1977-07-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the unfortunate loss of life and devastation of property caused by a tornado which struck southeastern Manitoba, namely, the areas of Rosa and Carlowrie, on July 18, 1977, I move, seconded, by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That this House urge the Government of Canada to send officials into the affected areas with the view of declaring the affected areas a disaster area, thus making affected persons eligible for disaster payments.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
Since the Montreal regional council of the Public Service Alliance of Canada has declared its determination to continue boycotting the second language as long as the Treasury Board refuses to respect its promise to pay a bilingualism bonus; since the government has repeatedly stated formally that it considers it fair and equitable to pay that bonus; since an increasing number of federal civil servants in Quebec intend to ask that their jobs now classified as bilingual be reclassified as unilingual because, to quote them almost textually, they are fed up with claiming compensation they are being denied; and since it is imperative that the citizens being served by the civil servants
concerned should have the choice of either official language in this country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey):
That the House unanimously recommend that the minister in charge solve immediately the problem of the bonus for bilingualism and that, should the matter not be solved quickly, no disciplinary measures be taken in the meantime against the functionaries concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, such a motion cannot be put without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the answers to the order paper questions of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), which were tabled on July 5, are incomplete and some answers deliberately mislead the House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House do now order a full public inquiry into the York Place low rental housing development in Hamilton.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT PAYMENTS FROM NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that professional hockey teams continue to benefit financially, and in fact depend on the development of junior hockey
80020-28*72

July 19, 1977
Oral Questions
players in Canada, many of them financed through federal assistance programs, without contributing towards that development, and because the report by the president of Hockey Canada, Mr. Douglas Fisher, regarding the funding provisions between the NHL and Canadian major junior hockey leagues, concluded that: "there is no hope of an agreement or a compromise between the NHL and the juniors", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That this House instruct the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) to approach directly the president and officers of the National Hockey League and request that development payments for each drafted amateur be made forthwith and retroactive to the last drafts, failing which the government would be compelled to introduce legislation dealing with this serious and unjust matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation for debate of any such motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Bank of Canada has revealed that in the last four years there has been an acceleration of Canadian direct investment abroad and a deceleration of foreign investments here, so that in 1976 there was a net outflow of nearly $1 billion, costing tens of thousands of Canadian jobs. Would the Prime Minister indicate if his administration anticipated such a turnaround when it introduced its foreign investment review procedures, bearing in mind that such a flight of capital has resulted not only in higher unemployment but also in a brain drain of some of our most talented people?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the least I can say is that the question is extremely complex. Certainly, the Foreign Investment Review Agency did have as its stated objective screening investment so that it would be allowed only when it brings significant benefit to Canada. I would be surprised if the hon. member would disagree with that. As far as Canadian capital being invested elsewhere is concerned, there are no exchange controls on the Canadian dollar, and the Canadian investor is free to invest wherever he will get the maximum return for his dollar.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explore this subject a little further with the Prime Minister. Faced with an

8 per cent unemployment level at the present time and the anticipation that it might go even higher-in fact, it is now at a higher level than any major industrialized country-would the Prime Minister go further and indicate to what extent his foreign investment review procedures or other related government policies have contributed to unemployment by discouraging foreign investment and job creation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must repeat in part my previous answer. Foreign investment continues to be welcome in Canada, but only if it brings significant benefit. This, of course, includes the creation of jobs. It is on that basis that a great deal of foreign investment has continued to be allowed over the past several years since the creation of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. If the hon. member checks the figures, he will see that it is a small proportion indeed of foreign investment which is screened out, and one of the considerations of the review agency is to see if the investment will bring jobs or not. In the latter case, the investment is not encouraged unless there are other benefits.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: With almost daily press reports of further Canadian investment in foreign lands, would the Prime Minister tell the House whether he is concerned about this trend or, at least, would he indicate if he has received any report on this apparent exodus of money, know-how and jobs, and if so, could he estimate how many jobs have been lost so far?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I have not received any report on this nor an estimate of jobs lost so far, but the facts the hon. member raises are facts of which we are aware, and they change from time to time. There is a period in the cycle when members of parliament complain that there is too much foreign investment, and at other times they complain that there is too much Canadian investment going abroad. We have always taken the view that the economy should function in such a way that investors in normal times can be free to seek the best possible return for their dollar, and if that is not the case in Canada, that means we have to manage our economy better and increase our productivity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Beatty:: You have seen the light.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am glad I made hon. members opposite smile.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, while we are talking about managing the economy better, it should be noted that the Prime Minister has some indication in terms of unemployment. As even the budget concedes that the current level of 8 per cent unemployment will worsen by the
July 19, 1977

end of this year-and private sector forecasts are even more pessimistic-can the Prime Minister tell the Elouse what the level of unemployment will be by this time next year?
Right Elon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): No, Mr. Speaker, I do not have my crystal ball handy.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As far as I am concerned, the Prime Minister never has a crystal ball, or any balls whatsoever, in terms of meeting this very serious situation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: With reference to the steadily worsening unemployment situation, can the Prime Minister tell the House what the business leaders he has consulted with told him about why there is so little job creation? I know the Prime Minister registered his concern about this. Have the business leaders indicated to him why the private sector has not been able to create the jobs he thought it would as a result of that insignificant budget?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 really could not answer that question in a short period of time. Many business leaders have brought many reasons forward having to do with government expenditures, the level of productivity, the level of wage rates and the attitude of entrepreneurs in our country. When I say "we" have to manage the economy better, the hon. member knows me well enough to know this "we" is not the we of majesty; I am speaking of Canadians generally.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is a new twist.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further supplementary. Since this administration has offered no solutions for Canadians seeking employment in Canada, would the Prime Minister follow through on his suggestion that unemployed Canadians leave the country to find work by indicating what country he had in mind that might receive unemployed Canadians? Is this the contingency plan the Prime Minister has for our youth?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is perhaps making a telling point against his own argument. People continue wanting to migrate to Canada because they feel it is a country with a future in spite of the opposition always trying to poor-mouth-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What are you telling our kids to leave for? That is all I want to know.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not sure this is the proper forum in which to have a substantive economic debate on a question and answer basis.


Miss MacDonald:: It never is for you.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think even the opposition must realize that the economic questions which face Canada and most industrialized democracies are-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: And which you brought into play and which have destroyed this country.


Mr. MacFarlane:: Don't embarrass us in Hamilton, Line.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -very serious.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Come forward so that we can see your shorts.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I must say to the right hon. Prime Minister that jealousy will get him nowhere.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 9, the hon. member for New Westminster put a question to the Solicitor General regarding the evidence given before a judicial inquiry in Edmonton in relation to a charge that RCMP officers had illegally bugged the hotel rooms of three Edmonton police officers. At that time the Solicitor General said that the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP had been delegated by the commissioner to investigate the matter and that he found there was no bugging. The minister's statement is completely at variance with an evidence given to the Laycraft Inquiry yesterday reported in yesterday's Globe and Mail as follows:
The inquiry also heard Assistant Commissioner Peter Wright, head of the RCMP in Alberta testify that Ross Paisley, Alberta's deputy attorney-general told him that the bugging was "a fact," not "an allegation," and that Assistant Commissioner George Paquette, in charge of the RCMP in Manitoba at the time of the bugging, had approved it.
Has the minister been in touch with the deputy attorney general of Alberta, to determine if the assertions the deputy commissioner of the RCMP made on the stand are accurate? More especially, has the Solicitor General been in touch with Assistant Commissioner Paquette, to determine if he approved the bugging?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have no information at variance with the previous statement I made in the House in this regard. I am not sure if the hon. member is quoting a newspaper story about the commission of inquiry.

July 19, 1977
Oral Questions
Be that as it may, the result of the investigation conducted by the deputy commissioner of the RCMP was negative. That matter is before the Laycraft inquiry for determination. 1 understand that the Laycraft inquiry has suspended its proceedings for the summer, but I shall be more than willing to look into the allegations the hon. member brought to my attention, allegations raised in the House yesterday, as I see from reading Hansard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the Solicitor General receive from the commissioner of the RCMP a report saying the results of the investigation were negative, or did he actually see and read the report of the deputy commissioner? If he did, can he tell the House if the deputy commissioner interviewed Assistant Commissioner George Paquette in charge of the Manitoba division with respect to the bugging of the rooms of the three Edmonton police?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question. I received the assurances of the commissioner of the RCMP that the report of the deputy commissioner was negative.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I take it the minister himself did not receive a copy of the report, or did not read it. I take it also that he does not know if Assistant Commissioner Paquette was interviewed. That, I suggest, is extremely serious in view of the statement the minister made on June 9, when he assured the House that no bugging had taken place. I therefore ask him, and my question bears on the credibility of the statement he made on June 9, if he will get in touch with Mr. Ross Paisley, the deputy attorney general of Alberta, to ascertain if the statements an assistant commissioner of the RCMP made on the witness stand before the Laycraft commission were accurate? If they were accurate, will he take the matter up with Assistant Commissioner Paquette, to see if the statements of the deputy attorney general were accurate and report the results of his investigation in the next few days?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question intimates that I am not entitled to accept the word of the commissioner of the RCMP. If the commissioner of the RCMP tells me that, after undertaking some investigations he delegated the deputy commissioner of the force to look into the matter and the deputy commissioner's report concerning bugging is negative, it is appropriate for me to accept the commissioner's word in that regard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But you told us that previously.


Francis Fox: If I may deal with the allegations the commission is considering, I am told that it has heard only hearsay evidence with respect to the bugging of the rooms. The Alberta attorney general commissioned the inquiry, to determine precisely if such bugging had taken place. Of course, we shall examine those conclusions carefully. As to the rest of the hon. gentleman's question, I do not object asking the commissioner
[Mr. Fox.)
to verify facts which the hon. member believes were brought to the attention of the Laycraft commission.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the people of Chibougamau have undertaken through the Canada Works Program, to clear the piece of land where the future Chibougamau regional airport should be located, can the minister tell the House whether his department has made or will soon make a decision with a view to providing the people of this area with the regional airport they have long since been asking and working for?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, a report has not been presented to me but I will be glad to look into the status of the planning concerning that region and report further to the hon. member.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Since the audit of Farm Credit Corporation by Sibbald group indicates gross mismanagement in the higher echelons of the corporation, would the minister give the Standing Committee on Agriculture an opportunity to review the report and hear witnesses so that we may determine the details relating to the audit of that corporation?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member is aware, the Farm Credit Corporation asked for this inquiry itself. They have followed the suggestions in the report more rapidly than in most cases. It is an internal study made at the request of the Farm Credit Corporation. They should not be condemned but congratulated for checking out their own organization to find out if they can improve on their operations.


Arnold John Malone: They did call for the audit themselves. However, the fact is the audit implicates some of the very people who called for the audit. This raises the question that it ought to then be brought before the committee rather than the Farm Credit Corporation. Again I ask the minister whether he will consider bringing it before the Standing Committee on Agriculture so that we can examine the report and see what has happened in that organization.
July 19, 1977


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to give the impression that the Farm Credit Corporation does not appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture because it does every year. I am not beyond considering that this go before the Agriculture Committee because it is no longer an internal document. If other people have it, it is now public. It is a working document for which they asked. They asked for it themselves to make sure they understood what the Farm Credit Corporation was doing and what it should be doing. It should not be condemned, but congratulated for trying to rectify any mismanagement within that corporation.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, I will direct my question to the Minister of Justice. It will be of some interest to him both in his capacity as chief law officer of the country as well as referring to incidents during his term as Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It has to do with questions on the order paper in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East, answered on July 15. One question asked, paragraph 16, of question No. 812 was this: "Is CMHC satisfied that all funds approved-"


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


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, it is important that the Minister of Justice understand. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs, in charge of CMHC, admitted in answer to a question in the name of the hon. member for St. John's East that CMHC was not satisfied that all funds approved in advance for York Place were indeed used for York Place. Did the Minister of Justice consult with his colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, as to where the money went, who got it, was it diverted and what has the minister done in terms of follow up to lay charges in this regard?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to review, which I have not had a chance to do, the question that the hon. member wanted to put.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, in this House on October 27 of last year, the hon. member for St. John's East asked the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to conduct an inquiry in this regard. To this point all we have is a coverup. I want to know whether the Minister of Justice will now, in order to clear up questions regarding top officials of CMHC and indeed other ministers of the Crown, order a full public inquiry?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if I may answer in the name of the minister, there is no obligation on
Oral Questions
CMHC, or any lender for that matter, to ensure that mortgage funds are expended or used exclusively for any particular project. It would be virtually impossible to require such a thing. The mechanism required would be unworkable. It would be impossible for the mortgagers to carry out their work.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would like to make it very clear that neither CMHC or any other lender is obliged to follow construction to ensure that funds are expended for the purpose for which they are given.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: A final supplementary, to the Prime Minister. Without debating or questioning particular aspects, because the Prime Minister has the responsibility for his ministers and for seeing that public funds are directed in the right way, would the right hon. gentleman undertake-


An hon. Member:: Why don't you lay charges?


Dean Waldon Whiteway: You condemned yourselves in the answer to question No. 16! Would the Prime Minister order, now, a full, public inquiry?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the other part of the question was directed to me. I am not quite sure, because I did not hear one or two words, to which project the hon. member was referring. But the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and I have been consulting with regard to certain aspects of the National Housing Act. With reference to the latter part of the hon. member's question, if there is any evidence of obtaining funds by fraud, that is a matter clearly covered by the Criminal Code which will be properly investigated by the appropriate police authorities.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: The parliamentary secretary said the department has no obligation with respect to the direction funds are going to take. I assume he has heard of progress reports which are made regularly to CMHC with respect to the advancing of funds. But my question relates to another obligation of government, that is, the obligation to answer questions in this House truthfully. On July 15, the minister misled the House. The fact is that on June 3, 1977, an officer of CMHC, named Shaw, and one Domenec Morgenti, who is not an officer of CMHC, were convicted in Hamilton of an offence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know whether the hon. member wants to put a question or raise a point of order on the subject.

July 19, 1977
Oral Questions


Walter David Baker: In the absence of the minister, Mr. Speaker, I think I have to put the proper preamble.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Walter David Baker: My question is to the government House leader. On July 15 we were told that there had been no conviction; in answer to a question, an unequivocal "No" was given on behalf of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I would ask the government House leader, who is primarily responsible for the answering of questions in the House, whether he has investigated this matter, since on the face of it the Minister of State for Urban Affairs appears to have misled the House, perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not. If he has not investigated this matter, would he do so and would he ask the Minister of State for Urban Afffairs to make a statement in this chamber to clear up the questions which obviously arise as a result of his answer last Friday.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: In answer to the first question, I would like to say-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the answers provided are the responsibility of each particular minister and I believe the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton will have to follow up the matter with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.


Walter David Baker: I think it is the responsibility of the House leader as well to ensure that answers are correct. The answer we were given brings into question every answer the minister made on Friday, answers which for the most part were incomplete at any rate.
Now, on October 27, 1976, the former minister of state for urban affairs told the House that he would check into allegations that the Minister of Labour had played a role in securing a $1.5 million loan increase to Morgenti. That is on the record for October of 1976. In the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, I ask the government House leader whether he has followed up that inquiry. If the answer is no, why not, and if the answer is yes, what were the results and would he be prepared to table that report in the House? I am not asking the parliamentary secretary. I am asking the government House leader for this information.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that there have been no charges against any officer of CMHC at any time. There was a case made against a compliance inspector in Hamilton. He was accused and found guilty. He was not an officer of CMHC. Let's not have any more of these attempts to tar reputations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The corporation follows normal procedures with regard to the payment of mortgages. The legal agent of the corporation has to go through the

procedure of searching title; he has to make sure that there are no liens against the real estate-


Walter David Baker: We know all that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -and there is nothing involved in this case which warrants any inquiry. I think the hon. member knows that. The facts are public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: In October of 1976, the then minister of state for urban affairs, now Minister of National Defence, indicated he was making inquiries following questions put to him by the hon. member for St. John's East. This implies there will be an answer from the Minister of State for Urban Affairs in relation to that inquiry, supplemental to the questionable answers on the order paper of July 15, 1977. I do not expect the parliamentary secretary to be able to look into the mind of his minister. Very few people can do that. I am asking the government House leader whether or not that inquiry did proceed, whether there was a report made with respect to the matter and, if so, whether it will be tabled.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Once again, I must repeat that in this case the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton should direct his questions to the appropriate minister. Otherwise, we would be embarking on an entirely new course involving the leader of the government in every question raised by every member, an innovation which I would vigorously oppose.



SUGGESTED LEGISLATION TO DEAL WITH INTERNATIONAL BOYCOTTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Hon.   Herb. Gray@Windsor West: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The United States and France, which to no lesser extent than Canada wish to expand trade with the Middle East, have both adopted legislation recently to protect their companies, and individual residents, from being forced to comply with international boycotts like the Arab boycott. Will the government therefore, now change its earlier decision not to introduce such legislation, and present legislation along these lines to parliament thereby implementing the sentiments of its policy statement of October, 1976 more fully than through the administrative measures taken to date-the kind of measures which the United States, at least, has already found not to be an adequate substitute for general legislation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, legislation is not contemplated at this time. Naturally, we shall want to review the effects of the policy statement and assess those effects before reporting in due course.
July 19, 1977



TRANSPORT


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. The Hall Commission recommended an amount in excess of $445 million for the rehabilitation and upgrading of the prairie rail network, and on May 27 the minister said in Regina that in the period immediately ahead there would be a firm commitment of $200 million to start the railways on this program of rehabilitation and upgrading. Yesterday, however, the minister announced in Calgary that the sum of $100 million would be provided. I should like to ask him what happened to the other $100 million he gave a firm commitment to provide in Regina in May. Can the hon. gentleman assure the House that he will not accept any excuse from the railroads that they can only spend $100 million during the period envisaged, because I can assure him that there are private companies which are able and willing to carry out some of this work?


Otto Emil Lang: I welcome the hon. member back to the House, but I must say I regret his selective quoting, in the course of which he left out the important word "seeking". The initial commitment of $100 million is intended to accommodate the construction and rehabilitation work which can be accomplished in the construction years 1977 and 1978. It is, however, an extremely constructive step and a maximum move forward in further commitment following the recommendations of the Hall commission. I think hon. members, particularly those from the west, should appreciate the willingness of the government to commit $100 million for this purpose at this time of serious fiscal restraint.



CROWSNEST PASS RATES-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF MINISTER'S STATEMENT

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the $100 million but we would welcome more the commitment from the minister to implement the recommendation of the Hall report, which will amount to about five times that which he is talking about at the moment. The minister also said in Calgary, to quote from the press, that "the west should consider if it would not be better served by having the Crow benefit paid in a more neutral way". What does the minister mean by that statement, since the west has already considered how it wants the benefits of the Crow rate applied? The recommendations of the Hall commission have been accepted and agreed to by the wheat pools and the prairie governments. Would the minister explain what he means by "a neutral way", and will he say whether the government accepts the recommendation of Mr. Justice Hall about the retention of the Crow rate and the payment direct to the railroads of any losses on grain hauling?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, our approach to rehabilitation evidences a willingness to move
Oral Questions
along those lines. I will send the hon. member several previous speeches of mine which analyse the alternative ways that the Crow rate will be paid. As the hon. member may know, from the western point of view I do not consider this matter closed. I have said, and I said again in that Calgary speech, that I considered it my obligation as a minister representing the west to attempt to persuade the government about the amount of money required to ensure the Crow rate for the west and the benefit of that rate, and that I will continue to do and I make that known at all times. But I will continue discussing, as a westerner, the possibility that developments in the west may be better encouraged by other arrangements than those which are contemplated at the present time. However, that is a subject regarding which I keep saying that I will not propose any move or take any action unless there is general agreement and a move in that regard in the west. I hope the hon. member will not reject continued discussion of issues as important as this and somehow treat the question as totally closed for all time.



