	WoodMacEachen	Yanakis-141.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
July 7, 1977

The question, therefore, is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, we have returned now to the debate on third reading of the bill after what I think is an unfortunate lack of appreciation by hon. members of the advantages of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It is my hope, coming as I do from a depressed area in Canada, that further changes will be made to the bill.
It is odd that one can call part of Ontario a depressed area, because most people think the province has no problems. Nevertheless, in northern Ontario, in particular, unemployment insurance is very important to sections of the population which the government does not wish to support, namely, the class of people who are attached to the labour force in a limited way, not because that is their wish but because of the area in which they live. This is true, of course, of other areas of Canada. I was pleased to see that one or two members recognized their responsibility with regard to those areas and did something about it to bring about changes. To be fair to them, other hon. members may have no problem in this regard. It is probably a fact that many people with short-term attachment to the labour force are to be found in a large area of Canada, but not in a large number of ridings; therefore, the matter is of small concern to some.
We have contended during the debate on this bill that one part of it is excellent and another part deserves further study. That is the part to which we are very much opposed. It does not warrant our support. I am referring to the section of the act which would merge the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Manpower job placement officers of the Department of Manpower and Immigration. It is bad enough that many hon. members are not interested in the unemployment rate in Canada, but at least they could sit here quietly. I would appreciate it if they would leave, go on holiday, or do whatever they want.


Mr. Baldwin:: Where could we get better entertainment than this?


William Arnold Peters: I would appreciate it if they took themselves off somewhere else, because I intend to speak until one o'clock and also later today on this section of the act. Also, I intend to move an amendment, after which there will be a vote, and another vote after that. So if these members are just waiting around here for something to happen, it will not happen and they might as well go for lunch. I certainly would encourage them to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. There appear to be a lot of conversations. I suggest that hon. members wishing to carry on conversations go behind the curtains, into the lobby.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your assistance. As the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones)
Employment and Immigration
suggests, I will start over again. I may do just that, Mr. Speaker, and again and again. Nobody will be able to detect whether or not this is in order, with all the hubbub that is going on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: I was opposed in the first place to separating the unemployment section of the department from the employment section or job placement agency. Unlike the Conservatives, I am not too happy with the job placement agency in Canada-and that goes back to the time when I was a young lad looking for my first job. In those days one had to buy a job. Since I was too poor to buy a job, I had to get it another way, although it really was not very different. Seeing that everybody is so interested in what I have to say, and it is such a pleasant afternoon, I will be pleased to tell the House about it. When I went to look for a job, the logical place in northern Ontario to do so was in the mining industry. I accompanied my father to Timiskaming and I went to the job placement agency. In those days the job placement agency was a private company run by a one-armed bandit.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: That was literally the case. You had to pay, because that was how they operated. The government did not assist you in finding employment in those days. You made your payment. I do not know exactly what it was, but I gave him quite a story. I told him that I had come out of the bush- 1 had been working in the bush before Christmas, and this was around February-that I had been staying in a hotel and had a big bill to pay, that I owed the restaurant for meals and was pretty hard up. I said to him that I would certainly appreciate his help. He was kind enough to send me to one of the smaller mines, the last mine on the back road where the drifters went. Prior to that I had been to another mine. I knew the brother of the superintendent at that mine fairly well. I went to the bunkhouse and was interviewed, and I left without a job because the price of the job was a bottle of Black and White scotch every payday. I understand the superintendent collected that from almost everyone he hired. He lived for many years, and he died of an ailment of the liver. However, it took many years and many employees before that happened. I am sure other hon. members remember the depression and could tell similar stories about how jobs were obtained. Some of their stories might be better than mine. I was an employer before I started to work in the mines.


Mr. Trudel:: Now it comes out.


John R. Rodriguez: Free enterprise capitalist.


William Arnold Peters: I was an employer in a very small way. My father worked for the government. He was away most of the time and left a younger brother and me to run the farm. We had to hire people to help on the farm. I heard some fairly good sob stories which probably were true. Those stories

July 7, 1977
Employment and Immigration
indicated to me the indignation of looking for employment under those kinds of circumstances. I was very pleased when in 1940 the national employment service was established and the government started to assist in providing employment.


Mr. Jones:: They established a new bureaucracy.


William Arnold Peters: I am not sure whether that was the reason it was established. That is when we started getting unemployment insurance numbers which became substitutes for names. That service later developed in to our social security system. Numbers were more important than names. A name could be given and a file could not be found; but if a number was given, it could be found. A bureaucracy developed, and that was part of the problem. There were two sections of the national employment service. In one section people lined up and asked the agent if there were any jobs. It really did not matter very much in those days what the job was. If the agent had a job for digging ditches, you were supposed to take it. If you did not want the job, you were not able to draw benefits because the agent would not give you a slip to go over to the other section to get your benefits. If the agent did not have a job for you, he gave you a slip and you went to the unemployment insurance section.
At that section there was a card of about six inches by eight inches. The card indicated all your payments and how much they were, and on the reverse side there was a record of withdrawals. When you made a withdrawal, that amount was taken off, and your balance was so much. You knew when you were running out. You knew all the factors, and you knew how much you had been paid. You could talk to the girl at the desk. She had all that information, and you could argue and discuss the point. You could appeal decisions, or you could accept them. It was not a bad system. I would be prepared to go back to that system.
For some mucky-mucks that system meant line-ups-and if there is one thing people in Canada hate, it is a line-up. Every day in my office I do not have a line-up of people but I have a line-up of unemployment insurance problems. People can no longer line up and ask about unemployment insurance. They just wait and wait. They get in touch with their member of parliament, with their northern affairs officer or with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Those are unsatisfactory line-ups. They are 100 per cent more demoralizing than asking a girl to get your card to see whether you are entitled to any benefits. In days gone by, if you were entitled to benefits the girl at the counter handed the benefits over the counter in cash. You did not have to pay a premium at the local grocery store to have your cheque cashed. You did not have to pay a charge to cash your cheque at the local beer parlour or wherever you may have taken it. You got your money, and that was that. You were entitled to it, and you knew you were entitled to it. You knew how much you were entitled to, how much you paid in, what your balance was, and how long you could continue collecting.


John R. Rodriguez: There were no computers.


William Arnold Peters: There were no computers and no civil servants in the gallery. They did not exist. They did not have to exist. There were only a few, and they were very competent. As the years went by, the bureaucracy got bigger, but the people in that bureaucracy became less competent to handle individual problems. It is not that the commission does not have some very competent people, because it has-but who is appointed to deal with my claim, my question, or my request for information? I telephone the unemployment insurance office because I live 150 miles away from it. I phone the district office and ask about my claim. Who do I ask? I ask a young girl who was picked up off the street two or three days before and who does not know which office she is working for. She does not have the faintest idea about benefits or anything else, because she was the last one hired. Her superiors have not had time to talk to her. However, she answers the telephone and says, "I don't know" and hangs up. I ask for her name, and she says she does not have to give her name. She thinks I am asking for a date. Her mother told her not to make that kind of date, and the commission has not yet told her what to do. That is exactly what happens. We no longer have a situation where you can walk into the national employment office and be offered a job or not. In days gone by, if you were not offered a job you made a request for benefits. You either received benefits there and then, or you didn't. This happened every week when you turned up at the office. Nowadays, people appear only to make their presentations once a month to Canada Manpower so that they meet the requirements and are not taken off the rolls. They may be looking for jobs, but in my area looking for a job is a stupid thing to do. In my riding there are little towns of 200 people 50 and 75 miles from nowhere.


Gerald William Baldwin: What about their voting habits?


John R. Rodriguez: Some vote Conservative.


William Arnold Peters: Sometimes many people visit those little communities and some people work there, but in the winter season there are no jobs. The people know there are no jobs in those little communities. The tourist camps are closed, the restaurants are closed-everything in the community is closed, so people have obviously left.
We could discuss some of the other things that affect small communities. Maybe it is only because the minister does not know about small communities that he made some of these changes. But Sarnia is not such a large city that he could not look at the surrounding area. Surely he could drive to Oil Springs, Petrolia, Dresden, or some of the communities that have the same problems as those in my area. The last time 1 was in Oil City there was a dance hall and a motel. My cousin ran both of them, but he was pretty well living on the pogey. Maybe the minister should go out and look at that community. Petrolia is not much better off. Dresden is a nice little tourist town in the summertime, but in winter I think they must just sit around the fire and talk about the days when it was the end of the underground railway for runaway slaves from the
July 7, 1977

United States. Maybe the minister has never been there. I am sure that if he had, some of the rules made for unemployment insurance benefits would make no more sense to him than they do to me.
It has been decided that over a three-year period these two departments should come back together again. The people in my area are asking who is going to be bumped, red-circled, downgraded. Are the staffs to be integrated? Maybe one section should be eliminated.


John R. Rodriguez: Which one?


William Arnold Peters: I do not want to say that, because it is "damned if you do" and "damned if you don't." Maybe we could just lay everybody off and start again, hiring the good ones and leaving the bad ones out. I have a list of bad ones, if anybody wants it. I would start pretty high up the ladder, because every time I phone either the Manpower office or the unemployment insurance office, they are off on a coffee break. It is called a business meeting, but it lasts from Monday morning until late Friday afternoon.
When an individual wishes to deal with a government agency, we have a situation much like the saying that not only must justice be done but it must be seen to be done. If the minister were to take a survey of how many people in the country are satisfied with the operation of the unemployment insurance scheme and Manpower, 1 think unemployment insurance would come out on top. There are two Manpower offices in my area. One could have been eliminated a long time ago because most people do not even know it is there. In combining the operations of these two departments, the minister has not been very fair with the staffs in letting them know who will be redundant, and so on. I am asked questions about this quite often; but of course I do not have the information.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this wedding has taken place. I was violently opposed to the divorce. In my opinion, the split did not make any sense and I am pleased that the minister has suggested combining the agencies. The operation of the unemployment insurance fund should be viewed in a light different light from the operation of other departments of government. Money contributed by the individual and the employer, with some from the government for administration costs, is entrusted to the UIC. These moneys are handled rather loosely. I think we have an obligation to handle them better.
I have always had a good relationship with the top management of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, Mr. Speaker, because I am interested in what they are doing. I know some of the practical difficulties that can arise from legislation and many times modifications and changes have been as a result of my suggestions. 1 am sure this is also true in respect of other members. We are directly involved in the business of the commission and are obviously in a position to assist. I think it is safe to say that over the last ten years at least three or four hours each day have been devoted by one member of my staff to unemployment insurance problems. If that is true for other members as well, it means that approxi-
Employment and Immigration
mately 150 people, in effect, work for the Unemployment Insurance Commission at no expense to the commission.
It is apparent, Mr. Speaker, that the new legislation will make the collection of unemployment insurance a complicated process. Under the previous act a man knew exactly where he stood. Under this act, a claimant will go for benefits and will confront a situation like this, "Mr. Jones, you are not entitled to any money because you have used all your benefits, you have not worked long enough, or your contributions were not large enough", and so on. Or, if the worst comes to the worst, the claimant will be called to apply again, or will be told he can appeal his case or submit a new application, and so on. He will return to square one.
Mr. Speaker, the old system was not so complicated, and I suggest members of parliament are out of their cotton-picking minds when they make this process so complicated. Under the old system, you were not accused of not looking for work. The UIC people did not say to you, "Do you have transportation?" These factors entered into the question and were given their due weight. You were interviewed, and at the interview it was determined whether you were eligible for UIC benefits. If you were eligible, you were given a slip which you took to the benefits section and collected benefits. The process was relatively simple. Now it is to be a puzzle.
What is more, you came face to face with the employees of UIC, and if they did not treat you politely you could threaten them with a poke in the nose. Occasionally some of them got a poke in the nose because people got mad. It seems to me that we are now complicating this process beyond all reason and without justification. Or perhaps the government wants to create more employment for unemployment insurance, Manpower and Immigration civil servants. Perhaps it wants to expand the civil service and can justify the expansion only by making this bill more complicated.
The minister has not thought through the ramifications of certain variables included in the bill. The minister comes from an area where times have been good. The government Crown corporation, Polymer, prospered. It was located in Sarnia where jobs were plentiful. Polymer was a good Crown corporation.


John R. Rodriguez: But Polysar is in deep trouble.


William Arnold Peters: I grant you that. Nevertheless, Polymer was good for Sarnia. It employed many people at high wages. Perhaps there was little unemployment in the minister's area. Let me ask him this question: Will a small pocket of unemployment in an area otherwise prosperous affect the over-all unemployment rate of the region? I suppose the bright young executives the government likes to hire would feed such questions into the computer. If you ask it the right questions, the computer can answer in seconds. On the other hand, if things go wrong the computer could take weeks or even months to answer.

July 7, 1977

Say a plant goes bankrupt in a small town and lays off its entire work force. You could have a pocket of high unemployment in an area otherwise prosperous. Would the computer take this pocket of unemployment into account? Would that affect the over-all standing of the region? Would regional unemployment benefit levels be affected? What would happen if unemployment in Oil Springs and Petrolia were high, but at low levels in Sarnia? Would the high level of employment in Sarnia affect the eligibility of people in Oil Springs and Petrolia for extended benefits? Will the standing of the general region be affected? There may not be much unemployment in Sarnia; I do not know; I have not been there for some time. I can ask relatives about conditions in the area; I have many relatives there.


An hon. Member:: In the hotel?


William Arnold Peters: No, the hotel burned down some time ago. That relative retired. He went to Sudbury.


John R. Rodriguez: Another capitalist.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about what would happen if unemployment in Oil Springs, say, were high at a time when unemployment in Sarnia was low. I think 1 have made my point. I suppose the government would feed the problem into the computer. 1 am concerned about the people of Kirkland Lake who face major problems. About 1,000 have been laid off in the area, one of the largest gold mines having closed. Their lumber industry is hurt, and other resource-based industries are badly hit. It seems to me we should make conditions easier in these areas.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The terms of reference for the inquiry into the RCMP are silent in the one area which has been of great concern to the House of Commons and to the

public-the question of the quality of the political responsibility for the RCMP exercised by past Ministers, and the implications of that responsibility or lack of it for the constitutionally essential doctrine of ministerial responsibility.
I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty):
That in the opinion of this House the terms of reference for the Royal Commission into the operations of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, established under the Inquiries Act, should be amended by
(1)	adding after the last "whereas" clause the following: "and Whereas it is essential that this inquiry demonstrate that proper ministerial accountability for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has been exercised in the past, and that proper procedures exist for exercising full ministerial responsibility at present and in the future;" and
(2)	by adding at the end the "Therefore" clause after paragraph (c) the following paragraph:
"(d) to investigate and report on the manner in which Solicitors General have exercised their constitutional obligation to supervise fully the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and report thereon to the Parliament of Canada."


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43 unanimous consent is required before such a motion can be presented. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSED CHANGE IN TERMS OF REFERENCE OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I expect the same fate will befall my proposal.
Considering that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Lee) told the House on June 15, 1976 that an investigation into the RCMP break-in in the fall of 1972 had been completed, presumably to the satisfaction of the government, and considering there is conflicting testimony as to the degree of knowledge possessed by the then solicitor general in 1972 pertaining to this break-in, and considering that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated in the House on June 20 and June 22 of this year that he was concerned about the political accountability aspect of RCMP activities, and, finally, in order to avoid the implication that the Royal Commission announced yesterday will have as its sole purpose the making of a scapegoat of the RCMP, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instruct the government to change the terms of reference of the Royal Commission to include an additional clause (d) to read:
(d) To investigate and report on the adequacy of accountability procedures designed to ensure effective authority over the RCMP by the elected government of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
July 7, 1977

[ Translation]


INDUSTRY
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, 1 ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion requesting immediate action as regards the shoe industry in Canada.
Considering that the Anti-dumping Tribunal which is now examining the situation of this industry in Canada agreed to present an interim report next week on a specific category of shoes and considering the urgency for all shoe manufacturers to know the specific steps that will be taken by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in this very important sector and considering finally that the complete report of the tribunal will be tabled next fall only, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the House urge the ministers responsible for the importation of shoes, namely the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), to ask the Anti-dumping Tribunal to give next week a general idea of government measures to prevent the closing of our Canadian plants.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the International Joint Commission is expected to table its final report on the Garrison diversion project this month, and in light of the serious ramifications of this report for Canadian wildlife and waterways, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis):
That this House direct the soon-to-be released final report to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for examination and review so that members of this parliament and the people of this country might be assured that Canada's interests in general and Manitoba's interests in particular have been protected.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, presentation
of such a motion for debate can be done only with the
unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
Anti-Inflation Board


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43 which I am sure is sufficiently moderate to command the support of hon. members opposite. The urgent and pressing circumstances arise from the facts leading to the appointment of the commission of inquiry into the RCMP. These revelations, the last of a number of cases affecting government departments, expose the myth of ministerial responsibility and establish that many ministers have been either duped or kept in ignorance or were deliberately deceiving parliament and the people. Therefore, I move:
That this House demands that the government develop a method of true accountability to parliament and the people, and in particular should immediately provide an appendix to the green paper on public access to government documents which would eliminate the mockery of ministerial responsibility as a reason for rejecting a review process when governments refuse to disclose information.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ANTI-INFLATION BOARD CONDEMNATION OF EXPENDITURE ON TAKING POLLS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the eight page ad placed by the Anti-Inflation Board in the latest issue of Saturday Night and the unnecessary expenditure of $15,000 for government propaganda, and in view of the fact that this propaganda includes a poll on issues supposedly related to inflation, I move:
That this House condemns the unnecessary propaganda expenditures by the government of Canada and its continuing reliance on formulating federal policies by taking polls.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

July 7, 1977
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but two minutes ago we received notice that he will make a statement on motions. Therefore, I will direct my question to the Solicitor General. The terms of reference of the judicial commission of inquiry into the RCMP are narrow, restrictive and inadequate. Therefore, I should like to ask the Solicitor General if he would undertake to expand the mandate of the MacDonald Commission to formally require a complete investigation of ministerial actions and ministerial responsibilities with respect to the interface between the national government and our national police force?
[ Translation]


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Of course, more will be needed than merely stating the terms of reference. In fact, the mandate entrusted by this government to the commission of inquiry is extremely broad. One need but read it, and perhaps in some cases reread it, to see that the commission of inquiry is really authorized to look into all allegations of illegal and criminal activities, and pursue them from one link to the other all the way down the line, provided of course there is a line. 1 have absolutely no intention, at this stage, Mr. Speaker, of broadening a mandate that is quite wide enough to allow the commission to receive, study and understand all the allegations which may be made, far-fetched, founded as they may be, against the RCMP.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the minister well knows that the only people who think those terms of reference are large enough to adequately look into the question of ministerial responsibility are himself, his partisans and other people who might have something to protect. What is surprising to us is that the Prime Minister of this government, in the House on May 24-


An hon. Member:: He is the Prime Minister of this country.


Charles Joseph Clark: I did not know that the government wanted to renounce him so quickly, but even if they do not the country will as soon as an opportunity arises. Since the Prime Minister on May 24 stated in the House that in respect of activities of the RCMP "the principle of ministerial responsibility applies", and since the Solicitor General has also himself stated that under the Official Secrets Act he is required to "approve in a certain number of cases the operations of the RCMP security service", I should like to ask the Solicitor General why the government will admit ministerial responsibility in theory yet

deny a specific mandate to inquire as to how it was exercised in this particular case.
[ Translation]


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is referring to the Official Secrets Act. Some powers are given to me by that act. It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that the Official Secrets Act speaks for itself. I have no comments to make on that. The powers are explicit. Everyone is aware of them. With regard to ministerial responsibility, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is completely obvious, simply in the light of my statement yesterday as well as previous statements in the House, that on this side of the House, not only do we accept but we have been, for some time now, living up to the principle of ministerial responsibility.


NUMBER OF ILLEGAL ACTIONS IN WHICH FORCE INVOLVED, PERIOD OF TIME COVERED AND MINISTERIAL KNOWLEDGE OF THEM
Charles Joseph Clark: What is clear, Mr. Speaker, is that if these ministers can find any way at all to evade responsibility and to blame their public servants, they will do it. In his statement to the House yesterday the Solicitor General stated that he had been informed by the commissioner of the RCMP that some members of the RCMP, to quote the minister, "in the dispatch of their responsibility to protect national security could well have used methods or could have been involved in actions which were neither authorized nor provided for by law". With respect to this important admission by the commissioner, I should like to ask the Solicitor General how many illegal actions the RCMP have been involved in, over what period of time have they occurred, and to what degree did any minister have any knowledge of any aspect of investigations which involved illegal activities.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed much difficulty understanding the question the Leader of the Opposition is asking. Nearly every day over the past month or month and a half, the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues have moved motion after motion under Standing Order 43, seeking an impartial inquiry. As a matter of fact, when I made my statement in the House on June 17 last, 1 was told that the word of the Solicitor General of Canada was not enough, that an impartial inquiry was needed. Opposition members wanted an impartial and independent inquiry, well, they have it now, and it should provide all the answers the Leader of the Opposition has been seeking.


Charles Joseph Clark: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister protests with all the vigour we have become accustomed to in place of answers to questions. What I asked him related to the information he received from the commissioner, and in particular I wanted to know whether any minister had any knowledge of any aspect of any investigation which involved illegal actions, and whether that is now known



July 7, 1977

to the Solicitor General of Canada. If it is, would he advise the House of Commons that there were cases of this kind, and would he advise the House of Commons how many illegal actions the RCMP is believed by their commissioner to have been involved in, over what period of time they have occurred and under what ministers they have occurred?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as you and hon. members know, until June 17 last we took the position that the incident was of an extraordinary nature, an isolated case, indeed a very unusual one.
Since then we have learned, as I indicated in my statement in the House yesterday, that we had good reason to believe that there were perhaps other cases where the RCMP resorted to illegal practices, which I think fully justifies the establishment of a commission of inquiry.
The commission of inquiry will have to cast the light entirely and completely on the allegations, Mr. Speaker, but so far there is no indication that any minister of the Crown is involved in any way in the facts alleged.


PROPOSED INQUIRY BY COMMITTEE INTO DEGREE OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR FORCE
Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Having in mind the slippery nature of the answers given-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: -and having in mind that the contents of the minister's statement made yesterday completely sweep away and destroy the basis on which the government's case has been rested in the last month on this issue, I should like to ask the minister, on this question of ministerial responsibility which, if I understand anything, means responsibility to the House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: -if the government will not yield to the reasonable suggestion of the leader of our party to have an inquiry into this question of responsibility and let a committee of the House find out to what extent, if at all, the members of the government have been deceiving parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: While there is a rule in the House by which we accept what is said in the House, there are many people outside the House who are skeptical about the rule, are not bound by it, and do not feel the same way about it as we are compelled to feel here.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, of course if the hon. member wants to talk of slippery slope, I would remind him that not long ago the opposition accused us
Oral Questions
of having a police state within the government and of setting up a list of enemies, according to their own words. Conversely, they say there is no political control over the RCMP at present. There is indeed a slippery slope, but in my opinion within the opposition itself. As for ministerial responsibility, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the commission of inquiry has all the necessary powers to establish whether or not there were criminal activities and consequently to find out if there has been any cover-up or some other doubtful activities.
Mr. Speaker, the best way to discuss those allegations is not to submit them to a parliamentary committee, with all due respect we should have for these institutions-and I profess a lot of respect for them-because that kind of procedure might give rise to sectarian attitudes. Mr. Speaker, I think that the reputation of the RCMP should be discussed outside the polical arena and it deserves to be judged in a fair and independent way as we proposed to the House yesterday.


INQUIRY WHETHER ASSURANCE RECEIVED FROM COMMISSIONER ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES TERMINATED
Gerald William Baldwin: In light of the fact that the Solicitor General has withdrawn previous statements that the APLQ break-in was an isolated and unique incident, could he inform the House if he has received an iron-clad assurance from the commissioner of the RCMP that all illegal activities have now been terminated?
[ Translation]


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the instructions given to the RCMP are to carry out their activities within strictly legal boundaries and if ever there were cases where such instructions were not followed, the commissioner and the government would assume their responsibilities, as we indicated once again very specifically and clearly yesterday when, with the consent of the RCMP commissioner and on his advice, we undertook an inquiry on the entire issue.


SUGGESTION INQUIRY INTO MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES OF FORCE BE MANDATORY
John Edward Broadbent: I have a question for the Solicitor General. The minister knows that members on this side of the House have demanded a full inquiry from the outset, not one simply into the RCMP, so he should not try to buy us off with the claim that the government has done what we have requested.
Considering that on June 8 of last year the then solicitor general said that the government had started an investigation into the break-in in the fall of 1972 immediately it was brought to its attention, and considering that a few weeks later we had a report back to the House from the parliamentary secretary that that investigation had been completed, presumably to the satisfaction of the government, and, to cite one other instance involving political accountability, considering

July 7, 1977
Oral Questions
the conflicting testimony that we have coming from the Minister of Supply and Services pertaining to the time when he was solicitor general compared with what former commissioner Higgitt has said, and concerning the degree of knowledge that the then solicitor general had about the break-in, I would like to ask the present Solicitor General if he will not make it a mandatory requirement that the political accountability aspect of this case be investigated instead of, as he well knows, leaving open the possible occurrence of such an investigation.


Francis Fox: Because, Mr. Speaker, we have set up-once again, unfortunately, it seems that I have to repeat myself-we have set up an independent commission of inquiry presided over by a justice of the Supreme Court of Alberta who has been directed to go thoroughly over the matter. Of course, this commission of inquiry will want to examine the allegations. I am not going to tell it how to proceed. The commission of inquiry will consider the allegations and if it decides that there was some illegal action, it will no doubt want to examine the matter thoroughly to determine exactly whether or not there was some covering up. I hope that those comments answer the question of the hon. member.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer surely the minister knows that is soporific nonsense.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: He has just said to the House that it is possible that the inquiry will look into this. He has not said it is mandatory, and surely that is what we have a right to expect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Would the minister tell the House why he would object to including a clause-if he is really sincere that he believes the commission should, which is what he wants us to believe, look into all aspects of the question-indicating that one of the requirements of the commission is to investigate and report on the adequacy of accountability procedures in order to ensure effective authority over the RCMP by the elected government of the day? I ask that question in light of the minister's own expressed views about alleged concern and those of his own Prime Minister.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, it is inconceivable that the commission would refuse to examine the case mentioned by the hon. member. I understand that, on his side of the House, the hon. member thinks there are some hesitations, and sees some problems with respect to the RCMP's accountability to the government. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this question could also be studied by the commission if it wants to make recommendations under clause C of the terms of reference.
On our part, Mr. Speaker, as government and Solicitor General, if we find we have not enough control or there is a lack of accountability from the RCMP towards the Solicitor General, we will introduce the necessary amendments and fill our role as a government. Then, we do not need the Leader of the Opposition or any other organization to remind us what we have to do. We are prepared to hear suggestions from any circle, provided these suggestions are rational and logical, but we intend to carry out our responsibilities in that area and in others as well.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, with all respect, in the last answer the minister said it was possible that the inquiry would look into these things. The answer he just gave is that it is inconceivable that it will not. The minister cannot have it both ways. Either it is possible or it is inconceivable that the commission will not do otherwise. In a private conversation the minister and I had in the House yesterday-and in a sense I hesitate to bring it up-the minister indicated to me the words he used in one answer, namely, that it is possible under clause C of the terms of reference that the commission would look into such matters. If the minister believes it is only possible and if he wants to maintain-as he is doing, on the other hand-that it is important that the commission look into these questions, then why in God's name does the minister not make it mandatory by putting it into the terms of reference?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member has not grasped what I was meaning. In my opinion, it is inconceivable that the commission of inquiry would not look into the APLQ matter. That matter is mentioned in the first clause of the commission's terms of reference. As for matters of procedure, accountability and suggestion of authority over the RCMP by the Solicitor General, it is precisely under clause C that the commission could decide to make recommendations about it. It is highly possible, despite what the opposition member thinks, that the commission would find that the control mechanisms with the changes we will propose in September are perfectly sufficient for this period of 1977.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the President of Uganda, Marshall Idi Amin Dada represents a menace for the world on account of his cruelty, because according to one of his former ministers, he put to death more than 100,000 of his fellow countrymen; that a Canadian newspaperman is reported missing in Uganda and this country has not given any satisfactory explanation about his disappearance; can the Acting Prime Minister inform the House whether there is any news about this missing Canadian, whether active search is being conducted by responsible people? Where does the matter stand?

