1977-01-24

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The hardships caused to widows of deceased war veterans whose disability pensions were below 48 per cent and the fact that present legislation denies them a widow's pension require the immediate attention of the government. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That in order to deal with the matter the Veterans Canada Report for 1975-76 be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED REFERENCE OF ALLEGATION OF ARSENIC POISONING IN YELLOWKNIFE TO COMMITTEE-MOTION UNDER
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 regarding a pressing and urgent matter, namely, that serious allegations have been made regarding a deliberate cover up by the Department of National Health and Welfare of the problems of arsenic poisoning around Yellowknife. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House immediately refer the problem of arsenic poisoning and its effects on the health and safety of the residents of Yellowknife to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED REDUCTION OF TEXTILE AND CLOTHING IMPORTS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since the textile industry is constantly deteriorating, which results in the dismissal of a considerable number of workers, and since this worsening problem particularly affects Quebec and Ontario, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the House allow the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to consider immediately the possibility of reducing textile and clothing import quotas as well as the effects which that measure could have on our grain exports.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of extreme and urgent necessity relating to the drastic reduction in the employment of stevedores and others by Canadian National at North Sydney as a result of the removal by Canadian National of ships from service between the port of North Sydney and Newfoundland. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):

January 24, 1977
Penitentiaries
That the government undertake an immediate inquiry into the employment cutbacks that would take into consideration the numerous representations I have made inside and outside this House as well as the representations that have been made to the Minister of Transport by the mayor of North Sydney and other delegations, including local 1259 of the International Longshoremen's Association .. .


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The presentation of such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POSTPONEMENT OF SWINE INFLUENZA VACCINATION PROGRAM-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that public confidence in the swine 'flu vaccination program has been seriously eroded by a possible relationship to a post vaccination paralysis, that there have been many difficulties in supply, production and distribution of the vaccine, that 1.6 million doses are not usable at all and that there is no evidence of an epidemic developing, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That the program be shelved for now and be reinstituted only if there is evidence of an epidemic developing.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented to the House only with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Mike Landers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that a number of Saint John, New Brunswick citizens are concerned about a proposal to build a medium security prison within the Saint John city limits, and in view of the fact that my government and I would not want inmates to suffer the trauma of that "unwanted feeling", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne):
That this House encourages the Department of the Solicitor General to seek an alternative to the proposed prison site within the Saint John city limits, and preferably the new location would be in the Blue Mountain or Renous areas of New Brunswick.


Mr. Speaker:: A motion under Standing Order 43 can be presented to the House only with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



MANPOWER


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of high regional unemployment among young people, especially in Atlantic Canada, where a 1976 summer survey in Glace Bay, for example, found 77 per cent of young people unemployed, and in view of the fact that the deadline for Young Canada Works is February 4, which is much too early for young people to apply for aid under this new program, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration extend the application deadline for Young Canada Works to April 1, 1977.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion cannot be presented to the House without its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, relating to a serious matter having grave implications for parliament, the public service and civil liberties in this country, namely, the matter of Mr. Walter Rudnicki, who was wrongfully dismissed from the public service of Canada as was confirmed by Mr. Justice O'Driscoll of the Ontario Supreme Court in an action against this government. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the status of Walter Rudnicki and all those factors which, as yet, have not become public knowledge but which had a direct bearing on the action the government took, be made public in the form of a motion either by the Prime Minister or a minister whom he considers appropriate and, in particular, that this motion deal with the existence or otherwise of a list reported to contain names of individuals who allegedly form an extra-parliamentary opposition to the government.

January 24, 1977


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion can be presented to the House only with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.



REQUEST FOR BREAKDOWN OF MONEYS RETAINED BY WHEAT


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43, one of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the final payment to grain farmers in the Canadian Wheat Board region was shockingly low for 1975-76 crop year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board commence forthwith to indicate to the individual prairie farmers what moneys were held back by the Canadian Wheat Board and give a breakdown on the various allocations of retained money.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion can be presented to the House only with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral Questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister which deals with the very unhealthy state of the economy, particularly as it affects unemployment. The Conference Board of Canada predicted this month that Canada is about to face its worst unemployment rate since the second world war and forecast in excess of 8 per cent unemployment by year's end. Does the Prime Minister agree with this forecast and if not, does he envisage a decline by the year's end of the 7.5 per cent December rate of unemployment which left some 778,000 Canadians out of work, which numbers are growing every day? Has the Prime Minister an answer to that question?