FREIGHT RATES-REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN RATE ON RAPESEED PRODUCTS

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious to all but the minister that the west has accepted the Hall commission recommendation on the Crow rates. That is the position of my party and certainly it is what the wheat pools and the prairie governments feel. The Hall commission recommended that freight rates on rapeseed and its derivatives be set at levels which do not discriminate against the natural location advantage of rapeseed crushers in the west. By recommending retention of the Crowsnest rates the commission has, by implication, recommended that the inequity discriminating against western rapeseed crushers be resolved by lowering the freight rate on rapeseed products. When will the minister act on this recommendation and when will the necessary changes be made to have rapeseed products qualify for lower freight rates?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Hall commission did recommend a good number of things in regard to freight rates and products. It also said that the question whether the statutory Crow rates should be set at a particular level or at some other level is something that ought to be decided by the government; and obviously that did not answer a question but opened a question.
In relation to grain products moving out of the west there is a very serious issue, which again I raised in my speech in Calgary, namely that the only alternative to inequity in the west against processing which is produced by the low grain rate is the putting of all kinds of other products on a similar low rate. That was not quantified by the commission, but probably if you include western movement of meat and other products, presumably by trucks as well as by rail, this amounts to many hundreds of millions of dollars. In addition, I am not sure whether the hon. member is suggesting that there would be a way to put that low meat rate in place in the west without

July 19, 1977
Oral Questions
putting a similar low meat rate in place in other parts of the country. This would also add several hundreds of millions of dollars. That in addition to the problem of the Crow rate itself, plus rehabilitation, would probably add up to somewhere between $600 million to $800 million or $1 billion a year and growing. While the hon. member may think that that kind of burden on the taxpayer instead of a sensible economic arrangement regarding freight is a good thing, 1 believe the people of this country will resist that kind of thinking, whether it comes from a socialist in the NDP or from the neo-political socialist in the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



EFFECT OF POSTAL STRIKE ON TESTING OF URINE SAMPLES AT SHERBROOKE HOSPITAL-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware that the testing of the urine of babies born in the province of Quebec is carried out at the University Hospital in Sherbrooke, that the post office strike in Sherbrooke is holding up delivery of the urine samples, creating a very serious health hazard affecting between 2,000 and 3,000 newborn babies each week, and will the minister use his influence to put an end to this disastrous situation?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have raised this matter with my colleague the Postmaster General and he is aware of the difficulty. Quebec regional post office officials are studying the extent of the problem, and I might advise the hon. member that a temporary court injunction has been granted by the court in this respect. We hope that the situation will be resolved very soon, if it has not been resolved already.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs my question is for the Minister of Justice. I wonder whether the minister could tell the House whether an opinion has been asked of the law officers of the Crown, either by him or by any member of the government, respecting the rather scurrilous business practice of the Reed Paper Company and Canadian Forest Products Limited, both Canadian companies, which is designed obviously to keep hidden certain facts from Canadian shareholders as well perhaps as to evade foreign business taxes or income taxes. Would the minister find out whether, in the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, there has been abridgement either of the Canada

Business Corporations Act or the Canadian Criminal Code, or any other related statute?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, not to me personally, but whether the matter has been taken up with either my colleague or his department or with officers of mine, at the present time I do not know. I have read the reports from which I assume the question arises. Personally, I am not aware whether the companies involved are formed under the Canada Business Corporations Act or not, but I will take note of the hon. member's question and make inquiries.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government leader. I suppose, knowing him formerly as a university professor, I might ask him to explain the difference between a neo-political socialist and a neopolitical Liberal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a serious question for him, Mr. Speaker. Has the government received, either directly from Sysco or from the government of Nova Scotia, a specific request for financial assistance and co-operation in the modernization of the Sysco plants? I direct the question to the government House leader, knowing his great interest in this subject as well.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no matter how much I should like to respond to the question of the hon. member for Halifax on this subject I feel it would also be creating a precedent that I do not want to encourage.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The reference obviously is to the administrative responsibility of the individual member. There is nothing wrong with the question; it seems to me to be directed to the wrong minister.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I assumed that the government House leader, particularly on this subject, would know what requests had been made to the government. Perhaps I could direct my question to the Prime Minister. Surely he knows, and surely it comes within the terms of his responsibilities.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 will take notice of the question on behalf of the minister.
July 19, 1977



CONFEDERATION


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with the establishment of a parliamentary committee on national unity, and it is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister because I am sure he has had time to reflect on the constructive speeches made on both sides of this House regarding this matter some days ago and the questions put last week. In so far as the vast number of members of parliament on the government side are from my province and a vast number from western Canada sit on the opposition side, and in order to assure that the debate on national unity does not develop into a political fiasco, will the right hon. Prime Minister now assure the House that when we reconvene this session next fall he will immediately establish an all-party parliamentary committee to give elected members of parliament an opportunity to make constructive contributions to this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if and when we have the Speech from the Throne in the fall, it will deal with the question of national unity. The House will be given an opportunity to examine policy proposals and examine ways in which they can be dealt with by this House.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, if a crunch comes in this matter, the right hon. Prime Minister will need goodwill from all sides of this House. In so far as members on the task force are defeated members of parliament, why cannot the right hon. Prime Minister announce now, without any further consideration, that elected members of parliament will be let in on this matter-


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



TORNADO


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister as well. In view of the unfortunate loss of life and devastation of property caused by a tornado which struck southeastern Manitoba yesterday, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government of Manitoba has contacted the federal government with a view of declaring the area a disaster area, thus making it eligible for payments under the federal-provincial plan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no notice of any such request. It would normally come to the Minister of Finance or from the premier to myself. I have had none, and I do not think the Minister of Finance has had any either.
Oral Questions GRAIN



REQUEST FOR SPECIAL DELIVERY PERMIT FOR PRODUCERS WHOSE CROPS AFFECTED BY TORNADO

Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the devastation that occurred yesterday in which many graneries were destroyed and grain is now lying exposed to the elements, I should like to ask the minister whether he can instruct the Canadian Wheat Board to grant a special permit to those farmers who want to deliver the grain in order that it might be saved from spoilage.
I consider this question important in view of the fact that upon a similar request last week the Canadian Wheat Board turned it down. Elevator space is empty. I checked that out today.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will discuss the matter with the Canadian Wheat Board. Obviously it does attempt to respond to problems of this specific nature, but it has to bear in mind other considerations in terms of its shipping obligations. I will see if the two cannot be accommodated at this time.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State and relates to the cancellation by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of its planned production of the Stratford festival's performance of Richard III, which cancellation was caused by the threat of an ACTRA boycott. The union boycott was initiated because three nonCanadian performers were scheduled to appear along with 43 Canadian actors and actresses who have now lost their jobs in connection with this performance. Has the minister discussed this continuing situation with the CBC? This is not an isolated incident. Is he prepared to take any steps to correct it?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, from time to time I have discussed this matter with the CBC, as well as with ACTRA. The hon. member might not have noticed that last week the government indicated that in the revision of the immigration regulations concerning the entry of entertainers we, that is, my hon. colleague sitting beside me, Mr. Cullen, would develop regulations with the interested parties to ensure that ACTRA and other unions would have a full participation and consultation in the process leading to the decision as to whether entry visas should be permitted. It was my hope that this assurance to the unions would lead them to feel more secure in their position and that the kind of situation which developed at the end of last week would not occur. That hope on my part was disappointed.

July 19, 1977
Oral Questions HEALTH



PROPOSED COMMITTEE TO STUDY PROGRAMS FOR THE DISABLED

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and arises from the statement in the annual report of the Public Service Commission that the development of a comprehensive program for employing handicapped people in the public service has been hindered by a lack of knowledge about the handicapped. Now that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has tabled the new Social Service Act, will he be recommending the setting up of a subcommittee to gather together the information necessary for action programs for Canada's disabled and to provide background information for Canada's delegation to the Rehabilitation International Conference to be held in Winnipeg in June of 1980?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the social services bill has been introduced for first reading, but I am afraid it will not be passed before the adjournment of the present session. I intend to reintroduce that piece of legislation as soon as possible early in the new session. I would be pleased to examine the issue raised by the hon. member at that time.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, has the minister received the reports of the pilot projects which were operated in four regions during 1976? Will the government soon announce a comprehensive program for hiring handicapped persons, based on the experience gained from these pilot projects?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the reports. I will inquire whether they have been delivered to my department at the present time.



HYPERLIPEMIA-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ASSESS MEANS OF CONTROL

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, regarding a question which I asked on July 7, 1977 as reported at page 7414 of Hansard. As was stated at that time, the minister gave an address in Vancouver to a professional group of doctors and nurses which covered the field very well, except the field of scientific work. At that time the minister said the following:
... there is no consensus within the medical profession on the usefulness or cost effectiveness of a nation-wide screening program for children.
It is an accepted fact that they are doing lipid profiles on people in labs all across Canada. They have even been done on children. If we are going to effectively treat this disease, we must get those cases early. Now they are doing testing from 20 years of age on. Why not return to the starting point, because once cardiovascular disease is established little can be done about its cure. It is progressive.
This should be carried on as a public health program. After all, he was talking to public health doctors and nurses. Why

should this not be carried on as a public health program or a pre-school examination which is already paid for? They could have their blood tested at that time. One must keep in mind that some of those lipid diseases are hereditary. Some would be picked up there and others would be picked up as well, thus reducing the terrible mortality he referred to.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, in the view of my department, children with a known strong family history of hyperlipemia should be investigated at different levels. The question arises as to the general screening for children. I have noted the suggestion made by the hon. member. I will investigate the matter further with provincial officials, and I will ask my officials to examine it with them as well, in order to determine the advisability of extending such a project. As I told him before, it would have to be started as a pilot project rather than as a national program. It is a matter which deserves investigation, indeed.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, since the minister believes in prevention, would he suggest this as part of a pre-school examination.
It does not have to be a pilot project, it has to be a pre-school examination because otherwise it would take too long. The minister said in his own speech that this is a ravaging disease, which is the case, and it should be drawn to the attention of the public. 1 suggest we start this program right now.


Marc Lalonde: I appreciate the suggestion made by the hon. member and I will certainly ask my officials to discuss it with provincial officials who are responsible for the program.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which has to do with questions on the order paper standing in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East, which were answered on July 15, which answers are misleading and certainly incomplete. The answers to these questions affect the rights and privileges of all members of this Chamber.
To begin with, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, in answer this afternoon to questions, also misled the House, specifically in answer to question No. 22 on the order paper which asked whether or not any officials of CMHC-not officers of CMHC-were charged in relation to the York Place development. The parliamentary secretary said categorically that no officers of CMHC were charged. The man charged and convicted was not an officer of the corporation, but the question was not whether any officer had been charged; it was whether an official had been charged. He was an official, he was charged and convicted, and he was sentenced to three months in jail and a fine of $2,000. The question was answered by the parliamentary secretary this afternoon in such a way as to mislead the House, just as the answer of the minister on July 15 misled the House.
July 19, 1977

With regard to question No. 12, the minister clearly evaded answering the question. I, as well as other members of the House, am clearly aware of the difference between direct loans and guaranteed loans under CMHC. The question was whether or not CMHC at all times was in a first mortgage position. The minister answered in a way that made it impossible for us to ascertain whether or not CMHC was, in fact, always in a first mortgage position. Philosophically, I recognize the absolute right of the government to govern, but to be able to fulfil my responsibilities as a member of parliament and to scrutinize the government, to criticize the government, indeed to act as a watchdog, 1 must be sure that answers to questions which are put on the order paper must at least not be misleading. I understand that I cannot question the quality of the answers- but I must be sure that they are not misleading.
Specifically speaking, question No. 16 on the order paper deliberately misleads the House. The question was whether CMHC is satisfied that all funds approved and advanced to York Place were actually used in York Place. The answer was no; the minister was not satisfied that all funds approved and advanced to York Place were actually used in York Place. Surely it is the responsibility of the minister to set up the kind of public inquiry to ask the kind of questions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member has raised three different kinds of problems. The first was that the question which he put on the order paper was answered incorrectly. He asked whether officials of CMHC had been charged and convicted, and the answer was "no". The hon. member charges that the answer was misleading to the House. Whether that was deliberate or inadvertent is one category of argument.
The second problem had to do with the evasive answer, which, of course, is not a question of privilege. Now the hon. member seems to be dealing with a third category of argument which refers to a rather direct answer and suggests that there should be another ministerial answer. That may be a logical follow-up for the hon. member, but it certainly does not constitute a question of privilege. In respect of the first argument as to whether or not the House has been misled, I would be prepared to hear the argument concluded, but the other two matters certainly do not constitute a question of privilege.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, let me make a point specifically on whether or not the House has been misled by both the parliamentary secretary and the minister in regard to question No. 22 on the order paper asking whether any charges had been laid against any official of CMHC with regard to improper acts relating to the construction of York Place and, if so, what are the details. The answer to that question was "No". On June 3 there was the conviction, in Hamilton, of Clifford Shaw, an inspector with CMHC who can clearly be described as an official of CMHC, although not an officer. Judge Scime, in his judgment, said that this crime "involves the integrity of our public service and is of national interest". Shaw was convicted and sentenced to three months in jail and a $2,000 fine. It is clear that he was an official of CMHC; he
Oral Questions
was charged as an official of CMHC and convicted and sentenced as an official of CMHC. But that clearly was not the impression the Minister of State for Urban Affairs or his parliamentary secretary gave either, in answers to questions on the order paper or in the parliamentary secretary's verbal in the House this afternoon.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, may 1 be allowed to comment on this matter. I interpret the word "officer" as meaning a member of the executive of CMHC, or an official. In my answer the word "official" was synonymous with the word "officer". Perhaps the hon. member is referring to a member of the staff of CMHC. No charges have been laid against any officers of CMHC: we know that. If he describes an employee of CMHC as being an official of CMHC, then I must say that yes, Mr. Clifford Shaw was an employee of CMHC. He was a former compliance inspector, officer, official or employee-it does not matter to me. The fact remains that he was convicted in court for actions to which he admitted and which he was found guilty of committing, and since that time he has left the corporation. So far as I am concerned, whether you call him an officer, an official or an employee, it is the same-a gentleman working for the corporation who has resigned and is no longer an officer or an official of the corporation.
On the other point, the matter of the first mortgage position,
I am not a lawyer, but I understand-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I indicated that questions which may be unclear or vague in respect of the first mortgage position, or the other question which relates as to whether or not there should be a follow up by the minister in respect of an answer which he gave, do not concern me at this time as questions of privilege. The only one which concerns me is the allegation that the House has been misled, and that is the only area on which I am prepared to hear a discussion.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It was not my intention to mislead the House. I was trying to make it clear that an "official" and an "officer" are synonymous terms to me. That is all 1 have to say.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it was to me that this question was directed. Just so there is no doubt on the narrow point Your Honour has defined and which is being discussed, question No. 22 put by the hon. member for St. John's East, as recorded in the order paper, was as follows:
Have there been any charges laid against any officials of CMHC with regard to improper acts relating to the construction of York Place and if so, what are the details?
The answer which was supplied on July 15, 1977, was one word, "No". It is very clear-and if it needed any underscoring or reinforcement, it has been underscored and reinforced by the answer just given and the statement just made by the parliamentary secretary-that the minister misled the House on July 15, 1977. I know we cannot discuss the effect that

July 19, 1977
Oral Questions
might have on the other answers he gave, but a question must remain in hon. members' minds, and surely this clear, unequivocal misleading of the House requires an explanation.
I think it is important that the House and Your Honour know that yesterday, in anticipation of this line of questioning, 1 telephoned the minister's office and asked whether the minister was going to be in the House of Commons. The answer given to me by one of his staff was "Yes". I said, "Thank you very much. Would you please tell the minister that I intend to raise questions about the York Place matter in Hamilton". The minister did not turn up yesterday.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Nor today.


Walter David Baker: I know he is in town. An official of the official opposition telephoned the minister again today to find out whether he would be in the House of Commons today to answer questions with respect to this matter. The answer we were given was, yes, he was to be in the House today.


Mr. Poulin:: This is not on the point raised.


Walter David Baker: I think it is important that the minister be in the House for questions put by members of the opposition. He does not have to be, but it is important that he be here. It is certainly important that he not evade, and I think it is important that all hon. members of this House demand his presence here tomorrow to make a statement with respect to all the questions which arise out of those questions on the order paper. His books are on his desk. Obviously, he was expected to be here at some time. It is not unusual for a minister, if he is in town, to be in the House during the question period, and I can come to no other conclusion than that he is evading the House of Commons and questions about this whole matter.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have no exact and precise description for the arguments just raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. In any case, I have no motion before me for action with respect to the question of privilege. The argument as to whether the answers given to questions on the order paper are misleading was in part responded to by the parliamentary secretary with respect to the differentiation in his mind between an "official" and an "officer" of the company. There seems to be nothing more to be contributed in this discussion at this particular time. On the face of it, this matter does not constitute a question of privilege.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Let him talk.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I want to make one point clear. The gentleman was not charged with regard to the York Place development project.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary has made his contribution to the argument. The matter is now closed.


Mr. Gillespie:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are all familiar with the following situation which occurs from time to time. Because of the enthusiasm of hon. members on both sides of the House during question period, Hansard reporters frequently take down the comments of hon. members when ministers are still on their feet giving answers to questions put. This can create real problems for the record. 1 would like to ask for an amendment to Hansard, because that situation occurred yesterday while I was answering a question asked by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I had not completed my answer when the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands flipped in, while I was still on my feet-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I don't flip.


Alastair William Gillespie: -and put a further question which was not a supplementary in any official sense of the word. That question was taken down by the reporter. I refer to page 7741 of Hansard for July 18, 1977. I believe the account would be accurate if my words, "That is the interpretation I placed on Mr. Campbell's comment", were added to my answer as set forth prior to the comments of the hon. member, because that is precisely what I said.
If Your Honour reads the transcript, Your Honour will recognize that the hon. lady did not have the floor, did not ask an official question and did not put her question through the Chair to me. I was on my feet. There was a good deal of noise. The noise masked the hon. member's question. It was taken down by the reporter. This can happen from time to time. All I am saying is that it would be an accurate description of my answer if it were completed without the interjection of the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, come on.


Alastair William Gillespie: I am not complaining as long as it appears after my full answer, because the question completely distorts the meaning of my answer.


Mr. Speaker:: That is an editorial comment. The minister has had an opportunity to put his description of the events on the record. There would, of course, be no hope of altering the record.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker-


Walter David Baker: Sit down.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Because of the juxtaposition, I am going to be put in a position
July 19, 1977

of having given an answer to a question which was never properly put to me and which I never heard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the minister has been given an adequate opportunity to rectify any false impression which may have been left. He was given rather wide latitude to put his explanation on the record, and it seems to me that that ought to be a very complete answer to any fears he might have that the record as described by the reporter somehow creates a mistaken impression. The reporters can only do the best they can.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: We do not permit hon. members to rise in their places the following day to say that the impression created by their words as recorded by the reporter is really not the impression they intended to create. We do not enjoy that right. The reporters must attempt to catch what they hear and report it in the way they see fit, and if an hon. member says that that somehow creates a mistaken impression, he is always given the courtesy, as the minister was, of being allowed to make an amplified explanation for the record. However, to attempt now to go back and rearrange the language as it was reported is simply out of the question, whether it be attempted by way of a point of order, a question of privilege, or anything else.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same matter. I am certainly not going to bat for the minister, but having read the minutes of this chamber, 1 agree that on many occasions remarks made by hon. members who are not recognized by the Chair are recorded. I think remarks should never be recorded in Hansard unless there is a recognition by the Chair.