July 7, 1977


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can advise the hon. member that the Canadian representative in Nairobi has been, I believe, several times in Uganda raising this question with the officials of the government. Up to the present time, to my available knowledge, it has not been possible to locate the journalist in question. There is, as I understand it, some doubt as to whether he continues to be in Uganda. Certainly, we are doing everything possible to locate him and to lend whatever support we can in his discovery.
[TranslationJ


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, can the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether this newspaper man has been identified or is identifiable and whether he stayed in Uganda; also whether any Canadian government official knows of his whereabouts, and with his passport, to what country did he go?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the identity of the journalist is certainly known to the Canadian authorities. However, it has not been possible to get from the Ugandan authorities information as to his whereabouts and as to whether he is still in Uganda. That is the latest information which I had a day or so ago. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is not in the House at the moment, but I will be happy to follow up this inquiry to ensure that the most recent information is made available to avoid any misunderstanding or misapprehension, certainly to avoid any fear that may be caused as to his whereabouts.


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary for the same minister.
Since we seem to have a lot of difficulty to find out where this reporter is now, could the minister tell the House whether it is his intention to break off all relations with Uganda to force this government to give us an answer without delay? [English]


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should bear in mind that there are a number of Canadians in Uganda, as I recollect. Therefore, it might not be in the best interests of the safety of those Canadians to take the action he recommends, which might be appealing at other times.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I will direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the findings of a private management audit of the Farm
Oral Questions
Credit Corporation completed by the Sibbald Group earlier this year, findings that were scathing in their description of poor morale throughout the corporation and noted lack of direction from the top, including the following comments:
The problem of management was voiced during virtually every staff interview at almost all levels of the corporation ...
The number of references to management problems during the interviews was too great to ignore. There are complaints about lack of credibility, lack of confidence in leadership, lack of communication and mystery regarding corporate objectives at almost all levels of the corporation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a question?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There are a couple of other scathing quotations I could put on the record, but 1 will let them pass. What action is being taken by the Minister of Agriculture in response to this serious indictment of senior management within this corporation?


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, all these allegations have proved to be false, after an investigation was made regarding this corporation.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Is the parliamentary secretary telling this House that the internal management audit commissioned by and conducted on the Farm Credit Corporation, which made those findings I referred to and others, is being examined and found to be false? If so, will the parliamentary secretary tell the House whether the charges made in the consultant's report have been investigated? There have been several instances of cases where employees of the Farm Credit Corporation were enrolled in expensive French language training courses and then sent to areas of the country where no one speaks French, thus losing their ability to speak the language, and serious cases of moonlighting among the staff of the Farm Credit Corporation, including moonlighting on government time. Is the parliamentary secretary denying that?


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has precise cases in mind, he should tell the House about them. The minister has examined these various reports on several occasions and he did not find anything contrary to the duties of the chairman of the commission.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to questions asked by the Social

July 7, 1977
Oral Questions
Credit. It is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A few moments ago the Acting Prime Minister provided some information to the House concerning the present status of Mr. Gerald Utting, a Toronto Star reporter. Can the minister provide a little more information about the present status of Mr. Utting? I ask this question against the delicate background of two events in the past two days, first, a conversation that took place between the minister's officials and the Uganda High Commissioner to Canada, and second, the announcement by U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim that President Idi Amin has agreed to allow a United Nations team to investigate human rights in Uganda.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will appreciate, as I think he used the word, the delicacy of my answer. I was advised just a few moments ago that further discussions took place this morning here in Ottawa between the High Commissioner and officials of my department. Certain steps are presently being taken. I can only conclude from the information provided to me that the prospects look hopeful in getting some firm information on the whereabouts and condition of Mr. Utting in the very near future. In other words, direct contact has been made with Uganda regarding this matter.


CANADIAN ROLE IN MAINTAINING HUMAN RIGHTS-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PREPARATIONS FOR MEETING ON HELSINKI AGREEMENT
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer of the minister. Since human rights have become a major theme in world diplomacy in the past few months, what role does Canada intend playing not only in the specific Uganda situation but in other troubled areas such as Ethiopia and Chile, which are of concern to the United Nations also? Also, in what way will the minister report to the House Canada's preparations for the Helsinki meeting that will be examining violations of human rights in the Soviet bloc?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, on the developments yesterday with regard to President Amin's willingness to accept the United Nations investigatory team, this is of course, although presumably indirectly, in response to a motion moved by Canada at the Geneva meeting some time ago. In that case, what is now being agreed to by Mr. Amin appears to be consistent with what we have been seeking. Whether Canada will have a direct membership on the team which goes to Uganda is not clear at the moment. Presumably, the parties concerned will be consulting as to the make-up and nature of the team and the conditions under which they will go to Uganda.
On other matters relating to non-signatory countries to the Helsinki agreement, there are no new initiatives planned with regard to, for example, Ethiopia and Chile other than a repetition in whatever forums are available. The United Nations and the Canadian position, as the hon. member knows, is very strongly opposed both to human rights violations in Uganda and indeed to the whole unhappy situation in Ethiopia which goes beyond human rights into a number of other areas which are regrettable from our point of view.
As to the Belgrade conference, if I may conclude the answer to a "tripartite" question, I have had consultations in Belgrade with the head of the Canadian delegation. The meetings will very likely continue until the end of this month and it is not clear at the moment what kind of agenda will be devised. I will be glad to consult with members of the foreign affairs committee as to the best means of informing members, and whatever means they decide will be perfectly all right with me.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Transport relates to a memorandum he circulated, dated May 25. He indicated in the memorandum, and in a copy of a telex enclosed, that he and the four Atlantic premiers had agreed in principle, among other things, to a cutback in rail services in the provinces concerned. Since Premier Regan a few days ago told a committee from Sydney Academy that he was not only surprised but shocked at the minister's memorandum, and promised to make his feelings known to the minister, may I ask if Premier Regan has been in touch with the minister, to indicate his strong opposition to any possible rail passenger cutback in Nova Scotia; if so, when did such a message from Premier Regan arrive?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I received a telegram from Premier Regan but am not sure of the exact date. It seems to me I got it within the last several days. In it he indicated a view about rail passenger service in Nova Scotia different from that contained in earlier agreements between ourselves. Naturally, I shall pursue the matter. The telegram had specific reference to one rail service.


RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE BETWEEN SYDNEY AND TRURO- SUPPORT OF ATLANTIC PREMIERS FOR RECOMMENDATION TO TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, may I try on another question for size? Has the minister, through his officials or representatives of the department, submitted a recommendation to the Canadian Transport Commission concerning the abandonment of CN passenger rail service between Sydney and Truro? Did such a recommendation contain the names of the Atlantic premiers, including that of Premier Regan?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows from past exchanges, and the announce-

July 7, 1977

ment to which the hon. member referred, the five governments agreed to put before the CTC a study and examination of rail passenger service and the economies of the alternatives available. That study was placed before the CTC for its consideration.


CANADIAN PACIFIC
Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport about the request of CP Rail, which has announced recently that it would like to abandon service between Hull and Maniwaki.

Is the minister aware of this CP rail project and the negative results it would have on the Gatineau Valley, if allowed? Also, would he delegate a personal representative to the meeting, scheduled for next Tuesday, so that those interested in preventing the closure will obtain all the information they need to make their protest effective at the public hearings which will be held?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do so. I should say immediately that, unfortunately, the legislation under which we operate makes it necessary for applications for abandonment to be made in order that the CTC may consider if granting a subsidy to continue the service is the proper course of action. Even if the railway hopes to get a subsidy to continue the service, it has no alternative except to apply for abandonment. This question has been of great concern in areas where such procedure has been followed and 1 look forward to the opportunity of changing the wording of the statute, so that the seeking of assistance and support may be an alternative to the application for abandonment. Certainly, this has been of concern in the west, as well, in connection with branch lines.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Yesterday the former Solicitor General, the present Minister of Supply and Services, assured the House that he would fully co-operate with the MacDonald commission. Can the Solicitor General say if the previous Solicitor General informed him of his willingness to testify in public concerning the conflict between former Commissioner Higgitt and himself relating to the events of November 7. Former Commissioner Higgitt's words were, "I would be surprised if he was not informed," whereas the former Solicitor General assures the House he was not informed. That
Oral Questions
is our information. There is an apparent conflict which I am sure the former Solicitor General and the present Solicitor General wish to resolve in public. The hon. member for Peace River suggested the Canadian public wants to be satisfied on the issue. Can the Solicitor General say if that evidence will be heard in public, if the commission inquires into that specific event?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may recall, the Minister of Supply and Services yesterday assured the House he would co-operate fully with the commission and appear before it, if it asks him to do so. As to whether that appearance will take place in a public hearing, that matter must be determined by the commission, and I believe it is proper for the commission to determine it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I presume the Solicitor General can give us his commitment not to request that particular session to be held in camera. My supplementary concerns some information I gave the Solicitor General privately. It concerns the admission of the Five Dragons to Canada. Has the Solicitor General been able to determine if the RCMP liaison officer in Hong Kong received information from Hong Kong authorities concerning the Five Dragons, in particular Mr. Lui Lock of the Five Dragons? If so, was that information passed on to immigration authorities before those five men were admitted to Canada?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Where is the connection? How is that a supplementary?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I should like the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Even with the best of goodwill I have difficulty relating the hon. member's question to his previous question. I do not think it is a supplementary.


HYPERLIPEMIA-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ASSESS MEANS OF CONTROL
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare arises from his recent address in Vancouver to the public health association. I always read the minister's speeches with care and interest, and that speech was about the startling and galloping increase in the incidence of heart attacks at all ages, particularly younger age groups. We have seen a 250 per cent increase in males, 25 to 44, and a 150 per cent increase in women. Since the minister is concerned about all the attendant suffering, about the deaths, disabilities, loss of earning power and sorrow, I ask, why did the minister not mention that well recognized groups of people are suffering from hyperlipemia, which may be hereditary, or from allied diseases, and how their disease is to be treated?
80020-S

July 7, 1977
Oral Questions


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, hyperlipemia is a serious disease but there is no consensus within the medical profession on the usefulness or cost effectiveness of a nation-wide screening program for children. As I said in my speech in Vancouver, we are planning to test the best possible strategies and approaches on a limited scale and will adopt nationally only those which appear to be most promising. I can assure the hon. member that we shall look at the specific disease he mentioned, to see if it would be appropriate to institute a test project or pilot program.


Philip Bernard Rynard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since blood cholesterol rises steadily from age one to age seven, why was it not considered appropriate to study children in those age groups in our schools?


Marc Lalonde: I am advised, Mr. Speaker, that there is some recent evidence from animal experiments, in particular from Dr. Hahn's in Vancouver, that if newborn animals are fed low cholesterol diets they will develop excess cholesterol in later life. This particular aspect must be looked into further.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the discussions with his United States counterpart on the effect of the Roseau River project and specifically its effect on southeastern Manitoba. Have the mitigating works all been identified? Who will pay for the mitigating works and more important, will they prevent any adverse effects that have been identified?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member for not having that information at hand. I will take note of the question and provide the information either in the House or in writing within a couple of days.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Has he received any report from the RCMP about the obviously crooked nuclear fee dealings of AECL and if he has not yet received a report, has he been kept up-to-date on the progress of the investigation in Canada, Switzerland, Italy and Argentina?


Francis Fox: The answer to the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, is yes, the investigation is an ongoing one and is progressing.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question. Can the minister inform the House if he has been keeping the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources informed of the progress of this investigation?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, it is a police investigation that is in progress. Once it has come to an end, I will of course get in touch with my colleague.


TRANSPORT
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I welcome his announcement made yesterday that there will be a judicial inquiry into the sinking of the William Carson. My question stems from that in a way because I want to know if a decision has been made on a replacement for the William Carson or if there has been a rationalization of existing modes to help clear up the backlog created as a result of the sinking of this ship and aggravated by the fact that Air Canada has reduced the number of seats available to Newfoundland this year?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, work has been going on to make sure that the demand for seats and passage for freight is provided by such movement of vessels from one route to another and additional vessels where required. This will continue. I do not know when I will be in a position to announce the final solution. Because of the nature of things we will be assessing the demand and attempting at all times to ensure that vessels are available.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I by way of a supplementary and in the form of a representation ask the minister, who answers for Air Canada, if he would discuss with the President of Air Canada the possibility of providing additional seats to the province this year in light of the summer games in Newfoundland in August and especially because of the demand created by the sinking of the William Carson?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would imagine that Air Canada has the potential of travel to Newfoundland for the games very much in mind but I will take up the matter with the President of Air Canada in order to be sure that he has taken this into consideration.
July 7, 1977


NATIONAL BUILDING CODE
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, may I address my question to his parliamentary secretary. With the rising population in urban centres in Canada and the increase in highrise buildings, new problems have arisen in connection with fire safety. Since the tallest ladders available to fire departments reach only between the sixth and eighth floors of most buildings and since stairway escape routes can become blocked with smoke, thus preventing safe exit, can the minister inform the House whether consideration has been given to the inclusion of improved evacuation systems in the National Building Code?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this matter comes under provincial jurisdiction but I will inform the minister and look into the matter.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, may 1 put my supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. Since the landscaping and architecture of the government's new complex, Place du Portage in Hull, is suspected by fire experts of inhibiting safe exit from the building in case of an emergency and since this situation seems especially critical in light of recent reports that some fire alarm bells ring seven times a day in that complex causing concern about what will happen when a genuine emergency arises, can the minister inform the House whether consideration has been given to the installation of a balcony evacuation system in Place du Portage in an effort to better protect the lives of public servants relocated in that office building? Can the minister tell the House whether the department has complied with all local fire regulations of the city of Hull and the National Building Code?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the buildings do comply with the codes but we are looking at the situation. The comment vis-a-vis the landscaping is a new wrinkle, however. It is my understanding that we have met the standards as laid down and the buildings comply with them.
Oral Questions ENERGY


PIPELINE TREATY WITH UNITED STATES-INQUIRY AS TO IMPLEMENTATION
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the announced lobbying in Washington by the State of Alaska and El Paso, joined by Southern Gas and Tenneco, and as one of the major uncertainties of the Alcan route is that unreasonable tariffs and uncertain political actions in Canada might not be controlled, is the pipeline treaty signed, in place, and functioning?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be able to consult with my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, on the exact status of the pipeline treaty. I know there has been initialling by both sides, but whether there has been formal approval because there was an agreement, I am not in a position at the moment to indicate.


ALCAN PIPELINE-POSSIBILITY APPROVAL OF ROUTE INVOLVES EXCHANGING OIL AND GAS WITH UNITED STATES
William Gordon Ritchie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the approval of the Alcan route involve a degree of swapping and a type of continental energy exchange of oil and gas to some extent, with these products being treated as a marketable commodity in some way?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, those are the kinds of questions which the National Energy Board raised in its reports and the kinds of questions Cabinet will be looking at in the weeks to come.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that Mirabel is now operating at less that 50 per cent of its capacity and that visual flights are authorized in other international airports of Canada, that the Minister of Transport sent some instructions on June 30, 1977, to the regional manager of Montreal to prohibit entirely landings and take-offs for visual flights at this airport and that the report on the investigation of bilingualism implementation for visual flights has not yet been made public, can the Minister of Transport tell the House if he would consider cancelling his instructions of June 30, 1977, providing the necessary services to Mirabel airport for visual flights and allowing pilots who hold a qualification certificate to land and take-off on visual flights at Mirabel airport?
7416

July 7, 1977
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member will appreciate that the current rules on the use of language in connection with air travel in the province of Quebec are subject to consideration by a commission. Tomorrow I will table an interim report. The situation in relation to Mirabel airport continues to be that only English is permitted in both VFR and IFR operations. Consideration is being given to the whole question of the future of the VFR flights in Mirabel. We have a study which indicates the wisdom of not allowing the landing and take-off of VFR flights at that airport in order that it be promoted as an ideal international airport for major aircraft. We have indicated those conclusions to the various interested associations and have requested their response. At this time that is only in relation to our indication that we would like to stop the landing and take-off of VFR flights at Mirabel. At the present time that is only done in English.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Public Works regarding the move of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce which his department is coordinating. The cost of moving this one small department a few yards down Sparks Street will be some $3.8 million, equivalent to the cost of hiring 300 movers for an entire year. The official reason for the cost is given as "coordination". God only knows what the cost would be if there were no coordination. Can the minister explain how it is possible for such a small move to cost so much, and is he prepared to tell the House what the full cost of moving 15,000 civil servants to Hull will be?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, it sounds as if the move were rather uncoordinated. 1 will have to check and get that information for the hon. member.


Stan Darling: The new building into which Industry, Trade and Commerce will move is going to cost some $50 million. I would ask the Minister why the government built a new complex for occupancy in downtown Ottawa at the same precise time that four million square feet of office space will become vacant in downtown Ottawa? Is Public Works so incapable of planning the long range space requirements of government departments that it will build even when construction is not necessary?


J. Judd Buchanan: That is blatant nonsense. The move was announced by one of my predecessors eight years ago. The intention of the government was to build these buildings, to

occupy their own buildings and diminish the amount of rented space, thus getting into a better balanced position in the National Capital region. That is the policy which has been pursued and which is being carried out.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I gave you notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege and I am now doing so. On June 20, replying to a question from the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) who raised the issue of the accountability of the RCMP to the government authority, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that it was an important and serious question and that it was causing the government concern. He went on to say he was discussing this precise matter with the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox). Two days later, on June 22, the Prime Minister indicated he still believed that the Montreal break-in was "an abberation, an incident and an isolated one". He then said: "I cannot say the question of accountability has been completely settled to the satisfaction of the government."
I have cited these references to show there has been on the part of the government itself a clearly expressed concern, at least in general terms, about the issue of governmental authority being clearly established over the operations of the RCMP.
I bring to your attention the following additional information. On June 15, 1976 the parliamentary secretary to the then solicitor general reported to the House that an "investigation" had just been completed into the 1972 break-in. It is evident now that either the investigation referred to was completely superficial, as we have reason to believe was the case, or that there was some kind of cover-up by either the RCMP or the government or by both. In any case political accountability is a central aspect of the recent allegations and convictions involving wrongdoing by the RCMP which have led to the government's decision to establish a Royal Commission to look into the matter. Unfortunately, though, it is a Commission which must ignore completely, under its terms of reference, the accountability issue which the Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet have regarded as being so central to this case.
Finally, as another illustration-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has given ample illustrations. I am waiting for something which bears on the question of privilege.


John Edward Broadbent: I shall come to that, Your Honour. I was about to cite the contradiction between statements offered by the present Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) and by the then Commissioner of the RCMP, Mr. Higgitt as to the degree of knowledge possessed by the then solicitor general at the time of the break-in in 1972.
I submit if we are to exercise our responsibility as members of parliament in this most serious matter involving allegations and convictions for criminal wrongdoing against the RCMP and, in particular, suggestions of political incompetence, and perhaps more than that, in the exercise of political responsibility for the RCMP, we should require not only that the Royal
July 7, 1977

Commission investigate the RCMP in the narrow sense of the terms of reference, but also that it should be able to inquire into the question of political accountability, both in terms of general procedures and of the course followed in 1972 and in the alleged investigation which took place in 1976.
If Your Honour rules I have a prima facie case of privilege,
1 shall be happy to move a specific motion.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member will realize, I am sure, what he has done, in effect, is to express disagreement with the terms of reference of the Royal Commission and is questioning the value of the inquiry announced yesterday by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox).
Despite the importance of the subject matter, that is a straight matter of debate and discussion. This subject was taken up extensively during the question period and it would be an unprecedented extension of the definition of privilege to extend the umbrella of privilege to cover a matter of straight disagreement of the sort the hon. member has raised.


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to apologize to the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo who asked me a question earlier concerning a recently published report. I was listening to the simultaneous interpretation and I misunderstood his question. In fact, the document is now being studied by the Department of Agriculture and, in some cases, its recommendations will be accepted by the department.


Henry Perrin Beatty: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 appreciate the clarification which has been forthcoming from the parliamentary secretary. I must tell him, however, that 1 intend to ask the minister tomorrow, in the question period, for the information I sought today. I will also ask about the bilingualism program, moonlighting and the serious indictment of the senior staff of the Corporation including the allegation that "corporate senior leadership is widely viewed at all levels as being less than adequate, this feeling being more pronounced and widespread the higher one probes the corporate ladder." Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could ensure that whoever is answering for the department tomorrow is prepared to deal with that question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A couple of days ago, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) contended, by way of a point of order, that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) should be compelled to table a document following an argument put forward by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) that the minister, having quoted from a letter, should be required to table it. The hon. member for St. John's East was satisfied when the minister tabled the letter, but the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham then pointed out, by way of a further submission to the Chair, that the letter contained a reference to certain enclosures and that the enclosures had not been tabled by the minister, leaving the tabling incomplete. 1 indicated then that if there were any
Atomic Energy of Canada
further arguments on the point I would hear them at this time, so if there are any hon. members who wish to address the Chair and advance further argument on the point I will hear them now. If not, I will make a ruling perhaps tomorrow or Monday.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report (supplementary) of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Campbell.
Second report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts entitled "The Polysar Report"-Mr. Lawrence.
Second report of Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts-Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey).
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I intend to table, with the permission of the House, the annual report, financial statements and auditor's report for the operations of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for the fiscal year 1976-77. In so doing, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the financial statements reveal an operating deficit of $180 million. All but $10 million of this is accounted for by provision for projected losses associated with existing contracts running over the course of this and the next several years. While the full magnitude of the losses and their timing is uncertain, the company, with the concurrence of the auditors, was of the opinion that a conservative approach should be taken. Therefore full provision for possible losses has been made in the statement for the year just ended.
In assessing this report, hon. members should reflect on the nature of the nuclear energy industry in which Canada chose some years ago to be a major participant. The industry is made up largely of a few major corporations having immense resources and technical competence and competing fiercely in the international market. The objective has been to seek the broadest possible markets, thereby staking out a preferred position for future sales to maintain a continuing workload for large, highly technical design and engineering staffs.
With the success of the Pickering generating station, AECL
emerged abruptly from its research and development activity
to compete in this difficult international market. Foreign sales

July 7, 1977
Atomic Energy of Canada
were seen as essential for the continuity of the nuclear energy industry in Canada until the domestic market had grown to the required level. Given the nature of the competition it faced, and the rapid transition of the character of the corporation, it had always been recognized that there was considerable risk that losses would be incurred in AECL's first major foreign sale. Indeed, given the international competitive climate in the industry, it would have been surprising if this were not the case. The size of the potential loss, however, must be. viewed very seriously.
Of the $170 million provision for projected losses, nearly $37 million is related to the provision of engineering services and heavy water to the domestic nuclear program. Most of this potential loss is associated with the Gentilly II reactor now being built for Hydro Quebec. Nearly all of the balance of the loss provision, about $130 million, relates to the Cordoba nuclear station in Argentina and arises in spite of the $70 to $80 million saving from last year's renegotiation of that contract. The new number makes provision for large contingency items and delay penalties.
The Corporation's serious financial situation calls for vigorous changes in both the short and long term. Additional working capital is required in this year and possibilities for its provision are now being explored. One appropriate measure would be to vest in the Company the federal government's return on AECL's investment in Ontario Hydro's Pickering power station. That investment is now achieving a substantial return because of the efficient and highly competitive nuclear power technology developed by AECL. For the longer term the board of directors has undertaken to provide the government with a proposal for a major financial restructuring of the Corporation early in the fall.
It must be recognized that the roots of the projected losses lie in management decisions taken a number of years ago and the inflationary international situation that broke upon the world in the early 1970's. When the situation first came to light I immediately took the steps appropriate for a minister in his relation with a Crown corporation to secure the major management and financial reforms that were necessary. As part of this process I moved last year to alter the composition of the board of directors to bring greater business experience to the direction of the company's affairs and closer coordination with government policies. Management consultants were brought in to advise the board and senior management on the introduction of new financial management control systems. Indeed, it was this program of reform and special audits undertaken by management which produced the figures on projected losses for uncompleted projects which I am reporting today.
In addition, a new vice-president for finance was brought in from the private sector to build a strong team of financial managers. Details of the reforms introduced so far were tabled in the public accounts committee on May 10 and have been commented on favourably by the Auditor General.
Nevertheless, the serious financial situation facing the Corporation has reinforced the board's concern to increase the

commercial competence within the top level of management. To this end the board of directors recommended to me that Dr. J. S. Foster be asked to step down as president and chief executive officer and I have already acted on that proposal. It is an action which we all regret having to take. Dr. Foster is one of Canada's most distinguished nuclear engineers whose contribution to the design and development of the highly successful CANDU system has brought great credit to Canada and himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: I am hopeful that the Company will continue to benefit from his pre-eminent technical knowledge and experience in the nuclear field. A committee of the board is now engaged in a search for a new president and chief executive officer with the business training and experience needed to manage AECL.
AECL has passed through a year of controversy and difficulty. It is a large company composed of many highly skilled and dedicated men and women. They have developed a unique and complex technology of which Canada is justly proud. AECL is Canada's chosen instrument in a highly competitive international industry of enormous importance not only to our future but that of people in many countries. When the situation now disclosed was first manifested the government chose to remedy it by developing a strong management team. In selecting that path I believe the government has chosen not only the fastest and most effective course but also the one which best protects the future potential of the Corporation. AECL with its revised board of directors and changes in management procedures is well on the way to remedying the problems it faces. More reforms will be decided upon by the board and implemented during the next few months under the direction of Mr. Ross Campbell, the chairman of the board of AECL, who has agreed to the recommendation of the board transmitted to me that he be requested to serve on a temporary basis as president and chief executive officer. No doubt, the public accounts committee will wish to keep abreast of the progress in this regard and I am certain that when management reports in the fall the Committee will be well satisfied with what has been accomplished.
I ask the indulgence of the House to receive the annual report in one language only, Mr. Speaker, English. The French copies will be tabled just as soon as they become available; otherwise it would, I believe, have delayed this statement of mine until after parliament had adjourned for the summer. With your permission I should like to table two copies.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement by the minister this afternoon and the tabling of the annual report of AECL for the fiscal year 1976-77 is yet another sad chapter in the bizarre and unwieldy operations of AECL. As the story unfolds it causes further embarrassment
July 7, 1977

to Canada, and I am sure further embarrassment to the many loyal and dedicated people employed by AECL, some 6,000 in number.
The annual report indicates that there has been 25 years of nuclear progress. More appropriately, it has been a resume of 25 years of nuclear fallout. The 1977 year of operation represents a $290 million drain on the taxpayers of Canada. We on this side wonder how many more disciplinary actions, how many more royal commissions, how many more royal inquiries do we need to bring out the sheer incompetence and mismanagement of this government? We have had example upon example of the denial of ministerial responsibility, examples of flip-flops, examples of stonewalling, gross examples of incompetence and waste by this administration. Surely, the time has come when the taxpayers of Canada can no longer tolerate the mismanagement and waste of public funds. Surely, the corruption which surrounds this whole fiasco must be stopped.
According to the minister's statement this afternoon, Dr. Foster has been fired for running a Crown corporation at a loss. If this is true, it makes him a remarkable individual, virtually unique in Canadian history. It is incredible in the full sense of the word because AECL has always lost money. Every year over the past decade it has managed to lose close to half a billion dollars. No one was fired and no one was even reprimanded. Now, we are told that Dr. Foster has been fired for incompetence in managing the financial affairs of AECL. It is truly amazing. That seems to be a mere trifle compared to the reasons for which Dr. Foster was not fired. He was not fired for stonewalling the Public Accounts Committee for nearly nine months. He was not fired for making totally unaccountable payments of $18.3 million. He was not fired for forgetting to check whether Shaul Eisenberg had performed any of the services he claimed he performed in the Korean deal. He was not fired for sitting on a billing of nearly $20 million for nearly a year without taking any effective action. He was not fired for his professed ignorance about the identity of the Argentine agent, despite the fact that when he was vice-president it was his division that was clearly concerned and directly responsible for that particular negotiation.
This afternoon we were told by the minister that the Cordoba nuclear station in Argentina is going to experience a loss of approximately $130 million, in spite of the negotiations of the minister which we were told saved some $70 million or $80 million. Three or four months ago the minister indicated that the loss was going to be in the order of $25 million. Whom are we to believe? Dr. Foster was not fired for his role in that particular area. According to the minister, he was fired for doing what every president of AECL has done, and that is running the financial affairs of AECL incompetently.
We on this side of the House find the minister's reasoning very hard to swallow. There are just too many coincidences involved in this whole fiasco. Coincidence No. 1-the RCMP have been investigating the deals related to the Argentine and
Atomic Energy of Canada
South Korean negotiations for the past seven months. Surely, the report must be almost ready. Coincidence No. 2-the report of the Public Accounts Committee on its investigation into this sordid affair should be on its way to completion soon.
It is interesting to note that it is Dr. Foster, and not the chairman, Ross Campbell, who is carrying the can for AECL's spectacular financial incompetence. What about the role of the chairman in this whole fiasco? He was asked to come in and straighten out the affair. Is he going to be the next one to go? Will it be the minister? These are perfectly legitimate questions to which we require answers.
Last December the Globe and Mail editorialized this situation in this manner: "It is time for straight answers''. We on this side of the House want to have some straight answers. I take it from the answer of the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) this afternoon that he has not yet received the report of the RCMP. Has he received an interim report? When will we receive it? Is he going to present the report to the Public Accounts Committee? When can we expect it? Were any funds channelled back into Canadian hands as a result of these deals? What exactly did Eisenberg do for AECL, especially in light of the statements made by senior Korean electric officials that they had never met the man or his associates? Is the minister or his predecessor constitutionally responsible for this action? What action is being taken against the former president of AECL, namely Lome Gray, who was the perpetrator of this mess?
Finally, in view of the rear guard action this government appears to have been waging against those who want to get to the bottom of the affair, is the government interested in knowing who got the $2Vi million in slush money which went to some unknown agent in Argentina? The efforts to get to the bottom of the under-handed dealings of AECL, which surround the sale of CAN DU reactors to South Korea and Argentina, have been stymied, hampered and stonewalled by this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The government, the minister and his predecessors have been less than forthcoming in their evidence before the committee. They have been less than aggressive and obviously reluctant to ascertain who was responsible for these substantial sums of money which we suggest are tantamount to a bribe.
We want to know why the minister has approved, under section 70(1) of the Financial Administration Act, the operating budget of the corporation for the year in question. Does the minister now consider himself to be responsible for this mismanagement? More importantly, does the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) consider the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) to be responsible for this mess? We should like to know why the estimates of $408 million were rammed through this House for the next financial year when the Auditor General clearly warned that AECL is not financially competent. Financial control and management were weak and ineffective, and in many cases, grossly inadequate.