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: He has no answer.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members are aware that a number of measures have been taken already, for example the
Oral Questions
lowering of the bank interest rate, which we expect will have positive effects on the economy. Work is presently under way within the department on the preparation of a budget. It will be considered and brought forward some time before the summer.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, you know what we think about parliamentary secretaries answering questions-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -especially when they are directed to the Prime Minister. To paraphrase the right hon. member for Prince Albert, when we are after elephants we are not looking for answers from rabbits.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hope the Prime Minister can answer this question and give the House the opportunity to hear what he has to say with respect to the concern of many Canadians about what the government thinks regarding this very unhealthy state of the economy. Will the Prime Minister undertake to make a statement in this House as soon as possible, preferably within a week, regarding the state of the economy, tabling at the same time the government's economic forecasts and analyses for the year 1977 affecting unemployment, job creation, real growth and inflation? Is the government going to maintain its usual silence and secrecy in the face of grim forecasts reported by the OECD, the University of Toronto Institute for Policy Analysis and the Conference Board of Canada? Will the Prime Minister undertake to make a statement with respect to the state of the economy, dealing with those matters which I just mentioned?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this kind of statement in the normal course would be made by the Minister of Finance.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that the Prime Minister does not think these matters of great concern and that he will not reveal to the Canadian people the state of the economy, particularly in view of the forecasts of several private organizations. May I ask the Prime Minister this question: Given that economic indicators show that our economic situation is worsening rapidly, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he is considering the introduction of an early budget to deal with this unemployment situation, which can only be described as chaotic, frightening and unacceptable?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's remarks seem more in the nature of an argument than a question. Without agreeing to the zoological preamble to his previous question, I would repeat my answer, that the Minister of Finance will of course be introducing a budget in the course of this session.


Mr. Stevens:: When?

January 24, 1977
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT-MEASURES TO COUNTERACT EFFECT IN EASTERN PROVINCES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration? Since the conference board in its quarterly provincial forecast, released last week, predicted an unemployment rate in the five eastern provinces in excess of 10 per cent, the rates in two of those provinces, Newfoundland and Quebec, being both considerably higher; and since the already announced works programs of the minister, the Canada Works program and the Young Canada Works program, are merely a new form of the existing LIP program which diminishes that program's effectiveness by stretching it over one year, may I ask the minister what new initiatives the government is prepared to take in the light of this serious situation, in which the actual rate of unemployment in one province, for example, is 35 per cent?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member is showing the typical knee-jerk reaction which the Conservative party shows to anything new being introduced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We have placed heavy emphasis, particularly in the hon. member's province, on moneys spent on the LIP, Canada Works and the Young Canada Works programs, in recognition of the high unemployment factor there. We have institutional and industrial training, and in 1976-77 these programs will amount to $15.4 million and deal with 6,600 workers. Given that, plus the LIP allocation for 1976-77 of $17.8 million, I think it can be said that the government is doing its share, doing its part, and to denigrate from those efforts really does not say much for the party which has no policy whatsoever.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question? Since some of those provinces already have an unemployment level of more than 15 per cent, the rate in my own province being 35 per cent, and since the Canada Works Program depends on the initiative of others, may I ask the minister what initiatives he and his colleagues are prepared to take, to make jobs in this country? For starters, I ask the minister to look kindly upon the suggestion that he meet with the heads of government of those five provinces, to come up with new programs immediately.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, unhappily for the hon. member programs are not financed with baloney, or he would have all he needs; they are financed with money. We have spent $1.3 billion annually on job creation and training programs, and the hon. member sees fit to denigrate what I think is a good effort. Maybe we can find more money; certainly, these programs are excellent, stretching over the whole broad spectrum of need in this country and there is much emphasis placed on areas like the hon. member's province.


UNEMPLOYMENT-ALLEGATION STATISTICS UNDERESTIMATE LEVEL-REQUEST FOR PROGRAMS TO ASSIST ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who, being an expert in the subject, recognizes baloney when he hears it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I ask the minister, with specific reference to the programs he referred to in terms of job creation, if he will acknowledge before the House that the allocation of funds for those programs depends upon official unemployment insurance statistics? If this is so, will he also acknowledge that statistics for Newfoundland, for example, and Cape Breton Island underestimate by 100 per cent the real level of unemployment and that therefore the amounts of money going into those areas are in inverse proportion to the need? If the minister agrees with that, will he tell us what special programs he is going to come up with to correct this, which increases the existing inequalities in the country?
[DOT] (M20)


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, here again we recognize that we have what is called an imperfect science, but we are endeavouring to determine the exact statistics for which the hon. member is looking. However, we apply them equally across the country. It would be inappropriate to use one set of principles and guidelines in the area suggested by the leader of the NDP and different programs elsewhere. We are endeavouring to come up with better, more perfect and more appropriate statistics, but in the interim, given the funds available, those we have are probably appropriate.