Mr. Paproski:: No.


Leonard C. Jones: Don't swear at me, Mr. P. C. party whip.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I didn't swear at you. I would not dare do something like that to you.


Leonard C. Jones: I make these remarks in all sincerity. Hansard is supposed to be a record of the proceedings in this chamber, and unless hon. members are recognized by Mr. Speaker or by the chairman of a committee meeting, their remarks should not be recorded. 1 do not say that to take the minister off the hook, but 1 question what is going on.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moncton makes a suggestion. This is not the first time it has been made. It is a very serious situation and one which has given the administration some concern in the past on whether there are certain members in the proximity of the reporters who enjoy an advantage in relation to comments made off the record and heard by the reporter.
There is great difficulty in the point raised by the minister and contributed to by the hon. member for Moncton on
Order Paper Questions
comments heard by the reporter and not heard by those who have the floor and, in fact, never heard by the Chair. When they appear in the record the following day, therefore, they incline to give a distorted impression of the events that have taken place. Often, when no answer appears in the record to such comments, the impression is given that the person to whom the comment was directed has not taken any action in respect of it, when in fact the comment was not heard except by the reporter. Indeed, some hon. members who have positions close to the reporter are able to take advantage of that.
I am not so sure that the answer suggested by the hon. member for Moncton is any better than the situation which prevails at the present time. It does raise a very serious difficulty, however, in respect of those who may on occasion take advantage of the fact that the comment made audibly to the reporter, but not audibly to the person who has the floor or to the Chair, is recorded in Hansard and only comes to the attention of those persons the following day. If there is a suggestion to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization that we ought to revise our procedures and have reporters record only the remarks of the member who has the floor, that is something that I hope the committee would examine very carefully one day.


Walter David Baker: I hope they turn it down. Make sure you get that on the record.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear, for Hansard!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Hear, hear, for the reporters!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Otto Emil Lang: for leave to introduce Bill C-61, respecting Canadian ports.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,889, 2,726 and 2,821.

July 19, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. MacKay: 1.	How many charters or similiar arrangements has the government made, either through departments, Crown corporations or other agencies with Bahama-rine Ltd. of Nassau, Bahamas, or with shareholders of Bahamarine Ltd?
2.	What are the details of each charter and the area in which it is operative?
3.	What is the total yearly cost of each charter?


Otto Emil Lang: 
Mr. Friesen: 1.	Was a Department of Transport Employment Competition No. 77-MOT-VAN-AIR-IV-2 Class AO-CAI-1 instrument standards inspector held at Vancouver on or about April 11, 1977 and, if so, what is the name of the candidate who ranked (a) first (b) second (c) third (d) fourth?
2.	How many flying hours as pilot-in-command (PIC) of aircraft with a gross take off weight (GTOW) of 12,500 pounds or more did each of the top four candidates have at the time of the competition?
3.	How many years did each hold a valid Class 1 instrument rating or it's military equivalent?
4.	How many flying hours as (a) PIC (line captain) with a licensed air carrier operating I FT (b) an instrument instructor did each possess?
5.	Which, if any, possessed a pilot's licence endorsement for the Lear 35 aircraft?
6.	For each such candidate, what was the total length of time since his first solo flight to the date of the competition?
7.	Was any of the top four ranking candidates informed by Mr. L. M. Prest, DOT staffing officer at Vancouver, that he was not successful because he had insufficient heavy aircraft flying time?
8.	Did the candidate that was chosen have any flying time (hours) as pilot-in-command of aircraft weighing (GTOW) 12,500 pounds or over and, if so, how many?
9.	Are there plans for a similar competition in 1977?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Department of Transport employment competition 77-MOT-VAN-AIR-IV-2, AO-CAI-1 was held on April 6, 1977 resulting in two successful candidates, (a) W. T. Cole, appointed; (b) T. R. Foreman, (c) not applicable; (d) not applicable. In accordance with the Public Service Employment Regulations, section 25, "The name of a person who is a candidate for a position, unless his name is on the eligible list established for that position and the information and material supplied by or on behalf of the candidate, shall not be disclosed, without the consent of the candidate, to any person who is not directly involved in the process of selection for appointment to the position".
2.	Total hours as pilot-in-command: (a) W. T. Cole, 5100 hours; (b) T. R. Foreman, 2020 hours; GTOW was not relevant to the selection process in this competition.
3.	Not relevant to this selection process. Both successful candidates, W. T. Cole and T. R. Foreman presently hold a valid Class I Instrument rating.
4.	Not relevant to selection process.
5.	Not relevant to selection process.
6.	Not relevant to selection process.
7.	No.
8.	Not relevant but both successful candidates had flying time as pilot-in-command of aircraft weighing (GTOW) of 12,500 or over. Numbers of hours unknown and not relevant.
9.	Similar competition highly probable in 1977.


Mr. Symes: What was the total amount spent in Sault Ste. Marie from October 1972 to date by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Since April 1973 Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada has spent approximately $40,800 in Sault Ste. Marie. Figures on expenditures prior to April 1973 are no longer available.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 1,079 (revised) could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,079-Mr. McCain: (Revised)
1.	Is a wharfinger appointed to each small craft facility in Eastern Canada and, if not (a) which facilities have individual wharfingers (b) does a wharfinger serve more than one facility (c) on what basis is a decision made with respect to
July 19, 1977
[Stage Direction]
whether or not a wharfinger is appointed to a small craft facility or a group of small craft facilities (d) how many small craft facilities have no wharfinger service and, in each case, what is its name?
2.	What is the procedure involved in the appointment of wharfingers?
3.	(a) What is their rate of pay (b) are all wharfingers paid at the same rate and, if not, what are the different methods and rates of pay?
4.	What responsibilities do the wharfingers have other than the collection of wharfage fees?
Return tabled.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, July 14, I asked about question No. 632 which was placed on the order paper in the last session of parliament, over a year ago, and is as yet unanswered. The parliamentary secretary indicated the reason for such tardiness was that the question had not been brought to his attention. It has now, but it remains unanswered.
Question No. 1,070 was placed on the order paper on November 17, 1976. I am particularly concerned about this because it is a straightforward question and should have been answered long before now. It may be of particular interest to the parliamentary secretary because it asks for the criteria used by the Prime Minister in the selection of parliamentary secretaries. I, for one, am getting rather curious about the answer to that question.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The merit principle; that is the answer.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, there is another question I should like to draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary. Question No. 1,180 was placed on the order paper on November 23. It asked, how many times since he became a minister, has-
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is concerned about interjections occurring in Hansard, perhaps he could give me the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In the circumstances, 1 think if I were to call anybody to order it would be a number of members much closer to the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: On November 23 1 placed question No. 1,180 on the order paper, which asked how many times since he became a minister, the Minister of Agriculture has personally made use of government aircraft. We know that he has become the Waldo Pepper of the cabinet. Members on this side would like to have that information, and 1 cannot understand why the parliamentary secretary has been so tardy. There are a number of other questions which are of similar concern, but I will leave them for today.
Order Paper Questions


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take note of questions Nos. 1,070 and 1,180. I did not catch the number of the first question, but I will check the number in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, since this House is apparently going to adjourn shortly, or dissolve shortly, or whatever the Prime Minister may decide, I think I am in order to raise a question that I have raised many times in the past about questions that have not been answered. I have put 27 questions on the order paper since this session opened, although most of them were there in the last session of parliament and some go back for IV2 years. In the first ten days of the present session, 79 questions placed on the order paper by me and other members of the opposition were not answered.
I should like to refer to specific questions concerning the international service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, on the order paper since the last session, which bring out my documented evidence of interference in the affairs of the international service by the Department of External Affairs, and so on. Every time I bring this up, the parliamentary secretary tells me how many questions have been answered, but there is never a direct answer on these specific questions.
In reference to questions Nos. 29 and 30, I do not know why they are not answered. At least, I do know why. I would say it is because of political considerations and nothing else. One asks the amount of travelling done by cabinet ministers on Department of Transport aircraft at government expense; where they went, who went with them, the cost, etc., and the other asks the amount of travelling done by cabinet ministers on Department of National Defence aircraft. Those questions have not been answered since the first day of the session. I do not think it should take months and months to arrive at the answers.
I think I am within my rights to serve notice that when we come back in August-as I believe we have been told, but it is a good question as to whether we will-as a private member 1 will exercise my right to move the adjournment of the House if all the questions regarding the international service of the CBC, and the questions regarding cabinet ministers gallivanting at the taxpayers' expense are not answered. I refer to the ministers who went down to the riding of Matane. I have questions on the order paper about what they did there, why they did it, and how much it cost. We get nothing from the President of the Privy Council or his parliamentary secretary. I do not think this practice should be allowed to continue. I do not think we should be presented with silly generalities or hear hon. members opposite boast about how many questions they have answered.
I conclude by asking three questions. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary can answer. How long will this sham continue? How long will the government get away with stifling democracy by not answering questions in this House; and how

July 19, 1977
Employment and Immigration
long will the government get away with thumbing its nose at members of parliament?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the last three questions asked by the hon. member for Leeds who was doing quite well up to that point, do not warrant a response because of the thinly-veiled innuendoes contained therein.


An hon. Member:: They are not thin.


Ralph Goodale: They are unworthy and unwarranted innuendoes. The hon. member perhaps could guess what my response would be if he had listened to my previous reply to the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo. I asked him to clarify, specifically, the nature of the first questions to which he referred. I asked if the hon. member was referring to questions concerning CBC international, and he said he was not.
The hon. member for Leeds then rose and referred to that series of questions. Mr. Speaker, I expect very shortly to present answers relating to CBC international. I expect the answers to be at hand within a day or two. If I may respond to the hon. member's general comments about answers to questions on the order paper, may I repeat the assurances I have given on other occasions which relate directly to his comments about the session of this House proposed possibly for August. May I indicate that I intend to provide answers to all questions standing on the order paper before the present session ends.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, July 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cullen that Bill C-27, to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, 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. Peters.
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke on this legislation some days ago, I said that the bill, which proposes to deal with serious unemployment by making it more difficult for the unemployed to draw unemployment insurance benefits, seeks to apply the wrong solution to the wrong people. By dividing the country into 53 or 54 regions, in each of which claimants may qualify for benefits on the basis of different period of employment, the bill will create an administrative jungle.

I shall try to show this afternoon how the unemployment insurance bureaucracy treated-"mistreated" is a better description-a poor woman unfortunate enough to be unemployed. You can imagine how much greater the confusion will be with the administrative nightmare of 53 or 54 different areas. My involvement in the case was greater than usual. 1 discussed the case with the claimant and local officers in Winnipeg. Not being satisfied with the response, I discussed it with the chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission here in Ottawa. Although the operation was successful, the patient, my constituent, died. Of course, I am speaking figuratively about her dealing with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I shall put on record certain facts to enable members of parliament and the public to know what happened. I want the officers of the commission to explain to the minister what they have not explained to me, namely, what actually happened, and to justify it.
My constituent, Mrs. Ruth Hirsch, is a social worker with a number of years experience in her field. Her most recent employment was with the family service organization of Winnipeg. She became unemployed when her agency was reorganized and her services were no longer required. She received unemployment insurance benefits for some weeks, then was called in for an interview with the benefit control officer who made a report of that so-called interview. I have in my possession a copy of what purports to be a complete file on the matter, a copy which I obtained from the chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I shall return later to the question as to whether it is the entire file and if it depicts the entire story. The benefit control officer, B. Kolisnyk, wrote a report on February 10, 1977, which said in part:
Claimant has a Bachelor in social work and a number of years experience. Claimant will work days only as she must be home evenings and for no less that $10,000/year. Claimant will work anywhere in Winnipeg. Claimant has not been sick or out of Winnipeg since filing her claim.
On February 15, Mr. W. Chimchak, an insurance officer wrote an official letter to Mrs. Ruth Hirsch as follows:
Dear Madam:
We find that you are not entitled to benefits from 14 Feb., '77, as you failed to prove that you are available for work and unable to obtain suitable employment in that, after being unemployed for a reasonable period, you are imposing restrictive conditions on your acceptance of suitable work in respect of the type of work (social worker or counsellor) you will accept.
Mrs. Hirsch replied immediately and on February 17 sent a letter to Mr. Chimchak, which said in part:
Re your letter of February 15/77, and further to our telephone conversation of today, I wish to appeal the decision that I am not entitled to benefits from Feb. 14/77.
As far as the "imposing restrictive conditions",
(1)	accepting work only as a social worker or counsellor. This, in fact, is not accurate. I am prepared to accept work that involves helping people (which may or may not be defined as a social worker or counsellor)-such as personnel officer, mental health worker, UIC interviewer, rehabilitation officer, mental retardation worker, etc., etc.
(2)	"re days only". 1 have 2 retarded school age children living at home, and therefore I must be home with at night. I am prepared to submit a report from their and/or my doctor(s) to that effect.
(3)	"re not less that $10,000 per annum". This was the salary of my last position. I am prepared to work for less.
July 19, 1977

She appealed the case, and the appeal board in its decision dated March 15, 1977, said in part:
She is still unemployed and still searching for work, but everything points to the fact that she is still restricting her search for work in the field of employment that deals with people. In other words, a form of social work for which she is trained and has experience, but in no way can this board find justification in altering the decision of the insurance officer, and the appeal is disallowed.
Mrs. Hirsch wanted to appeal to the office of the umpire. She got in touch with me and I suggested to her that she should make it clear the benefit control officer never informed her what kind of work she should look for. What would the commission consider to be suitable work? She stated in her appeal, and 1 quote:
At no time during my unemployment was I informed or encouraged to seek employment outside of my specialized field. As a matter of fact, 1 was asked to apply for a position with Canada Manpower. This I immediately did.
She went on to list some of the things she did. Her request for right to appeal was turned down in a letter dated April 20, which reads in part:
Your application for leave to appeal to the umpire from the decision of the board of referees given in Winnipeg, Manitoba, on 15 March, 1977, was forwarded to the chairman of the board of referees for his consideration.
We wish to inform you that the chairman has not approved your application for leave to appeal to the umpire-
I was pretty upset about this. 1 felt she had been mistreated.
I took the matter up with the local office and with Mr. Tuck, the chairman of the commission. Mr. Tuck wrote to me saying that Mrs. Hirsch was being given permission to have another hearing before the same appeal board. The appeal was held. I will come to that in a few minutes. She was turned down.
When I again raised my voice, I got what are purported to be copies of the complete file. Nowhere in the file is there any explanation as to why, having been refused permission to go to the umpire, she was permitted another appeal. There is no mention, in the supposedly complete record, that her member of parliament intervened on her behalf. I wonder why. I am not ashamed of the fact that I intervened. Maybe 1 was wrong, but I am happy to intervene when I think a person has a good case. If I do not think a person has a good case, I say that I cannot intervene or that I cannot do anything more. In any event, there is nothing in the record. I say the record is defective; it is incomplete.
In the course of my discussion with Mr. Tuck, I was assured again and again that benefit control officers clearly understand that they should be telling those whose claims are turned down or are being cut off what are their rights.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am very concerned about the interest of the hon. member. However, I also wonder how his remarks refer to the bill before us. The hon. member seems to be talking about the administration of the act in relation to those in charge of the administration. The question before the House at this time is third reading of Bill C-27 and the amendment to the motion not to read the bill at this time but to postpone it for six months. Of course, 1 do not suggest that the hon. member must speak only to postpone third
Employment and Immigration
reading of the bill. However, he should at least speak to the bill. The hon. member should make some effort to relate his remarks to the bill before us.


David Orlikow: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is precisely what 1 am doing. In this bill the minister is proposing to divide the qualifying period of those entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits: he proposes to divide the country into 54 districts, each of which will have a different qualifying period. One of the main reasons I intend to vote against this bill is that I believe the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Commission is incompetent, or the Unemployment Insurance Act and the regulations are deliberately being used by the commission, with or without the knowledge of the government, to reduce the number of people who qualify. That is precisely the point I am making.
I intend to prove my case by quoting from the guidelines under which Unemployment Insurance Commission employees are supposed to work. I have here a document entitled "Insurance policy guildelines, Conduct of the active job search program, Commission minute 73-144, August 1973''. 1 received this from Mr. Tuck, chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I want to put various parts of this on record in order to show what UIC officials should be doing, rather than the way they dealt with my constituent. I do not raise this matter because I think my constituent's case is an isolated one. In a letter I received last week, Mr. Tuck virtually admitted that this has been the policy of the government, and they are now changing it. I am not vain enough to believe they are changing it only because I raised the matter with them. I presume there have been many complaints.
1 will give the page numbers of the document so the minister and his officials can check them. I quote, first, from page 15-32, a draft letter, or to be used verbally when giving information to a claimant before being cut off by the benefit control officer:
You have been receiving unemployment insurance benefits now for a period
of

weeks. In order for you to maintain your eligibility for benefits, you
must now broaden your search to seek other suitable employment in any occupation... It is necessary, therefore, that you contact as many potential employers as possible to see if you are able to fill any vacancies in suitable employment that exist.
What is suitable? There is nothing in Mr. Tuck's letter to indicate that Mrs. Hirsch's claim is not valid. There is nothing in this document to indicate what is suitable employment. The benefit control officer did not tell Mrs. Hirsch what is suitable employment. 1 quote from page 16-32:
To find where jobs may be available, you should either check with your Canada Manpower centre and Canada job bank listings, search through newspaper advertisements, job posters, yellow pages of the telephone book or enquire from your friends, neighbours or the people with whom you used to work. You should contact possible employers by telephoning, writing, or visiting them to see if employment is available.
Mrs. Hirsch did all that. I now go to page 19-32, criteria for issue of job search statement. I quote:
No claimant will be required to search for work unless it is known that there are opportunities of employment in the area of his residence and/or in the area

July 19, 1977
Employment and Immigration
where he usually earns his living. The area of residence is intended to include the area within daily commuting distance.
I quote that section because the benefit control officer in her statement says that Mrs. Hirsch, restricted herself to looking for work in Winnipeg. Winnipeg is a big city. Do the UIC people believe that Mrs. Hirsch, or someone else, should travel 50 miles every day in order to fill a job? If so, they did not say that. I now quote from page 21:
Full advantage will be taken of this interview to ensure that the claimant is aware of his obligation to actively search for work and that he understands what in his circumstances would be considered a reasonable and customary effort.
There is no question in the documentation that Mrs. Hirsch was looking for work. She listed a series of places in which she had looked, including employment as a social worker and other places. If that was not broad enough, it was up to the UIC officer to tell her what was required. That is the position I have taken from the beginning.
On page 22, the document says a claimant is required to prove that he is capable of working and is available for work, that he is unable to find suitable employment and that he has made reasonable and customary efforts to find suitable employment. The question I want to ask is this: Who decides what is suitable employment? If it is the Unemployment Insurance Commission, then it is surely elementary justice to the claimant that the commission should be required to indicate the kind of work they expect a claimant, in this case Mrs. Hirsch, to take. If the commission felt she ought not to receive benefit because the work she wanted as a social worker, in the field of treating those mentally retarded, or as a personnel officer, was too restricted, it was surely up to those concerned to say to her, "You are restricting yourself too much. Instead of being prepared to work at those jobs for $10,000 a year"- which amounts to about $5 an hour-"you should be prepared to work as a filing clerk or as a dishwasher to earn, not $5 an hour but the minimum wage". But Mrs. Hirsch was not given such advice.
The guidelines go on to say that if a reasonable job search is not done, a person would be disqualified retroactively, notified of this decision in writing, and "informed of the manner in which the denial of benefits can be removed, that is to say, the carrying out of a reasonable job search and the reporting the results to the commission." This was never done by the commission. Then on page 26 we read that if circumstances warrant-
-the claimant is to be contacted by the insurance agent and counselled either in person, by telephone or letter, on his or her responsibilities in maintaining eligibility for benefits. In addition, the agent should determine when a claimant's change in status occurred and make the necessary revision to the claim.
That was never done. Then it says:
A disentitlement should not be imposed... if investigation reveals that a claimant was ignorant of the requirement to conduct an active search for work, or misunderstood the procedure.
I submit it is obvious that Mrs. Hirsch did not understand the procedures because the procedures were never explained to her. I wish the minister or the chairman of the Unemployment