July 7, 1977
Atomic Energy of Canada
We want to know whether the minister will implement all the Auditor General's recommendations before AECL gets another cent of taxpayers' money. We want to know what type of fundamental changes are going to take place in relationships of Crown corporations to government and to parliament-the question of total accountability of Crown corporations. There is legislation being drafted in secret, but it behooves the government to come forth and come clean with the kind of legislation it proposes to this House.
We want some answers. We want to assure the minister that we will not sit back until we get a full explanation of this whole mess. We demand that every cent of taxpayers' money invested in AECL's incompetence be fully accounted for and approved by parliament, and not channelled through some flim-flam arrangement like the one mentioned by the minister in his statement today. The minister's statement raises a lot more questions than it answers. We on this side are not going to be in a position to swallow the weak, lame-duck approach the minister has taken in this whole affair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, when ministers make statements on motion it has been customary to make copies of their statements and any financial reports available to opposition parties 15 minutes or half an hour before the House opens. Sometimes we got them one or two hours before, if the minister was very courteous. Lately the time has been shrinking; more recently it has been ten minutes before two o'clock. We received this statement- not just the statement but the financial statement and the auditor's report-at 2.15 p.m. after the House opened, with no opportunity to check our files or look up any of the data which we might need to discuss a matter as important as this.


Mr. Paproski:: You are lucky to get it even then.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I can
understand the minister's reluctance to give the opposition too much time to look at this very sorry mess for which he has tried to excuse the government in the statement which he made today. This is a statement to tell the House that in this year the Atomic Energy Corporation of Canada has lost not just $180 million but, if you add to that the appropriation by parliament for this year of another $110 million, we are talking about a loss, in so far as the Canadian taxpayer is concerned, of $290 million.
As the minister has pointed out, some $37 million of that comes as a result of the heavy water operations. If ever there was a political boondoggle, it was the heavy water plant in Glace Bay, Nova Scotia. When the government first announced that it was looking at this project, I asked the government some questions because I knew that the people who had the process had peddled it in ten or 20 countries and had been rejected by the governments in those countries on the recommendation of their top scientists.

All I got for my pains was that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) went down to Nova Scotia and made a broadcast in Sydney. He said over the radio that 1 was trying to prevent Glace Bay from getting the heavy water plant so that it could be taken out to Saskatchewan. I did not care where the plant went; 1 did not want the government to buy a lemon, which is what they bought, and having spent millions of dollars on the plant, they had to scrap it and start all over again. What they should have done was the kind of research which any reasonable company would have done before starting to spend a hundred million dollars on a heavy water plant.
The second item in the loss has to do with the Cordoba nuclear station in Argentina, and here again I can understand the minister when he says: "while the full magnitude of the losses and their timing is uncertain". They are certainly uncertain because let me remind the House that I think I was the first person to raise in the Committee on National Resources and Public Works the fact that the agreement with the Argentine government, in which there was no inflation clause, was going to result in a loss, I estimated, of $163 million. Dr. Foster said that was an exaggeration, it would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100 million, and the minister assured us, as did Dr. Foster, that the government would renegotiate the agreement and that they would knock off $70 million or $80 million. The minister has repeatedly said in the House that the final loss would be about $25 million. What do we find now? The loss is $130 million on selling the reactor.


Miss MacDonald:: That is after renegotiation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If we keep on selling reactors in this fashion, we will go broke. The more we sell, the more we lose.


An hon. Member:: Think of the turnover.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The fact is that AECL from the very beginning has been sales oriented. I have no objection to a company being sales oriented provided it also has some financial policy and administrative controls. AECL has not had either. It entered into an agreement with reference to the nuclear station in Cordoba, Argentina, in company with Italimpianti as a partner and paid out over $2 million into a numbered bank account. The president, the chairman of the board, the minister and members of the government all tell us that they do not know to whom the money went. To take over $2 million and spend it and still say they do not know who got the money is the height of incompetence.


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They went into an agreement with Mr. Shaul Eisenberg with reference to the construction of a nuclear plant in South Korea. I have the transcript of the interview with the president and the vicepresident of the Korean Power Company in which they say repeatedly that they never saw Mr. Eisenberg; they never met
July 7, 1977

him; they never dealt with any agent at all. From the beginning they told AECL they wanted to deal directly government to government. Not only has over $18 million been paid to Mr. Eisenberg but he has a contract that, if another plant is built payment will be made to Mr. Eisenberg.


An hon. Member:: Incredible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is difficult to believe that a group of people who, for as long as I can remember them, claim to be the technicians of government- they might not be experts in policy but in technical and administrative matters they are highly competent-could possibly have carried on a program such as this.
I am not laying all the blame at the door of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie). I say that for the last ten years the ministers to whom this agency has reported have been guilty of gross negligence and there should be a public inquiry into the manner in which they have been guilty of almost criminal negligence in handling public funds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not
make any of these remarks with relish because I believe that there is a useful role for Crown corporations to play if the people are to have some control of the economic means by which they live. Also, a Crown corporation can be a most useful economic tool for a government. But it will only be an effective tool if there is adequate control by the minister to whom it reports and by the cabinet, if there are adequate guidelines set down with respect to the policies pursued and to the business procedures which are carried out.
Let me give a small example of the business procedure. Mr. Gray wrote to Mr. Eisenberg telling him that the board of directors had agreed to appoint him as their agent and to a contract which would pay him over $18 million. There were no minutes. Nobody on that board can remember ever having been asked by the president of the corporation about appointing Mr. Eisenberg as an agent. If Crown corporations are going to work-I believe they can work and I have played a small part in supervising the operation of some small Crown corporations-then clear administrative procedures have to be set down and there has to be adequate control and adequate accountability.
There must also be accountability to parliament. I have said in this House for many years that the financial statements of every Crown corporation should be referred to the relevant standing committee of the House of Commons. If the standing committee is satisfied that it examined them the year before and does not want to call officers of a particular Crown corporation, that is its decision, but there are Crown corporations being operated by the present government which have not been investigated by any standing committee of the House in years. They go on spending public funds, carrying out policies and introducing programs not only with no reference to parlia-
Atomic Energy of Canada
ment but in many cases with no reference to the minister to whom they are supposed to report. Therefore, I contend that what has happened in AECL-and it is a sad and sorry mess-will happen again and again unless legislation is introduced to provide for proper parliamentary control of all Crown corporations and the requirement of their accountability to the representatives of the people. For in the final analysis the people have to foot the bill.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are very disappointed because we have received the statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) in English only. Moreover, the minister's secretary said this;

We apologize for the delay in getting this material.
Yours sincerely,
Jamie Deacey.

Mr. Speaker, we have spent nearly two and a half days in the House debating the national unity issue. These two days had been made necessary by the initiative the Quebec government has taken, namely, Bill No. 1, which deals with languages, linguistic rights and so on. Mr. Speaker, on June 25 last, I had been sitting in this House for nine years. We have been hearing the same jeremiads for nine years-apologize, waiting, and this, and that. Mr. Speaker, we have been deluding ourselves long enough. At a certain point, we are going to have to decide-excuse my temper, I am a little angry but I'll get over it-we are going to have to decide who we are and what we want to be. If the hon. minister does not know I will tell him. He can hire able public servants who are now unemployed, who are coming out of universities with degrees, Ph.D.'s in languages, to translate from English into French as fast as they can speak. Some French Canadians are bilingual. He can also hire English Canadians. There is no discrimination between the two ethnic groups. So I say that today it is an insult to this House. And then, Mr. Speaker, we sat down and listened for two days to pious wishes. Canada must be kept united. That is not possible the way things are going. To keep Canada united Anglophones, particularly Crown ministers, are going to have to accept the fact that we, French Canadians, have the right to have the translation of an English statement at the time the minister makes his statement in the House.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I find it disgusting that a minister of the Crown should have added that he could not wait for the French translation because that might delay his statement. What are French Canadians doing in this country, particularly in this place? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what are we doing here if we are not on an equal footing with all Canadians of all languages, particularly those sitting here! This has been going on for 109 years, and I hope it is the last time a minister
7422

July 7, 1977
Atomic Energy of Canada
does that. I am very sorry, and I respect French Canadians who want to remain as they are and well-intentioned English Canadians in this House who want Canadian unity, not for fun but for real. I respect those people and for that reason I will not answer the minister's statement. And I will add, Mr. Speaker, that in due time to prove to the minister how sincere I am I will move a motion to prove to him that we, on this side of this House as well as all right-minded members on the government side, will act differently, we will be moving a motion a little later on today under the rules of this House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would elaborate on this statement. At the bottom of page two the minister refers to the requirement of additional working capital, and he talks about one appropriate measure being to vest in the company the federal government's return on AECL's investment in Ontario Hydro's Pickering power station. Could the minister elaborate on that? Then perhaps I might be able to follow up with a supplementary.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to do that, but before I do I would like to address one or two remarks to the Creditiste Party and particularly to its spokesman. I would like to tell him how very hurt I was, too, that I had to table in only one language. I can assure the hon. member that as far as I am concerned that will not happen again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Too late.


Alastair William Gillespie: I can also tell him that because I wanted to place this before the House before parliament adjourned, I took this action today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: On the question put by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), the original arrangement was made between AECL, Ontario Hydro and the Ontario government, and it involved financing by AECL for the first two reactors at Pickering. The basis of the arrangement was that AECL would be repaid for the funds advanced according to the differential between the power costs brought about by coal versus those which were brought about by the Pickering I and Pickering II reactors. The confidence of AECL was such that when it was negotiating this arrangement with the Ontario government and with Ontario Hydro, it was prepared to say it believed it could provide reactors which would provide lower priced power than coal-fired reactors, which was the alternative the Ontario government and Ontario Hydro had at that time.
The arrangement was that the funds advanced would be repaid with whatever additional increment there might be in the differential between coal-fired costs and costs from the nuclear reactor. I am very happy to say that the nuclear power

generated by those reactors is returning a substantial repayment to the federal government. At the present time it is not going to the credit of AECL, the Crown corporation which undertook the research and made the arrangements. The funds are coming back into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. One of the possibilities of financial restructuring is to consider the funds that we advanced as equity rather than as debt. The return of revenues would then go to the credit of the corporation where I believe they belong, rather than into the Consolidated Revenue Fund where they are perhaps lost sight of.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, do I take it in a broader sense that any major financial restructuring will be brought about by legislation and not internally? We have had the financial restructuring of another Crown corporation, Air Canada, along somewhat similar lines. Is the minister contemplating bringing legislation which would provide for such major financial restructuring?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, 1 am contemplating bringing this before the House but whether in the form of legislation or whether some of those arrangements can be handled through supplementary estimates is something on which I will have to seek advice. Quite clearly parliamentary approval is going to be involved in most of the major questions. Whenever we are concerned with such matters as conversion of debt to equity, I think we are dealing with some major considerations.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: May I warn the minister right now, Mr. Speaker, that if he thinks he is going to bring forth the major financial restructuring of AECL through supplementary estimates, we will regard such a move as less than adequate.
Dealing specifically now with the affair of Dr. Foster, may 1 ask the minister if he is sure that Dr. Foster was not implicated in any way in the questionable dealings surrounding the sale of CANDU reactors to Argentina and South Korea?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that the recommendations which came to me from the board of directors with respect to the removal of Dr. Foster were specifically couched in language which made it clear that the reasons for the recommendation had nothing to do with any arrangement such as has been alluded to by the hon. member but were specifically and exclusively directed to the question of accountability for the financial management and control of the organization itself.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns Dr. Foster's dismissal for financial incompetence. If he is being held uniquely responsible in the organization for this, he is being made the scapegoat for this entire, sordid mess or can we expect further resignations or disciplinary action?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, first of all I think one has to make the point that Dr. Foster was president and chief executive officer, and as such had full responsibility for the day-today operations of the corporation, subject to the policies set forth by the board of directors. A number of changes have already taken place in the course of a year. A number of
July 7, 1977

additional personnel have been hired; a chief financial officer was hired at the beginning of this year and other additional financial people have been hired.
There has already been a significant effort to increase and improve the financial competence and financial controls of the organization. Mr. H. W. Macdonell, a member of the board of directors, heads a steering committee of consultants, directors and some officers of the corporation with a view to changing what had become a grievously inadequate system. He presented to the Public Accounts Committee a statement giving up-to-date account of matters. He was followed by the Auditor General who indicated that he believed the corporation was progressing in the right direction. He said in very forthcoming terms that he endorsed the actions of the corporation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My question really was whether there would be further resignations or disciplinary action. 1 say that in light of the minister's statement that the renegotiated contract in the Cordoba plant will result in a loss of $130 million. I want to refer him to page 3280 of Hansard for February 22, 1977. At that time, 1 raised the question of whether the loss would be in that vicinity or whether it would be the $40 million that the minister projected. 1 asked the minister what the upper limit of the loss would be and he replied:
That, if I understand it, is $40 million.
After an interjection he continued:
I do not know what further information the hon. member wants. All I can tell her is that I think Mr. Campbell was able to negotiate a good deal for Canada.
If the minister thinks that a $130 million loss, which he earlier stated would be only a $40 million loss, negotiated by Mr. Campbell is a good deal, does he not also consider that to be financial incompetence of a grave magnitude? If so, what is the fate of Mr. Campbell?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to understand some of the specifics of a very complicated situation. The hon. member may recall that this was a large and complicated contract, a summary of which was placed before the Public Accounts Committee by the Auditor General. Mr. Campbell and his team were not renegotiating the language of the contract because that was never at issue. There was, unfortunately, no basis in law for seeking that kind of renegotiation but there was a basis in law for seeking renegotiation based on the numbers, on the inflationary impact that had occurred. He was successful in reducing the potential loss, for example in heavy water, by nearly $40 million and most of the balance was with respect to a new escalation provision covering Canadian goods and services on that contract.
He was not authorized, and I understand there was no basis in law for him to renegotiate the language or renegotiate the initial errors concerning estimating. Quite clearly, the estimates have proved to be inaccurate. In some cases the number of man-hours is wrong by as much as 100 per cent. Some of these man-hours had been increased because Canada imposed greater safeguards, and I am sure the hon. lady would be one
Atomic Energy of Canada
of the first to endorse that approach. Under the contract that was negotiated with Argentina, however, we had no basis on which to renegotiate the terms to recover the greater costs associated with safeguard initiatives which Canada took, supported by the opposition parties in this House.
Where the errors seem to have occurred were in the language-in some cases rather loose language-of the contract. This was the first internationl contract of its kind. There were errors in the estimating. The second error which we moved to anticipate a year ago, was the inadequacy with respect to matters of financial control. It was not until sometime after we had finalized it that I was able to ascertain this.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What a Mickey Mouse operation this is.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to defend inadequacies. Clearly, I have been on the other side pushing for a change.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: How does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) feel? What a Mickey Mouse operation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Disneyland is a successful operation.


Alastair William Gillespie: I am also trying to be forthright and explain a situation concerning a corporation which is most important to Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we can conclude this questioning after I recognize the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) for a supplementary question, and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas).


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my question will be brief, and I ask for a brief answer. After the chairman of AECL, Mr. Campbell, returned from renegotiating the deal in Cordoba, Argentina, did he tell the minister the loss had been reduced to $40 million?


Alastair William Gillespie: The information I gave the House is based upon information I received from senior officers of the corporation. The loss, according to the information I gave the House, was between $23 million and $38 million. I believe those figures are on record. The hon. lady once mentioned $40 million. I did not take issue with that $40 million figure. The House knows the range of figures I was given.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Did you get that information from Mr. Campbell?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say if it came from Mr. Campbell or Mr. Foster. It came from a senior officer. Both Mr. Foster and Mr. Campbell were involved in the renegotiations, as the hon. lady no doubt knows.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since the minister said that the loss at the nuclear station at
80020-6%

July 7, 1977
Atomic Energy of Canada
Cordoba, Argentina, is anticipated to be $130 million, despite between $70 million and $80 million having been written off, are we to assume that under the original agreement AECL signed with the government of Argentina the loss, before renegotiation, would have amounted to between $200 million and $210 million?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, one can say, from hindsight, that if the contract entered into by AECL and the Argentinian agency had not been renegotiated, the loss would have been of the order the hon. member mentioned.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Including agents' fees?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister said the report he received from those who reviewed the activities of AECL gave Dr. Foster a clean bill of health with respect to any questionable relationships concerning the renegotiated agreements. Is the same true about Mr. Lome Gray, who was largely responsible for negotiating those agreements? I think a moment ago I talked of Dr. Foster. Actually, Mr. Gray negotiated most of these agreements. Has the minister's investigation considered that aspect of it, and does it give Mr. Lome Gray the same clean bill of health which those who looked into this matter have given Dr. Foster?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I made clear in my statement earlier that there had been managerial deficiencies going back many years. Undoubtedly, as 1 told the hon. lady for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), the original contract was poorly written. It was also based on poor estimates. Most of this was done some years, certainly some months, before Dr. Foster took over as chief executive officer of the corporation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has not really answered my question. I am not talking about incompetence or lack of judgment in the making of estimates. I am following up on questions the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) asked. Large sums of money, for which we cannot account, changed hands. The public accounts committee cannot account for them; the minister cannot account; nobody in AECL can account for these moneys. Naturally, one wants to know where this money went. It is perfectly clear that Dr. Foster has a clean bill of health with respect to any questionable practices. I ask the minister this question: Has he investigated, and can he give the House the same assurance about Mr. Lome Gray?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member made that point clear. The investigation is being conducted by the RCMP. I have not directed the RCMP to investigate any persons in connection with the series of transactions to which the hon. member alluded.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You had best ask Goyer about that.


Alastair William Gillespie: I can tell the hon. member that I have no reason to believe Dr. Foster in any way was involved in any improper action.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What about Mr. Gray?


Alastair William Gillespie: Nor have I received information showing Mr. Gray was involved in any way in improper actions.


Mr. Symes:: What about other officials?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


ANTI-INFLATION ACT MEASURE TO EXTEND RANGE OF PERSONS TO WHOM ANTI-INFLATION GUIDELINES APPLY
Donald Stovel Macdonald: for leave to introduce Bill C-59, to amend the Anti-Inflation Act.


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

Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, because the -government makes fun of national unity by not allowing the House to work in the two official languages, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette):
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is on the motion of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) and seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette): That this House do now adjourn. Does the House adopt said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
July 7, 1977


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,527, 1,775, 2,156, 2,219, 2,231, 2,276, 2,329, 2,354 (revised), 2,403, 2,411, 2,471, 2,472, 2,473, 2,474, 2,537 and 2,717.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Department of Transport obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Department in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. (a) Yes.
(i)	British Columbia	1975-76 67(ii)	Alberta	17(iii)	Saskatchewan	Nil(iv)	Manitoba	33(v)	Ontario	769(vi)	Quebec	273(vii)	New Brunswick	Nil(viii)	Nova Scotia	17(ix)	Prince Edward Island	Nil(x)	Newfoundland	Nil(b) Yes. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) No. Paid from Main Estimates, (a)	1975-76 Nil Nil Nil Nil 63 25 Nil Nil Nil Nil(i)	(*)British Columbia	$5.05	$5.85Alberta	4.09	4.70Manitoba	4.45	5.11Ontario	5.58	6.23Quebec	4.80	5.51Nova Scotia	3.82	5.38
(b) Not available from our records. This information is known only to the private employment agency and its employees.
(c)	(i)	(ii)British Columbia	$ 14,472	$ 36,679Alberta	8,672	14,539Manitoba	20,645	16,743Ontario	863,565	1,221,348Quebec	134,301	388,897Nova Scotia	11,147	9,935
July 7, 1977
Order Paper Questions CBC OBJECTIVES


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is one of the sub-objectives of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation "to contribute to the development of national unity..and, if so, are there expressions of discontent that CBC may not be conforming to this objective?
2.	Is the sub-objective " ... should provide reasonable, balanced opportunity for the expression of different views on matters of public concern.", considered to conflict with the sub-objective quoted in Part 1 and, if so, in what manner is it proposed to resolve this conflict?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. The Broadcasting Act states that the national broadcasting service should "contribute to the development of national unity and provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity". The question of the CBC and its contribution to the development of national unity has recently been a topic of public discussion.
2.	No. In its general programming-drama, music, biographies and documentaries-the CBC contributes to the development of national unity by reflecting and interpreting Canada to Canadians. Communication between the different peoples and regions of the country is the key to achieving this goal. That communication is maintained and strengthened not only through the physical network of communications that the CBC has built up across Canada, but more particularly through the content of programmes. Mutual understanding and an appreciation of the cultural diversity of the various regions of Canada is fostered through these programmes, programmes which celebrate Canada's greatness as well as reflecting on its problems. The current affairs programming of the CBC, on the other hand, has as its objective informing Canadians about the underlying issues confronting them- analyzing these issues and reflecting different perspectives on them in order that Canadians might better decide how to resolve such issues. The CBC sees this contribution to knowledge and understanding as being consistent with that part of the mandate which calls for a "reasonable, balanced opportunity for the expression of differing views on matters of public concern". In the area of news programming the role of the CBC is to inform Canadians of major news events on the national, international and local levels. An informed Canadian public, again, is in a better position to take the decisions which must be taken by them in determining the economic, political and cultural future of the country.


Mr. Forrestall: E (a) How many (i) Board of Directors meetings (ii) other meetings pertaining to business affairs of the CAST Group of Companies were attended by Dr. R. A. Bandeen or his representative since Canadian National Railways invested money in the Group (b) in what locations were the meetings held (c) what Companies paid the travel expenses of Dr. Bandeen (d) how many days of Dr. Bandeen's time were occupied on each occasion?
2.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,248, what specific indirect benefits accrued to CNR from its investment in the CAST Group of Companies?

3.	Under what conditions can the capital invested by CNR in the Group be withdrawn?
4.	For (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976, what was the amount paid by the Group to CNR for rail services in North America?
5.	Did the Board of Directors of the Group approve the move of that Group's operations in whole or in part from the Port of Montreal to the Port of Halifax and, if so, did Dr. R. A. Bandeen concur in this decision and for what reason?


Otto Emil Lang: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. Canadian National Railway Company advises that since it is but a minority shareholder it would be improper to divulge information relative to the business affairs of the CAST group. Since Dr. Bandeen was appointed to the board he has attended three Directors Meetings and several other meetings. This has involved less than one week of his time. The CAST group is responsible for out of pocket expenses associated with such meetings.
2.	There has been a very substantial increase in the total number of containers handled by CN.
3.	Upon the sale of its shares.
4.	It is not the policy of CN to divulge by specific Companies the amounts of its revenues.
5.	It would be improper to give details of the internal management of companies comprising the CAST group.


Mr. Forrestall: Did the government or any of its agencies exercise influence over CAST North America Limited to maintain its port operations in Montreal rather than Halifax and, if so (a) in what manner (b) through what individual, department or agency was such influence exercised?


Otto Emil Lang: No, the government or any of its agencies did not exercise influence over CAST North America Limited to maintain its port operations in Montreal rather than Halifax; (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past Five years, what was the value of construction work carried out by the Department of Transport?