John Edward Broadbent: I go back to the minister's choice of the term "baloney". His baloney answer took a long time to inform us he is not going to change the maldistribution of funds which now exists. I wish to ask a supplementary. Given the fact that Premier Moores of the province of Newfoundland stated publicly recently that for that province to maintain its already worst record in terms of unemployment levels in Canada, it has to create an additional 5,000 new jobs a year on top of the recent annual rate which was already an increase of 5,000, is the minister prepared to announce that the government will take a particular approach to Atlantic Canada and bring forward a significant job creation program, not some time distant such as the end of the summer, but within the next few weeks?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, here again the hon. member ignores the fact that some $17 million is put into that particular province, given its high levels of unemployment. The hon. member is wrong to say we are not changing our criteria because we are under the Canada Works Program. I am looking for a different method of determining unemployment
January 24, 1977

in a particular area which will make it an even more exact indicator of the unemployment in that particular area. We are, fortunately, working on a bilateral and multilateral basis with my opposite numbers in all of the provinces, endeavouring to meet the needs of the specific provinces either through community employment strategy studies or dealings on a bilateral basis with officials in various provinces, given their particular problems.


FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my final supplementary to the Prime Minister. If I recall correctly, the parliamentary secretary in his answer stated that we can expect a budget by the summer. Considering that the forecast for unemployment for next year by almost every group outside the government, and two government departments, indicates the worst level of unemployment since World War II, will the Prime Minister give us a date or approximate date for a budget? Hopefully it will be within the next few weeks, and not until the summer. In addition, can he assure the House that the principal focus of that budget will be job creation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that the budget would be forthcoming in this session. I did not indicate toward the summer. The exact date will be given by the Minister of Finance when he is in the House very soon. He will be able to announce that date. With regard to the particular province of Newfoundland which the hon. member was inquiring about, I had a long exchange of correspondence with Premier Moores. I indicated in quite some detail the kinds of expenditures that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is making and many other areas of expenditure upon which the federal government is engaged to create jobs in that province. Naturally, the budget will be concerned with the state of economy and the very serious problem of unemployment. However, we on this side do not forget it is also important to keep inflation at a low rate. We hope that for a change we will have the support of the hon. member on this subject.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Andr6 Fortin (Lotbini£re):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
On November 24 last, I asked with my colleague from Bellechasse whether his department had taken a decision
Oral Questions
concerning the unemployed who, according to the commission, are involved in a collective dispute in the construction industry. The minister replied that he would look into the matter and report. Well, no decision has yet been taken and these unemployed are still waiting for it, while they are not considered eligible for welfare benefits. Is the minister in a position to advise today whether the commission has taken a decision about these cases so as to allow thousands of Quebeckers to obtain their just share?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have reviewed up to 50,000 applications and we still have 70 to examine. We now have 325 appeals to consider. We expect this will be done by January
27.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Is the minister aware of the existence of instruction No. 7,542,145, signed by a Mr. Sanschagrin, a civil servant, document of which I have a copy, to the effect that the commission must not advise recipients of the decisions rendered, which means that these recipients cannot appeal these decisions? Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious policy. We are dealing here with an internal instruction which states that in every case where this administrative provision applies, it is very important that no notice of ineligibility be sent to the recipients. For all practical purposes, this deprives them of the right to go before the administrative tribunal of the Labour Council and appeal the decisions rendered by the commission. Is the minister aware of this instruction and is he willing to deal fairly with the recipients and to withdraw these instructions so that they may obtain justice from the commission?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, first I must examine the instruction the hon. member has been talking about.


TRANSPORT
Jack Marshall: Since unemployment is closely related to transportation, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether he has yet made a decision with regard to the appointment of a commission to study transportation in Newfoundland, bearing in mind the impact of the present transport situation upon the current unemployment rate? Has he considered the relationship between such a study and the trans-Newfoundland corridor study already computed? When does he expect to appoint the commission and can he give the House details concerning its terms of reference?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: We have been working with representatives of the government of Newfoundland to determine appropriate terms of reference which would permit a broad investigation into the transportation problems

January 24, 1977
Oral Questions
of Newfoundland. It is very much our intention that any such commission would lean heavily on the work which has already been done-and a very significant volume it is-and bring together the conclusions and experience of individual Newfoundlanders quite quickly rather than take a long time for this work.


NEWFOUNDLAND-GUARANTEE OF JOBS FOR RAILWAY EMPLOYEES PENDING COMMISSION REPORT
Jack Marshall: The
indication was given, in answer to earlier questions on this subject, that the minister or the CNR would put an end to the lay-offs which have been taking place and which are presently taking place-that a freeze would be applied, at least to July 1977. Would the minister assure the House that the jobs of CNR workers will be "frozen" until the commission presents its report?