Insurance Commission would explain to me how a claimant is supposed to understand and follow the procedures if the real meaning of those procedures is either inadvertently or deliberately kept from him. I say the result of this procedure is that the commission has been able to cut off thousands of people from benefit-a disgraceful situation. On pages 27 and 28 of this document they say:
The number of contacts made with employers and employment agencies or the manner in which these contacts are made cannot be enunciated in a general policy directive. Both quantity and quality of contacts must be determined by the number of potential job opportunities in the community within the claimant's occupation, the number of employers, the length of time a claimant has been employed and the manner in which unemployed persons with the claimant's occupation would customarily find re-employment. The assessment of a reasonable and customary search for work is therefore a matter of judgment on the part of the adjudicator.
Mr. Speaker, of course they cannot enunciate these things in a general policy directive, especially if they wish to use it as a device for cutting off people. I submit it would take a lawyer to understand all the ramifications of that paragraph. I suggest the wording of that clause is not the result of inadvertence- that the clause is there precisely to give the commission, on the advice of the government, the opportunity to cut off people. That, again, is a disgraceful situation.
Anyway, despite the fact that there is nothing in the record to show that I intervened on Mrs. Hirsch's behalf, her case was reheard. But it was a hearing by the same board, bound by the same jungle of laws and regulations, bound by the same prejudices-and I say this advisedly; I know at least two members of the board. And despite the fact that Mrs. Hirsch indicated clearly the whole range of job applications she had made, not just in the field of social work but in the field of personnel and other work, her application was turned down. I might say that Mrs. Hirsch did apply for work as a clerk at Eaton's. She was told that she was overqualified. The application form required her to list her previous experience, and she whas then told by Eaton's that she was overqualified. Yet the board referred to this in a way which would seem to indicate that it was her fault she was overqualified. So despite my intervention, Mrs. Hirsch lost her case.
However, 1 have been pressing the department pretty hard, and after a number of other communications I received a letter, addressed to me from the commission, dated July 14, 1977. It stated in part:
I would like to advise you of specific developments that will, 1 believe, go a long way to resolving the problem you have noted to my attention.
A second appeal to a board of referees on Mrs. Hirsch's case was held on June 29 and again the board ruled unanimously that the decision to deny her benefits was proper. It is my understanding that your office was advised before the hearing in order for you or another representative to attend. As a result of this second hearing it must be concluded that appeal action on this case has been essentially exhausted.
I would also like to advise, however, that we are in the process of developing refinements to the existing interview and active job search programs that will provide more specific information to claimants required to search for work. It is our intent to include on the active job search form a portion to be completed by the insurance agent showing the occupation(s) in which the search should be carried out together with the type and number of contacts that should be made. Specific indications of the need for an expanded job search will be shown and
July 19, 1977

discussed with the claimant as part of the interview program. These changes should be effected within the next few months.
If the commission does what Mr. Tuck has indicated in his letter, people will be told in future what kind of work they will have to look for if they are to continue to get unemployment insurance benefits. But it does not help Mrs. Hirsch. Why did this happen? When I spoke to the labour member on the board of referees-he is a good chap and I know he is concerned about people-he said, "We do not have the authority to do what you suggest, because the act is written in a certain way".
I said, "There is nothing in the act to prevent you". He said, "The regulations are written that way". I asked to see them, because I thought he was misinformed. I went to Mr. Tuck, and Mr. Tuck said, "It could not have happened. All my officers know they have to tell the people these things." Well, there is not a tittle of evidence that the benefit control officer said to Mrs. Hirsch, "This is what you have to do."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! I have to interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment which has been proposed by my hon. friend from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), namely, that this bill be hoisted for six months and be reconsidered at that time, is a very wise one. Since we last discussed this measure a couple of weeks ago I have received further correspondence from across the country. I should like to put some of it on the record. The first is a telegram from the International Woodworkers of America, the Canadian Labour Congress affiliate, local 1-118. A copy of the telegram was sent to every member of the Liberal caucus. The gist of the telegram is as follows:
The membership of local 1-118, IWA Victoria, are protesting very strongly the enactment of Bill C-27 and particularly those parts that will have the effect of creating unnecessary hardships on those people unemployed and those who will become unemployed. As we are sure you are aware of the unemployment and lack of employment in this area, we feel sure you must be aware of the extreme hardship this bill will create on your constituents. Please reply.
That telegram was signed by Murray Drew, business agent. I received a letter from a Parti Quebecois member of the Quebec national assembly, Mr. Gerard Gosselin, the deputy for Sherbrooke. He wrote to me as follows:

Mr. Rodriguez,
Allow a member of the Quebec National Assembly to congratulate you on your most relevant comments on the effects of Bill C-27 on the Canadian unemployed.
I am deeply concerned about the matter and according to my estimates, over 60,000 Quebec jobless will thus be stricken from the unemployment insurance rolls in Canada. This is an abominable transfer of the responsibility for supporting the unemployed from the federal to the provincial government, thus increasing considerably the costs of social welfare in Quebec, even though the federal government is still trying to deceive us about the effects of its legislation on the provincial welfare schemes. For your information, sir, please note that the Quebec social welfare scheme is already supporting 98,600 people who are deemed employable. Because of the new federal policies, this number of recipients will probably increase by some tens of thousands.
The present Ottawa administration assumes unfairly its responsibilities for Fighting unemployment and supporting the unemployed; even though the ben-
Employment and Immigration
efits paid by Ottawa to Quebec jobless are rather substantial, it is a fact that the high rate of unemployment in this province is the direct result of the broad economic policies of the central government which have disastrous consequences on our economy: for instance, its tariff policies on Quebec textiles, footwear, clothing and agricultural industries; its oil (the Borden Line), automobile, transportation, purchasing and capital investment policies.
The broad economic policies of the central government are the cause of unemployment in Quebec and of the ever decreasing number of jobs in the sensitive area of secondary industries.
Sir, I should appreciate very much being advised of the gist of the remarks you have made in the House on Bill C-27, as well as of any relevant material against this legislation.
1 am much concerned about the implications of this bill, and I intend, together with a number of my colleagues, to denounce it.
Thanking you in advance for your co-operation, sir, I remain.
Yours truly,

I have touched on the questions raised by the Premier of New Brunswick respecting the lack of any meaningful consultation between the federal government and provincial government. Premier Hatfield has accused the federal government of conducting a monologue rather than a dialogue. As I pointed out, the premier indicated this was an ad hoc response to what is a grave concern, rather than a long term plan to create employment opportunities in Atlantic Canada.
We in the House know that when the government first brought in this bill it moved the minimum attachment period to the work force from eight weeks to 12 weeks. It was only because of the fear of embarrassment on the part of the government that its backbenchers would vote against it and embarrass the devil out of the government that it brought in the compromise solution which is now in the bill. Once again the Liberal party has shown that it is prepared to compromise its principles; it could not even hold to the principle it established in the bill originally.


Mr. Symes:: Typical.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, it is very typical. The premier of New Brunswick also pointed out the difficulties he is having in regard to regional rates of unemployment. He expressed concern not only about the minimum attachment period and the length of benefits, but also about job sharing and the so-called creative use or developmental use of unemployment insurance funds.
The other surprising and most disappointing thing about this debate on Bill C-27 so far has been the performance in the House of the official opposition. By its silence, the Conservative party has acquiesced to this measure. It has broken faith with the unemployed in regions of the country where unemployment has unfortunately become a way of life. Not one voice in the Conservative opposition has been raised in the discussion of this bill, even though it has been at third reading stage for the last three to four weeks. A Conservative premier even took the time to write me a brief respecting the amended bill. But when the votes come on the amendments at third reading stage, members of the official opposition run for cover. They sit in their seats until the votes come; they then run behind the curtains. That is most regrettable and shameful.

July 19, 1977
Employment and Immigration
As for the reasons for wanting to give this bill a six months' hoist, I can reiterate old arguments and add new ones. We have already said that the bill is based on a false premise. It is based on a document known as the comprehensive review. The last time I spoke on this bill I pointed out several inaccuracies in the review. In many instances outdated statistics were used. In addition, they were far too narrow. For example, in section B the review states the Canadian labour force is characterized by a high degree of mobility. To support that statement they use job separations for one year only, 1974, and use address changes in 1970 and 1971. That is garbage, Mr. Speaker. It is absolutely useless in making a meaningful decision on unemployment insurance. It indicates that high wage increases have exceeded productivity increases. They have used only one year, 1974, and have made a comparison between Canadian and United States increases, which are not comparable in the first place. Thus, it is completely useless and inaccurate.
Approximately a week ago the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) made reference in his speech to the automotive industry. He showed conclusively that Canadian workers are far more productive than their American counterparts. Yet we pay more for the same automobile selling in the United States made by Canadian workers. In the comprehensive review, which was criticized and on which this bill is based, there is a statement that was arrived at by the UIC people. It refers to the fact that males with eight to 11 insured weeks in both years have a higher rate of disqualification than those with 12 or more insured weeks. On the other hand, females with 12 or more weeks have a higher incidence of disqualification and disentitlement than those with eight to 11 insured weeks.
On May 28, 1975, the former minister of manpower and immigration, in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, said the following:
The incidence of disentitlement or disqualification, as an effect of failure to meet one's obligation under the act, is lower amongst the group with a minor attachment to the work force-
Again, we have printed information which has no relevancy to the bill we are dealing with. The entire bill is based on this comprehensive review which is not worth the paper it is written on. Members of parliament were asked to debate a bill which was based on inaccurate information.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Hon. members opposite can sit there yelling and screaming, but they never get up to make meaningful speeches. This bill was also based on an in-house report which contained a section devoted to the employment patterns in the Atlantic provinces. I have dealt with that section at some length before, but I should like to point out some of the things that were said about Canadian people, particularly those in Newfoundland where the latest rate of unemployment is over 13 per cent.

The report indicated that there was an indication some employers in smaller isolated communities deliberately hire seasonal workers in such a way as to provide at least a minimum number of insured weeks to as many persons as possible, thereby ensuring an adequate work force at their doorstep when needed. This report was prepared by the people of UIC, obviously to rationalize a piece of legislation to be stuck in front of this minister's nose. The minister was told to legislate, and like a monkey on a string he acts out the power trips of the bureaucracy, as the Liberals sit and dream of ways to move each other up the ladder, to lift the ceilings on executive salaries in the public service and give themselves raises.
These salaries are now at a point where they are going past $60,000. What does this minister, elected by the people of Canada to make decisions, do? "How high do I jump", is what he says. That is not what we expected from the minister. He should lay down a policy in this country and not be subject to their policy-making. It is a complete reversal. The employment patterns in the Atlantic provinces, as referred to in the report, indicate that the seasonal inshore fishermen may have some difficulty operating for ten weeks in the Stephensville area. It has been said in committee by the bureaucrats that there is no reason in the world why the people of Atlantic Canada cannot get eight weeks of work. The employment patterns in the Atlantic regions have no relevance to this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 1 have to interrupt the hon. member by informing him that this is a place for debate; it is not a place to throw things around. He should address himself to the bill. It is the hon. member's responsibility to see that decorum is followed.


John R. Rodriguez: I suggest the bill is based on incorrect information. The report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration dated April 20, 1977, at page 13:9, in part, reads as follows:


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is right. I think it is important, even if it does take up my time, that we have this ...


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Hodder has the figures on this.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Hodder.


Mr.  H. J. Hodder@Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Planning and Research Division, Department of Manpower and Immigration: Madam Chairman, I had better make clear, I think, first, the assumptions under which these calculations rest. The first assumption, for calculation purposes, is a national unemployment rate of 7 per cent.
They are basing their calculations on a national rate of unemployment of 7 per cent. The rate now is 8 per cent, and rising. This bill is based on incorrect information, further evidenced by the remark of the planning director. Imagine- the planning director is even out of date! When he said that, the rate was already 8 per cent for the year. He will receive a big raise. He will be rewarded. It is the "Peter" principle at work.
The hon. members for Quebec ought to listen. There were polls conducted by the Toronto Star and Le Devoir regarding the referendum in Quebec. It is interesting to note that in both those polls the people placed a great deal of emphasis on the
July 19, 1977

economic health of their provinces and a great deal of emphasis on employment. This government thinks it has the national issue all locked up. They are missing the boat. Every time employment goes up a percentage point, Mr. Levesque indicates that he has a federal yoke around his neck which he has to get rid of. He also indicates that there is nothing he can do about the economic situation in Quebec. "It is those maudits federalists, let us get rid of them and then I can do something". That is their game. Mr. Levesque is gaining from the fumbling and bumbling and lack of economic policies by the federal government. Lo and behold, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) runs around the country benefiting from everything that has any connection with a poll which shows the separatists are gaining ground. The Prime Minister says to the Anglophones, "I will save the country; I will unite it." The Liberal party members have been wearing their great big buttons. That is the greatest threat to unity in this country-the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: There they sit, an alliance for power. We have seen the defections. We have seen how they are prepared to compromise their principles. Indeed, the other day somebody said that the Liberal Party of Canada was like a whore- it will take anyone.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Even Jack Horner.


John R. Rodriguez: What are the solutions? Have they put forward anything at all with respect to employment opportunities in this country? What do I read in "Integration"? Obviously, the bureaucrats have already passed the bill themselves. They have put out a new document called "Integration". It is a document put out by the Department of Manpower and Immigration. It quotes the deputy minister's view on what full employment is from the point of view of the government. This is what Mr. Manion says:
"We are aiming at a full employment policy through these public programs coupled with developmental funds," added Mr. Manion. "Our employment strategy is designed to reduce the impact of unemployment and maximize employment opportunities".
The deputy minister is proposing that the job sharing programs and the developmental uses of UIC are the government's approach to full employment in Canada. It is rather interesting to see another article in the same paper, "Integration", written by a young woman who has never worked in her life. After graduation she went down to the Manpower office to look for work. They have a new system there now. They feed information into a computer which then tells them what are the job inclinations of the person applying for a job. The young woman who wrote the article is named Heather Hand, and the article is entitled, "Talk to the computer". Do you know what the computer spewed out that that young woman,
Employment and Immigration
who has never worked in her life before, is qualified to do? This is what she wrote;
I couldn't stand the suspense-
As she waited for the computer to give the answers.
-so I asked what they were:
3330-110 Producer, motion picture 3330-118 Producer, broadcasting 3330-150 Director, motion picture 3330-158 Director, broadcasting
That is what the machine said the young woman is qualified to do. That is the approach of matching people to jobs and full employment. Manpower offices now have computers, and computers are supposed to find jobs for people. It is marvellous! I think we had better disintegrate "Integration". The other provision that we oppose in the bill concerns the developmental uses of the unemployment insurance fund. We are opposed to this sort of thing. In effect, the government could use the unemployment insurance fund to give supplementary payments to those involved in a job sharing situation. It proposes, also, that the unemployment insurance fund be used for training people. All of us can subscribe to the theory that people should be trained, either on the job or anywhere else. Surely if the government wants to do that, then it should take the money out of the general revenues of the government so that the taxpayers can see that this much money is going to training and this much money is going to unemployment insurance.
We say that you cannot prostitute the unemployment insurance fund by using the fund to do other things than what it is supposed to do. Indeed, as an employee group which came before the committee said, they were completely opposed to job sharing and had grave doubts about the training programs which were proposed. The minister, with all his bureaucrats, proudly stood up in the committee and said that they had an advisory committee which gives them advice, and they welcomed the advice. The advisory committee reported in the annual report of 1976, and this is what they had to say about developmental uses of unemployment insurance:
A further meeting was held in December, 1976, for the specific purpose of reviewing the developmental uses of unemployment insurance in the areas of job creation and work sharing. The committee expressed very serious reservations about these approaches, particularly as they do not, in the committee's view, represent an appropriate use of the unemployment insurance program.
The committee feels very strongly that the minister should give careful thought to these views, which are unanimously shared by members of the committee.
He has received advice from the advisory committee to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and he has received advice and evidence in committee from employer and employee groups. He has received it from the opposition parties in committee before the Conservatives lost their tongues. All the advice said: No, we should not use the fund for developmental uses of unemployment insurance. There is no point in having an advisory committee if its advice is thrown aside or ignored completely.
We have grave doubts about the whole thrust of the length of benefit period. As you know, in this bill the government, as

July 19, 1977
Employment and Immigration
a sop to the backbenchers in the Liberal party, proposed the imposition of 54 unemployment regions. Those of us who deal with the unemployment insurance fund every day of our lives as members of parliament know how complicated it is. The unemployment rate in each of these 54 regions will determine the minor attachment period and the length of the benefit period. I gave some examples of how it would work. If a person who lives in Nova Scotia, where the unemployment rate is approximately 13.2 per cent or more, works ten weeks, that person would get unemployment insurance benefits for 42 weeks. If a person who lives in the lower mainland of Vancouver, where the unemployment rate is 8.5 per cent, works ten weeks, that person would get no benefits. I suggest to you that 8.5 per cent is above the national unemployment rate in this country and it should not matter where you live in the country. If you are unemployed in Toronto, in Newfoundland or in Vancouver, you are unemployed, and the effects of unemployment on the lives of our people, regardless of region, are equally bad. It is just as debilitating to be unemployed in the east as it is in the west, north or south. In no way could this party support the discriminatory legislation this government is proposing in Bill C-27.
Another concern we have expressed time and again has to do with where unemployment hits hardest. We have said the important issue at the moment is unemployment opportunities. We have asked questions day after day in this House. We identified this issue months ago. We have made specific suggestions about creating short-term employment opportunities as well as long-term employment opportunities.
This government is a typical Liberal government which recognizes shifts in the wind. It can accept the biggest fascist in Canada into its ranks. I suppose it could also accept any well known leftist. It can absorb anyone, and I referred to an analogy earlier. In this particular instance, the Liberal Party has perceived that there is a move to the right in Canada, and it is tightening-up things like unemployment insurance to show the Canadian people how tough it is. It is easy to be tough with the unemployed, especially when they are young. Those who can find work are laid off very quickly, or they move from one job to another because of the present state of our economy.
A growing number of women are heads of households. They are no longer so-called working wives, a situation which the minister would have us believe is a luxury. Women with children are contributing in a meaningful way to the support of their families. We can no longer dismiss them. I can think of no better way to describe the problem than the way in which the leader of my party described it. He described it as follows:
Is it any wonder the Parti Quebecois has such strong support from young Quebeckers when one in every five persons under 24 is without work in that province and when half of the new unemployment in Canada in the past two years has occurred in Quebec?
The duty of an effective national government of whatever stripe is to govern in such a way as to see that its citizens can lead useful and productive lives. The Trudeau government has failed to meet this responsibility in nine years of office-
I recall 1968 when the swinging Prime Minister was diving off springboards. He never made any promises. Everybody said, "Isn't it wonderful; for a change, a politician who doesn't make a promise?" However, I remember two things the Prime Minister said during that 1968 campaign because I was very actively working at that time for our party's representative in Nickel Belt. The Prime Minister said that while he would not make any promises, he would work at two things. He said he would try to eliminate regional disparities in this country, and that he would work to bring about national unity. Here we are, nine years later. Is the country any more united than it was nine years ago?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Hogan:: It's worse.