Otto Emil Lang: In each of the past five years, the value of construction work, including capital expenditures from the Airports Revolving Fund, is as follows:
Fiscal Year
Amount
1972-	73
1973-	74
1974-	75
1975-	76
1976-	77 (to March 31/77)


[Stage Direction]
July 7, 1977
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did CBC send 26 members of its staff to the Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Club's training camp in Florida and, if not, what was the exact number?
2.	What are all the reasons such a number of personnel were assigned to cover this event?
3.	How many represented the (a) English (b) French network?
4.	What was the total cost to CBC of all aspects of this assignment including the cost of (a) transportation (b) accommodation, food and drink (c) wages?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. No. English Services television and radio, 16. The French Services Division had a crew of six in Florida to prepare programmes on the Montreal Expos training camp, after which they spent a day covering the Toronto Blue Jays training camp.
2. English Services: TV-to prepare a one-hour network special (fully paid for by its sponsor), a half-hour Toronto local special, sports and news items several times a day for national, Toronto local and syndication use; Radio-to prepare items for national sports and news programmes. French Services: see answer to part 1 above. TV-the crew prepared three network items on the Blue Jays. Radio-news from the Blue Jays camp was added to daily reports from the Expos camp.
3.	See answer to part 1 above.
4.	It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its internal management and administration as salaries and costs incurred in preparing programmes. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.


Mr. Stevens: For each year 1971 to 1976, what was the operating surplus or deficit for (a) Toronto International Malton Airport (b) Montreal International Dorval Airport (c) Vancouver International Airport (d) Calgary International Airport (e) Winnipeg International Airport (0 Montreal International Mirabel Airport (g) Ottawa International Airport?


Otto Emil Lang: Operating Surplus (Deficit) 1970-71 to 1975-76 (SOOO's)
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)	(0	(g)Malton	Dorval	Vancouver	Calgary	Winnipeg	Mirabel	Ottawa1970-71	4,698	5,075	(2,920)	(593)	(2,309)	-	(2,321)1971-72	3,521	3,953	(3.197)	(822)	(2,644)	-	(2,654)1972-73	3,591	5,035	(2,668)	(892)	(2,943)	-	(2,864)1973-74	540	5,847	(2,224)	(1,361)	(2,800)	-	(3,207)1974-75	4,675	6,706	(2,762)	(2,491)	(4,212)	-	(3,870)1975-76	15,288	9,669	1,845	(2,744)	(2,137)	(18,382)*	(3,129)
* Period December 1, 1975 to March 31, 1976.
Order Paper Questions TANKERS CALLING AT PORTS IN QUEBEC 
Question No. 2,354-Mr. Forrestall: (Revised)
1.	During (a) January (b) February (c) March 1976, what percentage of the total number of vessels calling at the Port of (i) Quebec (ii) Trois Rivieres (iii) Montreal, to load or discharge cargo, were tankers?
2.	How many square feet of National Harbours Board shedded area is currently available at (a) Montreal (b) Quebec (c) Halifax (d) Saint John?
3.	For the year (a) 1975 (b) 1976, what was the total volume of general cargo shipped over piers associated with the sheds, excluding facilities used primarily for container handling?


Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1.
(a)	(b)	(c)January	February	March1976	1976	1976(i)	Quebec	50%	52%	48%(ii)	Trois-Rivieres	30%	50%	18%(iii)	Montreal	32%	34%	30%2.	(a) Montreal, 2,870,454 square feet; (b) Quebec, 599,300 square feet; (c) Halifax, 760,604 square feet; (d) Saint-John, 813,665 square feet.3.	(Revised).Cargo handled through transit sheds (a)	(b)1975	1976(Tons)	(Tons)Montreal	1,203,612	1,390,042Quebec	160,846	280,739Halifax	455,831	387,382Saint John	974,903	977,695


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is it the intention of the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board to guarantee minimum quotas for rapeseed, as is the case for the three major grains, as recommended by the Prairie Rapeseed Growers Council at their recent meeting in Vancouver?


Otto Emil Lang: In so far as the
Canadian Wheat Board is concerned: On May 20, opening delivery quotas for rapeseed, flaxseed and rye were announced for the coming 1977-78 crop year. The Canadian Wheat Board will establish quotas on August 1, 1977 of eight bushels per assigned acre for the delivery of rapeseed, flaxseed and rye to primary elevators. The initial quota for the delivery of rapeseed and flaxseed to crushing plants will be 20 bushels per assigned acre, while the opening quota for deliveries of rye to distillers will be 15 bushels per assigned acre. In future years the initial quotas for these three crops will be announced in



July 7, 1977
Order Paper Questions
March, prior to seeding, at the same time that the minimum guaranteed quota levels for wheat, oats and barley are established. In addition to a guaranteed minimum eight bushel quota for rapeseed before October 1 of the crop year, the Prairie Rapeseed Growers Council had also recommended that there be guaranteed quota increases at certain times during the crop year to a minimum final quota level of 30 bushels per acre or an open quota. However, it is not considered practical for the Canadian Wheat Board to guarantee the establishment of a minimum 30 bushel quota for rapeseed. The amount of rapeseed that producers can deliver ultimately depends on the success of the trade in marketing rapeseed and rape oil and meal. Consequently, further adjustments during the crop year above the eight bushel quota level for rapeseed will be made by the Board when and at such time as they are warranted by domestic and export demand.


Mr. Howie: Will the transfer of tax points, plus the benefits of equalization formula and tax grants, provide the poorer provinces with the funds to maintain health, hospital and secondary education services at the same level as in the wealthier provinces and catch up in those areas where such services are below the comparable level in wealthier provinces or is the catch up feature to be the subject of another agreement or another programme?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Yes. Two aspects of the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements are relevant here. The first is the equalization programmes and the second is the established programmes financing programme. Taken together, these programs ensure that all provinces are in a position to provide comparable services in the areas of hospital insurance, medicare and post-secondary education. The purpose of the equalization programme, under which provincial revenues from own sources are equalized to the national average, is to ensure that all provinces can provide a reasonable standard of basic public services without having to resort to levels of taxation significantly above the national average. The purpose of the established programmes financing arrangements is to assist the provinces in the financing of the so-called "established" programmes. Federal contributions take the form of a mix of cash and tax transfers. These arrangements are designed to increase the fiscal flexibility of the provinces and to eliminate the per capita differences which existed under the prior, shared-cost arrangements. Fiscal flexibility is achieved through a tax transfer equalized to the national average; per capita differences in programmes costs are eliminated through levelling adjustment payments designed to ensure that all provinces receive equal per capita grants within five years. Hence, a "catch-up" feature has been built into the new arrangements. It is also worth noting that all provinces are better off financially than they would have been had the prior, shared-cost arrangements continued. For example, by the year 1981-82, the transfer under the new arrangements is estimated to be

$10.5 billion, while the transfer under the old shared-cost arrangements would have been approximately $8.7 billion.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	As of April 1, 1977, is OXFAM-Canada registered as a Canadian charitable organization with the Department of National Revenue?
2.	Are donations to OXFAM-Canada tax deductible within the provisions of paragraph 110 (l)(a) of the Income Tax Act?
3.	(a) What is the location and address of the head office of OXFAM-Canada (b) who are the present registered members of the Board?
4.	Are there any patrons of OXFAM-Canada and, if so, who are they?
5.	Did the Secretary of State respond to the concerns expressed by certain members of the Board of the Western Region of OXFAM on their resignation, when they wrote to the Secretary of State regarding the political education projects of OXFAM and, if so, what was the nature of the response?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of National Revenue, Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Secretary of State as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.	'
3.	According to information filed by the company as at March 31, 1976, (a) the location and address of the head office of OXFAM-Canada are: location: Ottawa, Ontario; address: 251 Laurier St. W., Suite 301, Ottawa, Ontario KIP 5J6. (b) The members of the Board of Directors are: Muriel Duckworth, 6250 South Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Peter Bietenholz, 117 Albert Avenue, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Mike Bradfield, 6324 Cornwall Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Meyer Brownstone, 57 Poplar Plains Road, Toronto, Ontario; Mac Freeman, Queen's University, Faculty of Education, Duncan McArthur Hall, Kingston, Ontario; Jonathan Forbes, Development Education Centre, 121 A Avenue Road, Toronto, Ontario; Irving Greenberg, 11 Clemow Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario; Theo Hills, 35 de Bretagne, St-Lambert, Quebec; John Loxley, Legislative Building, Room 338, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Charlotte Maxwell, 37 Burnside Drive, Toronto, Ontario; Ralph Miller, Department of Education Foundations, Faculty of Education, University of Calgary, Alberta; Vern Ratzlaff, 77 Henderson Highway, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Bill Saul, Ogilvy & Mather (Canada) Ltd., 88 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario; David Thompson, 143 Pleasant Street, St. John's, Newfoundland; Ed Wellwood, 6th Avenue-R.R. # 1, Okanagan Falls, B.C; John Williams, 7 Newton Road, St. John's, Newfoundland; Bob White, 37 Amelia Street, Toronto, Ontario.
4.	The information requested may be obtained directly from OXFAM-Canada.
5.	The Department of the Secretary of State can find no record of this correspondence.
*nHHHHIIHUBHBHHHHHnBHH
July 7, 1977


Mr. Howie: 1.	On (a) April 20 (b) April 27, 1977, how many flights were made by Air Canada from Fredericton to Saint John, New Brunswick?
2.	In each case, how many seats were available for passengers travelling from Fredericton and how many were filled?


Otto Emil Lang: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. (a) One. (b) Two.
2. (a) 75 seats available, 44 passengers, (b) 75 seats available, 36 passengers; 102 seats available, 34 passengers.


Mr. Howie: 1.	On (a) April 20 (b) April 27, 1977, what was the total number of direct flights made by Air Canada to Fredericton, New Brunswick from (i) Montreal (ii) Quebec City (iii) Toronto and, in each case, what were the departure times and what were the arrival times in Fredericton, New Brunswick?
2.	How many seats were available for Fredericton bound passengers on each flight and how many were filled?


Otto Emil Lang: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. (a) (i) Three: AC674 Dep. 0810 Arv. 1055; AC640 Dep. 0920 Arv. 1120; AC660 Dep. 1455 Arv. 1655. (ii) One: AC674 Dep. 0910 Arv. 1055. (iii) Two: AC640 Dep. 0700 Arv. 1120; AC642 Dep. 1015 Arv. 1250. (b) (i) Two: AC674 Dep. 0810 Arv. 1055; AC660 Dep. 1450 Arv. 1650. (ii) One: AC674 Dep. 0910 Arv. 1055. (iii) One: AC642 Dep. 0905 Arv. 1140.
2. (a) (i) 75 seats available, 50 passengers; 75 seats available, 30 passengers; 102 seats available, 30 passengers, (ii) 75 seats available, 28 passengers, (iii) 75 seats available, 64 passengers; 95 seats available, 37 passengers, (b) (i) 75 seats available, 75 passengers; 102 seats available, 34 passengers.
(ii)	75 seats available, 57 passengers, (iii) 102 seats available, 60 passengers.


Mr. Howie: 1.	On (a) April 20 (b) April 27, 1977, how many direct flights were made by Air Canada from Fredericton, New Brunswick to (i) Montreal (ii) Quebec City
(iii)	Toronto?
2.	How many seats were available for passengers travelling from Fredericton and how many were Fdled?
3.	What was the weight of the cargo in each case?


Otto Emil Lang: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. (a) (i) Three, (ii) One. (iii) Two. (b) (i) Two. (ii) One. (iii) Two.
2. (a) (i) 252 seats available. 139 passengers; (ii) 75 seats available. 46 passengers; (iii) 197 seats available. 84 passengers; (b) (i) 177 seats available. 145 passengers; (ii) 75 seats available. 45 passengers; (iii) 204 seats available. 173 passengers.
Order Paper Questions
3. (a) (i) Total 767 pounds; (ii) Total 5 pounds; (iii) Total 574 pounds, (b) (i) Total 770 pounds; (ii) Total 7 pounds; (iii) Total 605 pounds.


Mr. McCleave: 1.	Has the Department of the Environment (Fisheries) received a suggestion from any group of Nova Scotian fishermen that "grandfather" rights be placed on small draggers operating within the fifty-mile territorial sea and, if so, from which groups?
2.	Would such a proposal remove all draggers, eventually, from operating inside such a sea and, if so, what type of vessel would be left to operate in the sea?
3.	What consideration is being given to the request from inshore fishermen?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: 1. If the question refers to the claim of some inshore fishermen in Nova Scotia for an exclusive fishing zone of 50 miles, the department has not received a suggestion from any group of Nova Scotia fishermen that "grandfather"rights be placed on small draggers operating within such a zone, were it to be established, but the Guysbor-ough County Fishermen's Association has proposed that all groundfish draggers be phased out, and that no new ground-fish dragger construction be permitted.
2.	As indicated, the department has not received such a proposal. If draggers were excluded from prosecuting fisheries within 50 miles of our coast, then only vessels operating in the hook and line, trap, or gill-net fishery would be allowed to fish in this area.
3.	The drawing of arbitrary lines is not at this time seen to be necessary. However, because of the high priority attached to the interests of the near shore fishermen, the protection of those interests is under continual review by regional officials. Should exclusive areas be required in future to ensure the livelihood of near shore fishermen, action would then be taken to provide for this.


Mr. Robinson: What is the salary of the (a) Executive (b) Director (c) Chairman (d) Vice-Chairman (e) board members of the Atlantic Pilotage Authority?


Otto Emil Lang: (a) Not applicable; (b) not applicable; (c) $27,500.0-$36,500; (d) not applicable; (e) $75 for each day engaged on the business of the authority.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 2,009 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled

July 7, 1977
Adjournment Motion
immediately. The reason, once again, is the lengthy nature of the answer.


SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-PRODUCTION OF MOVIE FILM
Mr. Crosbie: 1.	Did the Secretary of State for External Affairs have produced a movie film in colour, during the present financial year, containing his season's greetings to external affairs staff at diplomatic and consular posts around the world and, if so, how many prints were made and to how many diplomatic or consular posts were they shipped?
2.	Was the film produced in colour by Crawley Films Limited, Ottawa and, if not, by whom?
3.	What was the amount paid by the government for the film including all costs in connection with the making of prints and shipping them around the world?
4.	How long does the film take to screen and will the government Table a transcript of the dialogue?
5.	Has the Department or any former Secretary of State for External Affairs produced such a film in the past and (a) if so (i) in what year (ii) which Secretaries of State (b) if not, in what manner were season's greetings conveyed to the staff around the world and what was the cost for the last year in which such greetings were sent?
6.	During the fiscal year 1976-77, did any other cabinet Minister send Christmas greetings or a Christmas message to departmental staff or to anyone by way of a film production and, if so, in each case (a) what was his/her name (b) what was the cost (c) to whom?
Return tabled.


Ralph Goodale: 1 ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, I will continue to raise this issue with the parliamentary secretary until I receive a positive and appropriate response as to why question No. 506, which has been on the order paper since October 14, standing in my name, containing very simple inquiries has not been answered in spite of the promises the parliamentary secretary has made to me. I would like a reasonable response from him.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: 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 Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott)-Urban Affairs- Allegation government owes taxes to municipality of Ottawa-Carleton-Government action; the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz)-Consumer Affairs-Possibility of prohibiting use of asbestos fibres in preparation of food and beverages; the

hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook)-Finance-Taxing of benefits from life insurance policies-Government action.
Order, please. The House yesterday came to an agreement that two hours would be allocated today for the termination of the debate on national unity; that if the House were to begin that debate prior to four o'clock, it would end in two hours' time; and that if the House were to begin the debate after four o'clock-which is the case today-two continuous hours should be allocated to the debate.
Therefore, pursuant to that agreement the debate will conclude at two minutes past seven. Furthermore, 1 should call to the attention of hon. members that the description of that agreement which is contained in Votes and Proceedings is not entirely in accord with the description of it as put by the President of the Privy Council yesterday. I simply want to clarify for the record that the interpretation I put on it today is clearly the one that the House agreed to yesterday, and it is slightly different from that described in Votes and Proceedings. On the basis of that agreement we will now proceed to the debate on that motion.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


David Réal Caouette: Yes, I rise on a point of order. I want to advise the House that concerning the continuation of the debate on national unity this afternoon, in view of the strong position the ministers took by refusing to give us a French copy . . .


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question has already been raised by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin). Now, it is simply in order to give the floor to the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) and to conclude that debate.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


David Réal Caouette: In the circumstances, we refuse to take part in the debate on national unity, and hon. members of the Social Credit Party of Canada leave the House immediately.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I thought the point of order, if there was one, was disposed of. I hope the government House leader has now gathered himself together sufficiently so that he can indicate the business for tonight, if we reach it, for tomorrow and perhaps for next week.
July 7, 1977


Mrs. Sauve:: Mr. Speaker-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the minister is seeking the floor on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the point of order raised by the interim leader of the Social Credit Party.


Some hon. Members:: No!


Jeanne Sauvé: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker disposed of that point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Temiscamingue rose on a point of order, which I indicated obviously was not a point of order. He continued to indicate to the House that the Social Credit members were withdrawing, which is not a point of order. It is not relevant to the subject which has now been called for debate and upon which the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain has been recognized. I think we should continue with that debate. However, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton did raise a fresh point of order concerning House business.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, never in my life have I seen the other side so confused.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: My question is very simple. The government House leader may not be able to answer it now because there is so much confusion. If that is the case, we will give him the courtesy of asking again at eight o'clock tonight. However, can he tell us now, if it is within his ken, what the government proposes for business later tonight, tomorrow and into next week, because it is quite obvious that we are going to be here.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is no confusion on this side of the House. I was delaying rising to reply in order to give the Minister of Communications an opportunity to state a point of order.


Walter David Baker: It was not a point of order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member says it is not a point of order. It has not yet been heard. Apparently he has some terrestrial view, or he can hear without listening. He talked about confusion. He is so confused that he cannot organize an effective motion under Standing Order 43, as we discovered the day before yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
National Unity


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The business tonight is the unemployment insurance bill. Tomorrow it is understood that we will deal until noon or one o'clock with the Canada Pension Plan, and in the afternoon we will resume the debate on the unemployment insurance bill, and then deal with Air Canada.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding the incident which sparked a vote a while ago.
The leader of the Social Credit Party has decided to leave the House; however, I would like to point out that he did give his consent to the tabling of these documents earlier this afternoon


Some hon. Members:: Order!


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Ralph Goodale: Every one of you over there consented. You consented, Joe.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Communications sought the floor and indicated she was doing so on the same point of order-not on a fresh point of order-as that raised by the hon. member for Temiscamingue. I indicated that it was not a valid point of order and that I would not hear hon. members further. I gave the minister the floor to raise a fresh point of order. Her remarks seem to be a reflection on a vote and on events which have taken place in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.



GOVERNMENT BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, July 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau:
That members of this House dedicate themselves anew to the continuing unity of Canada as a free and independent country organized on the basis of a federal form of government with two official languages and a diversity of cultures; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Clark.
Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, when I began speaking last evening I was trying to say something positive about national unity. I intend to say something positive today. Even if hon. members opposite are rude, I shall not be, so they should not worry about it. I intend to speak about something which is important to me and to everyone else in this House, and I intend to speak in a completely non-partisan way.

July 7, 1977
National Unity


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I do not intend to reflect on what anyone before me has said, so perhaps hon. members opposite should listen. When I go back to my riding-and I am sure this happens to other hon. members-I am always asked, "What can we do?" People do not say that the situation is lost; they ask what they can do and how they can help. I thought this national unity debate would be one in which hon. members would contribute what they had to offer, and I am willing to admit that there are many better minds that mine. Elowever, in my small way I will contribute what I can to this debate on the unity of our country.
I may be old-fashioned, but the way I face a situation like this is to research it, identify the problem and state the simple solutions which come to my mind. The research is easy for me, because I lived it. 1 do not have to go to books. I lived on Fifth Avenue. I remember that there were the Stirlings, the Mac-Farlanes, the Edwards, the Elughes, the Cousineaus and the Heberts. The Cousineaus had 27 children, and the Heberts 17. When we applied for summer jobs, I got a job in a factory, the Stirlings got jobs at the university, and Guy Cousineau became the deliverer of beer for Beausoleil and Markey.
People said the Cousineaus and Heberts had too many children and that their churches were too big. Notre Dame de Sept Douleurs was their church, but the president of the Bank of Montreal attended a little Presbyterian church. It was always that way. Is it not interesting that by 1947 in one of the largest department stores in the second largest French-speaking city in the world a French Canadian made it as manager of men's hats? That was in 1947. The French Canadian girls who worked there spoke English to the French customers. Nobody got a holiday on St. Jean Baptiste day, either. That was the situation we lived in. It is interesting to see what happened to those families which grew up on that little street, Mr. Speaker. The Stirlings became principals of schools and honours graduates in physics, an Edwards became vice-president of Northern Electric, but the Cousineaus never got out of grade four.
When we left McGill University we went to jobs with the Protestant school board at $1,900 a year. We thought that was terrible, but the French school board was paying only $700 a year. The money that put us through McGill came from men like Duplessis who were supposed to be hated. We had gymnasia in our schools, and $4,000 rugs so that girls could learn to clean them in the home economics course. Those teachers who were earning $700 a year did not even have a gymnasium or any athletic facilities. We were the most favoured minority in all of Canada. In Montreal, the second largest Frenchspeaking city in the world, English-speaking people were the most favoured in all of Canada. We were in charge: we acted as if we were, and we lived as if we were. It is Rene Levesque who wants to take away the favour which that minority has enjoyed, not this federal parliament. I do not know of any member of this House who does not want to protect that minority. We will see that is done. We must guarantee that kind of minority right to others, however, in other areas.

My research turned up something else. Some people ask what we are to do with the Pequistes and their ideas. I will be blunt about it, Mr. Speaker. No one in this parliament, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), opposition leaders or any member, wants to divide this country. Just one person does, and the group that surrounds him: it is Rene Levesque and the Parti Quebecois who speak of separation. When they speak of separation we had better listen carefully, Mr. Speaker. In 1972, when Yves Morin wrote that supposed constitution, he said they should take over certain contiguous areas in New Brunswick and Ontario where there might be a majority French population. Think of that, Mr. Speaker. This is the party that wants to talk of some kind of union. Separation is not negotiable. I am not embarrassed to say that; I am not afraid to say it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: They cannot come to my table to eat, they cannot come to my table to drink, if they want to come as separatists. They come as we have to come-with what we have, all our failings, all our faults, all our mistakes, to work together to bring about what has been building in the country. When I coached football in Verdun they said, "Those French guys cannot play football. Don't let them on your team. What is that big stupid guy from Saint-Hyacinthe doing there?" It was Gilles Archambault, and he was not so stupid. He made it because in that little community of Verdun we recognized our own faults. We went to Ivan Livingston's home, and sitting at dinner suddenly knew what it was like to sit with ten little negro piccaninnies around, realizing you were the only white person and thinking how strange they might feel. This is the thing French Canadians have had to face.
Somebody now wants English Canadians to face that in Montreal. Not this parliament, not these people, but people who in order to achieve their aims would deal with the minority and make it less. There are no members from Quebec on this side of the House who feel that way, and there are no members on the other side of the House who feel that way. If anybody wants to sit down-and I will not-and try to deal with the separatist option, they can answer the questions that I will not answer. Who wants to answer what we are going to do about Ungava? Are we going to take it back if Quebec is not part of Canada? And what about Labrador? Are we going to make a decision for Newfoundland?


James Aloysius McGrath: That decision was made.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: If you enter into a separatist negotiation, you had better look at something else. If they come to the table as Canadians, you are right. What will we do with our great economic union? Are we going to discuss common banking, common trade? Quebec will say they need more money because they have lots of unemployment, and we will say that because of inflation we cannot give them more money. How do we negotiate? Somebody else can to it, because it is not going to be in my bivouac. We are not going to go that route. We are going to recognize the tactic of Rene Levesque,
July 7, 1977

which is simply to make certain that the English get so fed up with arguments about Quebec, about French and language and everything else that they will say, "Let them go." Then there is the other tactic of saying the federal government will withdraw support and the French will say, "They do not want us.' The tactic is not that he will succeed with separation and constitutional matters: it is separation by attrition.
I faced that two weeks ago when 1 went back to Quebec to bury my brother, Mr. Speaker. On his deathbed he told me that one son was staying and taking a bilingual job, and one son was leaving. I know of other people who moved out of Quebec, not because they were English and would not stay but because their company moved. And who will move in, Mr. Speaker? Who wants that French force here, or the English force outside? That is separation by attrition. I have no time for it.
Having done the research, I identify the problem as one of communication. We now have a commission which will travel across the country. We have no right, as members of parliament, to make all these decisions. There are people in St. Louis, there are people in Skeena, people in Hamilton Mountain who have something to say. It is their right to say it to the commission and to make recommendations. The kind of thing I would recommend may not be terribly important, but at least it is practical.
I have prepared a paper to present to the commission, saying that we are long past the date when we should have created a department of provincial affairs, and the first minister of each province should name a contact to that group so that when people in the province want information they can get it.
If members of this House want information from the government, not a grant for a new speaking tour but something that will enable them to make a case for federalism in their constituencies, they should be able to get it from the department I propose. Such a department should deal with bilingualism and multiculturalism. We have to accept that we have come a long way and have reached the stage of talking about two founding races. It is like those great slats of wood on a stained-glass window. Because of multiculturalism, we recognize the colours of the glass. This is the mosaic that is important, supported by two founding races and many minorities.
How is a separatist Quebec going to support the minority and guarantee their rights in the west or in the east? How is the province of Ontario going to guarantee the rights of the English in Montreal? One of the first priorities of the federal government is to guarantee the rights of the minorities. Nobody else can do it. I have heard members on both sides of the House express anger because their country has not done what they thought it should do. The expression of such sentiments is perfectly justifiable. Such hon. members can disagree with me. However, I suggest I have put on record some of the reasons for our country's present condition and some of the ways out of the impasse. Others in the House have said what I have said. I have listened to the contributions hon. members made in this debate and I can say that at this moment in this
National Unity
country there exists a greater will than many would believe for going forward and solving our difficulties. I recall the words of John Donne:
No man is an Island, intire of it selfe; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the iesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were-
If Quebec goes, Canada is less. Do not ask for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee. For the first time since coming to parliament I feel that the member for Hamilton Mountain may stand in his place, say what he feels, and influence the course of events in this country. Mr. Speaker, I speak for the people of Hamilton Mountain, the people with a Scottish background, who recall the words of the Scottish poet to this effect, "Let us say God Save the Queen, but let us not forget the people." And the words to this effect, "It is coming yet, and yet shall be, when man to man shall brother be." We have this opportunity; we have this right.
I have great pride in serving on this side of the House and under our Prime Minister, but I will join hands with anyone on the opposite side or on my side, including the Prime Minister, join hands with any single, living soul who will say, "Let's work it out." Because, Mr. Speaker, we are going to work it out.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to point out that I am speaking in the House as a member of a political party and as the representative of a province and constituency which have shown much concern and uncertainty for some time now. As all members of this House, we are seeking that harmony, but how?
First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate our leader for his brilliant speech and for sternly reminding us of the responsibilities of Parliament. I would be remiss if I did not mention the excellent speech made by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), an experienced man who has been shrewd and farsighted, of whose valuable advice the government is being deprived.
I cannot ignore the sad incident which happened this afternoon. I would like to congratulate the member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) who raised the basic question, the basic objective of the Prime Minister in 1968: bilingualism in federal institutions. As a result, we saw the members of the Social Credit who withdrew, surely humiliated and frustrated. Personally, I was very disappointed to see some Quebec members or French-speaking members on the government side refuse to warn the minister responsible for such frustration involving all French-speaking people in Canada. It is most humiliating not to have seen fit to get action today and, in the Prime Minister's image, we have seen the party in power give lip service only. It is true that we are being accused about the objective of the official languages.

July 7, 1977
National Unity
It has been said that people are judged by their acts and not by their words. This afternoon, I must say to the government members, and especially those of my province, how ashamed I am for our Quebecers. I think about the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr), for instance, who was openly applauding the hon. member for Richmond and who I imagine reluctantly supported the government's attitude. I think about the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie) who, until recently, I know, would not let one day go by without requesting that services be given in the French language and who, today, lamentably betrayed his own thinking by supporting the government. I am thinking about all those from Quebec who are shaming us, and the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) is one of them.