Otto Emil Lang: I believe it would be more accurate to say there have been strong expressions of hope that such a freeze, particularly on the part of the CNR, would accompany the commission's work. I have had discussions with representatives of labour concerning this aspect and I have also discussed the matter with the CN. One of the problems might be to define the situation in appropriate language so that the railway company would not be called upon to operate with complete rigidity during the period of the study, but, rather, attempt to assure that the basic levels of service would not be allowed to deteriorate while the study was taking place. This is a view I have put forward to Canadian National and I shall be having further discussions with the provincial government.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Solicitor General.
Would the minister agree to make this afternoon or tomorrow a complete and detailed statement on the circumstances surrounding the setting up at the Cuban consulate in Montreal of a training centre for spies?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take into consideration the hon. member's representations.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
Considering that the investigation conducted by the RCMP was undertaken following the explosion which took place at

the Cuban consulate in 1972, did the Solicitor General since then receive from the RCMP periodical reports on the suspicious activities going on in the consulate and when approximately were the RCMP's suspicions confirmed?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as Solicitor General of Canada, I normally receive periodical reports from the RCMP's security service on activities which might present a danger for the interests of our country, but I think that both sides of this House have always agreed that it would be rather difficult to reveal their contents.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a final supplementary question. Could the minister tell the House if the content of the RCMP reports is brought to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and of the Prime Minister on a regular basis?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, each time the interest of the country is involved or the security service discovers something, this should be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and of the Prime Minister; the usual practice is to bring such facts to the attention of both these ministers.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO ESPIONAGE ACTIVITIES BY EMBASSY OFFICIALS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that the minister's predecessor confirmed some time ago that the RCMP were well aware of foreign espionage agents posing as diplomats within embassies in Canada, and this prior to the expulsion of the Cubans as well as the Soviet air attache Vasilliev, can the minister now assure the House that as far as the RCMP are concerned there exists at the present time no further individual or individuals taking part in subversive or espionage activities within any embassy or consulate on Canadian soil?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, it is the normal duty of the RCMP security service to monitor activities of such a kind nature. Such activities, when they do exist, are monitored and the results of such monitoring brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities in the government of Canada.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has invested over $10 million under the federal program for the advancement of industrial technology to help develop a viable hovercraft industry in Canada, that the coast

guard requires an additional hovercraft and that the Bell Aerospace hovercraft made in Canada meets all the operational requirements of the Canadian Coast Guard, can the minister assure the House that the Bell Aerospace hovercraft made in Canada is being seriously considered for purchase by the federal government as the machine needed for Canadian Coast Guard search and rescue operations?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I will note the hon. member's very interesting representations.


Robert Elgin McKinley: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister able to advise us whether or not at the present time Treasury Board and also cabinet have given approval for the purchase of a British hovercraft for the coast guard?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can add to my previous comment. If such a decision is made, it will be announced in the ordinary process.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, may I put a final supplementary question to the Minister of Supply and Services. I believe that during the last two weeks a delegation has visited Great Britain and has included representatives from the Department of Supply and Services and contract signing officials. Were they there to look into the purchase of a hovercraft for the coast guard from Great Britain or were they there to sign the contract, and has indeed a contract for the purchase of a British machine been signed? If not, what were they there for?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: I am going to inquire about it, Mr. Speaker.


ARSENIC POLLUTION IN YELLOWKNIFE-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF CONFLICTING REPORTS
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister explain the discrepancy between his public statements of 1976 asserting the harmlessness of arsenic pollution in the Yellowknife area and the evidence of Department of the Environment studies which state, among other things, that the public must be prohibited from using melted snow as a potable water supply? In addition, does the minister now say that the previous study referred to in the press release of October 3, 1975 was inadequate or erroneous since he stated on January
Oral Questions
18 last that a new task force is being established to study the arsenic situation in Yellowknife so as to determine what action should now be taken?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The answer to the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, is that we have long been warning people in the area particularly Indian people, not to drink any water from snow thaw in the area of Yellowknife.
As for the second part of the question, the answer is no.


ARSENIC POLLUTION IN YELLOWKNIFE-MEASURES TO ASSURE NO CONCEALMENT OF PROBLEM
Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of press reports that certain officials in the minister's department have advised concealing from the Yellowknife public the risk it runs from arsenic poisoning, would the minister tell the House what measures he is taking to assure himself that there is no concealment of matters affecting the public interest, matters the public has a right to know?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the inquiry I made has demonstrated that no civil servant in my department had advocated concealing certain facts. I think we have been told about a departmental memorandum issued by a Department of Environment employee, with a suggestion to this effect; but here again, it is simply the opinion of a junior civil servant which does not represent government policy. The paper concerned has been submitted to the government of the Northwest Territories, and it is available.