John R. Rodriguez: Have we eliminated regional disparities?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Andrew Hogan: They are worse.


John R. Rodriguez: There seems to be a consensus that this government has failed on the two most important issues today, the issue of national unity and the issue of the elimination of regional disparities.


Reginald Cyril Symes: No wonder the Prime Minister does not want to talk about them.


John R. Rodriguez: He does not want to talk about them. The Liberal party has the ability to shift its position to accommodate whatever it thinks is in the wind. We, in this party, have said to the government time and again that we need short-term approaches as well as long-term policies which would set the base for employment as the work force grows. The government made a great big hullabaloo about the most recent budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). That hullabaloo was echoed in the province of Ontario over the budget which was brought down a few weeks later by that darling of the Chamber of Commerce, Darcy McKeough. That budget was a carbon copy of the budget brought down by the federal Minister of Finance. The federal Minister of Finance accepted the fact that full employment nationally is going to be anywhere upwards of 8 per cent. Tweedledee in the province of Ontario said we must live with 5.3 per cent in Ontario.
In its budget the federal government said that we still must depend on the private sector to create employment, and it gave out all kinds of hand-outs to the private sector. It handed out tax concessions when there are already too many tax concessions, in spite of the fact that we are operating at only 82 per cent of plant capacity. The chickens are coming home to roost. In a recent statement a chap by the name of Hugh Stevens, president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association-


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Sinclair's brother?

July 19, 1977


John R. Rodriguez: They could be related. They are in the same field, banking. In a statement, he said he shared the concern of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) about unemployment, but he said that manufacturers cannot invest to create new jobs until the idle plant and equipment they already have is more fully used. That is why members of my party criticized the budget of the Minister of Finance. We asked why he was priming the pump when the pump was not being fully utilized. We asked why he was giving tax concessions for plant expansion when plant capacity was operating at only 82 per cent. Mr. Stevens went on to say:
Investment can only be made when the economics justify it. The fact is that much of Canadian manufacturing is in an extremely precarious position as a result of the excessive increases in Canadian costs in recent years, including wages, fringes, taxes, construction costs and interest rates.
The article which quotes Mr. Stevens also notes that perhaps the major factor dampening business expansion plans is the low operating rate of existing plant and equipment. Mr. Stevens observed that the average capacity utilization rate in manufacturing is stagnant at about 82 per cent. We have said that the government should not prime the pump at the top; that should be done down at the low income levels. We have also said that we should not go on developing the economy of Canada as a hinterland. We cannot go on shipping out raw materials. We cannot go on shipping out jobs with those raw materials. Many Liberals who sit on the back benches come from the hinterland parts of their provinces. Many hon. members from the Atlantic region come from the hinterland of the economy because their constituents take raw materials out of the ground. They fish for raw material. They cut raw materials down. We keep shipping out raw materials, and along with them go jobs.
We have said that we need policies geared to economic planning. We have said that if we are going to mine in Canada, the products we mine should be finished to a final product here. Not only do we encourage outsiders to take our resources but we even pay them to depreciate our resources. In the province of Ontario there are depreciation allowances, and we pay mining companies to depreciate our raw materials. We need long-term policies.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let him continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Nevertheless-


Some hon. Members:: No.


John R. Rodriguez: Who said "No"?


Reginald Cyril Symes: For that, there will be ten more speeches.


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the former speaker could have finished his remarks in two or three minutes but, unfortunately, he was denied the chance to do so
Employment and Immigration
by the party in power. I deplore such an attitude. Yet, the fact remains that this attitude permeates all their actions. They claim to have the right to say everything and deny it to others who could point out their errors. More often than otherwise they just fool around. Even now, they do not have the decency to rise and speak on as important a topic as Bill C-27. We hear them shout, joke, show off, as we say in French "peter de la broue", but they do not have the decency to rise in the House as the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Bussieres)-


An hon. Member:: He did not speak at all, he is incapable of it.


Gilles Caouette: -to rise in the House and discuss those topics their electors would have them bring up. There are more than enough unemployed in the riding of Compton, just as there are in that of the hon. member who was shouting a moment ago. They did not have the decency to take into consideration the remarks made by their electors.
Yet those people sent in lists of names, they signed petitions to point out to the government and its members their disappointment, their disenchantement with Bill C-27. We are now discussing at the third reading stage a motion to stand Bill C-27 for six months, so that government members can read their mail and bring the corrections that are needed to this piece of legislation that is a disaster for the working population in Canada. The intent with this bill is to put the blame on the worker. If he cannot find work, if for some reason he finds it difficult to keep a job, he is accused by the government of abusing the system, so they want to make it more restrictive. The government, however, find no way that would allow the worker to find acceptable employment on a steady, yearly basis.
But they found the way to penalize him by increasing to 12 weeks the eligibility period. This is hurting those who find it hard to keep a job. We often receive letters from employers who make the personal effort of keeping an employee on the job one or two weeks more than the six or seven weeks they would normally employ them. Small businessmen make that effort so that the workers involved at least make up in unemployment insurance benefits for the little time they could spend at work. Such an effort the government do not make. They put forward the bill to reduce workers to the bare minimum, and they put the blame on the individual. And indirectly, especially in the province of Quebec, when they disentitle the greater number of unemployed, they know that automatically they will depend on welfare, so that the blame will be on the big bad government that was elected on November 15.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we know that this problem has been with us much longer than that. With an 8, 10, 12 week period there is disparity. It was said earlier that the government is committed to eliminating regional disparities, but it is quite the opposite. They are creating 54 disparities, 54 regions where they will be playing with 8, 10 and 12 week periods. They are going to play with that and another department of the government will say to the workers: now, we are going to
7798

July 19, 1977
Employment and Immigration
move you to another area. 1 can hardly wait to see the problems those people are going to be faced with when they move from an eight-week area to a twelve-week area. 1 can hardly wait to see their faces when they argue with the officials. They tell them nothing about that. Indeed not, they hold a knife against their throat and tell them: Well, that is your problem. Does the bill talk about employment insurability? Not at all.
We have stacks of cases, discussions, and the UIC is now taking refuge behind the taxation department and tells people: Well, your job is not insurable, you are not entitled to unemployment insurance, you do not even have the right to contribute to unemployment insurance, you do not even have the right to pay unemployment insurance in order to draw benefits when you lose your job. I know of specific cases where a storekeeper hires one of his children-he does not have the right. If he hires his neighbour's son and sends his own son to work for the neighbour, then after such an exchange the employment is insurable. But under the regulations, if he wants to hire his own son, the latter is not insurable, he does not have the right to pay unemployment insurance premiums on a seasonal basis.
I am talking about a tourist area-Temiscamingue-where during the summer there are what are known as outfitters, people who work for a specific period, from May to September, who need a job for eight, seven, six or ten weeks, it depends, people who look after the tourists who come to those areas. If one hires his son, the son will not be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. If he hires the neighbour's son, then it is all right, he is entitled to unemployment insurance. That is the rule of the game. The government, through all kinds of means, through bills such as Bill C-27, has created situations where individuals are forced to be as crooked as the government to get what is due to them.
They are forced to cheat with the officers and search for reasons.
We know of a case now in the province of Quebec where the provincial government, through its highways department, is hiring people in the riding of Temiscamingue for only eight weeks. Then they are laid off, after eight weeks only, and another group of 75 people is hired for another eight week period. If that is not a fight between two government levels, I wonder what it is with the crazy regulations we now have. What change will be brought into it? The federal government says: No, we will block the unemployed and passed the buck to the provincial government through welfare. The provincial government answers: No, we will never accept that. Let those people take their responsibilities. Yet, those people are laid off after eight weeks of work.
It is a game of political confrontation instead of an administration that assists people. A further point: there is no change in sections 172 and 173 concerning leave credits and terms of employment. Nothing at all! They took advantage of that again last week, when we had to go before the board of referees and plead cases successfully before three judges who

ruled unanimously in favour of the recipient. However, the next day, the board informed us that the case will be referred to the umpire. The three judges of the board of referees appointed by the government cannot even make a unanimous decision. But it is an never-ending game where they always lay the blame on the individual instead of trying to find a solution.
We are told that the government is trying to assist small businesses so that they may create work and produce more. Canadian productivity is increasing, but we know that it is gradually increasing through automation which undeniably causes unemployment. But the government is there precisely to deal with the affairs of the country, to be able to give. The number of jobs is reduced but the government is there precisely to establish policies which would ensure the individual the necessary purchasing power to buy the production of the machine. Unfortunately, the government lacks the decency to think this way. It tries to put the blame on the individual. When in trouble, it says that the situation depends on other countries, that if we have inflation in Canada, it is because of some other countries.
As far as inflation is concerned, prices increase and companies have to spend more to obtain the supplies they need to manufacture. Therefore some companies close down. And if the workers are unemployed, it is their fault; they are lazy because they worked only from eight to ten weeks, depending on the area, or perhaps for twelve weeks. The blame is always put on the individual. Bill C-27 should be entitled "Import controls" rather than deal with unemployment insurance. If, at the very outset, something had been done to deal with the problems of importation into Canada, there is no question that this would have promoted employment. In the Eastern Townships, textile plants are going out of business; furniture manufacturers have gone bankrupt, five of them, one after the other, in Victoriaville. The shoe manufacturers are also going bankrupt. They are all closing down because of the free flow of imports! And then, people will say: "We have too many unemployed"! If we have too many unemployed, something has to be done to reduce their number, and to this end, a bill is introduced, Bill C-27, intended to reduce the number of unemployed.
But what has been done to create jobs for these people? Absolutely nothing. This amounts to putting band aids on wooden legs. There are all kinds of excuses, investing in a given field, to create four, five or six jobs, while at the same time 50 or 60 jobs are destroyed in the same area. There is such a case in my own riding at the present time. We have to fight with various departments in order to get the grants needed to help small businesses. We have to appeal to both the provincial government and the federal government for investments in a region where there is about 22 to 24 per cent of unemployed. But, when we meet them in the streets, or try and count them, we are more likely to find 30 per cent than 24 or 22 per cent.
But the government allows this situation when it refuses to help small businesses, as was the case recently with Quebec Iron Foundries, in Noranda. There was an agreement between
July 19, 1977

the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the company to retrain the employees in other fields. They are not guaranteed a job, they are retrained in a field other than the foundry, which served the Noranda mine. There was no thought given to retraining the company. It gets benefits from something else to guarantee jobs to the employees. But the blame is placed on the employees. The company closes down and the employees are dismissed. After that, they are told: "Very well, we shall retrain you." But in what field? Where? How? Why? No one knows. But they will be retrained. Afterwards, if they have not found a job, on the basis of Bill C-27 they will be told: "Well, my friend, you will have to get busy. You will have to look for a job, everywhere, like the unemployed are now doing." They are looking for jobs. They are now being told that they have not searched for employment in their area. They have looked only in their municipality, yes, in their municipality. You can ask the officials and the minister: "What is the municipality? What does it mean?" The previous speaker spoke about Winnipeg. If I live at one end of Winnipeg, I can tell you that it is quite a long way to go to work at the other end. The problem is the same in Montreal. If I live in Pointe-aux-Trembles and if 1 have to go to work in Dorval, this poses a transportation problem. But no consideration is given to that. The unemployed has not looked for a job; he restricted his search to his municipality.
In rural constituencies like my own where the next town is 40, 50 or 60 miles away, where there is no public transport, where the unemployed has been looking for a job in his town or the neighboring town, with a population of perhaps four or five thousand people, it is impossible to find a job. He is still cut off from the unemployment benefits because he has not looked in his area. When we try to find out how many miles does the area cover and what services are given, it is impossible to find out. The unemployment officials do not know what is an area. That person is on the unemployment roll, he has no car, no public transportation. How could he go 40 or 45 miles away, twice a day, to find a job? And people are denied unemployment insurance benefits on grounds such as these!
The bill refers to 54 districts. Employment opportunities, means of transportation to and from work and the total number of unemployed should at least be considered in these 54 districts! 1 suppose there is some assessment, to a certain extent but these things are not being considered. They apply the same scale to a region or a large urban centre, no matter what employment opportunities there are in a given area. They do not take those factors into account. For the same reasons, these people are denied unemployment insurance benefits and in addition, the onus is on the worker. He must prove he has been actively seeking employment. The applicant goes to the federal manpower centre, to the provincial manpower office and comes back home because they have nothing to offer him. He contacts the four or five industries where he used to work. They have nothing for him either. After a while those workers have to accept any job that is offered to them. What will Bill C-27 do to give workers adequate protection against officious
Employment and Immigration
civil servants? Nothing at all. All they try to do is to put the burden on the worker's shoulders.
What should our position be on this? When workers are displaced by machines, are they entitled to make a living or not? When, for economic reasons, whether from within or without the country, such sclerosis, and unemployment is created, resulting in financial disaster for' the people concerned, are the jobless not entitled to a living? That is the whole question we must ask ourselves. If it is admitted they have a right to a decent living, well, legislation should provide a decent living for them. No bill like C-27 should be tolerated, the impact of which is to back the unemployed into a corner and gag and belittle them or force them on welfare, and then, once they are there, make it even worse for them, by making them crawl to officials for a mere pittance. That is why, for years now, the Social Credit Party of Canada has advocated and still does a guaranteed annual income for everybody, so that if someone loses his job, he will at least be assured a sufficient amount to live on. And he will be entitled and allowed to look for another job, and when he has found it, this guaranteed annual income will be a supplement to his income. It will not be a penalty as it is now.
If someone collecting unemployment insurance does a little work in a week, he is penalized and his benefits are reduced. If he works for more than four weeks, then he is "cancelled", out! He cannot get benefits for four weeks then this clause is used and he is kicked out, he is no longer eligible. He is not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits anymore. We have at least cancelled that one a little bit but only to find some other devious way, a little better than bear traps this time. Not mouse traps, bear traps this time.
That is why we support this motion to put this bill off for six months; if it were possible to put it off for two years, we would do it, because it does not solve the problem. It does not help to improve some situations. This bill creates a situation which is worse than the one existing before. It brings a small improvement on one side and a big failure on the other. A small correction is made on the right for an even bigger failure on the left. It is a continuous game. So, we oppose that bill, and we support the motion to put it off for six months, because in our opinion, many people have representations to make, there will be many petitions drawn by people who were caught in the unemployment problem, people who had to live with it. These are not businessmen.
I had a conversation with a member of the government who met businessmen in his riding; they told him: "That is a good bill". That man has never been on unemployment insurance in his life. He does not know what it is and he even added: I do not know what it is. I have never been on unemployment. But eight weeks is too short. Twelve weeks, you should put a longer period. Such is the advice given to some government members. They should have seen those who are on unemployment insurance, those who have to rely on unemployment benefits for some part of the year to be able to eat during 52 weeks. They
80020-29'/2

July 19, 1977
Adjournment Motion
should have consulted those people before introducing a bill such as Bill C-27, and maybe we would not have such a long debate. Chances are the government would have come up with a legislation likely to solve the problem instead of creating one as it is the case now.
Those are the general comments I wanted to make. Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to make such comments, such representations in the House of Commons as well as outside the House, because we know that most Canadians do not want a discriminatory measure but legislation which will allow them to live decently in this country. If we do not have enough jobs to go around we should at least give them an opportunity to rely on some sort of guaranteed income. It should not be an everlasting fight between men who seek the right to live and civil servants who always wonder whether the unemployed or the person without a job is entitled to the payment he needs to survive. Those are the comments I wanted to submit to the attention of the House and I hope hon. members will vote for that six month delay to allow the civil servants to read their correspondence and become conscious of the problem this bill will create for simple workers.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think I have exaggerated-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but it would be appropriate now to announce the questions to be debated on the adjournment motion.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: 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 Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco)-Regional Economic Expansion-Degree of support for British Columbia-Government position; the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth)-Northern Affairs- Enforcement of mine safety regulations in Northwest Territories-Request for report on consultation with Minister of Labour; the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie)- Energy-Conservation-Grants for home insulation-Availability to other provinces of program similar to that of Nova Scotia and P.E.I..



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cullen that Bill C-27, 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; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Peters.
Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, as I said a while ago, I do not think that I have taken too much of the time of the House in connection with this bill and this afternoon I wish to support the motion introduced by the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) suggesting to the government a six months's hoist in the consideration of this bill. Actually, Mr. Speaker, we would have many subject matters to deal with. And the reason we want that bill sent to the committee for six months to undergo a further study, is that we want, for example, a review of clause 29 which deals with the insured's qualification, of clause 38 which deals with sickness or pregnancy, of clause 27 which deals with the much talked about insurability, and of clause 31 which extends the qualifying period.
We also wish to discuss the board of referees, the immense power wielded by this body, the issue of the search for work and above all those explanations which the civil servants would have to give to the claimants. Finally, we want to study the issues raised by strikes, by vegetable and fruit pickers, by voluntary designations and make it mandatory for the employer to send immediately the termination of employment form, and so on. These are only a few points which I just mention and we would like all these matters to be dealt with in depth. This is why we want that bill sent back to committee in six months for it to undergo a more thorough study.
Mr. Speaker, for instance I find that clause 29, asking a claimant to have at least from ten to fourteen weeks of prior insurable employment to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits, is a direct attack against the unemployed, because it gives credence to the allegation that they should be considered guilty for their being unemployed. This new clause of the bill proposed by the government is a direct attack against the most defenseless people among the working class, in the sense that the majority of workers who only qualify with a minimum number of insurable weeks of work are the aged and those who have a low level of instruction who generally keep their jobs a shorter time because the type of jobs that are available to them are often for a short period. Students, for instance, who do not intend to go on with their studies and who, as their first work experience have been hired for the summer season, will find
July 19, 1977

themselves without a right to these benefits according to the new clauses of the bill.
The eight-week requirement could quite easily be met by those families or individuals who worked as fruit, vegetable tobacco, tomato or cucumber pickers in the various parts of Canada or elsewhere, but 1 say it will be very difficult for them to get twelve or fourteen weeks of employment. In its proposal the government completely overlooks modern personnel requirements in the private, public and quasi-public sectors. Increasingly businesses require specialized workers for short periods of time only. Specialized people are hired for definite jobs of a short duration.
Through this provision increasing the qualifying period to eight, ten and even fourteen weeks, the government and its supporters leave the impression that most unemployed who qualified with a minimum period of eight weeks were hardcore unemployed. For instance, jobs are marginal in my riding. Our unemployment rate of 26 or 27 per cent is a clear indication that job-seekers must search for a long time to get one of the few jobs. It is obvious that with such a bill, such a provision and many others, the government is trying to make an insurance scheme profitable by eliminating the factors which are more risky. Social legislation such as this one should not be administered according to the same criteria as those governing private enterprise, even less so when the workers are the ones paying for this insurance.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the insured who pays the premium is entitled to the benefit of his insurance.
I have always considered that unemployment insurance was like any other insurance, like fire insurance or accident insurance: when your house burns down or when you have an accident, you have the right to claim benefit from your insurance company. But I think that is the major problem with the insurers: once you have paid the premium, there are indeed so many investigations of all kinds that in the end, even with a paid up insurance policy, you cannot get any benefits. Yet, when dealing with a commercial insurance company, let us say a fire insurance company, if one is not satisfied with the settlement, one may sue the company and the latter will have to pay. But when you are dealing with government agencies, it is useless to think of taking any legal action since it is so difficult to have officers transferred and they always have the last word. I say that those who deprive the unemployed of their rights are in my opinion outright criminals.
Mr. Speaker, such cases happen every day. A member's office is a good place to get to know of such things and I am sure that government members experience the very same problems. I feel that what is lacking in all this is a little light and a little more understanding. Some may say that 1 am overdoing it, that I am going too far. Yet, after my party leader spoke this afternoon and gave us an idea of what is going on among the people, I should like to call upon the media in order to substantiate our claims.
Employment and Immigration
The fall 1976 issue of Le Quotidien, our regional paper stated the following, and I quote:
Reduced benefits. Five civil servants denounce ...