Mr. Olivier:: Tell us why you have become independent.


Roch La Salle: The hon. member for Longueuil is one of those who open their mouths more to interrupt others than to speak on behalf of their constituencies.
Mr. Speaker, I should be ashamed as a Quebecer for supporting the Liberal party this afternoon. Not a single Quebecer or Francophone had the right to miss this opportunity, my colleagues were right to do so, and it is this government which talks about maintaining national unity through bilingual services. The Canadian public must be told what happened this afternoon in this House, and so must Quebecers, and the minister of Communications. (Mrs. Sauve) dared quickly support the position of her party which, I repeat, is shaming all French speaking members in this House.
And in that respect, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall certain allegations made yesterday by the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) which coincide perfectly well today. He blamed the leader of my party (Mr. Clark) for expressing the opinion that the bilingual policy as applied by the Liberal government had become an element of division in this country. Manipulating the words astutely, as the Liberals are so wont to do when they want to brandish the specter of racism for electoral purposes, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State tried to make believe that the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party were accepting bilingualism relunctantly and did not care for the official languages policy as an element of national identity. Mr. Speaker, I say that those remarks by the minister are among the lowest and most dishonest form of demagogy one can imagine. When, Mr. Speaker, will this government stop cultivating those prejudices for purely political purposes? When, Mr. Speaker, will it stop those shameless manipulations to make Quebecers believe that Conservatives are anti-francophone and opposed to the best interests of Quebec? But they are not prepared to stop, Mr. Speaker, because the appeal to prejudices has been their favourite weapon for ten years. They know it quite well and it is with that weapon that division is being perpetuated, but that is politically profitable. And is it any wonder after that that there should be an aggressive nationalist feeling in Quebec.
[Mr. La Salle.)
We, of the Conservative Party, say that it is too easy for this government to want to sweep under the rug of a bilingualism whose principle we clearly approve, Mr. Speaker, but whose application we are rightfully discussing, all the monumental mistakes that government members made in the past ten years as well as all the problems they brought about and are tragically letting rot without ever solving them. Of course, bilingualism is very important, Mr. Speaker; we, of the official opposition, sincerely believe in it whatever the government might say, a government which incidentally came to get within our ranks the main opponent of bilingualism to make him a minister and its major spokesman for western Canada. That gives you an idea of the intellectual honesty and credibility of the members on the government side.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we fully agree with the principle of both official languages, as we have supported until now the implementation of the program, with certain qualifications, but we will not accept that this essential principle be used to distract the attention from the problems of unemployment, inflation, regional disparities and tense federal-provincial relations. The only thing that these tragic problems have in common with the linguistic issue is that they affect all Canadian citizens, whatever their language and their culture. Mr. Speaker, this is the essence of the problem that we are now discussing; this is what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State should have been saying when they had the opportunity if they had not been concerned only with the need to worsen the language controversy to prepare their electoral platform for next fall or next spring.


Mr. Grafftey:: Explain Horner to the Quebecers!


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, this debate is the unfortunate and unavoidable issue of a deep uneasiness which was felt for the first time at the end of the last century, has since then grown continuously and has seriously worsened in the last ten years. At this point, it is useless to play on words and we must have the honesty to recognize that what we are now discussing is the future of our country. We have to recognize that what we are now undertaking is nothing else but the review of Confederation, and if our colleagues refuse to see it, if they find it unthinkable to examine the basic concept of the federative pact, I am afraid that we shall have in months and years to come more and more difficulty in understanding each other. Mr. Speaker, I have used the words "federative pact" quite intentionally, because it is precisely from the interpretation of this term that springs the lack of understanding which is threatening to divide us even more.
From 1867 until now, French Canadians always thought that Confederation was the result of a pact or an alliance between Upper and Lower Canada, between the two growing nationalities which guaranteed each other equality and total autonomy. It is under those specific and often repeated conditions that Lower Canada agreed to join Confederation and that Sir Georges-Etienne Cartier became its protagonist. All politicians of the time as well as all historians since then agree
July 7, 1977

unanimously that without Cartier, the federation would have never existed.
An hon. Miember: True!


Roch La Salle: Moreover, it is not accidentally that Lower Canada positively refused any proposition for a mere legislative union. As well, it was not a fancy of the French Canadians to require assurances of equality and autonomy. They knew that this was an absolute condition allowing them to maintain their identity, their institutions, their language and their culture. So much so that Cartier himself maintained with conviction, and I quote:
Some people have regretted that there is in the federation a diversity of races, and hoped that with time an end would come to this ... The melting of the races into one is sheer impossibility.
I did not say that, Mr. Speaker. The Father of Confederation did. A pact enshrining the association and equality of two peoples into a common will to live together, but respecting each one's autonomy, such has been the perception of Confederation among French Canadians from 1867 to this day. Even after so many years, Quebecers and other French-speaking Canadians have lost patience, put claims, made requests, pleas, demands and even entreaties. But there is no way they could go over that so easily, forget everything and blindly support the badly implemented, ill-conceived and overly rigid kind of federalism we now have.
French Canadians have tired legs that made too many unfruitful steps, a tired hand that drafted brief after brief, a tired mind that tried pointlessly to explain, persuade and convince. Some may think this is all exaggeration. If by any chance someone still believes that Quebec's feelings towards Confederation have deteriorated since the coming into power of the Parti Quebecois, I will quote from a short work titled "Georges Etienne Cartier, a Canadian Statesman" published in 1914 by Mr. Lavergne. The author had this to say about Confederation:
The political status established by Cartier cannot be permanent. Two peoples can live together in a small country, but we believe this is impossible in a large country once those peoples have come of age. The day will come when there will be a separation between east and west. The former will break into three or four republics whose frontiers will be dictated by geography.
Mr. Speaker, I am striving to show what we French Canadians were expecting from the 1867 alliance, and to what extent our hopes have been disappointed from generation to generation. I have no intention of inflaming the debate by accusing any group. But 1 would remain with a bad conscience and even a feeling of not telling the truth if 1 did not emphasize that national unity mainly deteriorated during the year after Confederation's 100th birthday, when federal-provincial relations turned into a war of attrition. Let me state quite bluntly that this coincided with the coming to power of the gentleman who this very day is holding the office of Prime Minister.
Until then, the federal government had tried to be flexible
enough, to compromise enough, to meet, after a fashion, the
primary claims of Quebec, as those of the other provinces as
National Unity
well. All was not going smoothly, of course, and Quebec nationalism did rear its head frequently, but the fact remains that the federal government showed more understanding, more compassion, more good will, while in Quebec, formulas of agreement and adjustments were advocated.
These attitudes, on both parts, created a tolerable modus vivendi which could eventually have led to a profitable dialogue; but all was cut short by the pithy expression hurled by the Prime Minister in Montreal: "Finies les folies!" From that time on, a policy was built up of hardening, refusal, ultimatums, intrigues, arrogance and provocation. Until then, federalism which had at times meant difficulties for Quebec suddenly took on the shape of a threat, of an obstacle. And that is why we are pleading anew the case of the future of this country, Mr. Speaker. Unless the Prime Minister modifies to a great extent his concept of confederation and of the relationship between the central government and the provinces, I think he runs the risk of being recorded by history as having badly served the cause of his French-speaking fellows citizens. Because, without trying to indulge in cheap politics and without trying to minimize the merits of the Prime Minister in enforcing respect for the rights of the French language in Canada, 1 must tell him that he is deluding himself if he believes that his policy of bilingualism alone will silence the desires for independence on the part a segment of the Quebec population and that it will solve the differences between Canadians.
It is wrong to pretend that it is only an issue of language, Mr. Speaker. I notice that in his speech, the Prime Minister spoke of a new Canada since November 15. 1 think it is important that members of parliament and Canadians at large know what happened before November 15. Why is it that on the evening of November 15, a majority of Quebecers rejected this approach, this kind of federalism, that system which we have now? Do we have to remind our friends opposite that everything started deteriorating seriously some 10 years ago, when our present Prime Minister came to power. Fie was right. How to explain, for example, that this situation dates back in history to the time of the then premier of Quebec, Mr. Johnson, who had to fight with the Prime Minister of today? Then it was the turn of Mr. Bertrand, of Mr. Bourassa and finally now Mr. Levesque. There is nothing new in the fact that the team which represents Quebec on the government benches is regarded by a majority of Quebecers as a gang of traitors on so many issues.
I remember quite well what caused this discontent among Quebecers, the attitude of this government under the leadership of the Prime Minister. They offered a refusal, which I still remember quite well, Mr. Speaker, to proposals which matched the legitimate aspirations of my province, and were presented by Mr. L'Allier, or Mr. Hardy or Mr. St. Pierre. And I still remember, and perhaps the member for Longueuil was one of the people involved that evening, of being accused of separatism because I supported the representations made by the province of Quebec.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

July 7, 1977
National Unity


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Longueuil on a question of privilege.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) has just accused me of levelling accusations against him. I should like him to prove what he said, but he cannot. In view of his remarks, I ask the hon. member for Joliette to withdraw the statement he has just made, unless he can prove it is true. [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest this is a point of debate not a point of order.


Roch La Salle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, the Quebec situation results from the fact that Quebec representatives within the federal government have not fulfilled their duties. Over the past ten years, the right hon. Prime Minister and his Quebec colleagues have chosen to hide the truth from their cabinet colleagues from the other provinces by not telling them what was really going on in the province of Quebec. I remember that...


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


William Heward Grafftey: Continue!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 1 believe there was an understanding that all leaders would get 40 minutes and that other members would get 20 minutes, so I am trying to divide the remaining time fairly.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I regret having to open my remarks this afternoon by saying something I did not expect to say, and in a tone I had not intended to use.
I want to say I regret very deeply, as I am sure, does my party, the insensitivity of the government toward this issue. We are in the middle of a debate on national unity. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) has taken this occasion to demonstrate his insensitivity, his disregard for the history and traditions both of the country and of parliament.
I will continue, but perhaps because of my advancing age I find difficulty in overcoming a loud babble of other voices.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Don't let either of those things bother you.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I want to express the feelings which I believe are held by many Canadians across this land, feeling of passionate concern for the maintenance and development of a strong, federally-united Canada. This would not be the achievement of one man or of one party but of very many Canadians.
It is the particular responsibility of parliament, working through its elected representatives, to lead the way. I am not sure that a formal committee is the best way of doing this. I was a member of the Joint Committee on the Constitution and, as I recall only too well, that committee came up with some 202 recommendations and, to the best of my knowledge, not a single one of them was ever carried out. I would not want

any further committee to have such an experience. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), or the government, should at least prepare and present to parliament its proposals, albeit in outline, for the unity of Canada. Eight months have now gone by since the election of November 15 and we have yet to hear in this parliament any concrete proposal about what should be done to change the system.
I welcome very strongly the decision of the recent convention of my party in Winnipeg, under the effective leadership of my hon. friend from Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), because it stresses the need for national priorities and national political leadership, emphasizing that economic and egalitarian changes make an essential contribution to Canadian unity. We must establish a national planning and investment strategy and commit our country to full employment. Our key national goal should be political and economic independence.
Canada has an important role to play in the world of nations by constructing a new economic order which would tackle the immense problem of poverty throughout the world. She could play this role if united and independent. We must recognize the basic human needs for housing, food and energy at reasonable prices, and access to health care as a social right. To achieve an equitable redistribution we must reshape our taxation system. However, important economic policies are not the sole means of achieving a united Canada. We must make it clear to French Canada, and particularly the province of Quebec, that we recognize and admire the wonderful and attractive culture which is theirs, and are prepared to do everything we can to see that it is protected and maintained. We must also make it clear that although Quebec has the right to make its own choice without coercion, we strongly support a federal Canada and believe that a majority of the people of Quebec will decide to remain in Canada.
While it is true that the federal parliament must have full authority to deal with external affairs, banking and other economic matters if it is to maintain equality of standards across Canada, we do believe that increased administrative authority can be devolved to the provinces and that this can be done in such a way as to maintain a fair balance between the federal and provincial governments. This is not a request for general decentralization, because if we carry on a process of decentralization we shall find before long that the federal government does not have sufficient remaining powers to enable it to carry out its tasks. That is a real danger if we pursue the role of decentralization too far.
I am one of those, Mr. Speaker, who believes that we need a new constitution. I do not think that constitutional change in itself is the answer to all our problems, but just think for a moment about what is our constitution. We have an ancient British statute which is obviously completely lacking any sort of emotional appeal to modern Canadians. A constitution is necessary in a federal state not only to clarify the division of powers but, perhaps even more important, to provide an
July 7, 1977

inspiring statement of the purposes and aims of the Canadian federation.
I should like a new constitution to contain clear references to the equal partnership between the two founding nations, and also to mention the multicultural fact of Canadian life and the special rights of our native people. I should also like this new constitution to state clearly that Canada is based upon democratic government and the protection of fundamental human rights. It should also be clear that there should be firm guarantees of the linguistic and cultural rights of Canadians.
1 think that the present crisis is no time for the politics of confrontation. It is true, as I and others of my party have said before, that a firm federal attitude is justified. We do not accept the proposals of the Parti Quebecois. Nevertheless, we believe that the discussions between that government, which after all represents the people of Quebec at the present time, and the rest of Canada should be at a high level of courtesy and consideration. It is our earnest desire to persuade the people of Quebec to opt for a continuing role in our federal system. We think that a civilized tone of debate will help this objective.
The Prime Minister announced yesterday the creation of a task force. I must say that I view this with something less than enthusiasm. It seems to me to be just an extra piece of machinery. I think parliament should be the primary instrument for debating questions relating to Canadian unity. It sometimes seems to me that the task force is being appointed because the government really does not know were it is going and does not have any definite proposals to make. The task force, in my opinion, is window dressing, though 1 hope 1 am wrong and that it will do something useful. I will be glad to be proven wrong in my pessimistic assumptions about it. I must say that the remarks of one of the co-chairmen, Jean-Luc Pepin, seemed so casual as to make one wonder how serious he was about the task assigned to him.
The whole question of Canadian unity requires us to think about the place of nationalism in the world today. Personally I do not wish to think of myself as primarily a Canadian nationalist. First of all, I believe that the test of a healthy nationalism is respect for human rights and individual welfare. When nationalism takes on an extravagant, chauvinistic form, then such nationalism can become a curse and not a blessing.
1 also think of myself as an internationalist. It is trite but true to say that no nation can live unto itself, least of all in a modern world. To my way of thinking, one of the great reasons for the maintenance of a strong federal system is the strengthened contribution we can make as a united nation to the building of co-operation in the world of nations. That is why I put emphasis on the independence of Canada. It is one reason why I would regard the break-up of Canada as being tragic in its nature. But there is a healthy form of nationalism which concerns itself with the welfare, living standards, and aspirations of the people of a certain nation, and which is proud of its role in the international world.
Therefore, I think we in Canada are entitled to assert that we have an abiding faith in Canada but that both creative
National Unity
leadership and restraint are necessary to achieve this unity. Hitherto the government, under the leadership of the right hon. member for Mount Royal, has failed to promote Canadian unity successfully. I do not question his sincerity in any way; I am sure that he is convinced that his particular approach and formula are the only ones and the essential ones, and that he is sincere in that. But I do say that a stubborn insistence upon language questions has obviously not succeeded in resolving the problems of Canadian unity.
We supported and we still support the Official Languages Act, but we think that it requires substantial changes. 1 must not be regarded as some sort of panacea which would make other aspects of Canadian unity irrelevant.
I heard one member on the other side of the House complain in his speech that we in the opposition parties are using this debate to score bitter, partisan points against the Prime Minister of this country. I believe in all sincerity that the time has come, indeed that it has long since passed, when somebody has to point out to the people of this country the degree of failure, and the degree of responsibility for the failure, which can only rest on the shoulders of the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by re-asserting-I do not think it needs re-asserting since it was supported by an overwhelming majority of the representatives of our party at our Winnipeg convention-that we in this party will do our utmost to contribute to a stronger, more just, and more united Canada.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is rather difficult to resist the impulse which 1 suppose members on all sides feel on occasions such as this to engage in a lot of superfluous argument back and forth, so 1 shall resist the temptation to comment upon some of the references in the last half hour or so to incidents which occurred this afternoon. But I do think it is important to record, in terms of the righteous indignation that has been expressed, that my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), did in fact obtain the unanimous consent of the House-which includes all parties-to take the action which he did, and which 1 think was for very good and valid reasons. I just put that on the record. I gather that otherwise he would not have been able to table the report in the manner he did.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 would have to say that the hon. gentleman is correct in terms of the fact that permission was granted. But there was in fact a discussion today between the minister and me with respect to the statement to be made, and there was never any feeling in my mind-indeed the matter never came up in the discussion- that there would be any attempt by the government to table a document or to make a statement or to do anything which did not comply with the Standing Orders of the House.

July 7, 1977
National Unity


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because such comments as have been made generate this kind of argument that I said it was unfortunate that it had to come up at all. I merely point out that I distinctly heard-and I think Hansard will show-the hon. minister asked for unanimous consent, and explained why. I understand that in many instances perhaps it can pass some members by, but there was no objection taken to what was done. I just wanted to record that fact without commenting further upon it.
As to the main substance of the matter now before the House, 1 do not profess to any special qualifications more than any other member in talking about the issue of national unity. However, I bring to this debate one unique qualification which gives me a somewhat different perspective on Canada and on its future. I think 1 am the only member of this House who voted on two separate occasions against becoming a Canadian. I suspect the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) would have done so, but he was too young to vote at that time.
From the perspective of nearly 30 years it is quite startling and surprising to me to note the similarities between many of the events of 1977 when compared with those of 1947, when my province of Newfoundland first considered, in modern times, the prospect of uniting with Canada. Referenda are nothing new to me. I can recall using many of the arguments which I now hear being used by advocates of separatism. I can recall using them in Newfoundland terms and saying, for example, that confederation would clearly be the loss of our distinctive culture and our centuries old identity. Also I recall saying that economically the province of Newfoundland would be far better off if it had stayed out of Confederation. I can hear echoes of these kinds of arguments in almost precisely the same words at the present time.
I welcome this first chance I have had in 11 years in parliament to tell Your Honour and members of this House that I was totally wrong in my assessment. I cannot conceive of a Newfoundland today being anything like as well off under any arrangement other than Confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: This is not to say that all is perfect by any manner or means. Newfoundland continues to suffer many deprivations, and by comparison with national standards can be regarded as one of the less fortunate of our Canadian provinces. In relation to any other political situation, there is no question about the fact that we have made tremendous progress.
I hope some outside of this Chamber, who advocate the separation of the province of Quebec from Canada, would take a look at those events of 30 years ago. Among other things it is interesting to note that only now are the documents from the era being released to the public. Some of them have already been placed on the public record and, as I look at them, it is quite remarkable to see how incredibly wrong most of the economists and most of the experts were in terms of their

projections of what was going to happen-the shares of revenue and the likely levels of service. There is not a single statistic or forecast made in 1947 and 1948 which bears any resemblance to the facts today.
Those people who seek to make the case for or against separatism on the grounds of economic projections and the like, had best take a look at those and realize that no one is that clairvoyant or that capable of projecting that far into the future, or of really assessing what the economic impact is going to be. When one weighs that against the obvious gains Newfoundland has made, which were manifold more than what the most optimistic people had predicted, then I suggest there are strong grounds for arguing that Confederation is by far the best route for Quebec, as it was for the province of Newfoundland.
1 have heard some of this debate and I have read all of it. It seems to me there are three or four recurring themes which come up time and time again in the observations and the comments of members of the opposition. I should like to deal with them in a rational and reasonable manner, and not in any sense seeking to be combative. I want to put some of these issues in the perspective that I see them in and, as a result, help to generate a reasonable and continuing dialogue on this issue.
One of the things which the opposition appears to have concentrated on throughout this debate is the fact that the government has put an almost total emphasis on the bilingual aspects of national unity to the almost total exclusion of everything else. This has come up time after time. The record does not support that kind of claim or that sort of criticism. Referring once again back to my province of Newfoundland, it is clear that over the past years of this administration there has been a recognition that national unity must be attacked on a wide variety of fronts. If anyone doubts this, let him come with me to Newfoundland; let him drive over DREE financed highways to visit DREE financed schools, some of which are the best in the country; and let him see DREE subsidized industries, particularly fish plants and the like, employing many thousands of people who, year after year, retain their jobs because of subsidies in the ten of millions of dollars provided by the federal government.
What is true in the case of Newfoundland is equally true in many parts of the province of Quebec, in the other Atlantic provinces, and in virtually every area of this country which is more deprived than the prosperous central region. While the regional development program, and everything associated with it, are not the total answer, the program indicates by itself that the government has been aware since its inception that there is more to national unity than simply resolving the problem of bilingualism or language rights, as important or vital as they may be. It is demonstrably untrue that there has been a one-dimensional policy by this government. In fact it has covered a wide range of issues and programs designed to bring about greater equality across the country and to attack the whole problem of national unity on the economic, social, and linguistic fronts.
July 7, 1977

The second point which has been made consistently by most members of the opposition is that there has been too much rigidity in the attitude of the federal government, that in some way or another we have brought about contrived confrontation and that it has been a calculated program to create divisiveness, particularly between the federal government and the government in Quebec city. They have broadened that to take in all the provinces and, in addition to that, to take in a whole range of issues. Once again the record makes it perfectly clear that this simply is not the case. Repeatedly over these last eight or nine years this government has sought and has accomplished, in many instances, accommodations with the provinces on a scale and an importance not anticipated nor envisaged earlier in the history of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It is obvious some of the hon. members opposite are not impressed.


William Heward Grafftey: We love you, though.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I love you, too. In the interests of national unity I would even embrace the hon. member for Brome-Mis-sisquoi (Mr. Grafftey).


William Heward Grafftey: I could not get my arms around you.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: He might have a little more difficulty embracing me, but the way I am going, even that may be possible before very long.
However, in terms of what I was saying a moment ago about what I describe as the legitimate willingness for accommodation on the part of the federal government, let me emphasize the word legitimate because hon. members opposite-coming back to my point about Newfoundland-must realize also that if there is too great a confusion of federal power and authority and the ability to control in terms of national events and items of national importance, then provinces like mine, Newfoundland, like the whole of the Atlantic area and indeed much of the rest of the country, would be in an extremely difficult position.
I say that anybody opposite who argues for a greater decentralization in terms of letting those smaller provinces stand on their own bottoms or float in their own dory, as we might say in Newfoundland, that he is underestimating the difficulties and problems that it would create. I also say that if we weaken the federal government to such an extent that it is impotent to deal with national issues, we are going to be in a much more serious position than any we have had up to the present time.
Newfoundlanders in particular about whom 1 have been speaking-but I am sure it is true of many other people in this country-would certainly not thank a government of Canada which dispensed its legitimate authority in ways which made it impossible for those provinces to turn, as they have to do, to a government at Ottawa to look after so many of their needs.
National Unity


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In Newfoundland today some 60 cents to 65 cents out of every $1 is originated from, or in another way provided, by the federal government, and many of those programs and plans are ones which are not in the classical concept a federal responsibility but ones which have been delightedly and glady given by the federal government to a provincial government which it knows cannot possibly manage on its own.
So there has not been confrontation in the sense that hon. members opposite sometimes suggest. There has been, I repeat, a willingness to co-operate. I do not believe that you can find a government in the whole history of this country that has had a greater range of consultations and that has shown itself more willing to make adjustments and compromises where these were clearly to the advantage of the provinces, and where they did not at the same time undermine the essential strength that the federal government requires.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That is nonsense.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: There is another aspect to this question of contrived confrontation that frankly puzzles me more than any other, and that is the suggestion that in some way or other there was no problem with national unity in this country until the government assumed office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That's it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why not?


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Hon. members opposite can applaud, but let me tell them as someone who went through a Confederation argument on the other side of the issue that I brought people from the province of Quebec, as the hon. member for St. John's East knows, who made separatist speeches in Newfoundland in 1947. For goodness sake, to suggest now that nothing ever happened before 1968 is ridiculous.


An hon. Member:: What has that got to do with it?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It has to do with your enthusiasm for the idea that everything was perfect before 1968.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: It was much better.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Let us look at the record with regard to the separatist problem. When did the first bombings take place in the province of Quebec, in 1968? No, it began back in 1961 and 1962. They should know, because they were the government of this country at that time.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no, we were not.

July 7, 1977
National Unity


William Heward Grafftey: That is not true.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member says it is not true that the bombs were planted in 1962. If I am not mistaken, one of the first casualties, if not the first, was a gentleman named O'Neil who came from Newfoundland who, I believe, was the first victim of a bombing. I believe it was in 1962. Let the hon. member look it up if he wants to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That aside, let us look at who created the slogan, "maitre chez nous" and when was it? It was a long time before this government assumed office. Furthermore, there are many other evidences-indeed, they go back to the point we all know-that these tensions have been present within Confederation since its earliest beginnings. To suggest therefore that in some way or other the policies of this government have served to start this kind of process is sheer nonsense, and the record makes it perfectly clear that it is sheer nonsense.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It has escalated since 1968.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: There is another point which also is puzzling me about the attitude of the opposition. It has to do with their attitude on the whole question of bilingualism. I give all hon. members opposite, without exception, full credit for believing sincerely in national unity and in bilingualism, but the problem arises when we start to define what it is. Once again in these last couple of days new problems have been created for me in trying to understand the position of the opposition because, somehow or other, they seem to be saying that bilingualism is necessary but that it is a burden that we have to carry in the interests of national unity.


William Heward Grafftey: Pure poppycock.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1 refer the hon. member to the speeches of his colleagues. Let him look at them. Are hon. members opposite prepared to say that that is not the weight of some of the arguments that we have heard from the other side? 1 have read them fairly thoroughly.


An hon. Member:: Go back and read them again.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: They have said, as I understand it-


An hon. Member:: Have you consulted Horner?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: -that bilingualism is a continuing problem for this country and it is one with which we have to live. That seems to be the gist of what was said.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is what Don Macdonald would have to say.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: But you are not arguing with the position I have just stated.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You have changed it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The minister has only one minute left, and I suggest hon. members listen to him.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member says I have changed it. I ask hon. members opposite, before this debate is out to say categorically and without equivocation that in fact they do not believe that bilingualism is a burden for this country but that it is an opportunity for this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would have to ask you for some extra time if hon. members continue this, but let me conclude by saying this: I think the opposition should remember a saying which is very common in Newfoundland and which has survived until this day-another example that our culture is healthy despite Confederation-and that is that on the issue of bilingualism they had better fish or cut bait, because at the present time they are trying to come down squarely on both sides of the issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are sucking and blowing at the same time. You know what that means.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to a very eloquent speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I have known the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) for a long time. I have worked with him. He is my friend. As a matter of fact when I was elected to this place 20 years ago the hon. gentleman was my boss. Evening after evening I used to sit in the TV studio enthralled at his eloquence when reading the news on television. However, on soft news nights when there was not a great deal to relate, the hon. gentleman was at his most eloquent best. The weaker the argument, I have learned, as I have watched the hon. gentleman over the years, the more eloquent he gets.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I would like to deal with some of the points raised by the minister, who is my friend, and with whom I differ. He has tried to misinterpret what my leader has said and what this party has said on language. He has tried- without, I believe, fully examining the record or listening to the speech of my leader-to distort the record.
I want to tell the minister that he and his colleagues have not cornered the market on language equality in this country. Language problems may be ongoing problems. I recall coming here in 1957. I recall the very first meeting we had as a minority government caucus. I was absolutely amazed. As a
July 7, 1977

very young man who had been a Canadian for only eight years I thought this was a great country of two founding races. In our very first caucus held out in that lobby opposite-and this was after 22 years of Liberal government under a distinguished French Canadian prime minister-we decided to bring in bilingual cheques. Cheques were going to be sent to French Canadians in the French language, and so it has been going ever since.
There was no simultaneous translation in this House until the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), as a first act of his new administration, brought simultaneous translation into this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Up to that time a member of parliament coming from a French speaking constituency had to speak in English, or not at all, because he could not be understood in French. That was the kind of linguistic policy we inherited from the Liberal government in 1957. Oh, no, the Liberal government has not cornered the market on language rights, not by a long shot.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Nobody said we had.