ARSENIC POLLUTION IN YELLOWKNIFE-ACCEPTABILITY OF MEMBERS OF TASK FORCE
Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I should like to ask the minister whether he can assure the House that members of the task force which he announced on January 18, 1977 to study the arsenic pollution problems in the Yellowknife area will be acceptable to all parties concerned, especially to the residents of Yellowknife and area, steelworkers, those working in the mines and to Health Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, in order that this task force be totally independent and impartial, I have asked the Canadian Public Health Association to select the members of this task force. As soon as I receive the names recommended by the Canadian Public Health Association I will make them public and the study itself will be conducted under the auspices of the associa-

January 24, 1977
Oral Questions
tion. I will have nothing to do with the selection of people recommended by the Canadian Public Health Association.


ARSENIC POLLUTION IN YELLOWKNIFE-GOVERNMENT ACTION IF PUBLIC SERVANTS CONCEALING FACTS
Walter (Wally) Firth: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I would like to direct to the Prime Minister. Would the right hon. Prime Minister be prepared to take corrective action if the task force study of the arsenic pollution problems in the Yellowknife area shows that federal health officials have been taking part in a cover-up of the true situation concerning arsenic levels in the Yellowknife area?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, of course.


PERFORMING ARTS
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. By what authority does John Cripton of the Canada Council touring office use threats to withhold visas from the Osipov Balalaika Orchestra and Bolshoi dancers, as has been done by seeming blackmail of Columbia Artists of New York, if this and other distinguished entertainment groups come to Vancouver under the auspices of the respected 40-year old Vancouver company, Famous Artists; and would the Secretary of State determine and report upon how much money in grants and subsidies from the Canada Council, the Canada Council touring office and the Secretary of State has gone to build the physical assets and business of David Y. Louie since 1969; and is the government-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Simma Holt: -through the Canada Council in competition with established small, independent business in Vancouver?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for drawing this to my attention.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: I mean that entirely seriously, Mr. Speaker. When she brought these facts or alleged facts to my attention this morning, I immediately asked my department to undertake an investigation and I will promptly ensure that the results of that investigation are forwarded to her. If the situation is as she described it I will be extremely concerned and anxious to take remedial action.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM POSSIBILITY OF NEW MEASURES TO ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as Jean-Luc Pepin, Chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, stated last week, wage and price controls have hurt business investment in Canada; and as the Minister of Finance stated today, speaking in Toronto: "There is no question that we need a progressive recovery in private investment if we are going to be able to provide adequately for job creation and rising productivity", and then added: "The control of profit margins has been no tonic for investment", will the Prime Minister indicate whether, based on these statements, we may expect new directives for the AIB which would be designed to encourage private investment in Canada with its resultant much needed job creation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take a look at the statements quoted by the hon. member. My information is that there is no hard evidence that the controls have in fact reduced the level of investment in Canada which there otherwise would have been, or that there has been any great misallocation of resources.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister indicate whether the Minister of Finance in his speech in Toronto today was reflecting government policy when he stated:
-that the start of the solution to most of the economic challenges we face lies in more capital investment. .. Enhancing the role of investment is going to be an important item on our agenda for 1977.
Is that government policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that seems like a pretty sound statement. I cannot say what the rest of the speech was, but that part taken in isolation seems to make good sense to me.


ALLEGED LIST OF PEOPLE FORMING EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY OPPOSITION-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and relates to my earlier motion and to questions asked previously in the House. Is the Prime Minister in a position today to confirm that there has been a list or lists circulated among senior members of his Cabinet containing names which purport to form an extra parliamentary opposition to the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not the slightest idea what the hon. member is talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: It has been a long recess.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister is totally oblivious to a very serious matter which concerns the privileges of all hon. members of this House, will the Prime Minister cause further inquiries to be made in order to ascertain what is behind this question, and when he is fully briefed will he report to the House conclusively on this matter at the earliest possible moment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that undertaking. I repeat, I do not know what the member is talking about. There is obviously a lot of extra parliamentary opposition to the government, but that is normal in a democracy.


ALLEGED BOYCOTT OF ISRAELI FIRMS BY CROWN AGENCIES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. In view of press reports indicating varying degrees of complicity by Canadian federal Crown agencies and corporations with the Arab boycott against Israel and Jewish individuals and firms, will the Prime Minister indicate whether an internal investigation has been made by his government to ascertain the truth or otherwise of these facts and, if not, why not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to refer this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We made a statement on this matter of the Arab boycott in the House, I believe a month and a half ago. If my memory is correct, it was supported by all opposition parties. I would have to see whether there is any departure from the application of that policy. I know of none.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister would then indicate whether, from his office or from the office of whichever minister of the Crown would be in charge of these Crown agencies and corporations, any definite instructions in respect of governmental policy have gone out forbidding them to take part in any such Arab boycott?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the government a short while ago in the House applied, of course, to the government, its agencies and departments. I know that this government policy does not go as far as some people would like, but it is our policy and once again I will have to say that I am not aware of it not being applied totally by some aspect of government. So far as I know there is no specific allegation to that effect. If the hon. member has some facts he can convey to me, I would appreciate receiving them.
Oral Questions COMMUNICATIONS