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him that we are discussing at this point a motion to give the bill a six months' hoist. I would like to hear his reasons rather than quotations from newspapers.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what I am doing. As I said at the outset, I suggest that the bill should be deferred for 6 months. I am now telling why I am making this suggestion. I am not going to tell that all I am asking for is a motion to adjourn the House. I want to explain myself. I am in the process of stating why we are right in giving the bill a six months' hoist. This is what I have been in the process of doing all the time. I do not know if you are grasping what I am saying, but I am simply suggesting that this bill should be deferred for six months because the unemployed are dissatisfied, because the media are saying that we are doing the wrong thing.
It is stated here: Five officials denounce UIC roll reductions. That is why I was telling you that we must refer the bill back to committee in order that it be fully looked into. Let us stop playing on words. We are doing nothing here in this House but playing on words. We are creating problems for everybody. We enact pieces of legislation that are so utterly nonsensical as to be illegible. There is not a single worker who can understand one single line of them. Even officials, imagine, five officials denouncing the cuts made by the UIC. I know the minister is aware of the fact, because I discussed it with him. I would like this to be looked into. We have reached the point where five UIC employees give an interview to tell the truth, but they are wearing hoods because they are afraid of being identified. Apparently, the truth must now be told behind curtains, because one is kaput if one is seen. I realize that there are still honest civil servants. That is why I want to mention this fact because everything is blamed on the officials who have to cope with the act all year long.
In my riding, I meet some officials twice, three or four times a year and that is what they tell me. Why don't you try to have more specific legislation and stop bothering us with all these troubles. That is also what we must do. This new legislation is even worse. Do you realize that for disqualification alone, there will be 54 different regions, 54 different cases to be assessed. I would not like to be in these officials' shoes. To say what they want to say, they have to hide under a hood. According to them, the department is trying to strike off 33 per cent more people from the rolls. Their heads hidden under a black hood and without telling names, these five officials have given-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order please. I want to remind the hon. member, as I said earlier, that he should keep to the subject matter, namely the reasons why Bill C-27 should be given a six months' hoist and refrain from quoting press reports.

July 19, 1977
Employment and Immigration


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, here are the reasons why I think consideration of this bill should be deferred for six months. It is because we have heard evidence such as this asking us to give the bill a six months' hoist. We want a six months' hoist. Do you understand? You have listened to all other members who gave their reasons why this delay is necessary. Why are you trying to prevent me from telling the truth when I am stating my case? It seems we are trying to hide the truth from the public. And yet, this is the truth, what is written, what appeared in the papers. It has to be said.
There are more jobless but less people who collect benefit. Such is the effect of the bill before us. This is why we want to send it back to the committee. Here we say: Mr. Cullen will want some explanations. But how come there are more unemployed and fewer benefits are paid. But no wonder, with the kind of bill we have; and if this bill is not amended, if it is not reviewed, if it is not referred to a committee for consideration, we will still have more unemployed and fewer beneficiaries, and the responsibility for it all will fall on the provincial government, as said the hon. member who spoke before me. The federal government collects the taxes, collects the contributions and when it has had enough, it says to the provincial governments; Now, you take the rest.
And once again the provincial government will have to assist those unemployed through the social welfare. This is the impact of this bill; this is why, Mr. Speaker, we want to give the bill a six month hoist. As far as I am concerned, I would like to give it a six year hoist so that I would not hear about it any more, but the amendment provided for six months only, and we have to comply with it. But, if we should pass this bill tonight, it will not do any good. We are going to be worse off than before. I was telling you earlier that we now have 24 per cent. That is again in the newspaper Le Quotidien of the 23rd. And some think that we are going to keep quiet in the House, that we are not going to speak out. No, Mr. Speaker, they are wrong because we are going to speak out and to denounce, because what is coming makes no sense. This bill must at all costs be referred to committee for a further detailed study, so that the unemployed may have what they are entitled to.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is absolutely essential that the powers of the board of referees be restricted in the course of the further consideration. At present, the board of referees is all powerful and solves about every problem in its own way, unless that is changed in the course of the further consideration of this bill. I just had a case in my riding. I will not mention names but that was very obvious to me. So, in its report, the board of referees states: the fact remains that the board of referees has the right and privilege to interpret the power, the power to decide which statement it will accept, and also to rule on the admissibility of the evidence. Imagine! It goes on to say: It should be noted, however, that it is not up to the claimant to decide on his availability. Imagine! The claimant, under the present act, has no longer even the right to say whether he is available or not. It is up to the board of referees-officials-to decide: You are available, you are not available.
Such problems keep cropping up in our ridings. And what I do not understand is that such cases can be pleaded and when carried through, something finally comes out of it. But why did they not do it right away? Because the act quite simply, is not clear, it is too confused, and the officials are not wizards either. They do their best. Let us not forget, as I said earlier, that I am not trying to lay the blame on public servants.
Certain public servants want to make money out of unemployment insurance, but others are honest. I simply say that the legislation is too restrictive and not clear enough, and this is why we want a six month hoist to have the opportunity to say what we think about certain sections of the bill. I have something to say about insurability. Who determines insurability? There are many cases in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, of workers who had to contribute. I have seen such cases over a period of two and a half years. They were asked to contribute every week, and after two and a half years, they became unemployed. The Unemployment Insurance Commission told them: "Well, you were allowed to contribute, but you were not supposed to." The companies and the employers do not know what is going on.
The legislation does not clearly state when someone must contribute to unemployment insurance and is entitled to the benefits. Not only is the Unemployment Insurance office not authorized to tell those people that they are not entitled to benefits, but their case has to be referred to the Department of National Revenue since it is the one which decides if a worker is insurable or not. After two or three years, the worker is told that he has contributed for nothing. I know of such cases. I say this quite advisedly, Mr. Speaker. This is why a six months hoist would give us time to discuss this question of insurability.
It is essential to get the facts straight. I strongly object to the Department of National Revenue determining if someone can get unemployment insurance. There is a limit to the number of times departmental responsibility can change. I was talking about this with the officials of my area, in Alma, and they told me: "Listen, we do not have any influence, we must wait up to four months to know what the department will do." These poor people were saying: "We are like you, Mr. Gauthier, we have to wait." Is the government aware of the problem? There is a wall. I had to leave. I commuted between the office and the department because the civil servants could not communicate together. That is how they take the unemployed for a ride. What do you think happens to an unemployed man who can hardly sign his name and is facing such a problem? He will lose his unemployment insurance benefits. Those are real cases, Mr. Speaker, and for that reason we want to delay that study for six months so we could set the facts straight as we see them every day.
We have also the important issue of pregnancy or sickness. That is another trick: A guy gets sick and he needs a medical certificate. So I tell him: Send your doctor's certificate. Then he sends his certificate but they do not get it. I know workers who sent eight certificates within seven months but civil
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
July 19, 1977

servants never received those famous certificates. Now I have them photocopied and send a dozen at the first opportunity because civil servants seem to lose them too easily. What I am complaining about now, what I have always asked for in this House is that the medical certificate be the only argument allowing a sick person to get his or her benefits. I have discussed that with doctors in my area. The doctor brings in his findings but at the insurance office it is a civil servant who will weigh the diagnosis. The doctor says six weeks rest, but civil servants figure that two weeks is enough. That is wrong, they should respect the medical diagnosis.
This is very clear, and I have been urging this for a long time. But let us respect the diagnosis of the physician. The civil servant is there to dictate letters and he has never practised medicine and does not know beans about it. However, he is one who decides whether a person has the right to be on sick leave for two, three, four or five weeks. This is ridiculous! I have always asked for this, without success. The physicians ask for this too, they want their certificates to be respected.
When a person is operated on for appendicitis, he gets four weeks leave, and I had the opportunity to discuss this with one of these civil servants who confirmed this to me. There can be all kinds of complications with appendicitis, Mr. Speaker. Even if the physician says this is acute appendicitis, and the knows his patient's need, he knows whether the person needs to stop working for eight or ten weeks, the civil servants tells us that it is four weeks according to the law. This is ridiculous! I had to defend such cases. It seems funny to say, maybe some of you would not believe me, but I had to go and defend such cases.
I also believe that as long as the legislation will not say specifically that the physician's diagnosis should be followed, we will be in the wrong. It seems to me that the government is relying more on its officials than on the physician. I for one can tell you that I have more faith in the physician than in the local official. It is sad to say, but I have always defended causes like that. The same thing goes for strikes. I see that time is going fast, but I wanted to say a few words on this subject to note what we are supposed to do and consider in the next six months regarding this bill. It is the same thing for strikes. Of course, when an industry strikes its workers are not allowed to get unemployment benefits. But what about those who are not union members, why should they be treated in the same way as those who are members of the union?
Within six months, those cases will have to be studied in a very specific manner to determine who is entitled to unemployment insurance and who will be penalized because of strikes. It must be realized that when there is a strike, strikers are not 100 percent for the strike, especially when their type of employment is not entirely related to the work performed by the real strikers. I think that we are witnessing these problems day in and day out and that they will keep arising because of the bill before us, if tonight we do not decide, once and for all,
Employment and Immigration
to clarify this situation and send this bill back for six months for further study on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, as for the extension of the qualifying periods, 1 think that while reading the bill the minister did not even think of workers who are injured on the job. There must absolutely be a special extension of the qualifying period in order that such persons who have received accident compensation benefits for a month, two months or even three months and did not collect unemployment insurance, will be able as soon as they are back on the job market, and available for but unable to secure employment, to receive unemployment insurance benefits. I think that this is a very legitimate demand. I can understand or I would rather think that there was perhaps a mistake, but I also believe that if we do not take the necessary steps to try and correct the defects that we keep finding in the present bill, we will keep giving the unemployed the run around and make them wait indefinitely. Last week, somebody told me that he had been waiting to collect his unemployment insurance benefits for the past fourteen months.
He had waited 14 months for the results of the studies. He had received a letter saying his case was under review. Mr. Speaker, I believe we are serious enough in this House and sincere enough to see to it that this bill is not voted upon tonight but referred instead for a real study, and not to be discussed with civil servants. Not that I blame those who are here. They have never been out in the field. They have no idea what goes on out there. They write the laws but know nothing about what is going on. We, however, live the whole year round with the unemployed out in the field. I think it would do them good to have an hon. member in their midst from time to time, an hon. member who comes from those areas, but, no, we come third class. It is quite forbidden to consult us, to ask our advice. They are the ones who decide under what conditions such and such an unemployed will get benefits. And there again, if one has good friends, good connections, things won't be too had. But if, unfortunately, one has no friends, it is often difficult to solve the case.
Indeed, we do run into cases like that. Mr. Speaker, I do hope this bill will not pass third reading tonight and that the amendment of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) will be accepted. I am sure that many government members would like to see the amendments I mentioned a while ago improve the shortcomings of the bill, and the only way to do that, once again, is to defer the bill and vote for the motion of the hon. member for Timiskaming.


An hon. Member:: Question, question!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, one really has the impression that this is not a democratic Parliament. Our colleagues seem shocked to see us rise and express the views of our constituents. Our democracy will survive so long as our democratic parliamentary system will be respected. Otherwise our system will disappear and then everybody will

July 19, 1977
Employment and Immigration
wonder how it happened. Freedom of speech! What has become of it?
Mr. Speaker, I hope that you at least understand me and will accept that I make some remarks on Bill C-27 and also on the motion to give the bill a six months' hoist for further consideration. I remember a few years ago when a similar piece of legislation was passed by the Canadian Parliament, the unemployment insurance act. Well, this Parliament wanted to safeguard the rights of the workers who happened to be out of work after the last world war. Before that war, Mr. Speaker, there was a period of acute unemployment during the economic recession from 1929 to 1939. At that time, there was no legislation to ensure the Canadian workers minimum income if unemployed. We had nevertheless various work programs. We had subsequently the relief program.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must remind him once again that we have before us an amendment designed to give the bill a six months' hoist. Of course, it is allowed to criticize the bill during consideration of this amendment, but the amendment does not in any way allow for any correction or change in the bill. Therefore, I would appreciate it if the hon. member would address himself to the amendment under consideration at this time.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, but in order to say anything sensible on the amendment, I must deal with the bill. That is why I have to remind the hon. members of the history of our unemployment insurance legislation and I don't know of any rule that prevents me from telling the House that before the introduction of the present unemployment insurance act, other events took place. I consider that I respect the Standing Orders and the Chair precisely by recalling those previous situations which later led Parliament to adopt a law providing for the unemployed worker some benefits which have been called unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Speaker, in the course of my functions, I had to cooperate in many instances to complete forms for workers who happened to be unemployed, to help them take advantage of this law adopted by Parliament which provided they could receive unemployment insurance benefits. What Parliament wanted at that time was to guarantee them a minimum income so they would not have to get into debt when they were unemployed. And I think I must commend the lawmakers of that time who were concerned about protecting the economic situation of people who after the 1939-1945 war could eventually be unemployed.
Later the law was amended a few times, Mr. Speaker, as it was in 1971 and again in 1977. Now we are on Bill C-27 and an amendment motion has been proposed by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), a motion which would delay the adoption of this bill for six months. Is it because the bill has to beget something in six months' time? Definitely not. It is not a

period set aside for confinement but a period set aside for reasoning, for thinking, that will allow the law-makers, the minister and the officers time to study this legislation in greater depth, to make it more consistent with the actual needs of the workers, of those who could possibly be unemployed some day, not of their own will, but due to unusual economic circumstances.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think that since Bill C-27 was introduced in this House, there has been no reason for changing our opinion on it. Of course, I do not want to repeat the very serious comments voiced by my colleagues in the House of Commons, and especially by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) who is particularly qualified to speak on labour matters, on questions relating to unemployment insurance entitlement and contributions. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Kamouraska has shown during the last 15 years, in the speeches he has made before Parliament, that he is a truly responsible member, that he is sincerely working in the interest of his constituents, and that he is at the same time making sure that Canada can guarantee the security of the workers of our country, the security of our disabled citizens, of our widows, of our orphans and of all those who are destitute, so they are in a position to meet their obligations.
Mr. Speaker, are opposition members alone in objecting to Bill C-27? 1 do not think so. If we reread the comments made in the House by government members, on the majority side, I will not say in power, because they are not, but on the government or the majority side, well I remember among others the comments of the hon. member for Madawaska-Vic-toria (Mr. Corbin) who clearly stated in the House that he objected to Bill C-27 on second reading. He assumed his responsibilities and said that the bill did not meet the needs of workers for which it was meant and did not encourage them to work and contribute to the growth and development of our country.
Mr. Speaker, further on, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) in a document which he tabled and in his comments before the committee said:
In amending the unemployment insurance system, we are obviously facing the following dilemma: ensure better income protection for the claimant while giving him an incentive to work.
I more than agree. We must have in this country a legislation which would encourage any able-bodied man to work, whether in his own interest, in the interest of his community, his province or his country. I fully agree, but we must take into account the economic situation in which we live. The minister added:
The 1971 amendments have obviously helped provide adequate income maintenance.
That is true. The benefits granted to the unemployed helped them meet the needs of their families, or in the case of single persons, prevented them from sinking into debt, for otherwise they would have been compelled to borrow and mortgage their future.
July 19, 1977

Up to that point, I think the minister is right. He went on:
As well, the experience of the past five years abviously threw light on the elements of the system which had bad consequences on the labour force.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, you were here when the bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act was introduced in 1971. Members on the government side were saying that this legislation was the best in the world, that it would provide workers with a stable income while encouraging them to go back to work and get the available jobs.
The minister goes on:
Not only the comprehensive study on the unemployment insurance system in Canada, but also a wide variety of studies made by other agencies and individuals have enabled us to recognize and identify its effects. The proposals contained in Bill C-27 are designed to improve the balance between the components of the system and I am convinced of their appropriateness.
Mr. Speaker, it is either of two things: In 1971, it was logical to give workers the possibility of claiming unemployment insurance benefits after having contributed to the fund for eight weeks, whereas in 1977 we confess in the face of the whole country that this was a disastrous mistake. Well, Mr. Speaker, if we confess that this was a disastrous mistake to give benefits after eight weeks of work attachment in 1971, I think I am entitled to question whether at the end of one year, or two years of having had to live with Bill C-27, we would not ask the same question for the second time: was it not a mistake to establish a qualifying period of 10, 12 or 14 weeks according to the unemployment in each area, as the minister says.
And I quote what he said:
First of all, we shall increase by 12 weeks the benefit period during the regional extended benefit phase. During this phase, recipients will therefore be entitled to benefits for a possible maximum of 32 weeks instead of 20.
Additional weeks of benefits would depend on the regional unemployment rate, which appears in Schedule B which is annexed to the copy of my speech.
These are remarks which he made in the House when he moved the second reading of this bill. Well, Mr. Speaker, statistics are something which I believe in, but I do not trust them 100 per cent, and because of our experience with votes earmarked for the Canada Works and Young Canada Works programs, I am most careful because statistics are not always up to date. When we consider the figures published by Statistics Canada concerning the number of unemployed recorded on its rolls, and then consider the real number of unemployed people in our own regions, there are serious discrepancies, and this procedure affects unfavourably the poorer regions in our country.
It is on the basis of these statistics that, according to Bill C-27, unemployment insurance benefit entitlement will hinge for those who are unemployed. There is something which I may know better than anybody in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and it is that there are many Canadians who really want to work and earn their own living, but who simply cannot, because of economic conditions which are beyond their control.
Second, a percentage of the population wants to work in order to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits and then live on them without working, thus taking advantage of all the
Employment and Immigration
benefits that our partnership, our life in society has to offer. But even then, a distinction must be made. I think it is a small number. And I remember during the recession I referred to a moment ago, many jobless were termed as lazy by the authorities of the day because they did not want to work, but when the war broke out and all able-bodied men were called upon to enlist, they no longer were lazy. Thousands of our young people were willing to enlist because it was the only way to earn a living.
From 1939 to 1945, thousands of Canadians were called upon to work in our factories here and there and it was then acknowledged that those people were not lazy but hard-working who only want to earn good pay, to earn a decent living. Mr. Speaker, we are now going through an extremely difficult period when the best qualified people cannot find a job. I get mail every day in this connection from young people, people of all trades who write to me, who telephone me to ask me if it would not be possible to help them find a job.
I signed earlier some fifty letters before coming to the House recommending people to the Quebec manpower centres in Quebec City, Levis and Montmagny, not to ask for unemployment insurance benefits but to ask the public servants in those manpower centres to help those people find a job. Mr. Speaker, how gratifying it is to be able to help someone find a job so that this person will have the pleasure of saying at the end of each day: I earned my daily bread. I have done something for my country and my country will benefit from it because my country has given me plenty. Mr. Speaker, when you reach age 24 or 30, and have scores of diplomas stuffed in your pockets, diplomas which have been paid for by your predecessors and which are very hard to get these days, because education has become terribly expensive, when we see these young people so healthy and so fully qualified, having acquired the great qualification of the day, the qualification to be unemployed, we wonder what this parliament has been doing to deal with such an unacceptable situation. But, except in wartime, the private sector alone is not in a position to provide jobs for all the qualified people in our country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m. tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner recess I had still a few minutes left to finish my comments on the motion under consideration. I was explaining how Canadian industries are at present unable to create the necessary jobs to cope with the manpower needs in Canada. That is one of the reasons why we now have more than a million unemployed.
In the province of Quebec, three large industries have to compete with imports and as a consequence the number of
7806