James Aloysius McGrath: 1 will tell the House what the government has cornered the market on-and I listened very carefully to the hon. gentleman. This government has cornered the market on the curse of regional disparity, which has flourished under this administration. It has certainly cornered the market on unemployment, which is at an all-time high in this country. The hon. gentleman quoted statistics indicating that Newfoundland is receiving 60 cents to 65 cents out of every dollar spent from the federal treasury. What a sad reflection that is for a province which is blessed with an abundance of natural resources.
We do not have a government which will introduce policies so that Newfoundland can develop those resources to the fullest and to its own benefit. We have in my province the ongoing curse of regional disparity, from which our people still suffer. The minister nods his head because when he was minister of regional economic expansion he tried very hard, but you cannot make a bad policy work.
DREE was brought in by this government in 1969 after a solemn promise by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he went to the Atlantic provinces in 1968 to introduce Marshall Plan type aid to end, once and for all, the curse of regional disparity. Notwithstanding the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars not only in Newfoundland but throughout the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, the DREE program has only created record high unemployment. The hon. gentleman, with his characteristic eloquence, can describe a drive through Newfoundland where you can look at magnificent DREE financed schools-and they are good schools-DREE financed fish plants, or drive over DREE financed roads, but if you go a little further you can find the hopelessness of a 25 per cent unemployed work force; you can look into the hopelessness that is represented in the faces of those who have no job
National Unity
opportunities. That is just as much a threat to the continuing unity of this country as any other issue which can come before this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Unemployment is not particularly characteristic to Newfoundland, although we seem to have considerably more that anybody else. We have more than we can take, more than any province can afford to have. We cannot afford that loss in productivity. We cannot afford the social problems which are created by a system which seems to perpetuate unemployment. All you have to do is go into the home of an unemployed family and look at the second generation on unemployment insurance and welfare. That is what concerns me about the future of Canada. However, that is not peculiar to my province. What has happened to the DREE program in the eastern portion of Quebec? Oh, we can probably find DREE Financed schools, DREE financed fish plants, and drive over DREE financed roads, but we can also find the second or third highest rate of unemployment in this country.
My leader and members of my party have said in this House that language policy is important, and nobody, but nobody, can doubt for a moment where this party stands on language policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: There will come a day in this country when these problems are but an unhappy memory, and I hope that day will come soon. When that day comes, people will realize the outstanding contribution to the continuing unity and growth of this country of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!	.


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps it would be well for me to quote from a speech made by the hon. member for Halifax, the former leader of the opposition, on May 16, 1969, when he said, as reported at page 8790 of Hansard:
I believe the existence of the two official languages of the two founding peoples of this country has made Canada distinctive and has created a tradition and respect for diversity which also show our appreciation of the nature of the people who have come to Canada from many other lands. Our task is to strengthen their union and our country as it exists. Canada, of course, is not a melting pot but a country which respects diversity.
That was said at a time when the hon. gentleman was taking two hours out from a busy schedule every day to learn, and eventually master, the French language.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: One day the country will recognize the outstanding contribution of the hon. member for Halifax.
Nobody can doubt the position of this party. If hon. members sat and listened objectively to what my leader had to say in what I consider to be the outstanding speech of this debate-indeed, the outstanding speech of this session-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

July 7, 1977
National Unity


James Aloysius McGrath: -they could not doubt for a moment the position of the official opposition. The record will reflect that this party has not only supported the official languages policy but has in fact been in the forefront of those who would advocate the implementation of an official languages policy for Canada. What we quarrel with is not the policy but the implementation of the policy.
There has to be something wrong with an Official Languages Act which, according to the figures for 1974-75, is costing the country $105 million. That is not a very big price to pay, of course, but there has to be something wrong when we cannot get a ministerial statement to the House printed in two official languages.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


James Aloysius McGrath: We saw what happened today. It would be easy to pass over it, but let the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), with the substantial expenditures he has to support him in this House, explain to the House, to the Social Credit Party, and to the unilingual members in this House, why he would have to come before the House with a statement in only one language. 1 would look forward to hearing him explain that in the House at the earliest possible moment.
I quarrel with a language policy that would deny children in my province the right to learn the second language of this country, the right to be enriched by French culture, because it is to be enriched to have access to it.
My children attend school in the city of Ottawa and they are bilingual. I am proud of that because another world is open to them. Not only are they better Canadians but they can enjoy a much wider and enriching experience of the world. They are bilingual because they were able to take advantage of a French immersion program that was funded, albeit as an experiment, by this government in the city of Ottawa. If they had been going to school in St. John's, Newfoundland, they would not have had that opportunity as the children living there do not have it.
Let us look at what we are getting for $100 million. Does it provide French immersion to the towns and villages of this country where only one language is spoken? Failure to do that is to deny children in Newfoundland equality of opportunity in this country. If they opt for a career in the Public Service they know they could not get beyond the local level because no opportunity is open to them in a unilingual province to learn French so that they could have the same opportunities as Canadians in other parts of the country.


An hon. Member:: Ask Frank Moores about it.


James Aloysius McGrath: Let me tell the hon. member something about the government of Newfoundland that he does not know. Today our province is in debt to the extent that it can no

longer afford to maintain existing levels of service because it has to operate within the framework of a policy that has its priorities all mixed up. That is what my leader is saying. The official languages policy is essential to the existence of this country but it is not the glue; by itself it is divisive.
What my French Canadian compatriots in the province of Quebec want is jobs. It comes down to a question of bread and butter, Mr. Speaker. Unemployment has always been a problem in Quebec, just as it has always been a problem in the Atlantic provinces. The curse of ongoing unemployment is a direct result of ongoing regional disparity. I can only hope that events will transpire in this House-and perhaps this debate will be the turning point-so that the people of this country will understand we must have an Official Languages Act in order to keep the country together; we must provide equality of opportunity for our French Canadian compatriots in Quebec and elsewhere, and for Canadians in other parts of Canada. You cannot on the one hand solve a problem in Quebec and on the other hand create one in Newfoundland. In my opinion this is where the system gets off the rails.
I should like now to address myself to the amendment before the House. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) said he wants to involve his constituents in this great dialogue. I want to involve my constituents too, Mr. Speaker, and what better or more appropriate way can this be done than by involving the parliament of this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: My constituents look to me for leadership, not to some task force that will perhaps report at some obscure date-I do not think it is even going to report to this House.
It is passing strange that eight months after the election of a separatist government in Quebec, the greatest threat in 110 years to the continued existence of this country, this government brings a resolution before the House saying it would like the rest of the country to involve itself in this great debate. Even then they had to be literally dragged in here to get that resolution on the order paper.
I say to the government that it can serve this parliament and this country by agreeing to the very realistic and responsible amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and strike a joint parliamentary committee to go across the country and hear from the average people-not just the academics, although they have an ongoing contribution to make, but the average person, the unemployed in St. John's, Newfoundland, the people on welfare, the native peoples, unilingual French Canadians in Lac St. Jean, Quebec, unilingual Anglophones on the west island of Montreal, and in the foothills of Alberta. Only a parliamentary committee has the heart and soul to understand these people and get input from them, not some high-falutin', almighty, all-important task force that is going to frighten the ordinary person.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 7, 1977


James Aloysius McGrath: I do not mean any disrespect to the hon. Jean-Luc Pepin, Mr. Robarts, or anybody else on that committee-I have nothing but respect for them-but I say, let the government have its task force and let us have a joint parliamentary committee so that we can get on with our responsibility to our constituents in this great debate.


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I have decided to enter this debate first of all to assert my hope and my confidence that my country, Canada, will maintain its territorial integrity, but also to tell the House how in the view of a young Quebecer who became aware of government affairs at the time of the "quiet revolution" in Quebec, this Canadian crisis could be defused.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal successively in my speech with four points which I feel sum up rather well the whole range of claims French speaking Canadians have been making for much too long already. Here they are. I will deal first with the status of the French language in Quebec, next with the status of French minorities in predominantly English-speaking provinces, next with the role of francophone civil servants and the use of the French language within the federal public service, and finally with the constitutional reform.
The debate on Bill No. 1 in the Quebec legislative assembly has over the last few months emphasized a point which 1 believe will be decisive for the future of Canada. It would seem however that one cannot deal intelligently with a matter if one is not familiar with some population data taken from the last decennial census conducted by Statistics Canada. Therefore, I want to submit to the House some statistics which should enable us to better understand the Quebec francophones' concerns about language matters as well as the steps the Quebec government must take to alleviate their concerns.
First of all, in the 1971 census, 270,600 Quebecers whose origin is neither British nor French reported one of the two official languages was their mother tongue. Now, 64 per cent of them said English was their mother tongue. Second, on the other hand, in the same census, 358,600 Quebecers whose origin was neither French nor English reported one of the two official languages in Canada was their working language. Of those, 69 per cent said English was their working language. Third, for each new Quebecer who joins the French-speaking group, two are joining the English-speaking group. Now, French-speaking Canadians can only maintain their present level of demographic prevalence if 80 per cent of the new Quebecers adopt the French language. Fourth, almost 100,000 Quebecers whose mother tongue is not English use English as their working language, whereas only 4,000 Quebecers whose mother tongue is not French use this language as their working language. Should the present trends of natural growth, language mobility and migration be maintained, French-speaking Canadians would represent less than 60 per cent of the whole population of greater Montreal by the turn of the century.
National Unity
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that Bill 1 introduced by the Quebec government contains some provisions which go against the linguistic ideal sought by this government for the past ten years. Other provisions such as that which makes the use of French compulsory in public notices as well as in formal proceedings of townhalls or school boards which may include an English-speaking majority, seem useless to me and unlikely to contribute to the development of the French language and culture in Quebec. Similarly, several provisions regarding the francization of businesses seem to be uselessly niggling and they may open the door to bureaucratic arbitrary decisions. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, 1 feel nevertheless that this legislation does not deserve the criticism it gave rise to in some circles. For example, to claim that the Quebec government is trying with this legislation to get rid of the English-speaking community in Quebec is sheer demagogy.
As far as the language of instruction is concerned, this legislation fully respects the acquired rights of Anglophones and other Quebecers who are already attending English schools. It ensures that in the future, English schools will not be an assimilation tool for New Quebecers into the English speaking minority. Indeed, no one could object to this legislation if it were to give to children of English Canadians who will settle down in Quebec after the bill is passed, access to english schools. I am very sorry that Canadian citizens are being treated like immigrants, especially as their reduced number does not threaten in any way the linguistic balance of the province of Quebec.
But frankly, Mr. Speaker, we must admit that even after the adoption of Bill 1, the English minority in Quebec will still be the best treated minority in the whole country with its own schools, colleges, universities, radio and television stations, newspapers, in short, practically a complete range of institutions. And I, as a Quebecer, will be proud of it, Mr. Speaker, because the respect and tolerance a nation shows towards its minorities is in my view the unmistakable sign of its collective maturity.
Of course, we can regret the restrictions imposed by this bill on the principle of free choice for the language of instruction but apart from the fact that it is an ideal that in any case could not materialize for quite awhile in English Canada, and even so only in a few provinces, a policy which would ensure a completely free choice of the language of education would for the time being, be a menace to the Quebec linguistic balance. We can only hope that within ten years or so when the francophone majority has reinforced its positions through active government participation in the selection of immigrants Quebec will be able to offer once again a free choice in the language of education.
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that people who have never protested the plight of the French minorities outside Quebec are suddenly embarking on a crusade to protect the English speaking minority in Quebec and urge the federal government to disavow the Quebec legislation and even question its constitutionality before the courts. It would be paradoxical to say the least, Mr. Speaker, that the province which respects the

July 7, 1977
National Unity
rights of its linguistic minorities the most be the first one to bear federal disavowal.
It would be just as unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, if the federal government undertook to challenge the constitutionality of that legislation before the courts. Political wisdom prompts us to let the Quebec people rate by themselves the actions of their own government at the next provincial elections. In addition, it is a fine opportunity to show Quebecers that the federal system does not stand in the way of their government as far as the promotion of the French language and culture in Quebec is concerned and consequently, independence is really not necessary. Anyway, how could the federal government justify fighting to the death a legislation which gives the English-speaking minority in Quebec a treatment which would delight Frenchspeaking minorities outside Quebec, if it were given to them?
Mr. Speaker, at a time when in some quarters people are groundlessly panic-stricken at the prospects of the Englishspeaking community in Quebec, in the years ahead I feel we should turn our attention to the conditions French-speaking minorities have to put up with outside Quebec. In six out of nine English-speaking provinces, the percentage of people of French origin whose mother tongue is now English is over 45 per cent. The assimilation rate has even reached 65 per cent in British Columbia and 80 per cent in Newfoundland. Indeed, only New Brunswick, Ontario and Manitoba have Frenchspeaking minorities whose future is not ineluctably doomed, more especially in New Brunswick and in Ontario which are contiguous to Quebec. However, they will resist assimilation only if their provincial governments, following the example of the Quebec government, is sympathetic to their cause and provides them with a complete educational system in which instruction will be given in French.
In that respect, I cannot understand the attitude of the premier of Ontario who keeps repeating that he wants to reinforce Canadian unity, yet he remains the perfect usage of stinginess when it comes to accommodating the Franco-Ontarian community about the language issues. I wish he would realize soon that he would contribute remarkably to Canadian unity if he were courageous enough to deal with the French community from Ontario just in the same way as our English conpatriots are treated in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, if governments from New Brunswick, from Ontario and possibly from Manitoba could take concrete measures to stop this policy of assimilation of French-speaking people who live in those provinces, this would be perceived by a majority of Quebecers as a determination on English Canadian's part to establish at last a true equality in Canada. While most of the language problems are beyond the scope of the federal government since it lacks jurisdiction over education, still it must ensure equal language opportunities for all in all federal institutions. Many projects have been accomplished these last few years. Suffice to mention that the rate of management positions held by French-speaking Canadians in the federal public service has gone up from 12 to 20 per cent

between 1965 and 1976. It is encouraging to see that 32 per cent of federal civil servants under 35 are French-speaking, a reason to feel optimistic about our future. But we must not forget either that only 13 per cent of the federal civil servants who earn more than $30,000 a year are French Canadians. Besides, there are still too many organizations in our federal departments which do not seem to care very much to ensure a fair French presence at senior levels.
According to the last annual report of the Canadian Public Service Commission, the Anti-Inflation Board does not have one single French-speaking member among its 18 senior officers. In the agriculture and national defence departments, less than 5 per cent of management jobs are held by French Canadians. The Departments of Veteran Affairs, Finance and Energy, Mines and Resources, have only 5 to 10 per cent French-speaking Canadians among senior officers. Even then, those are filling only 10 to 15 per cent of management jobs in the following departments and organizations: the Department of Transport, the Canadian Transport Commission, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the National Energy Board, the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Science and Technology.
Mr. Speaker, in spite of significant progress during the last decade, it is evident that we have not yet a true sharing between French speaking and English speaking Canadians in public administration. Therefore we must accelerate the hiring of French speaking public employees, but particularly we must positively recognize the right for the employee to work in the language of his choice in federal public administration. It is essential that French speaking people have the opportunity to use their language in doing their job, because they can show their full capacity and their career could be badly affected.
To that end, Mr. Speaker, we will have to amend the federal Official Languages Act within a few months. Even though it is possible for people under that law, to communicate in the language of their choice with the federal administration, we cannot say the same concerning the right to work in French, As French speaking people would not commit their language rights to a legislation which would be limited in scope, and which might be interpreted, as we have seen recently, in many ways by courts, I urge the government to amend that legislation in order to clear up any ambiguity and to make a true language rights charter which would serve equally English speaking and French speaking people.
Mr. Speaker, recently the government reiterated in a paper entitled "A National Understanding" tabled before the House by the Secretary of State, that he wants to institute language equality across our country. Sometimes I wonder whether the government is really determined to go beyond a simple statement of principles when I think of the unfairness demonstrated by Air Canada which still forbids its French speaking mechanics to work in their language in Montreal workshops, and when I consider the government takes no action in face of that shocking situation. It is evident that the federal government would gain much credibility for the French speaking Quebec-
July 7, 1977


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the hon. member that it is now seven o'clock.


Louis Duclos: One last sentence, Mr. Speaker, and I am finished with my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: In that case, the hon. member may finish his remarks.

Order, please. I understand that the hon. member is simply finishing a sentence to conclude his speech. I will then see the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone).


Louis Duclos: Mr. Speaker, only a reformed Canadian federalism will allow Quebec to reconcile its need for self-government with the interdependency which is necessary to build a society which is dynamic and capable of accepting the challenges of the modern world.
7446

July 7, 1977
National Unity


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There was some confusion earlier in the day when the two-hour debate was beginning. At that time it was about two minutes past five and I indicated, therefore, that the debate would stop at two minutes past seven. Then we got into some discussion about a point of order, about government business and so on, and the debate did not in fact begin until closer to ten minutes past five, so 1 wonder if the House would not think it appropriate to allow the hon. member for Battle River five minutes rather than two.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I should like to say first of all how pleased I am to have this opportunity to participate, even for a short time, in a debate on such an important topic as national unity. It has been labelled one of the most important debates in this decade or perhaps since Confederation.
While we must all pay due attention to the issue of language the fact of the matter is that language is not the only issue that is dividing people in this country, and that we have to pay attention to many other important problems which are facing the country. I have a whole list here but will be unable to illustrate my point because of the lack of time. I would like to draw attention to what I think is a very sad situation indeed- that while we are debating one of the most important problems facing the nation in the last decade, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has seen fit not to be in the House this day but has instead put politics above Canada; he has instead put the Liberal party above the country. He has moved to the western part of the country, together with the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Horner), carrying with him a basket of plums, and 1 might suggest that those plums were not raised from seed but come from the result of clever grafting-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arnold John Malone: Here he is, not in the House on what is an issue of absolute and utmost importance.
There is a need for a much greater extension of time to speak in this debate and with this in mind, and with the feeling that there ought to be more time for this debate, and recognizing the reasoned amendment which was put forward by the leader of my party, and because I do not have time, in this short allotment which was given to me, to put forward the case I would like to, I will sit down at this time and ask that a vote be taken on the amendment because I think the House should have the opportunity to have that parliamentary task force; there is no one quite like a member of parliament who has touched on all the various kinds of natures of people in the various constituencies of this country, and I would hope the amendment could be put.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must realize, of course, that there is nothing inherent in the setting aside of a limited time for debate to indicate that at the expiry of the time the debate is concluded. It would be implicit in the hon. member's suggestion that the debate on the subject or upon the amendment concludes at this point. That is not a part of the order, and it is certainly not a part of the understanding which has been expressed.


An hon. Member:: Let them stand up and we will have a vote now.


Mr. Speaker:: I simply wish to advise the hon. member that there is no such understanding. I am sure hon. members would not want to consider that the debate on this subject is now concluded.


Arnold John Malone: My proposal is that the vote be taken now, because that would be a reflection of the view of the House- that parliament ought to have more say.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should realize that what he would be asking me to do is not to recognize other speakers in the debate, which I must do, of course. In any event I have indicated that the hon. member for Battle River ought to have five minutes in which to speak. Those five minutes have almost expired and as we approach 7.06 p.m. the debate does, in fact, come to a conclusion at this point.
It being 7.06 p.m. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, July 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cullen that Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be read the third time and do pass.
July 7, 1977
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, 1 would think that the members of the government are cutting it pretty thin. In another couple of minutes we would have adjourned for want of a quorum, but I would not have wanted that to happen.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


William Arnold Peters: An adjournment would eliminate my opportunity for making a plea to the government to dispose of this bill by withdrawing it. It has been our contention in third reading debate, as it has been our contention all along, that the reason this bill was introduced at all was because we have an unacceptable amount of unemployment. Our unemployment is of a cyclical nature, and there does not seem to be any end to the cycle of unemployment. There has been no upturn to date in our economy, therefore it has been increasingly difficult to pay the necessary unemployment benefits. The easiest solution would be to cut down on the number of people who can draw benefits under the unemployment insurance scheme, but that is no substitute for employment.
Some of the unemployment we are suffering today is the kind that is going to cause considerable difficulty in the outlying areas of the country, in the areas which are dependent on one industry. There is difficulty in the service industry where employment often is of a short duration and is difficult to come by. This is not true in terms of full employment periods, but it is true in those periods when employment is more difficult to come by. We are also very concerned about the fact that much of this cyclical unemployment takes place with those between the ages of 15 and 25. If members are unaware of how serious this is, they may, as I have done in the last few days, get in touch with Manpower. It is very surprising to see the calibre of people who go to our Manpower offices. Some of them have degrees, but they have been unable to obtain employment.
For these reasons this bill should be reconsidered. It should be reconsidered not only in light of eliminating some of the discretionary clauses in the bill, namely, the extension in the period when a person must work before qualifying for any benefits. It should be reviewed as well in light of finding a way to provide employment for the IV2 million people who are now looking for employment.
We cannot support the bill in its present form. We are insistent that reconsideration be given to the establishment in Canada of an employment factor rather than unemployment insurance, and point out the failure of this bill to do this. Therefore 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and by substituting therefor the following words:
"Bill C-27 be not read a third time, but that it be read a third time this day
six months hence."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is now on the amendment. Is the House ready for the question?
Employment and Immigration


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate the hon. member for Temiscaming (Mr. Peters) who put forward the amendment proposing to postpone third reading of this bill for six months. As far as I am concerned, there are several proposals in the bill which are desirable and acceptable. I do not want to be negative about it, alleging that there is nothing good in Bill C-27. However, we must admit that this bill more than any other piece of legislation on the order paper has prompted reactions from many groups of citizens who are against one or several of its provisions.
Mr. Speaker, when a bill is a cause of division and hate in a country, in my opinion, it is only logical to postpone its implementation and to listen to those who are not satisfied with it. Later on it can be passed with amendments that make it more acceptable, with the knowledge that Canadians do not feel that they have been had, to use a colloquialism. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the amendment suggested today by the hon. member for Timiskaming is sound and warrants our reflecting on all the problems that this bill can cause. I also believe that the government would be well-advised to listen to this suggestion and to let things quiet down for a while before implementing this bill about which, as I said earlier, so many Canadians are deeply divided.
It is a secret for no one, Mr. Speaker, that nobody agrees on the period required to qualify for unemployment insurance. The minister himself recognized the explosive nature of this issue when he jumped the gun and suggested an amendment to the bill so as to replace the original requirement of twelve weeks of employment by a more streamlined and more complex provision allowing the number of weeks to vary from one region to another according to the local unemployment rate. The minister has tried to have it both ways. He has tried to please everyone, but let us face it, his bill pleases almost no one. As my colleague from Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) and my colleague from Timiskaming said so well earlier, the people mainly affected by this bill are those who can work only a few weeks at a job, which forces their employers to hire them for a set period.
Mr. Speaker, this issue is important and 1 believe that all members must recognize that bill C-27 is a source of dissension among the citizens of our country. On the one hand, we have individuals who need the security provided by the unemployment insurance and groups representing the poor, and on the other hand, we have the business people who are sufficiently well off not to need unemployment insurance. The first group demands of course that the qualifying period remains at eight weeks while the other group would like it to be increased to at least twelve weeks.
Mr. Speaker, how can we reconcile these two points of view? It is certainly difficult and it is easy to understand the failure of the minister in this regard. Anyone else would probably not have done better, but the minister should be man enough to
8O020-7V2

July 7, 1977
Employment and Immigration
recognize that the situation is dramatic and that any attempt on his part to have this bill passed quickly will only worsen the situation and cause more anger, especially on the part of those who will have the feeling that they have not been heard and that no one has listened to them.
The flexibility shown by the minister in trying to amend his bill may be commendable. Elowever, it must be admitted that the act would be harder to implement because it would apply differently in various regions. For example, when a person moves, he may find himself disqualified because the region to which he moves may be subject to stricter criteria under the minister's plan. This will be once again a selective legislation which will require additional civil servants to determine the unemployment rate in each region, in order to make adjustments and figure out how many weeks of employment will be needed to qualify for unemployment insurance; if the unemployment rate is higher, more weeks will be needed, and if it is lower, fewer weeks.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, additional civil servants will be required, more categories, further calculations and also increased costs in order to provide the same service that we are now providing to the unemployed. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) knows how long I have been waiting for this bill. Like many other members, I had the opportunity to deal personally with hundreds of unemployment insurance cases which were submitted by my constituents or other persons. In certain cases, I had occasion to notice that the present act gives rise to blatant injustices. 1 have often tried to solve the problem of an unemployed constituent and found that the reason for his problem was not necessarily due to the mistake of an official or to the negligence of a claimant but actually to the working of the act. However, in spite of our eagerness to have some changes made in the field of unemployment insurance, we feel nevertheless that it would be a mistake to pass this bill at a time when so many Canadians are dissatisfied.
What I am asking the minister when I suggest that he allow this amendment to be passed, which is designed to defer for 6 months the third reading of this bill, is to try actually to seek a consensus among the population instead of ramming this bill through Parliament against the will of almost everybody. The minister should show his good faith by saying himself: "I am aware that many people oppose this bill", in order to show them that he wants to come up with a measure that will answer the needs and the expectations of these people. Let his bill be shelved for 6 months so that we may listen to the people and inform them at the same time. That is the approach the minister should take now. Mr. Speaker, I have said before and I say it again, it is no time to play politics and to show partisanship regarding this issue, because we feel it is too important for that. We do not want to filibuster.
As I said earlier, there are aspects in this legislation that are quite commendable and acceptable, and I think that, in principle it is a good idea to bring immigration and employment

under one department. Clearly in our future immigration policy we will have to take into account the employment situation in Canada, and I submit it would be inhuman to invite immigrants to come here if we were not in a position to offer them suitable employment.
Therefore, by creating one department combining immigration and employment it should allow for better planning of our future immigration policy. It will make it easier for us on the basis of the employment-unemployment situation to decide upon the number of immigrants to be accepted. Delaying the establishment of such a department by delaying the legislation is certainly not a pleasant task, but we must consider the whole bill and its implications before rushing it through.
Let us suppose the bill is postponed for six months, Mr. Speaker. This would only leave the government with more time to plan for the establishment of the new department. This would have positive effects, in that it would be possible to identify in advance and avoid errors that usually mar the implementation of any new legislation. So the minister would be well advised to use the six months' delay before bringing back Bill C-27, to prepare and make plans for the integration of the new department. Of course all will depend on how the new department will be created.
It is often said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In order to create a more efficient department, a department that is better equipped to coordinate immigration based on the availability of jobs, more than good intentions will be needed. There will have to be first sound management and competent people. Of course, considering the poor performance of the present government in the administration of this country, one is not too sure of the effects of this new legislation as far as administration is concerned. The fact remains, however, that the concept of a better coordination between these interdependent areas is a commendable initiative. And, Mr. Speaker, I do not hesitate to recognize it.
Mr. Speaker, if I support this amendment which calls for a six months' hoist for the consideration of this legislation, it is simply because too many of our fellow citizens find some specific aspects of this bill unacceptable. One thing is clear at present, Mr. Speaker: it is impossible to include in Bill C-27 provisions which are likely to satisfy all interested parties. We shall have to try to determine the root of this problem and find a solution before this bill can be passed. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I urge the government and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) in particular, to consider seriously the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Timiskaming. We know this government has absolute majority in the House. We also know that they can, if they wish, ignore the proposals of opposition parties and the requests of Canadians.
I also think that the government should heed this advice which is given not in a partisan spirit but in a spirit of cooperation, with a view to giving the Canadian people some acceptable legislation and also sparing them confrontations and needless frustrations. Mr. Speaker, if I may, I should like to comment certain clauses of the bill. Let us refer to clause
July 7, 1977