CABLEVISION-RELATIONSHIP OF POSTPONEMENT OF DELETION OF COMMERCIALS FROM UNITED STATES STATIONS TO PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT TO WASHINGTON
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: 
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the pending visit of the Prime Minister to Washington, does the Prime Minister intend to discuss specific topics of mutual interest and/or a list of irritants that have been discussed in this House from time to time, or is this visit just to be a sort of historical occasion on which the Prime Minister is hoping to get some coat-tail momentum from Mr. Carter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think Mr. Carter needs any momentum from me at this time.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You are the one who needs momentum.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
MEETINGS BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND MR. LfiVESQUE
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister had any meetings with Rene Levesque during the recess?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is asking about government business, the answer is no.

January 24, 1977
Oral Questions


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, when does the Prime Minister plan to meet with Mr. Levesque to discuss Canada's future?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that is supplemental to one asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River, which I should like to direct to the Minister of National Defence who, on October 13 of last year, as reported at page 18 of Hansard, speaking as the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, stated in respect of the existence of an alleged list or blacklist of public servants who can be called the extra parliamentary opposition:
Fortunately, it is without any foundation.
I wonder whether the minister has made any inquiries, and does he still hold to that position?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot see how that could be directed to the minister's responsibilities in connection with national defence.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the minister in his capacity as Minister of National Defence, and I submit it is equally applicable.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, my answer still stands. I am aware of no such list.


TRANSPORT
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Transport is related to the hearings he gave and the concern he showed the delegation from North Sydney here in Ottawa and in respect of the meetings held on the docks in North Sydney by the union regarding layoffs and cutbacks at the North Sydney wharf. Would the minister cause an inquiry to be carried out to determine the effect that the subsidization of private shipping firms from the public purse is having on the shipment of goods through the Port of North Sydney in competition with a Crown corporation, namely, the Canadian National Railways, thereby causing massive unemployment at that port? This is a matter we have been pursuing for many months in an attempt to get some answers.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that I share his concern about employment in the Sydney area. Indeed, I have taken some action in that regard in recent weeks. In this particular case, we have undertaken with several provincial governments to look at the question and the impact on employment of the movement of goods from the maritime provinces proper to Newfoundland. That is, of course, a subject which may also receive some attention in connection with the work of the proposed commission.


Robert Muir: I thank the minister for his answer. May I ask him, if he is too busy-I realize he has a large portfolio-if he would assign one of his senior officials to pinpoint the specific problem in that it is asserted that the shipping firms are definitely taking business from the port of North Sydney to the detriment of the stevedores there and that only one quarter of the force of approximately 1,000 men is working.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, since this matter is being discussed with several of the provinces, it is a matter which already has the attention of several of my officials.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Albert B£chard (Bonaventure-tles-de-la-Madeleine):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Would the minister tell the House and Quebecers particularly if the negotiations with Quebec authorities aimed at an agreement concerning the economic development of the Gaspe peninsula, the lower St. Lawrence area and the Magdalen Islands still include, as before the November 15 event, the appropriation of important federal funds for the operation of a salt mine-which, incidentally, was discovered before November 15, 1976-and the development of a seaport at Grosse Isle, Magdalen Islands, in order to export the products of this mine to the Quebec, Canadian and other markets?
Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the operation of a salt mine in the Magdalen Islands was indeed and still is one of the points under discussion which was considered by my department as part of a possible joint program of both Quebec and Ottawa governments for the development of these regions. I think this point will still be discussed. We said at the time that this was a real regional development opportunity.
January 24, 1977


HOUSING
Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Because of the marked slow-down in recent months of single-unit dwelling construction in Canada as a result of the prohibitively high rate of interest on the balance of the cost of those dwellings, which means that the average wage earner finds it difficult to buy a home, can the minister tell the house whether the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation he heads intends to alleviate somewhat the high rate of interest with a view to making it easier for prospective or new homeowners to buy those houses?


Hon. Andrl Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that we have just completed a record year in the field of housing. I therefore find it difficult to reconcile the assertions of the hon. member with that outstanding performance.
On the other hand, I am quite willing to recognize with him that it is in the interest of small wage earners to be able to buy a home at the lowest possible rate of interest. That is why the government has brought forward the program known as AHOP, the Assisted Home Ownership Program, the purpose of which is precisely to lower the actual cost of interest to 8 per cent.


Léonel Beaudoin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister tell the House whether this lower interest rate will apply to single family dwellings in particular or to housing in general?