July 19, 1977
Employment and Immigration
people without jobs is increasing. 1 am referring to the textile, garment and shoe industries. These three industries used to provide jobs for a great many people but today thousands of them are now out of work. They are now unemployed; they are in good health, and able to work but there are no jobs available. 1 know there are retraining programs intended for the worker who may learn another trade. But in spite of the good will of all the governments, these programs cannot cope adequately with labour needs. This is not creating more jobs either. Workers are being retrained and taught new trades, but will they find jobs? There is another trick-let me put it this way-that we find in our legislation: retrained workers must obtain a working permit. You can imagine! I call that a permit to keep them out of work. Such is modern democracy. A working permit. You are qualified, you were trained as a heavy equipment operator, but that is not enough. You must first obtain a working permit in order to get a job. That working permit is no easy thing to get, and God knows if I am not aware of that. So we make things more difficult. I know the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is not responsible for that, and I would not like him to think I am laying the blame on him, but such is the sitution. Secondly, there is not enough room available in those schools for training all the applicants. In my area alone, there are already 1200 names on the waiting list, people who want to retrain as heavy equipment operators. They have to wait for 6, 12, 18 or even 24 months before they can attend classes.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a list of employers operating in the James Bay area, just to show that there are employers really willing to help workers to get a job. There may be 150 firms. I did not count them. Anyway, I have seven or eight full pages. Some are operating in the North, on the Labrador side, and when someone asks me for help in finding a job, I send him the full list to show that there are employers. But do those employers have jobs? Before I take action to help someone get unemployment insurance benefits, I do all I can to help him get a job. I assume that the officials administering the Unemployment Insurance Act do all they can, but they only have the tools they are provided with. So, when someone after all is unemployed, they send him a notice stating he is disqualified because he has not been actively looking for work. They know at the UIC office that he cannot find work because there is none.
Manpower centres in the area know full well that the claimant cannot find a job because there is none available. He is disqualified just the same, and he loses the revenue toward which he had been contributing in the hope of receiving benefits until he could find a job. And if he insists, he is told to apply to the welfare office. In my province, welfare benefits are paid 50 per cent by the provincial government and 50 per cent by the federal government, while unemployment insurance is financed solely by the federal government. So they play games with the poor fellow who can have no more unemployment insurance benefits because he cannot find a job, but he is not told that he cannot find one because there is none. Far
from it, he is blamed for everything, and this is playing games with unfortunate people.
Mr. Speaker, even if someone wants a job for a few days or a few weeks, if an employer is willing to employ him for that period of time, the claimant would not dare take the risk for fear of getting into trouble. Most of the time claimants are not adequately informed of their rights, and often, through lack of information, they turn down offers of temporary employment.
He protests again and tells the Unemployment Insurance Commission that he does not understand why he was disqualified. He is then sent a notice telling him that he still has one possibility left open, an appeal to the board of referees. The board studies the case of this poor guy. They are not aware of all the details, and they are appointed ordinarily to do a job that comes under the jurisdiction of the government and they do not examine sufficiently the job opportunities in the area to know if the claimant is truly lazy and does not want to work or if he is not able to work.
That is the whole difference; there are those who want to work and those who do not want to do so. Being able to get a job and refusing it is not the same thing as not being able to find a job. The claimant is then told: "If you are not satisfied, you can appeal to the umpire. But for this, you need the authorization of the board of referees. You need the authorization of the chairman." But the chairman has decided that the poor boy is not entitled to benefits. He is the one to tell him: "It is true, you can appeal to the umpire or not." And if the decision of the umpire is not in the favour of the claimant, there is no other recourse. The case is closed. In other areas, you can still appeal to the Supreme Court. There are still some possibilities. Mr. Speaker, 1 would not want to close my comments without making some suggestions for improvement to the members of the House of Commons. I would not like my comments to be considered only as criticisms. This would not be in accordance with my true role.
There must be some change, and this according to the great formula of Major Douglas that is called the social credit, a credit which is more social and which serves everyone. He suggested that the community as a whole benefits entirely from the present inventions and progress as man is being replaced more and more by machines. We must find a formula that will enable society to receive an income earned by machines and progress. In our party we call this social credit, a credit which is distributed to the society because it is earned by machines and progress. We now have a different formula. Our politicians and political scientists have found another name for this. They call it guaranteed minimum annual income. Mr. Speaker, I do not care whether it is called a guaranteed minimum annual income formula or a national dividend formula, as long as we succeed in reaching our objective, that is the redistribution to all the workers of the income earned by machines if they have become unemployed because of those machines.

July 19, 1977

Mr. Speaker, the second formula suggested by the same Major Douglas is a discount on the price of Canadian products in order to increase the consumption of Canadian production as an incentive to our industries, which will enable them to produce more because sales will be activated. And if our industries are able to empty their warehouses, they will be urged automatically to increase their production and thus give a new impetus to the Canadian economy. Mr. Speaker, I make this suggestion earnestly because I realize that the purpose of production is not only to produce for trade fairs or for the sake of production, but rather for consumption, in order to satisfy individual or community needs. If we make fire engines, it is to help municipalities fight fires in their area and not only to exhibit them.
Mr. Speaker, there are in our society some jobs which are guaranteed, which are secured. Those who hold these positions do not need unemployment insurance, but there are also jobs which are not guaranteed, which are available on a seasonal basis only, and those who fill them do need unemployment benefits. I wish we would take a consistent approach to enable these people whose job situation is not secure to rely on a guaranteed minimum annual income, without preventing them from earning money from another source. It would be, Mr. Speaker, an incentive to work and it would ensure some security to the individual and to those who depend upon him for their maintenance. This is my way of seeing things, Mr. Speaker.
In conclusion, 1 wish to express my appreciation to all hon. members who have expressed their views on this very important bill which affects thousands of people. After this motion is voted upon, and since all members want to go on holidays-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier) has the floor.


Mr. Claude Tessier (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, even though the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) wants to call me what we have often called him, 1 simply wish to tell him that this afternoon, he requested that I take part in this debate, saying that it was my right and privilege. Indeed, for my constituents and the House, I want to exercise this right and perform my duty, namely make representations on behalf of my constituents.
I find myself compelled to take part in this debate because he who doesn't speak out implies consent, and I certainly cannot associate myself with the remarks made by the opposition today. They have been either demagogic or simply election-minded, or even full of inconsistent jokes, accompanied by grotesque and disgraceful demonstrations as examplified by the member for Nickel Belt. Of course, I can only agree that unemployment is a sad situation and I am willing to associate myself with all those who accept to work positively and efficiently toward creating permanent jobs. To succeed in his task, we need the support of all economic agents in this country and even that of the opposition parties in this House.
Employment and Immigration
Today's debate is a blatant demonstration that there is a lot of empty chatter, a lot of common places, a lot of principles restated and the result of this situation is that when we are all tired of talking around, we will come to a vote and because the opposition will not have been responsible and efficient enough, Parliament will go on without solving anything. No one in this House should forget that he is a member of parliament and if he claims that Parliament should solve every problem he has but himself to blame for these shortcomings. With an opposition of the type we now have, the result would be an unsurpassed catastrophe. Of course I agree that the solution offered by Bill C-27 will not make my task any easier, nor improve the lot of certain of my constituents. But starting from a temporary problem, I hope that the solutions we will all have to apply will lead us to the true solutions, namely the creation of permanent jobs in a balanced and viable economy.
If I accept the principles and the regulations spelled out in Bill C-27, it is because the excesses have reached such a state and are so many that I am led to conclude that the government would be unable to pay for them and so would the taxpaying workers. I cannot put off what can and should be done today. Giving Bill C-27 a six months' hoist would not resolve anything, and this is illustrated by the remarks of the hon. member for Roberval. He wants to delay discussion for six months, but to what avail? The hooded public servants he mentioned did not resolve anything, but what concerns me is not so much that public servants wear hoods, but that some hon. members also have them but are unaware of it. I would agree on a guaranteed minimum income, but I would not correct abuses by instantly creating another source of abuses.
Some hon. members have also talked about the zealous and interfering public official. What about hon. members who interfere with his work? As for imports, this is also a matter which can give rise to many lies. 1 am thinking about textiles. A glove factory in my constituency had to reduce its operations. We know that it costs $13.30 to produce a dozen of Canadian gloves whereas imported gloves cost $5.50. Will the opposition have the courage to tell the consumers that they want them to pay more? In the pulp and paper industry, everybody in the House knows it, Domtar has announced that they are going out of business in my constituency. How are we then to find a solution when we know that labour in East Angus is paid an hourly minimum wage of $6.61? Yet in the same industry on the American side of the border, people are getting an average salary of $4.50 an hour. Mr. Speaker, I must add that productivity in the pulp and paper industry is 20 per cent higher. What is there to say about the cost of raw materials when we know that a cord of wood at the mill costs nearly $70, while they manage to get it for $30 and $40 on the American side. That is the dead end we are in, and hon. members of the House should realize that it is not only the government which is at fault.
Mr. Speaker, there are also great sowers of illusions. There are also great liars. Yet, what we actually need in the House are great public administrators who can represent their con-
80020-30*/2

July 19, 1977
Employment and Immigration
stituents in a complete and effective way, not only once in a while, as during a debate such as this. To promise is easy, but today we should be honest enough not only to make promises, but to list the items on the invoice and indicate the terms of payment. This is the way to act to be a politician who moves with the times, to be a great politician, and I would hope that in a near future this will be the only kind of politician sitting in this House.
Bill C-27 is a page of this new history which in some cases means new public men. The question is not to have the workers pay budget deficits, but to restrict abuse which have become institutionalized. We should repeat this and, if we have enough courage, act in consequence because our current system is too open to abuse. The government has the responsibility to be strong and courageous enough to correct this, and 1 would say that this abuse was quite well reflected by what went on today in the House. Mr. Speaker, I am fed up with those who pretend they are the heroes of democracy when all they can do is read or talk, sometimes only to accuse others; they accuse the government for remaining silent, and this is what should be said: To listen kindly to those who try desperately and awkwardly, if not dishonestly, to get re-elected by misleading the people, for it must be recognized that this country has far greater need of men of courage and know-how than of demagogues and liars. Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude by saying simply that I shall vote against the amendment for a six month's hoist-


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


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon you called us to order repeatedly throughout the debate, yet you allow the hon. member to go on even though he is straying from the subject with his nonsense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The hon. member for Roberval has certainly brought up a very interesting point; I was about to stand and ask the hon. member for Compton to keep to the motion before the House. However, as he said he was concluding, I tried to be tolerant, but I shall now call him to order and ask him to talk to the amendment under consideration.


Claude Tessier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring my remarks to a close, but as the opposition kept interfering all afternoon I felt I could indulge myself a little this time around.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
{Mr. Tessier.]


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion lost. Amendment (Mr. Peters) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Employment and Immigration


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I shall intervene this evening in a way which will commend itself to all hon. members. First, I shall be brief. Second, my intervention will be a demonstration of party solidarity.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Yes, but which party's?


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, ordinarily I would be inclined to support amendments to tighten the Unemployment Insurance Act because, without doubt, as members of my party have often said, abuses under the act need to be corrected. The question is, is this the time to do it?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, definitely.


Max Saltsman: I, and other members, Mr. Speaker, have often asked the government to change the Unemployment Insurance Act. But we called for changes when we had reasonably high levels of employment. Surely bringing in such changes, when around one million Canadians are unemployed, is both inappropriate and cruel. Instead of lessening unemployment the government will cut people off from unemployment insurance benefits.
The hardships these changes will work on the poor, and on our poorer regions, will be beyond belief. Surely only an unconscionable government, and its supporters, would cut people off unemployment insurance when jobs are few and unemployment rates high. That is really what concerns me. If we could not create employment in this country, perhaps I would feel differently. However, I do not think any government ever stood as condemned as this one does in its absence of understanding and its absence of imagination in terms of solving the employment problem. It can be solved. The government simply has not bothered to do it. To throw people off unemployment insurance as a way of saying O.K., we are doing something, is totally unacceptable, at least to myself and my colleagues.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
*
* *
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this report stage amendment to Bill C-17 is to strike out a few ridiculous lines which were written into the bill when it was in the hands of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. The lines that I have in mind were not there in the original version of the bill, but in the sessions of the standing committee the Conservative members on the committee proposed that something along the lines of the user-pay concept of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) should be written into the bill. Indeed they proposed that the main purpose of Air Canada should be stated to be the contemplation of profit. It turns out that in the standing committee the actual amendment which was proposed by the Conservative members was not accepted, but on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport their idea was accepted and was written into the bill at another place.
Accordingly, Bill C-17, at page 4, lines 6 to 9, now reads as follows:
(1.1) In discharging its responsibilities under this act, the Board shall have due regard to sound business principles, and in particular the contemplation of profit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear "hear, hears" from Tweedledee and Tweedledum, the Liberals and the Tories.


AIR CANADA ACT, 1976 MEASURE RESPECTING REORGANIZATION OF AIR CANADA
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, July 15, consideration of Bill C-17, respecting the reorganization of Air Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and motions Nos. 1 and 2 (Mr. Mazankowski).
Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on motions Nos. 1 and 2?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motions Nos. 1 and 2 negatived on division.
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 (Mr. Mazankowski) negatived.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-17, An Act respecting the reorganization of Air Canada, be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 6 to 9 at page 4.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You did not hear it from the Tories, you heard it from the minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is not the member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) a Tory?


Steve Eugene Paproski: He did not say a word.


Walter David Baker: Oh yes, he did. He said "more socialist jargon".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has the floor. I suggest hon. members continue their conversations behind the curtains.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is quite clear that the idea contained in this sub-clause was put there because the Tories proposed it and the Minister of Transport welcomed it. It sounds like a bit of motherhood to say that the Board of Air Canada should have due regard to sound business principles, but sometimes I wonder. The business world has had charge of this country for 110 years and has had plenty of opportunity to pursue sound business principles. And look at the mess we are in today.
The phrase in this subsection which bothers us the most is the phrase which calls for the Board to have regard in particular to the contemplation of profit. It is not our suggestion that the Board of Air Canada should work hard to achieve a loss, but we do think that the main purpose of a government owned corporation should be the provision of service. It is not even
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
July 19, 1977

mentioned in this clause. It is not even given a second thought. According to this bill, as amended by a Tory-Liberal combination, the main purpose of the Board of Air Canada is to be the contemplation of profit.
The whole reason for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian National Railways, Air Canada and a host of other corporations and agencies which have been established in the public domain is to serve the needs of the people of this country. The reason that these bodies have come into being is because the private sector has failed this country and our people miserably through all these years.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Like Saunders Aircraft.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member can refer to any outfit he wishes. He will discover a certain number which have failed and a certain number which have succeeded. I say to the hon. member, arch representative of the private sector that he is, that it is because of what the private sector has done that we are faced with massive unemployment today, with runaway inflation and with conditions which deny to our people the kind of economy and justice to which they are entitled.
1 am not arguing that the words that were written into the bill have any particular meaning. I doubt that the Board of Directors will pay any attention to them. The Board of Directors of Air Canada will realize that it has a job to do and will see to it that Air Canada continues to be one of the best airlines in the world. It has a service which must be rendered to the people of this country. But parliament looks downright ridiculous putting these words into a piece of legislation which establishes the Board of Air Canada and gives it its working guidelines. Therefore, that is why 1 have put down this amendment and simply ask that the subparagraph which indicates that in discharging its responsibilities under this act the board shall have due regard to sound business principles, and in particular the contemplation of profits, be removed from this bill before it moves on to third reading.
Motion No. 4 reads that the act be amended in clause 7 by striking out lines 6 to 9 at page 4. I have read lines 6 to 9 several times. They are a ridiculous declaration, and parliament should not make itself look silly by leaving these words in Bill C-17. Therefore I call upon the House to support this amendment and take this nonsense out of this bill.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on motion No. 4, I should like to qualify my position first of all by saying that I am diametrically opposed to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has just told this House. We have got to put this situation into perspective. There was considerable debate at committee with respect to the question before us as a result of the amendment by the hon. member. In committee it was originally proposed by my colleague that the wording in the reprint of Bill C-17 dealing with contemplation of profit and the fact that Air Canada should be carried on with due respect for sound business considerations should come into Clause 6, making it
Air Canada
very clear that the corporation, within and outside Canada, should carry on business subject to those essential ingredients.
It should carry on in a sound business fashion in contemplation of profit.
It is rather interesting that it should be the House leader of the socialists who would be the first to become almost hysterical at the mere suggestion that we should have one of our Crown corporations operated in a sound fashion and in contemplation of profit. One of my colleagues from Winnipeg will be dealing more specifically with the disasters which have occurred under an NDP government out in Manitoba with the same type of philosophy the hon. member is asking us to accept for Air Canada tonight. I am sorry the hon. member did not attend the committee hearings when this matter was considered. If he had been there, even he would have been swayed a bit by some of the arguments placed by members on the government side as well as members from my party.
After the debate which occurred at committee, even the minister was willing to accept the amendment before us, provided it related only to the operation of the Board of Directors as opposed to the capacity of the company itself. That would have been the effect if the amendment was inserted in Clause 6.
Let us get matters into perspective. Let us realize what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has asked us to do in this House concerning Air Canada. Up to the present time Air Canada has had a $5 million capital. Most of the money used by Air Canada-and it is a billion dollar organization at the present time-has been loaned by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) on behalf of the people of Canada to Air Canada. It has been loaned at a nominal interest rate. Approximately $700 million of funds have been put into Air Canada, in addition to the $5 million of capital. The hard fact is that Air Canada has been running at a loss for the last three years. In fact, after 40 years of existence, Air Canada has total retained earnings of only $18 million as of today.
As further amendments are reached, I will put into evidence the contrast Air Canada's sad record has been over those 40 years compared to other airlines which it is competing with that have built up substantial retained earnings during the same period of time. The Minister of Transport is coming to us and asking us, on behalf of the Canadian public, to agree to an authorized capitalization of Air Canada at $750 million.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What has that got to do with the amendment?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The hon. member is asking what that has got to do with this amendment. Obviously he has not read the amendment. Tonight, tomorrow, or whenever this bill may be passed, we will authorize the government to put $750 million of our capital into Air Canada without even the suggestion of a commitment of a dividend or interest from Air Canada back to the public treasury. In short, it will be $750 million that can go into Air Canada with no further reference to this House.