26. On the whole, that clause seems to favour unemployment insurance claimants. However, two comments are called for: On one hand, this clause is inconsistent with section 148(1) of the regulations and on the other hand, the last part of the clause provides that an interruption of earnings would be determined when an insured person is no longer working for an employer, and also when a reduction in his hours of work for that employer results in a prescribed reduction in earnings.
In my opinion, it would be wise to know the wording of the regulations governing the reduction in earnings mentioned in this clause. Obviously, this amendment is part of the work sharing program proposed in Bill C-27. That is why it is essential to know exactly and specifically all the implictions and provisions involved in this amendment. If we refer to clause 27, it says that the determination of an insurable job comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Revenue. Mr. Speaker, how many times we, as members of parliament, regardless of party lines, had to make numerous phone calls to the revenue deputy minister to obtain a ruling on the insurability of some employment. At this level of procedure, considerable delays are due, on the one hand, to the volume of applications made to the deputy minister and, on the other hand, to the usual dilatoriness of officials when dealing with unemployment insurance benefits matters.
Many of the petty annoyances of the civil service are also attached to the fact that determination of insurability has more to do with the Department of National Revenue than the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Since work sharing is a new way of granting subsidies to the enterprise, it is more likely that many employers will avail themselves of this new form of assistance. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it would be wise to know immediately what will be the insurable and non-insurable jobs so as to avoid excessive number of appeals before the administrative court that is the commission or the Department of National Revenue.
Mr. Speaker, we recommend therefore that determination of insurability of salaries for shared work as well as for other kinds of employment be left with the Canada Employment and immigration Commission.
This afternoon we had the opportunity to hear hon. members on clause 29 of the bill. Mr. Speaker, requiring a claimant to have at least twelve weeks of insurable employment to be eligible for unemployment benefits is like launching a direct charge against the unemployed in making believe that they are responsible for their own predicament. This new provision proposed by the government is a direct attack against the most deprived among the working class, because the majority of workers who qualify with a minimum number of weeks of insurable employment are the following as the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) pointed out so well this afternoon. The first group is older workers and those with a low income and a low level of education who generally keep their jobs for a shorter period of time because the kinds of jobs they are offered, or which are available to them, are often short term jobs. Second, students who no longer wish to continue their education and who as a first experience were hired for a
Employment and Immigration
summer period find themselves disentitled to unemployment insurance benefits under this new provision. Third, workers who work in the fruit, vegetable and tobacco fields in various provinces of Canada.
That proposed provision by the government does not take into consideration at all modern personnel hiring requirements in private, public or even parapublic industry. More and more frequently businesses only need skilled workers for a short period of time; skilled workers are generally hired for a specific short term job.
Let us look at clause 31, another provision of the government's proposed legislation to save at the expense of workers on compensation. Why limit the privilege of an extended qualifying period only to those workers who receive the maximum compensation for work inquiry? That clause discriminates against workers on compensation who do not get the maximum amounts obtainable on compensation. The proposed application of this clause would be unfair to workers on compensation who cannot work because of their work injury and who receive temporary total workmen's compensation payments and it is also unfair to those who receive permanent partial workmen's compensation payments.
All injured workers who cannot take their usual job back on a regular basis because of their work injury and who have the courage to work on a temporary basis should indiscriminately be able to get an extension of the qualifying period. There is a section in the act which I am happy to say will be advantageous in many cases. I am happy to have been one of the first promotors of that amendment. The Unemployment Insurance Commission could disqualify any person who had worked more than four weeks and less than eight.
The same Commission could disqualify that person as long as that person could not work. I even asked the minister at that time here in this House whether he thought it was good to encourage people to go back to work after a long period of unemployment. But in the area I have the pleasure to represent the rate of unemployment is not very very high, but the number of unemployed is still too high for us. How many times did people work at the request of the Unemployment Insurance Commission? Those same people after a period of four, six and even seven weeks had to leave their job because of a bankruptcy and absolutely nothing could be done to correct that problem.
After a few weeks of work, those people had to go to the Quebec welfare department to survive. 1 do not want to miss the opportunity to congratulate the minister for having done away with those controversial clauses and I hope the minister will listen to the suggestions put forward by opposition or government members, particularly the proposal of the member for Timiskaming to postpone for six months the third reading of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have other remarks to make on this bill, but first I would like to comment on clause 33. Mr. Speaker, that clause certainly demonstrates a degree of refinement and subtlety attained by juggling civil servants, supported by an anti-labour government, to express their disgust toward the

July 7, 1977
Employment and Immigration
working class which, as I said earlier, is against the bill generally.
While the Unemployment Insurance Act allows the commission to claim, 36 months after the benefits have been paid, the overpayments made because the claimant did not meet all eligibility conditions that legislation does not recognize the same rights to the claimant. He has only 13 weeks to have set the beginning of the benefit period and he must find all kinds of reasons to convince UIC officials that he was justified to delay his application for benefits.
Mr. Speaker, we also object to clause 35 of the bill because it is unrealistic. That provision is detrimental to the workers who will accept a shorter work period to keep their job instead of being unemployed. However, when they are laid off because there is no more work, they suffer a loss because the calculations are based on average weekly wages. They should only take into account their ten best weeks for the purpose of calculating those qualifying weeks. It often happens in medium and small businesses that the employer, before laying off a worker, will cut down the wages and the number of hours worked.
And that is another reason why we support the motion introduced tonight by the hon. member for Temiscamingue. We could mention other sections, Mr. Speaker, such as section 36. When a claimant is not entitled to extended benefits for any working day of a period of benefits, this section of the bill should provide that the commission can subtract a fifth of the weekly amount of the benefits payable and not the whole week. What about section 38? In view of the fact that the Unemployment Insurance Act is by far the most complex legislation ever devised in a specific area, we assumed that this government would not have pretended that it was necessary, for the sake of its popularity to uphold a clause as ambiguous and mixed up as the one contained in section 30.1 of the Act.
Mr. Speaker, all my remarks and those of my colleagues as well as those of the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit Party of Canada are going to contribute something to this debate, especially to the one stemming from the motion of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), and I hope that the ministers will bring to the attention of the minister concerned that it is unfair, to pass this bill. I am appealing to the hon. members' and broadmindedness before concluding my remarks at this stage of the debate on Bill C-27. I only hope that the government will not take advantage of its majority to crush the expectations and legitimate demands of Canadians who are affected by this bill. The government should avail itself of this amendment which aims at delaying for 6 months the passage of this bill, to listen to and inform the public as to the consequences of the reforms and changes involved in Bill C-27.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) for introducing his motion to hoist or delay passage of this bill for

six months. As the previous speaker mentioned, many parts of the bill are ill-advised and not relevant to the times in which we live. This point has been made by all members of the New Democratic Party who have spoken, and also by members of the Social Credit party. I do not blame the minister entirely for this, but I do blame him for one aspect of it.
I am particularly concerned about clauses 39 and 40 dealing, I believe, with the qualifying period; they are based on the comprehensive study of two and a half years ago when economic conditions were better and people could move more readily to another job. I cannot think of a worse time for introducing this bill than the present, and although Liberal party members may accuse us of filibustering, let me say if we do not filibuster, who will? Certainly my friends to my right will not. They are not concerned about the qualifying period. But if we were debating the gun control bill, C-51, they would rise to their feet one after the other to keep this House in session all summer. So, I suffer from no sense of guilt because my party and my good Creditiste friends are continuing the debate on this bill. It is a bad bill in most respects, and could not have been introduced at a worse time.
Before I talk on the specific provisions of the bill, let me for a moment deal with the question of our unemployed younger people. We all know that some young people do not want to work, and many employers keep repeating such hackneyed sentiments. Many who are gainfully employed in Industry and paying unemployment insurance premiums are fed up with this very small group which refuses to work in any circumstances. It is simplistic to say that most or all of our young people are lazy bums who don't want to work. That is an easy argument to make, and an easy way to try to score debating points. Therefore I suggest we should consider the position of young people in our society.
I taught high school for eleven years before being elected to this House, and know that during the 1960's, because of our rising expectations, many parents advised their children to stay at school. "Stay in school," they said, "and you will get a better job, a cleaner job, a better paying job. You will be respected more, not need to carry a lunch pail, and not need to get up at 5.30 a.m. or six o'clock. You can sleep in to 7.30 or eight, teach school, go to the office or practise a profession." Mr. Speaker, I do not look back in anger. Parents in those days thought those were admirable goals for our young people, and our school system went along with them, province by province.
We channelled ever more people into the academic field, even though we had opened some vocational training schools. But there was a stigma attached to those who went to vocational and industrial schools. In small communities and large, the youngsters who went to vocational schools were looked on as second rate and third rate students and people. And ever since they have not escaped the feeling that they are second class, inferior people.
July 7, 1977

Let us consider what happened to those who went to academic schools. Personally I think between 25 per cent and 30 per cent of them did not have the brains for an academic program. Those people today have a hard time finding work, and lay the blame at the feet of poor federal and provincial planning across this country. In the past seven or eight years many of our young people have been over-educated. They accepted their parents' advice, took financial assistance if it was available, stayed at school, graduated with a Master's or Bachelor's degree, or with a doctorate or a professional qualification, but cannot find work even in Toronto where unemployment rates are relatively low. Their education has not fitted them for a job. Mr. Speaker, the members of the medical and legal professions are limiting severely the numbers who can enroll for professional training. I think teacher training colleges should also cut down enrollment, for there is not enough work for more teachers.
What are our educated young people doing? A certain percentage drive a taxi, work in a restaurant, even work in a summer resort for two or three months. They take humble work, although they may have their Bachelor's degree, or their Master's. What happens to the well educated youngsters whose summer job ends after two and a half months and who must look for another job? Unemployment insurance will give them scant help in the period they are looking for another job, and we should thank this bill for that. Is it any wonder these people say, "Look, I spent X thousands of dollars educating myself; my parents helped me with several hundred dollars, and the taxpayers of this country paid for approximately 80 per cent of my education costs after I left grade 13; yet here I am, expected to wait on tables, drive a taxi, wash dishes in a restaurant, or work in a textile industry which pays close to minimum wages." Is it any wonder our young people say, "The hell with you; if that's how it is, we will not work at all."
Keep in mind that many of our young adults were told in their early or mid-teens to stay at school because more education would lead to a more abundant, or more materialistic life.
Actually our problems are outside the scope of this bill. They go to the root of our society. We placed too much emphasis on academic training, too much emphasis on materialism. We sowed the wind. Now we reap the whirlwind. There are no jobs for our highly educated young people.
What has happened to that other group which trained in a vocational or industrial school? Where are they today? Did their industrial high school give them an apprenticeship? Did they learn a skill or trade? Did they become electricians, plumbers, pipefitters, and so on? No. They are facing the same problems. They are a little further down the social scale in the eyes of some people in this country. I refer to those who have never had to go to an unemployment insurance office and be told by some snippy 18 or 19 year old gal "I don't know nothing about nothing". Believe me, that is the language some of them use.
Employment and Immigration
These people are in the category of looking for work that is related to what they did at school. However, what they accomplished at school is something entirely different. I have more respect for a good plumber than a poor physician.
I notice that the public relations people in the Unemployment Insurance Commission have turned it around and are now calling it the employment commission. I hope they will place greater emphasis and exert greater pressure on provincial governments to re-establish apprenticeship programs. At the same time they should convince Industry, Trade and Commerce, Finance and other federal departments and their provincial counterparts to create more jobs for gifted people who work with their hands as well as their brains.
As I said earlier, there are too many highly educated people in this country who are unable to find work. Let us bring respect back to the work place, the factory, shop or mill. However, in order to do that we must create jobs that pay reasonable wages.
In May of every year, the planting season in my constituency, I receive complaints from 6 to 8 per cent of the tobacco farming community, and about the same percentage from the fruit and vegetable growers. Almost every time I check into the details I find there are two reasons why they cannot get local help and prefer offshore help from the Caribbean. Either the wage is too low, or the working and living conditions are very poor.
The vast majority of tobacco farmers and fruit and vegetable growers do not have labour problems. However, according to newspaper reports, telephone conversations, commentaries over radio and television, and some members of this House, our lazy youth will not work in the tobacco fields. I wonder how many members sitting here this evening would go out to pick tobacco for $3 an hour. This reminds me of what has been done in the past in the Soviet Union and in China. As my colleagues know, although my Conservative friends may not be aware, I am anything but a Communist.
It might be interesting if cabinet ministers and civil servants had to spend one month a year picking potatoes or tobacco. That might be interesting for those who drew up this Bill C-27, some of which is garbage. If they were laid off for six months and had to line up at the unemployment insurance offices and get some of the abuse that the claimants get, they might come back and rewrite this bill, or at least certain clauses of it, particularly the one dealing with the qualifying period.
In replying to remarks made by hon. members the other day, the minister referred to me, the member for Brant, as a faint ray of hope in the NDP. I took that as quite a compliment until I read his remarks in detail. He seemed to be under the impression that I agree with these variances that are built into the qualifying period. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I cannot quote verbatim, it is in Hansard, but what I said was that no statute is carved in granite and that it can be

July 7, 1977
Employment and Immigration
adjusted and amended. I stated that if in two or three years time we have greater employment or much less unemployment, we could perhaps take a look at this eight week qualifying period. The minister seemed to confuse my statement. It is very clear in Hansard what I said, but he seemed to think that it was an agreement that we should have this variance. As 1 said, nothing could be further from the truth.
We have some very serious problems in this country with regard to employment and unemployment. I have talked about the problems facing young people. I neglected to mention the problems we had with retraining. Although the retraining program was originally conceived with the best of intentions, it was not only very costly but a dismal flop.
Once someone gets into the program, what does he learn? Even if you are a conscientious person in your twenties or thirties, and getting $50 a week, as well as unemployment insurance and so on, and have a barely liveable wage of around $100 or $125 a week, what are you learning? Welding. We have more welders in this country than we know what to do with.


John R. Rodriguez: Hairdressers.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: 1 have never been to a hairdresser so I do not know. My wife cuts my hair. That is why it looks the way it does.


John R. Rodriguez: That is a good way to save money.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: That is right. We in the NDP are very thrifty. The point is that we spend a lot of money retraining people, but after they are retrained, within a few weeks they are back on unemployment insurance because there are no jobs available for them.
I wonder whether retraining means anything in this country. I suspect that it is a slick way of getting people off the unemployment rolls. It makes the government look better from a statistical point of view.
There was another program that flopped. I am afraid that it may come back. I refer to on-the-job training. In some cases it was taken advantage of by the employees and also by the employers. The employers saw a wonderful way of getting a subsidy from the taxpayers for hiring people for a limited time at the lowest possible wages. Is it any wonder that bills like C-27 create an atmosphere of distrust, an atmosphere of bitterness, an atmosphere of class hatred, to use an old expression?
I fear that the feelings which were so prevalent in early twentieth century Europe are now beginning to permeate our society and that legislation from this House and from the government is to blame for a great deal of the growing mistrust and bitterness which are developing between various segments of our society. Unemployed in my constituency will have to wait for three and a half months in order to qualify. Most of the temporary work, certainly in Atlantic Canada, is

of shorter duration than that; it is hard to get a job which lasts three and a half months; a person is lucky if it lasts for eight weeks.
I say this to the backbenchers opposite: your government is proposing a period of three and a half months in many areas of this country before workers are qualified for unemployment insurance benefit. Unemployment insurance is not welfare, but what happens is that legislation like this turns the Unemployment Insurance Commission into a welfare system.


An hon. Member:: And you divide the people.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: As to that subject, the other day in the debate on national unity we heard one of the worst speeches the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has ever made.


An hon. Member:: His annual speech.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I was interested in the headlines he got in the Globe and Mail-not on the front pages but on the editorial page. I do not recall the exact words, but they were something like this-"Prime Minister Makes Speech in House". That is news. I think it is the second speech he has made here in a year. The country has become more and more divided ever since he came to office because of, among other things, bills like C-27 which divide the country in social and economic terms. The Prime Minister's answer is bilingualism for the whole country-we should all speak French and we would become happy people. Mr. Speaker, my wife is a Francophone. I try to speak a little French; it is my fault we do not speak French more often. I am lazy in that respect. But we still get along.


An hon. Member:: I hope so.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: We get along, and one of the reasons is that we understand each other. And as Canadians we can understand each other provided we have a reasonable standard of living, a reasonable outlook on life, a reasonable prospect for the future. I am simply suggesting that if we can translate my personal relationship with my wife to the whole country-and I do not want anyone to misunderstand me-we would find that English speaking and French speaking people can get along together without having to speak both official languages.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. 1 am not interrupting the hon. member to tell him that his time has expired, but I do wish to suggest that he should keep his remarks within the scope of the bill or the amendment.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I respect your mild admonition, Mr. Speaker. The point I am trying to make is that this bill, which would drastically change the Unemployment Insurance Act in many respects, is a divisive piece of legislation which is injuring the working people. I have in mind specifically Clauses 29 and 30 and the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Timiskam-ing that it be given a six months hoist so that we could consider it again and bring in changes which would make it a more humane piece of legislation.
July 7, 1977

1 do not know whether 1 was out of order earlier when 1 was talking about youthful applicants; I am sure I was directing my remarks toward the qualifying period and the attitude taken toward the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I see no reason why this would be irrelevant to the bill or to the way in which some unemployment insurance offices are run. My hon. friend from Timiskaming mentioned earlier today that it seems as though the worst qualified persons in the office were placed on the firing line-the ones who do not know the act, and that all the frustration builds up from that point. It is true most of the complaints we receive come from people who are experiencing trouble; we do not get complaints from people who receive their cheques on time. But sending out or receiving cheques is not the solution. The solution is employment, but there is nothing which is likely to improve employment prospects.
The marriage between the Unemployment Insurance Commission and Canada Manpower-what a fantastic leap forward into the 19th Century-


John R. Rodriguez: Forward into the past!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Yes. "Forward into the past", as my hon. friend says. If one talks to the average person employed by Canada Manpower today, he or she will say that this anticipated coming together of the two services is likely to make a mish-mash of the whole thing. As a matter of fact the departments have been brought together, in practice, for several years. Certain pilot projects have been going on at at various places across the country for about a year and I should like to ask anyone on the other side whether this arrangement has resulted in a more efficient system or in more job placements. My information is that it has not. All it has done is to meld two bureaucracies into one. Instead of having to call surreptitiously from one office to another and say "John X is dogging it, cut him off UIC", he can be denied benefit more directly on the grounds that he is not looking for work when no work is available.
Bill C-27, along with the other bill 1 have referred to but which we are not discussing tonight, will place a tremendous burden on the social service agencies of this country. At the present time, if a person has to go from unemployment insurance to welfare, this is again one rung down the socially acceptable ladder of our society. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. The federal government is going to deny the unemployed benefits by increasing the qualifying period, and those cut off UI benefits, approximately 226,000, will be unable to find work. We are facing a fall and winter in which the experts tel! us unemployment will become worse, not better, so where are these people going to go? A few of the young will probably be caught breaking and entering and be sent to correctional institutions, but the vast majority are law abiding and will end up on welfare.
Who provides the funds to pay for welfare, Mr. Speaker? Fifty per cent comes from the federal government, 30 per cent
Employment and Immigration
from the provincial government, and 20 per cent from the municipalities. So here we are, caught in this vicious circle. On the one hand, the Unemployment Insurance Commission, or the employment commission, or whatever they call it now, think that they will save the taxpayers money by cutting people off unemployment insurance; on the other hand the federal government, through transfer payments of one kind or another, will have to provide more funds for welfare. So how much further are we ahead?
This brings me back to my first point, which is simply that we can pass any piece of legislation we want in this House to help someone who is unemployed, but unless we create employment and stimulate the economy, what is the use? Why not let them line up again in the bread lines? In fact I am convinced that this government would finally get off its butt and act on unemployment if unemployment insurance were done away with and we had walks on Ottawa, and violence in the streets-which I am not advocating. If we got back to the thirties, in other words. But as long as Liberal philosophy prevails and we allow just enough money for this and just enough money for that so as to keep people from getting angry, the government thinks this palliative will save it.
The Prime Minister will then come along and tell us that the only problem with national unity is that we should be friendly with French speaking Canadians and French speaking Canadians should be friendly with English speaking Canadians. This will not happen through Bill C-27; it will only happen by providing jobs for Quebecers young and old, indeed for people right across the country, who will then find a common bond. Unless this is done, the anger of the people will continue to rise, not because Quebecers hate Anglophones or because Anglophones hate Francophones, but because of the regional disparity and poverty which exist in this country.
This bill should be delayed for six months, Mr. Speaker. It should be reviewed; it should be rewritten in part. That is why I have spoken tonight.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, like the NDPs and the Socreds who spoke before me, I would like to tell the government to-night that I agree this bill should be postponed for six months, and this for several reasons.
First, it seems to me that Bill C-27 emphasizes the failure of the government to create jobs. When we consider the unemployment rate, the economic situation and Bill C-27 we can only conclude that the government has no solution to the problem of job creation in Canada, except tampering with the Unemployment Insurance Act, I would say. Bill C-27 is the admission of the government's bankruptcy. It means poverty and is officially accepted in some areas. I have been sitting in the House since 1962 and I have heard about regional disparities ever since. They said it was a shame that in that area there prevailed an unemployment rate which was higher than in other areas, And that the government was doing its best to solve the issue of regional disparities, while that same government filled our ears with their propaganda that one of the first priorities in their social policy was to stamp out regional
7454

July 7, 1977
Employment and Immigration
disparities, Bill C-27 officially enshrines regional disparities by stating for example that in some area eight unemployment stamps will be needed before benefits can be collected, that in some other area, because of regional disparities that were supposed to be stamped out, but the government was incapable of stamping out, there must be twice the number of stamps or, 15 stamps, or 11 contributions before benefits can be paid out.
If during all those years the government have been repeating, and leading us or the Canadian people to believe it could solve the problem of manpower or employment in Canada on the one hand and regional disparities on the other, it seems to me that with six extra months before the legislation is passed, it might implement what it promised and has been incapable of doing since 1962 at least. Mr. Speaker, what struck me in one of the first clauses of the bill is the shared cost provision, or work sharing. Mr. Speaker, let us look now for instance at the fiscal policy as it applies to companies or small businesses, and especially small businesses. It must be recognized that in Canada, small and medium businesses do not partake in the fiscal policy which applies to big multinational corporations or monopolies. Once they have paid their taxes companies are smothered as we can see in my area, in the Quebec city district and elsewhere. It is the case of companies with 300, 400 or 500 employees such as Thor Mills in Granby, Acton Shoe in Acton Vale, as practically in the whole shoe industry in Canada, especially in Quebec, because, 60 percent of the shoes we wear and buy in Canada are imported.
For a number of years we have been promised in the House reforms in textiles as well as in shoe and in furniture industries. One is inclined to think that we have to wait until all our factories are closed for the government finally to realize the situation and to start sympathizing with those industries which built our country, especially the shoe industry, the oldest industry in Quebec, which is now on the brink of bankruptcy. What is the reason for that? This is due to the volume of imports and to a number of economic considerations which result from the administration of the Federal government: taxation, importation, unemployment rate, salary levels. Furthermore, the Federal government has become the major competitor of private enterprise in Canada, with the Unemployment Insurance Act, in collusion with the provincial governments and Social welfare.
Mr. Speaker, having smothered many companies as we realize now, Bill C-27 is going to entrust the civil servants from the Unemployment Insurance Commission and from Canadian Manpower Centres with the administration sooner or later of the labour force working for companies with that new concept of work sharing. To start off, this policy will be presented to us as a very progressive social policy, a very understanding policy, well within the reach of employers.
Mr. Speaker, we know very well that before long, not years but months, the civil servants will act as masters with the employers who will want to get contracts with Manpower and to benefit from the so-called work-sharing legislation.
(Mr. Rondeau.]
We are going to put employers at the service of the federal government. We are going to make them dependent upon the federal government, just as we have made employees, over the years, dependent so to speak upon the Unemployment Insurance Commission. We have realized over the years that unemployment insurance and social welfare have caused workers to loose their incentive for work and their initiative. I shall explain later. After a few years, we shall realize that business people too have lost their initiative as a result of a greater involvement of the government in the operation of their companies and with their employees, to the point that they may feel that the government is in charge. As a matter of fact, we already have indications of that in Quebec.
Certain people in Quebec are complaining that some companies are about to close their doors. Why? Because business has somewhat lost confidence in the provincial administration. Business people are afraid of it. Why?
Because when we have been through experiences like St. Jerome, employers come and tell them: "Why invest more and more if tomorrow the Quebec government is going to interfere with our business?" That is why many employers in Quebec are wondering what the future of their industry will be and stop investing, roll back and wait until the government offers to buy their business.
I personally know of 4 businessmen who reduced their staff and the number of jobs in their plant because they had lost confidence in the government regarding private initiative. Now, they want to get back the capital they have invested in their business, and the best way to do it is to tell the government: "We are no longer interested in producing, we are no longer interested in contributing to the economy of Quebec or Canada." Well, they are waiting for offers, and the government of Quebec, with its ever increasing unemployment rate, has to bow down to those businessmen and grant them tax deductions or any other deductions to keep them in the province. Mr. Speaker, this bill on unemployment is going to produce exactly the same economic attitude in Quebec as in the rest of Canada, and before long the employers will also become wards of the federal government. The majority of the unemployed, contrary to what is commonly said, because some claim that the unemployed are lazy-


Mr. Boulanger:: Who said that?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Prosper, first of all. I have often heard government members say in the House that the unemployed are lazy. Mr. Speaker-


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please!


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I should like to point out that the microphone of the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) does not work because he never uses it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Mercier on a point of order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please!
July 7, 1977


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I thank you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Mercier rising on a point of order?


Prosper Boulanger: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, you heard like me the hon. member who has the floor make a statement which is misleading, shocking, and even worse. First, I never said in the House that the unemployed were lazy; that is a lie, and I ask the hon. member to withdraw.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order please. That is a point of debate and not a point of order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, thank you so much. How can I withdraw when I just accused the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) of being lazy. His microphone proves it, because it is rusty. The hon. member never speaks in the House. Mr. Speaker, then if you do not want your microphone to get rusty, you have to use it. Mr. Speaker, the jobless are often accused of being lazy. If they became so, it is because they are fed up with the present system, since the worker is penalized, and everybody knows it.
We reward people who insist on living off governments through all the measures we know of in this House, and it is easy, Mr. Speaker, to live off governments, it is very easy. One only has to own nothing, have nothing in one's name and in order to do that, to own nothing, Mr. Speaker, one only has to spend everything, waste and act accordingly. I know unemployed people who are being called lazy, and yet those unemployed people are always working. I know employers, Mr. Speaker, who are having difficulty finding employees when we have thousands of people unemployed in Quebec and the rest of Canada and at the same time those people who are being called lazy worked seven or eight months a year at high salaries, take back part of their taxes, draw unemployment insurance and above all, Mr. Speaker, find a way to get a job that will earn them money on the side.
The government looks at the statistics and finds consolation in the percentage-the government thinks in terms of percentages, makes sweeping statements, our ministers in this House make sweeping statements on percentages, they do not think that behind those percentages are human beings, heads of families, people who have bills to pay, houses to pay for, doctor's bills to pay, feed and clothe and educate their children, no, they think in terms of percentages and find consolation in them. Yet, I remember quite well when in 1962 I was elected to this House for the first time we criticized the Progressive Conservative government because, as I recall, the Progressive Conservative government of 1962 was the government that had given us the best unemployment record in Canada.