André Ouellet: 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that a committee of this caucus at its recent visit to Newfoundland found out from the Manpower office and the Unemployment Insurance Commission in St. John's that fully 48 per cent of all those receiving unemployment insurance benefits in Newfoundland have between 8 and 19 weeks attachments to the work force, and in view of the fact that many of these people will be eliminated from unemployment insurance programs by the changes in Bill C-27 which raise
Oral Questions
the length of work necessary for eligibility from 12 weeks to 18 weeks, will the minister now reconsider these changes in the UIC program which will not only work unspeakable hardship on the lives of many unemployed workers but which will play havoc with the economy of the Atlantic provinces and other such areas in the country?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No, Mr. Speaker, we are taking that particular bill in conjunction with the direct job creation program. Heavy emphasis on funding will take place in areas of high unemployment. We are satisfied also that the suggestion of the hon. member that all these people will automatically be unemployed is rather simplistic. These people do need help, but I do not think that continuing payments under the UIC program is really the appropriate method. We are also talking about the developmental use of UIC funds for training, and I think that is making better use of the money than just a straight payment out of the insurance fund.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am concerned that we are getting into debate on a measure which will be before the House shortly. However, I will allow one supplementary question.


John R. Rodriguez: In view of the fact that such programs as the one which the minister just mentioned depend on the rate of unemployment calculated by Statistics Canada in conjunction with UIC and Manpower figures, and in view of the fact that it is admitted that in reality unemployment is much higher than shown in the official rate and so indeed the amounts of money for those programs are badly underestimated, is the minister prepared to at least review the method by which the rate of unemployment is calculated so that the funds going for these retraining programs would really reflect the actual unemployment in the Atlantic region?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that this question is a repetition of the same question put by the leader of the hon. member's party at the beginning of the question period.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the hon. member for St. Boniface has now been whipped down to the end of the row, and in view of the fact that he has a lot of time now, can the Prime Minister say whether he has been given any further responsibilities in the cabinet so that we may direct some questions to him?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

January 24, 1977
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Boniface is Minister of State without Portfolio and indeed he will have a very important responsibility in the cabinet expressing the points of view of the very important western provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: 
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Can the Minister of the Environment indicate whether negotiations have taken place between U.S. and Canadian officials and whether mitigating works and the scheduling and payment for them has already been decided upon?


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: The report was officially transmitted to the two governments only some days ago. I will check to ascertain what contacts have continued since then.


REASON FOR LOW FINAL PAYMENT TO FARMERS AND RETENTION OF MONEY BY WHEAT BOARD
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Why was the final payment to prairie farmers by the Canadian Wheat Board so low, and what is the justification for individual farmers not receiving a statement with their final payment indicating the full rationale for the amount of money retained by the Wheat Board?


Hon.   Otto. E. Lang@Minister of Transport: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member thinks he is referring to when he speaks about the retention of money by the Canadian Wheat Board. The final payments are, of course, on the basis of the Wheat Board's calculation of the amount of money received when grains from a particular pool have been sold and deducting therefrom the initial payments which have already been made to the farmer at the time of delivery. In due course the Wheat Board does put together and make available to all producers a full statement showing the analysis of the costs and its full calculations, and I think there is no reason to suspect or think that there is any different procedure followed this year than in years past. In other words, the level of the final payment reflects exactly the prices at which the Wheat Board was able to sell grain.


Arnold John Malone: Why is it that the individual farmer, on receipt of his final payment, is not able to find out the basis upon which that final payment is made? Putting it on the basis of the whole Wheat Board region does not give the individual farmer an opportunity to make an analysis of his business because that is across the three prairie provinces.


Otto Emil Lang: If the hon. member has some suggestion about a better way of communicating the individual situation to a farmer, I am sure the Canadian Wheat Board would be glad to receive that representation from him. The board does make available to the farmers of the prairies a statement of its operations and the manner of calculating the final payments. There is no such thing as an individual payment tracing the particular wheat which one farmer delivered and identifying the market into which it went, and I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that the Wheat Board try to set up that kind of system.


UNEMPLOYENT INSURANCE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-DufTerin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton brought to the minister's attention the fact that about 400 cheques worth several thousands of dollars which were addressed to claimants in the Sarnia area and which were sent by the Unemployment Insurance Commission have gone astray, and if so, has the minister been able to locate the cause of the problem?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton did bring that to my attention because the hon. member always does a great job, and I got on it right away.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
January 24, 1977


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In this particular instance, from the standpoint of the UIC, we immediately got the names of the individuals affected and had a person go to Belleville to have duplicate cheques prepared so that the people would not be kept waiting for the delivery of their cheques, which have been lost or somehow mislaid. As the member of parliament for Sarnia-Lambton, perhaps I could direct that question to the Postmaster General.