July 19, 1977
Air Canada
In today's money cost at 10 per cent, it means in effect that Air Canada will be entitled to a subsidy of $75 million a year out of the pockets of the taxpayers of Canada, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has the audacity to stand up in the House and say it is wrong for us to propose an amendment which simply says that the directors, in the sleepy fashion in which they run Air Canada, should at least follow sound business practices and should try to make a profit.
Let us accept the facts. I have indicated that if we allow this bill to go through, $750 million will be the total capitalization that can be put into Air Canada, doing nothing. If Air Canada simply took that money and put it out at 10 per cent, it could make $75 million, and yet the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre tells us that, notwithstanding those facts, we should not expect it to make a profit, or we should not even hint to it that we would like it to carry on in contemplation of a profit.
Let us look at some of the evidence that was put forth in the committee hearings. For example, we were told that of the $750 million on a pro forma basis over the next five years, the government contemplates that only $370 million will actually be paid, in the form of paid in capital. I found it most interesting that there has been a misrepresentation with respect to the effect of that paid in capital. We have been told repeatedly that the reason the capitalization of Air Canada must be changed is that it has to be made vital and competitive with other airlines, that, in short, this capital is needed in order that Air Canada can somehow show a better profit picture over the coming years. We are simply saying in the amendment that if you intend to make a better profit over the coming years, then say so, write it into the act, let the succeeding boards of directors know at least that when this legislation was passed we in the House believed they should carry on their business in contemplation of profit.
The second thing I would like to point out is that not only do we feel they should carry on in contemplation of that profit but, what is rather remarkable, is that we had two pro forma statements furnished to us in committee. One showed what would happen to Air Canada if no financing change took place. Oddly enough we found that if no financing change should take place, the retained earnings as far as Air Canada is concerned, should be $70.7 million by 1981, but with the recapitalization, the retained earnings they contemplate would only be $69 million. In short, it makes virtually no difference.
The recapitalization that is being asked for by the minister, and which we have indicated should at least reflect a sizeable profit as far as the Air Canada pro forma statements are concerned, will in fact not result in greater retained earnings in 1981 than it would if the situation were left exactly as it is today. I think that is one thing, when we are considering the motion put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that we should bear in mind. Air Canada is in effect stating that this refinancing will have no net effect on its retained earnings between now and 1981, but the important thing is that it will have no net effect provided Air Canada
makes the money it contemplates it can make between now and 1981 which, contrary to what the socialists may think, means it has to make a profit. If it does not make that profit, the net result will be that the retained earnings between now and 1981 will be less for Air Canada and it will be the taxpayers of Canada who will have given the party. They in turn will be drained by an indirect subsidy in the form of free capital to the tune of possibly $60 million, $70 million, or $75 million in the form of lost interest.
That is why I believe, after having heard the sad tale of how Crown corporations are being operated in this country, how AECL lost $290 million last year alone, how virtually every Crown corporation which this government has ever had the responsibility to run has been a disaster, that when we are considering the recapitalization of an airline such as Air Canada we should say, fine, if you need this raw capital you should agree to carry on Air Canada in accordance with sound business principles and in contemplation of profit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And in particular the contemplation of profit. Do not forget the words "in particular".


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Is it not odd that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has stated that those lines to which I am referring are ridiculous lines? How far out of touch can that hon. member be? How far out of touch can these socialists be, these socialists who propped up this government in October of 1972 until May of 1974, and then had the audacity to say that somehow there is too much inflation in the country? It is their type of thinking that led to the inflation, the fiscal spending and the extravagance of the Trudeau government.


Mr. Breau:: That is not true.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you against the pension increases we won?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let me get it clearly on the record. It is often stated by government representatives that somehow all airlines are finding it rather tough and that Air Canada should not be faulted for losing money, such as the $20 million it lost last year. That is just not true. Last year airlines made big money. American Airlines made $56 million; Eastern Airlines made $46 million, Allegheni Airlines made $14 million, Piedmont Airlines made $4 million, Pan American Airlines made $94 million, Braniff Airlines made $27 million, and Ozark Airlines made $7 million.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Tell us about CP Air.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: CP Air also made money.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They did not.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The fact is that in the past year airlines made good money. Air Canada lost money, and our point is that we think it must be made doubly clear that if we give it this added capital, it must in future try to make a profit just like its competitors have been making.


July 19, 1977


Herb Breau: Are you speaking for your party?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is time the reactionary views of the socialists receive less credence. It is time they are put in the waste basket where they belong. The socialists have been a plague in this country for three decades, and it is time the country got rid of that plague.


Mr. McKenzie:: 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.

Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for the opportunity to speak tonight in the adjournment debate on a subject that has been of great concern to me from the time I first campaigned in the riding of Kootenay West, that is, the economic development, or lack of it, of both the Kootenays. Recently we witnessed the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) signing several agreements with the province of B.C., the first time that any substantive agreement has been signed by the government with that province since 1974.
My concern is that in terms of the general development agreement which provides the overview and the basic thrust as to how economic assistance will be provided to that province there are three areas within that framework of the general development agreement that are clearly singled out and designed for special attention. We have the northeast part of British Columbia, the northwest part of British Columbia and the Kootenays.
I was very disturbed and disappointed, when I reviewed the various agreements which had been signed, to note that the assistance under the Regional Development Incentives Act specifically earmarked for Kootenay West was not renewed on December 31, 1975. It had not in fact again been put in place. Certainly it has been put in place for the northeast and the northwest, and I do not deny that there is a need. However, it seems to me that the other areas, particularly the Kootenays, earmarked in the GDA have not been identified.
If we look at all the agreements we find that they are applicable to all parts of British Columbia except for the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island and except for those areas earmarked under the RDIA. I note, for example, that $5 million in assistance has been earmarked for small enterprise. I
Adjournment Debate
must say that I am very disappointed when 1 look at the figures. We see $30,000 for small businesses, but we see that they are limited in that they cannot have a capitalization of greater than $60,000. What can be done to expand or establish a new industry with that kind of financing? Whether it is a grant, a loan or whatever, it simply is not going to be effective.
I would like to move on to my specific concern. I have difficulty in finding any specific reference to Castlegar. Cas-tlegar has a potential for 150 new homes tomorrow. It will have a potential of 150 new jobs as soon as Can Cel expands. Castlegar is a bedroom community for the city of Trail. We will witness an expansion of the Cominco operations at Trail, costing some $425 million over the next six or seven years and employing 400 or 500 people for that period of time, and there are no accommodations. Why do we not have accommodations, and why can the industrial potential of Castlegar not be realized? Transportation is available, skilled workers are available, and everything else which is needed, except water, is available.
The Columbia River is right at Castlegar's doorstep, but the only way in which that community is going to be provided with potable water, and the only way that community is going to thrive, expand and realize its economic potential, is with proper provision for funding under the DREE program and under CMHC and with federal assistance and municipal participation. The municipality is prepared to carry its share of the load, but the only way it is going to survive is with a proper combination of those elements. The minister has indicated to me that there is provision under the new agreements which have been signed for that very specific problem, a very severe and acute problem which will shut down the industrial potential and the economic development of that community. It will also severely affect the livelihood of its citizens. I am pleased that the minister feels that there is potential within the agreement to provide that particular assistance, but quite frankly, I find it couched in such general and vague terms that I have difficulty in believing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: Mr. Speaker, on July 6 the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) asked a question as to the scope of subsidiary agreements being signed with the province of British Columbia. 1 am pleased to remind all members of this House of the signing, on July 8, of two agreements between our department and the province of British Columbia. These agreements provide a vehicle for coordinating and highlighting ongoing programs of the federal and provincial governments which are concerned with creating opportunities in the industrial sector, in agriculture and, more generally, in the rural areas of British Columbia.
The Canada-British Columbia Industrial Development Subsidiary Agreement identified areas of potential development within the province, recognizing the heavy dependence on export markets, the relatively narrow industrial base concern

July 19, 1977
Adjournment Debate
trated in small businesses and on resource activities such as forestry and mining. This agreement will provide $110 million in funding to assist in the diversification and distribution of economic activity throughout British Columbia. It will also provide for a large range of programs, including financial incentives and loans for small enterprises, financial support for industrial parks, and infrastructure and support for industrial commissions. In addition our department has also recently designated a large area in northern British Columbia for eligibility under DREE's regional development incentives program.
Under the Agriculture and Rural Development Subsidiary Agreement, the federal and provincial governments have committed themselves to programs expected to result in the expenditure of $87 million over the next five years to increase opportunties and employment in rural areas and encourage increased agricultural production. Sixty million dollars of this will be cost-shared between the two governments, while the remainder will be provided from the private sector.
When the hon. member for Kootenay West asked whether assistance for the water problem being experienced by Castle-gar and district can be provided under these agreements, I can only indicate that the new initiatives are sufficiently broad so as to enable the province and my department to provide assistance to areas outside the lower mainland-southern Vancouver Island areas, whenever projects can be accommodated within the stated objectives. With respect to the situation at Castlegar, I understand that officials of our department in Victoria and provincial officials are continuing to co-operate with municipal representatives in an effort to identify possible federal and provincial programs that might provide assistance. It is possible that assistance might be considered under the newly signed industrial agreement, but only if it can be related to infrastructure needs of an industry and in some way meets the objectives and criteria of the agreement.
I would indicate to the hon. member that years of study, together with months of discussion and negotiation, have produced these two agreements. Together, they represent both a good example of federal-provincial co-operation and a new emphasis on economic development in British Columbia. For the Department of Regional Economic Expansion they represent an important additional step along the road defined by our legislative mandate, which is to tackle regional disparities wherever in Canada they are encountered and, to a very large extent, in co-operation with the provincial governments.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS-ENFORCEMENT OF MINE SAFETY   REGULATIONS IN NORTHWEST TERRITORIES-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON CONSULTATION WITH MINISTER OF LABOUR
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, this evening I raise once more the question of the appointment of territorial mining inspectors, a matter of great importance to those who work in the mines of the Northwest Territories. I raised this question on June 29 but did not receive a satisfactory answer. I directed it on June 30 to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) but did not

receive a satisfactory answer then, either. I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro (Hamilton East)) a question on June 14 about the appointment of inspectors in the Northwest Territories and was assured that my important questions would be answered. I am not satisifed with the government's non-answer to my question.
Surely I need not emphasize how important to people who work in the mines in the Northwest Territories is the appointment of mining inspectors who are concerned with the health and safety of miners. This concern is understandable because the mortality rate of miners in the Northwest Territories is very high.
As a result of this concern, and because the miners in the Northwest Territories do not feel the present federal mining inspectors are doing a competent job, the United Steelworkers Union got in touch with the territorial government, asking it to enforce the territorial mining safety ordinance by appointing territorial inspectors. This request was made to the commissioner at a meeting which took place on February 14, this year. The union received the assurance that this would be done.
Having heard nothing, the union wrote to the commissioner on May 25 this year, to learn what had happened. The commissioner wrote back on May 30 this year saying that he had written to the federal government on February 15, 1977, asking for authority to appoint territorial mine inspectors. He also informed that local of the United Steelworkers Union in the Northwest Territories that he had been trying for several years to get such authority but his efforts had not met with success.
That local of the United Steelworkers Union received, on June 8 this year, a letter from the office of the Minister of Labour. The letter said categorically that this matter does not come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour.
Quite apart from any question to do with mine safety and the appointment of inspectors to enforce safety standards, there seems to be some confusion in this area. Whose responsibility is it? The commissioner says it is not his responsibility. The Minister of Labour says it is not his. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development does not seem quite certain whose responsibility it is.
Again I ask the government to give the commissioner of the Northwest Territories authority to appoint mining inspectors. If it has already approved this, made some move toward it, or is ready to do so, why has it not notified the commissioner of this very important decision?
These are simple requests, although they deal with a very serious issue. There is no way that such a matter should drag on for months and months. I am quite sure that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Minister of Labour and the government generally know of this issue because there have been many letters going back and forth.
I have raised this matter in the House three times, this being the third time. It is about time the government came forward
July 19, 1977

with some kind of answer to clarify the matter. There are lives at stake, and the health of many people who work in the mines. It is about time the government had an answer.
I now give the government another opportunity to answer to the people of Canada, and in particular the people of the Northwest Territories, as to what is the decision. Where are they now? May 1 ask the minister that?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) first raised this question with the minister on June 29, he gave the impression that the responsibility for enforcing the mining safety ordinance was with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). However, Northwest Territories Mining Safety and Rules is a territorial ordinance, the enforcement of which is presently the responsibility of the Yellowknife Engineering and Mine Inspection Unit of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
On February 15, 1977 Commissioner Hodgson wrote the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) suggesting that mine inspection responsibilities be transferred to the territorial government effective September 1, 1977. His request was in response to a letter from the United Steelworkers of America, one of reportedly numerous requests made over the years from various mining related bodies in the Northwest Territories that the territorial government become actively involved in enforcing the Mining Safety Ordinance.
On May 25, 1977, the union again wrote to the commissioner inquiring as to the progress of his decision with respect to their proposal that the territorial government assume the responsibilities of mine inspection stating they are "ready to nominate suitable candidates for the new positions as they are established".
The request has been reviewed by officials both in Ottawa and in the field and the minister feels that the proposed transfer should be viewed positively.
However, the proposed transfer will affect the lives of many people. The views of mine workers, unions, mine management, territorial government and the department must be considered as to the effectiveness and the personnel implications of such a transfer. To be of any value, the proposed transfer must provide the Northwest Territories with a mining inspection service which better serves the mine workers and thus ultimately mine management.
In view of the fact that the busy summer season is now in full swing, it would appear that a complete study of the situation could not be made and a final decision taken in order for a transfer to take place by the September 1 deadline suggested by Commissioner Hodgson.


Walter (Wally) Firth: That is a non-answer. This is the fourth time I have given the government an opportunity to answer, and I still do not have an answer.
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. This is the late show. The hon. member had seven minutes to put his argument, and the parliamentary secretary three minutes to reply.


ENERGY-CONSERVATION-GRANTS FOR HOME INSULATION-AVAILABILITY TO OTHER PROVINCES OF PROGRAM SIMILAR TO THAT OF NOVA SCOTIA AND P.E.I.
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in connection with a question asked on June 29 of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie). The answer was less than satisfactory, as is usually the case with that minister. When asked a question, he adopts one of two ways of proceeding. He either grins inanely, or jokes and laughs about the question. He appears to suffer from the gas he is suppose to regulate. He is saucy and insulting with his answers. In this case he was both.
The question had to do with the new home insulation program which is now being extended to eight other provinces of Canada. I am not referring to the program which applies to Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, but a lesser discriminatory program for the other eight provinces. There was nothing until we started insisting last February that they could not be discriminated against indefinitely. There was nothing until we started insisting that the government should not simply have a home insulation branch program in the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, which have Liberal governments, but should implement such a program across Canada. But it has now introduced this discriminatory program, and when the minister introduced it in his official release of June 27, he misled the people of Canada and he misled the House. In that statement, at page five, the minister said:
-all provinces have been briefed on the details of the home insulation program and are generally supportive of it.
Mr. Speaker, there is not a word of truth in that statement. Province after province has repudiated the idea that they were briefed in detail about the program. All that happened was that the minister got on the telephone to ministers in the various provinces and told them he intended to bring in the program he announced. Effective consultation did not take place with any of them. This was confirmed by the minister in Ontario and by his deputy minister, and by other premiers and ministers since. That was a wrong statement, an incorrect statement, an untrue statement.
Then at page six of the same release the minister said that four conditions had been set. The minister said:
At the present time the conditions have been met by Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. It is hoped that during the month of July the other provinces will formally declare their willingness to implement the measures which are not already in effect.
In other words, the minister was saying that Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories had agreed. There was not a word of truth in that statement. The program has been repudiated by the province of Newfoundland-I give this as only one instance; I only have seven

July 19, 1977
Adjournment Debate
minutes at my disposal. The hon. gentleman's statement has been repudiated by the minister of mines and energy in Newfoundland. In a release dated June 30 he spoke of the disappointment with which he viewed the announcement made by the government on June 27, hastily put together in such a way as to be uniform in its application and therefore giving the poorer provinces the same level of subsidy as the richer provinces.
1 am still quoting the minister of mines and energy in Newfoundland. He said:
It is a regressive and inequitable program. We have the highest unemployment and the lowest average income level and the highest petroleum products prices, yet we are offered the same subsidy as Ontario, Alberta and the other provinces.
The program is discriminatory because there are six conditions attached to it less favourable than those attached to the programs in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. The same conditions will not apply there. The benefits are not taxable there. They get bigger grants in those two provinces. The project only applies in Newfoundland to houses constructed prior to 1941, though it applies to pre-1921 homes in the other provinces. It's a joke, a sick joke. I wish an election were called tomorrow so that we could get to the public with this issue and get the minister his answer from the people. I wish the mandarins of the Liberal party would get up their nerve and call an election tomorrow.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The people of Newfoundland would inform the government of their adverse reaction to this hasty, inequitable, and highly conditional program in no uncertain terms, and demand that the program be withdrawn. Is this a province which agreed to the program?
The premier of the province issued a statement on July 5. He was extremely upset over the discrimination shown against the citizens of Newfoundland by the federal government in offering such an ill-conceived version of the program given to Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. It was made in haste he said, without any meaningful consultations with the provinces, the reason for this unseemly haste being to gain political points which might have been lost through recent petroleum price increases. It is an interference with the internal policies of the provinces. It is obvious the federal government has decided to use the program for partisan, political purposes, and so on. The premier recommends that the province should withdraw from the scheme and that there be a federal-provincial conference with regard to it.
How does this square with the minister's statement of June 27 that he had engaged in meaningful consultation with the provinces and that they were supportive of this program? What poppycock! I never thought when I came, the greenhorn to this Chamber, that I would be speaking here tonight in 100 degree heat addressing myself to a federal minister who is attempting to fool the people with this type of poppycock. Who does he think we are that a minister of the federal government would give out a statement so inaccurate, so misleading, so

grossly negligent, so deceptive, so deceitful-a major minister, I hate to say it-


An hon. Member:: Not very major.


John Carnell Crosbie: In this government any minister is a major minister who can open his mouth and smile. Most of them cannot even do that.
We now have a program which the minister has instituted which lacks any sense of reason at all. It is more effective and efficient to insulate a home that is being built than to insulate one built before 1941, yet this new program does not even apply to new homes being built in eight provinces of Canada. It is not going to apply to new homes built after September, 1977. It makes no sense. It almost makes one weep and gnash one's teeth that the Government of Canada thinks it can use the security blanket of national unity to hide the fact from people who live in eight provinces of Canada that they are being discriminated against because they do not have a Liberal provincial government.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask the parliamentary secretary who is going to reply to show some pangs of conscience and to repudiate his minister. I ask him to tell us that his minister has made a bad mistake and that he is recommending the same program for the rest of Canada that now applies in Nova Scotia and P.E.I. I ask that the program apply to new homes in particular; that it will be applied first in areas of high unemployment. Money does not appear to be a problem-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. I should also like to say to the hon. member that the temperature in the House at the present time is 76 degrees.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the information that the temperature is only 76 degrees; I feel better now. The minister has answered this question a few times and 1 am wondering why the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) did not pay attention to those answers which the minister has already given on this subject.
Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are heavily dependent on imported oil for electrical generation, to the extent of 63 per cent in the one case and in the other case 100 per cent. In all other provinces except New Brunswick oil is used to generate less than 7 per cent of the electricity consumed in those provinces. Accordingly, electricity prices in these two provinces are much more directly tied to oil price increases than is the case in other provinces, and in the last two years electricity prices have escalated at a dramatic rate. In order to minimize the impact of the higher prices the federal government decided to institute an insulation assistance program which would result in a reduction in the over-all energy bill of householders in the two provinces. This approach was adopted rather than instituting a subsidy to maintain artificially low
July 19, 1977

electricity prices because of the need to provide a continuing benefit to householders.
Other provinces, while also faced with higher oil prices, have not experienced the same increase in electricity prices. Accordingly a somewhat lower, but still substantial, level of subsidy will be made available to those provinces.
While there are differences between the national program and that available in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, the minister has explained why these differences exist. The Canadian home insulation program, with its major benefits to
Adjournment Debate
all Canadians, will be delivered as it was announced. The hon. member can bank on this.
The government of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has agreed to adopt energy conserving standards for all new residences, and will set up an enforcement mechanism as quickly as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

Wednesday, July 20, 1977