Roch La Salle: And now it is worse!


Gilbert F. Rondeau: But now I must agree with the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) that the Liberals are twice as good
Employment and Immigration
as the Progressive Conservatives in terms of unemployment percentages in Canada.


An hon. Member:: It is terrible.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Now we can no longer say that the Progressive Conservatives are the best organizers of unemployment. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe those charges that our unemployed are lazy because I know full well that tomorrow morning, that the day when we will have a social policy to find employment in Canada, that those unemployed who are accused of being lazy today will become first rate workers. I would like to make a distinction with the wrong attitude, the wrong principles of the economists of our friends opposite who preach full employment at the same time as science, technology and modernism. Mr. Speaker, when I hear those pseudointellectuals claiming that we could have a full employment policy in this country and those economists who are heading the departments of our honourable friends on the other side and who want, at the same time, press for the development of technology, progress and science, 1 wonder. I do not believe in full employment! 1 believe in progress, in science, in technology, in technique, automation and cybernetics. I believe in the kind of modernity we have in 1977. I still believe in the kind of modernity we will have in year 2000. But in 1977 we can no longer combine progress, technology, inventions and modernity with full employment.
One day, our friends on the other side will probably have to kick out all those economists who have led them into an economic utopia that makes them believe in two contradictory things at the same time. For while in our universities we are training intellectuals, skilled technicians and engineers, people who will enter our industries tomorrow and are going to lay off 300 workers while doubling the production of this industry, how could we have a full employment policy in Canada when overnight our engineers will be able to double our national production although they will reduce workers by half.
That is economically impossible, utopic, and foolish. The Social Crediters have always advocated in lieu of insured employment a guaranteed annual income not related to employment, but independent of employment. That leads me to the social considerations in our existing legislation. Here is how our governments consider social security now: if an individual has only one arm, he is entitled to the benefit of such social legislation; if he has only one eye, he is entitled to the benefit of some other regulation; if both legs, are missing, he is entitled to the benefit of another regulation; if he is a victim of an occupational injury, he is entitled to the benefit of some other regulations, of some other legislation-


Prosper Boulanger: What happens when he has no head?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Someone who is headless like the hon. member for Mercier becomes a Liberal member. Mr. Speaker, instead of considering the matter of security all by itself, the matter of individual security, governments set up files and nothing happens. They set up files where someone for instance who is living off his parents will get less from social assistance
7456

July 7, 1977
Employment and Immigration
than if he would live off society purely and simply. As for the handicapped resulting from an occupational injury, he is considered differently than the one whose handicap is not related to an occupational injury. So we have all kinds of schemes, so-called social legislation. The formula we put forward is that we consider social security according to the individual, not on the basis of two or three missing limbs, or a sort of physical disability. That is why our social security in Canada today is a real mess and sheer confusion. Our current unemployment insurance legislation, particularly Bill C-27, is a perfect picture of that confusion, a perfect Tower of Babel we are creating for unemployed Canadians when a guaranteed annual income would neatly solve that issue.
Mr. Speaker, a guaranteed annual income is too simple, not complex enough for our civil servants, because we will not need those gentlemen anymore to blame the needy people. They say to others how to organize their life. A guaranteed annual income would reduce the number of civil servants to the same level as those who get unemployment insurance or welfare benefits. Last week, in the Journal de Montreal, we could read that 40 per cent of Canadians today derive their income from various governments.
Mr. Speaker, there are more people living off the governments than there are people working and paying taxes in 1977. In fact, if 60 per cent of the population is not living off the governments, the number of people working in Canada is lower than the number living off the governments. It is not surprizing that many people have now lost the desire to work. They could not care less about the initiative that they had when they still believed in working to earn a living.
Mr. Speaker, we have come to a point in our society where someone who shows a taste for work and initiative and who wants to develop his country is nearly considered a mental case, an idiot, someone who does not have both feet on the ground. He is still 50 years behind everyone else because he believes he must work to earn a living. Have you ever seen such an idiot? This small group of idiots who still believe that they must work to earn a living, Mr. Speaker, is disgusted by all the socialistic approaches of the Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: That is right. That is right.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: My friends of the New Democratic Party agree with us when we talk about social legislation; when we talk against the socialistic tendency-


An hon. Member:: What is the difference?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: True, Mr. Speaker, the Social Crediters are for social legislation, but they are not socialists.


An hon. Member:: Thank goodness for that difference!


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Our friends want to know what the difference is? To be for social legislation, Mr. Speaker, is to think of each individual as an individual, not according to what the government would like him to be, but according to his own needs. Mr. Speaker, the Social Crediters are for social legislation.

Why? Because we want the individual to keep his initiative, we want him to keep his own money, we want him to keep the desire to become-and some will call this scandalous-to become rich if he wants to and if he can. But with our governments today, an individual cannot grow rich because he knows there is too much censorship, too many pickpockets and too many public servants. Mr. Speaker, with such a budget in Canada, with so many Crown corporations, we are going to take more than $10 billion in 1977-78 from Canadian taxpayers to maintain our bureaucracy. I believe it is time to do some clean-up work, to watch those who are still thinking in terms of initiative, in terms of work, who are still foolish enough, like me, to believe one must work to live, rather than giving in the 1977 way of thinking, whereby those who want to work for a living are stupid, because nowadays it is more interesting, more useful and more intelligent than wasting it all, spending it all before reaching 65, because if you have some income when you reach 65, the federal government will cut off your pension. If you have some income when you reach 65, the provincial government will cut off another bit of it.
If a widow who has just lost her husband has a property which yields some $1,000., they will cut off even more. At present, someone who had the foresight and judgment to buy a life insurance policy when he was still young in order to provide some security for his family, when he reaches the age of 60 or the retirement age, the federal government with its new legislation wants to "cut it off' even before his death. If he has anything left at the time of his death, succession duties will eat up the balance.
Mr. Speaker, with this kind of socialistic mentality in our present Canadian laws, we can only have people who are unfortunately disillusioned with work, who have lost the drive for profits, the desire to bring prosperity to their country, the drive to become a rich man or even capitalists. Unfortunately, in our present system it is just impossible. This is why, Mr. Speaker, on tactical grounds, because I agree with our friends the New Democrats and for other purposes and other reasons, I suggest that this government, if it really has solutions to offer for the problems of regional disparities, surely knows how to conceal them! Actually, it does not have any. We do not need a law to officially and openly sanction regional disparities in this country. If they have ideas or bills or solutions that can help solve the unemployment problem in Canada, my goodness, before amending the present law on unemployment insurance, they should present them to the House. When the problem of any unemployed worker is solved for some 10 to 15 weeks, we have not yet solved his occupational problem for the remainder of his life, Mr. Speaker. It would seem that the only policy the Liberals are capable of devising is just to think about the unemployed and about ways of generating them by the thousands, of making them into welfare recipients by the thousands and turning them into hordes of government dependents, Mr. Speaker.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the thinking of the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) is
July 7, 1977

very difficult to follow. Ele speaks better than he sings, and he sings quite well.
I agree with the hon. member for Shefford-

-he does not know Karl Marx from Groucho Marx.
[ Translation]


Gilbert F. Rondeau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Shefford raises a point of order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to make a correction to today's official report and tell hon. members of this Elouse that the more I study Karl Marx, and I have all his books in my library, the more 1 tend to move away from his ideology.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The hon. member has obviously moved to another planet.
I rise basically to talk about the madness in this bill. There was a time when we looked at this, and someone suggested that we could regionalize the country into provinces. As 1 remember, it was a Tory motion at one point in this House which suggested that we could change the period of entitlement in a variety of regions based upon provincial boundaries. The only thing more stupid I could imagine could be to separate the country into 54 separate regions. We are now going to divide the country into 54 little districts.


William Arnold Peters: Call it seats in the Senate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is more than the number of states in the United States.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Nova Scotia has a 13.2 per cent unemployment rate. This bill would give the poor person in Nova Scotia who cannot find a job 42 weeks of benefits if he can put in 10 weeks of work. In the lower mainland of British Columbia where there is an 8.5 per cent rate, 10 weeks of work will give an individual nothing in terms of unemployment insurance benefits. It is just as tough to be poor in Vancouver as it is in Cape Breton, and the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) would be the first to agree with that.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40
deemed to have been moved.
Adjournment Debate

Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, since Confederation, Ottawa, as the capital of Canada, has been a focal point for the dreams of this country. Today the national capital region faces many problems and is being viewed by the rest of the country not as a symbol of the dreams of Canada but as a reflection of our insensitive and uncaring government.
There have been significant changes in the national capital region in recent years. Until the 1960's the federal government was virtually unopposed in the planning process in the capital area. With the growth of regional government in Ontario and Quebec in the 1970's, the federal government's massive relocation to Hull, and the growth of the city of Ottawa and the suburban townships, has come the need for a fresh approach by the government to the national capital region.
Unilateral planning in isolation is no longer appropriate for the senior government in the capital of Canada. Action taken by the federal government without discussions with provincial and municipal governments must be replaced by consultation among the planning partners.
Recently a special joint committee on the national capital region met to hear testimony about the structure and the future of our area. There is a strong need for co-ordinated planning in this area and for a forum where problems and goals can be discussed. I believe that the special joint committee should be reconstituted as a standing committee of the House of Commons with responsibility for planning and developing the national capital region. This standing committee should also be responsible for the operation of the National Capital Commission and help co-ordinate the affairs of government departments which operate in splended isolation in this city: Public Works, Urban Affairs, and the Department of Agriculture, to name just three.
Since three levels of government now operate in the capital area, as well as jurisdictions that cross provincial boundaries, the time has come to remove planning from an appointed body such as the NCC and return it to parliament and the people of Canada through a committee of the House of Commons. Another aspect of concern because of the NCC presence in the capital is the "revolving door" or musical chairs situation which we have seen in NCC senior management. There is a great need for more continuity than is available through this non-elected body. We should not have five chairmen and five general managers in the space of ten years, nor a board of directors that does not have any local input or local officials on it. This shows a lack of concern or care.
Planning in the national capital region should never lose sight of the fact that the communities on both sides of the Ottawa River have goals and needs both as part of the national capital and as cities in their own right. The federal government should no longer enact moves which lessen the right of municipalities to govern themselves.

July 7, 1977
Adjournment Debate
One example of the need for a reformed method of governing and planning in the national capital region is the situation now caused by grants in lieu of taxes; this is a very real problem for Ottawa and a potential problem for Hull. It has been argued that Ottawa should not protest the fact that government grants are lower than business taxes because of such facilities as the National Arts Centre which, it is implied, would not exist if the federal government did not take a leading role in the national capital region. Does a statement of this sort explain to a resident of Gloucester why his property taxes are $990 this year while a citizen of Toronto pays $597? The $18 million in non-paid taxes facing Ottawa this year would purchase a great many tickets at the National Arts Centre-which was supposed to be a centennial gift to the nation.
It was in the early 1950's that a fire in the Library of Parliament prompted the government to give its first grants in lieu of taxes to the city of Ottawa in order to improve the water supply in the event of another fire. Do non-paid taxes have to bring the national capital region down in flames before the government considers this a "burning issue?"
The recently announced move of 15,000 public servants to Hull will leave four million square feet of office space vacant in Ottawa. Four million square feet of office space is almost 160 acres; it would take 100 small factories to cover four million square feet. As more and more office space in the national capital region becomes the responsibility of the private sector, officials must deal with the fact that businesses are reluctant to locate in an area where taxes are so much higher than the rest of the country. Non-paid taxes play a major role in causing these high charges, and reluctance of the NCC to have realistic ideas about iand leasing or sale of industrial land to prospective buyers causes a serious problem. Notice of this move was given in advance, but the accelerated growth of the Public Service and of government offices in Ottawa disguised the magnitude of government statements.
Relocation, coming as it does with a decrease in Public Service growth, could turn Ottawa into a "ghost town." I find the callous attitude of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan) and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) hard to understand. If they had to face 160 empty acres in their cities or constituencies would they not have emergency meetings and call for help? Even DREE would be involved if this happened in their constituencies.
There is no question that Ottawa and area business people must take an initiative to attract firms to fill up the four million square feet of office space vacated by the federal government in downtown Ottawa. In fact meetings are taking place in an effort to promote a stronger business life for the capital. A study was commissioned and plans formulated to build a convention centre for Ottawa.
However, in spite of the fact that Ottawa is the fourth largest metropolitan area in Canada and the second largest in Ontario, 40 per cent of the land in our area is controlled by a non-elected body, the National Capital Commission. With a presence of that magnitude in Ottawa, the federal government
[Mrs. Pigott.J
can deny neither the effect of its actions on the community nor its responsibility to take an active role in finding solutions. It is interesting there is no one to champion the city in the cabinet. Can you imagine any other large metropolitan area without someone caring?
What action could be taken in this regard? In the immediate future the demolition of temporary buildings could be accelerated giving more work to the construction industry at a critical time, and moving workers from these buildings into vacated space could alleviate some of the burden of empty office space. Secondly, space not needed immediately at Place du Portage could be mothballed for a period of time until Ottawa had time to adjust.
There are many problems which come under the umbrella of the National Capital Commission and they need the attention of this government if Ottawa is to be really national. There is the on-again off-again Rideau Centre; satellite cities and land appraisal at Carlsbad Springs; a convention centre to support the tourist industry; decentralization plans that should be clearly defined and a timetable established; rapid transit assistance should be provided in light of the energy crisis and, of course, grants in lieu of taxes. There is a great need for equity of treatment for the people of the national capital region. Mr. Speaker, the capital of Canada does not deserve an absentee landlord.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) talked about an uncaring government. Over the years governments have been careful in approaching the question of grants in lieu of taxes. Obviously the government cares.
The statistical figures in my hand show that in 1950 grants to the city of Ottawa in lieu of taxes on departmental properties amounted to $762,392. That figure has risen over the years, and in 1977 it reached the level of $26,428,000. The figures do not suggest the government is uncaring, and I do not accept the suggestion that the Conservative government of the late 1950's was uncaring. We operate under a national program. The federal program of grants in lieu of taxes is a national program which will require the expenditure of an estimated $111.5 million during the 1977-78 fiscal year. That program applies to all federal buildings across the country, to all areas where there are federal buildings, such as post offices. In all those cases the act applies.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What about Ottawa-Vanier?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We have only a few federal buildings in Ottawa-Vanier.
The alleged grant shortfall claimed by the city of Ottawa relates primarily to the non-payment of business taxes and certain Crown-owned properties on which no grants are paid. While it is true that some properties are excluded from grants by statute they consist, for the most part, of cultural properties
July 7, 1977

and park lands. These properties are of great benefit to the citizens of Ottawa and in many instances fill a need that the city might otherwise be called upon to meet. However, since the main thrust of the question raised by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton concerns business tax, I will address myself to that question.
Business tax is not a type of tax in lieu of which grants are authorized by the Municipal Grants Act. The payment of business taxes on federal departmental property would not only require legislative authority, but also the implicit or explicit assumption that the operation of a government is a "business." This would be very difficult to justify since departmental properties are primarily service-oriented and are not used for the purpose of deriving a gain or profit. However, most federal Crown corporations which do operate with a view to generating revenues sufficient to cover costs or make a profit currently do make their own grant payments in lieu of business taxes.
I am talking about CMHC, for example, for whose buildings my minister's department is responsible.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: What about the buildings on Wellington Street?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The general rationale underlying the imposition of the municipal business tax is that those who operate a business venture, with the expectation of a gain or profit by virtue of such operation, benefit from the local services, amenities, labour force, transportation facilities and purchasing power inherent in the municipality and should pay an amount over and above real property taxes for the privilege of being provided with many of the elements necessary for turning a profit.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS-POSSIBILITY OF PROHIBITING USE OF ASBESTOS FIBRES IN PREPARATION OF FOOD AND BEVERAGES
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to the distinguished members of this august assembly that we are living in a period of environmental disease. Increasing urbanization and industrialization, especially expending technology, have altered our environment to such an extent that humans, animals, and plants are being exposed to an evergrowing number of harmful pollutants.
Recently a medical scientist at the National Cancer Institute stated that cancer in the last quarter of this century can be considered as a disease whose cause and control are rooted in the technology of our society. A biochemist at McMaster University was quoted in a recent newspaper article as saying that environmental effects cause up to 90 per cent of cancers and that current efforts are directed to a cure, rather than elimination of causes. In view of these remarks and mounting evidence of new toxic substances poisoning the environment, a comprehensive investigation of environmental pollutants
Adjournment Debate
should be undertaken by our government in co-operation with university and industrial scientists without further delay.
The eradication of present harmful pollutants as well as the prevention of toxic substances in the future will not only contribute to the improvement of health but also reduce the cost of hospital and medical programs, in addition to saving many man-years in our industries.
The fight against environmental pollutants has been recently intensified in Canada by the establishment of a Department of the Environment as well as the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The work done by these two federal departments is assisted by the Department of National Health and Welfare to protect people better and the environment against harmful substances. But there is still room for improvement.
This evening I wish to elaborate on the question I drected to the minister on June 29, in effect inquiring whether any steps have been taken to prohibit the use of asbestos in food, beverage and pharmaceutical production in Canada. It is now 50 years since it was first observed that inhalation of asbestos dust was a health hazard. During the past five decades much scientific information has accumulated to prove that asbestos causes a chronic and disabling lung disease called asbestosis, and worse, a lung and abdominal cancer called mesothelioma. Asbestos-associated diseases and deaths are increasing because of the inadequate control of the use of that mineral.
Asbestos is not one mineral, but about 30 hydrous silicates which share the characteristic of a fibrous texture and the ability to split up into minute fibres. It is the serpentine asbestos mineral, called, chrysotile, that accounts for 95 per cent of the world's asbestos consumption, and is the main variety mined and used in Canada. Canada produced 40 to 50 per cent of the world's asbestos of which 95 per cent is exported, leaving 80,000 tons per year for process in Canada.
Asbestos is used widely in the manufacture of approximately 3,000 products. The largest use is in asbestos cement products.
The second largest use is for floor tiles, followed by use in pipe coverings, paints, insulation, automobile brake-linings, clutch facings, and gaskets. Asbestos is also used as a filter medium in food, beverage and pharmaceutical industries, and also in the textiles industry to increase fire resistance of fabrics.
There is now a growing concern about the total amount of asbestos fibres reaching people through many different environmental pathways and from the thousands of products containing asbestos. The large number of products containing asbestos means that it exists in every home, factory and vehicle. Asbestos is found in our water, and also in some food, drug and beverage products both made in Canada and imported from many countries. This mineral has been found in talc products, even in some baby powders.
In view of the extent of the presence of asbestos in our
environment, and especially the serious health hazard of asbestos fibres, it is urgent to tighten the mining and industrial

July 7, 1977
Adjournment Debate
standards controlling this mineral. We must prevents as much as possible environmental contamination by asbestos, and completely prohibit the use of asbestos in the production of all food, beverage and pharmaceutical products. Steps should also be taken to stop the importation of foods, beverages, and drugs that contain asbestos fibres.
I wish to draw to Your Honour's attention a June 1977 "Canadian Consumer" article entitled "Test-Asbestos in Wine", identifying Canadian and imported wines that contained dangerous levels of asbestos fibres, and calling for the use of final membrane filters ensuring removal of any fibres from environmental sources.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, our health protection branch is one of the best in the world. Lately we have been severely criticized for going overboard with regard to saccharin. After a couple of months the criticism died because it was found that other studies confirmed the findings we had reached. Therefore our health protection branch is to be trusted.
We looked at the CAC article. We are, of course, dealing with ingestion of chrysotile asbestos. It appears this article was based on some German studies, which in turn were based on some earlier studies done by the health protection branch itself, which studies were not conclusive-they were not extensive enough. The health protection branch has carried out further studies on a larger sample and has fairly well demonstrated that this type is not carcinogenic. We have been involved in a much larger study which is going on in the United States. It will be much more conclusive and, of course, if this study should find that this form of asbestos is carcinogenic we shall have to take appropriate steps and do so rapidly.
It should be noted that the chrysotile type of asbestos is an ubiquitous product; it is found in nature, it is found in water. It has been used effectively as a filter in the past, but a study done by the health protection branch in 1973 revealed that the soft drink industry, breweries, and the food industry in general have almost completely abandoned the use of asbestos fibres in filtration processes. We shall look carefully at the American study and should it prove that the chrysotile type of asbestos is a carcinogenic agent we shall take the necessary steps.


FINANCE-TAXING OF BENEFITS FROM LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, the story goes that a cabinet Minister once said, "Now, gentlemen, I wish to tax your memory a bit". "Good Heavens", muttered a colleague, "why didn't we think of that before?" That is the impression many people have of government, that now, it will tax anything, that with the proposed life insurance tax it will go as far as reaching even into the grave for tax money.
Last Monday during the question period I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) whether any significant meas-
[Mr. Haidasz.j
ures were being taken to allay the concern of many life insurance policy holders, as well as those of the life insurance underwriters, with respect to the proposed tax on life insurance benefits contained in the March 31 budget.
My purpose in bringing the matter to the attention of the minister was to convey to him, as the elected representative for Halton, the very real concern which exists among many of my constituents that this tax is unfair and unjust. I dare say, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the seriousness with which this issue is regarded in my riding, the minister's response was regarded as being quite unsatisfactory. I would like to take this opportunity, therefore, to spell out in greater detail the problems which this tax would present to life insurance policyholders, in the hope that this will give the parliamentary secretary a chance to offer a more complete response.
In brief outline, there are four main objections to the tax. First, the timing of the tax assessment is wrong. By levying the tax on death benefits, the government will be depriving people of money at a time when they already have so many other worries.
Second, disallowance of interest as a tax deduction on loans applied against one's insurance policy for purposes of producing income is wrong. A business loan is a business loan is a business loan, regardless of the circumstances of the transaction. If an individual can acquire a loan from his insurance company at cheaper rates than from other lending agencies, then so much the better. The loan should be accorded the same tax privilege as any other form of legitimate business borrowing.
Third, and similarly, the proposal to treat policy loans as policy "advances" and thereby tax the policy "gains" at the time of taking the loan is wrong. Such benefits derive from the advantage of purchasing an insurance policy in the first place. To levy a tax at the time the loan is needed becomes quite paradoxical.
Fourth, the rationale for applying the tax directly at the policyholder level is wrong. If it was assumed that assessing tax individually for each policy rather than applying a blanket 15 per cent on the insurers would reduce the cost to the policy holder, this ignores the fact that any proposed increase in corporation tax for the insurers will certainly negate the possibility of lower policy rates. As for anything else, would the company pass on any savings to the consumer?
In addition to those four points both the Carter taxation plan and the Benson white paper on taxation have rejected the concept of a death tax, as have almost all other countries in the world.
Let me give the House a few examples of correspondence that I have received, like most MP's recently. On the proposed policy gains tax at time of death, first:
This is outrageous when one considers the purpose of life insurance and how it might have had to keep my family afloat if I had died-and when one considers that in the future it will be of supreme importance to my wife if I die first.
July 7, 1977

Second:
The proposal to tax policy gains at death is contrary to current legislative trends in Canada as well as the rest of the world ... This concept was thoroughly discussed at the time of the Carter report and rejected.
Third:
Policy holders have paid premiums on whole life insurance in good faith since their policies were initiated, in the firm belief that the benefits would be honoured according to the contract. It seems inconceivable that politicians consider undermining life long investments by introducing legislation taxing such benefits ... the concept is resented ...
Fourth:
The tax at death suggestion would result in people being penalized for saving money through the purchase of permanent life insurance and would be an invitation to more people to rely on federal handouts in their old age.
On proposed disallowance of interest on policy loans as a tax deduction, first:
It has clearly been established that interest on policy loans used to invest in a business or income producing property are deductible. The legislation, in choosing to call a policy loan an "advance", ignores the fact that the policy loan meets the deductibility test.
Second:
... the interest on any loan 1 take on my life insurance where the purpose is to earn income should be deductible in the same way as any other interest which is incurred to earn income.
Third:
Curiously enough, by forcing people to borrow on their policies at the bank rather than directly from the insurance company, the proposal will end up foregoing more tax revenue because the bank rate of interest in generally higher than that applicable to a policy loan.
On the proposed tax on policy gain at the time of a policy loan, first:
It has been my personal experience that loans on my life insurance policies have been required at times of financial emergency, or, as recently, to take advantage of a business opportunity. It seems completely unreasonable to levy an income tax at a time-if I borrowed money on my home or on my investment portfolio there is no proposed tax.
Second:
... all the policies I have contain "loan clauses" and I have frequently borrowed, paid the interest, and repaid the loans. I emphasize that these are "loan clauses" and not policy advances and it is not right for the government to try to change this concept.
In conclusion, as these excerpts demonstrate, my constituents are well informed on this complex issue and have a clear understanding of its serious consequences. With this in mind, therefore, I would once again urge the minister to reconsider this tax proposal to see whether it is truly worth while and, if so, to endeavour to remove what would appear to be serious anomalies in its application. Unfortunately it has detracted
Adjournment Debate
badly from an otherwise useful, economically stimulating, free enterprise budget. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I find myself on the same side as my constituents in asking whether the minister will rescind this proposal for a tax on life insurance beneficiaries.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by thanking the hon. member for his commendation of the other provisions of the budget; it is good to know that he is with us in general on the thrust of the budget. What I should like to do with the proposals that he made in connection with insurance is to ask some very simple questions, questions which the government had to confront in deciding on the basic rules for taxation of insurance.
The basic question is this: when insurance is a form of investment, should it not bear some fair share of tax considering that all other forms of investment in our society bear some form of tax? 1 suppose you can argue it would be better if there were no taxes payable on investments at all. One could make that case. Once it is determined that taxation ought to apply, should it not apply on an equitable basis to all forms of investment?
Insurance is a special investment. It is a peculiar and unique type of investment. It is difficult to have general rules which apply to other investments and make them applicable to insurance, but the basic principle is unarguable. Insurance is an investment and, like any other, it ought to bear its fair share of tax. It is with that approach that the government looked at insurance and made recommendations to parliament. We are not proposing to tax the protection factor or the mortality factor. To the extent the insurance benefit represents a payment for risk, no tax is payable or proposed to be payable on that portion of the proceeds. To the extent it is an investment, the fundamental question is: why should it not bear tax on the same basis as any other form of investment does? I do not think there is a satisfactory answer to that question. That is the basis on which we proposed it.
After the tax reform of 1971 there was some pause in negotiations with the insurance industry and representatives of those concerned with insurance. It was decided that the insurance companies would pay a 15 per cent tax straight across the board on all the earnings of their investment portfolios. Why 15 per cent? In the case of those policy holders who are low income individuals and have no other source of income, 15 per cent is too high. In the case of those who own very large insurance policies and who are getting the benefit of a large

July 7, 1977
Adjournment Debate
proportion of the income, 15 per cent is far too low. Taking it across the board, it was a kind of negotiation and consultation, and that was the figure which was arrived at then. Subsequently when we proceeded to allow $1,000 of tax free earnings on-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Friday, July 8, 1977