POST OFFICE
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that the blame for the loss of these cheques has been laid upon the Postmaster General's Department by both the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton and also by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, has the Postmaster General been able to locate these cheques? In addition, has he been able to locate 11 cheques which were mailed December 10 from the Bank of Montreal in Guelph, Ontario, including one for over $100,000, which were lost?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton made excellent representations, and I initiated an investigation with regard to these particular cheques. We have not as yet located them, so until we have, the Post Office is not ready to accept the responsibility for their loss.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House I would like to table, under Standing Order 41(2), copies, in both official languages, of correspondence with the provincial premiers concerning patria-tion of the constitution.


VACANCIES
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, Real Caouette,
Order Paper Questions
Esquire, member for the electoral district of Temiscamingue, by decease. Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.

I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, Mrs. Albanie Morin, member for the electoral district of Louis-Hebert, by decease.
Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer to issue a new writ of election for the said electoral district.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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: 107, 156, 194, 206, 208, 210, 211, 299 (corrected), 331, 332, 346, 347, 352, 357, 503, 509, 607, 629, 644, 649, 659, 663, 666, 676, 685, 687, 696, 711, 736, 751, 762, 768, 788, 789, 882, 887, 904, 933, 939, 940, 958, 973, 983, 998, 999, 1001, 1004, 1049, 1062, 1063, 1077, 1084, 1085, 1123, 1128, 1147, 1151, 1158, 1166, 1171, 1177, 1182, 1219, 1222, 1223, 1231, 1242, 1354, 1369 and 1422.


Mr. Cossitt: Is Mr. M. Sylvain Manager of the Employer Registration of Wage Loss Insurance for the Unemployment Insurance Commission and, if so (a) on what date was he appointed to this position (b) what is his current exact salary (c) what is the total of all overtime payments he has received since his appointment and what is the breakdown by month and year (d) what is the total of all expenses he has received since his appointment and what is the breakdown by month and year?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. Yes; (a) September 23, 1974; (b) $17,241- $19,549; (c) Total: From September 23, 1974 to June 13, 1976: $8,428.55

January 24, 1977
Order Paper Questions
October 1974	$481.41		
November 1974	834.45		
December 1974	348.87		
January 1975	506.42		
February 1975	494.97		
March 1975	422.78		
April 1975	701.20		
May 1975	717.23		
June 1975	622.16		
July 1975	219.98		
August 1975	494.96		
September 1975	598.10		
October 1975	192.49		
November 1975	382.68		
December 1975	254.36		
January 1976	269.76		
February 1976	149.88		
March 1976	219.80		
April 1976	164.86		
May 1976	247.28		
June 1976	104.91		
(d)	1976	1975 1974	January	$ 202.22	$ 226.91	-February	-	161.00	-March	602.73	264.99	-April	-	83.06	-May	726.3)7	312.49	-June	423.83	1,185.13	-July	553.67	-	-August	166.48	86.97	-September	920.34	312.12	-October	470.65	789.64	347.71November	-	141.12	134.28December	-	350.62	685.75$4,065.99	$3,914.05	$1,167.74


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the present salary or salary range of the Administrator of the Anti-Inflation Board?
2.	What is the salary range of the Vice-President of the Canadian International Development Agency?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Anti-Inflation Board and the Canadian International Development Agency as follows: 1. There is no such position with the Anti-Inflation Board.
2.	The salary range of the executive vice-president is $35,500-$47,500.


Mr. Marshall: 
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the SS-DSO-7 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
Department of National Defence: (a) 16; (b) 20.
2. Department of National Defence: (a) 16; (b) Nil.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the SS-DSO-8 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
Department of National Defence: (a) 1; (b) 3.
2. Department of National Defence: (a) 1; (b) 2.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the SS-DSO-5 level?
2.	By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
Department of National Defence: (a) 111; (b) 133.
2. Department of National Defence: (a) 51; (b) Nil.


Mr. Orlikow: 1. On (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970, how many classified positions existed in each department at the SS-DSO-6 level?

January 24, 1977

2. By department, of the authorized positions in the category, how many incumbents occupied the positions on (a) April 30, 1975 (b) April 30, 1970 whose annual salary was more than $27,500?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
Department of National Defence: (a) 30; (b) 33.
2. Department of National Defence: (a) 30; (b) Nil.
(a) Single Pensioners Percent	5	10	15	20	25	30	35	40	45W.W 1	546	826	438	531	248	286	118	219	15W.W. II	3746	4795	1969	2460	1045	1224	510	915	80Special Force	135	139	48	68	29	30	13	31	3Total	4427	5760	2455	3059	1322	1540	641	1165	98(b) Married Pensioners W.W I	842	1508	769	911	483	562	231	381	33W.W. II	11726	17654	7715	9480	4291	5093	1945	3308	330Special Force	303	349	169	183	62	84	33	69	12Total	12871	19511	8653	10574	4836	5739	2209	3758	375


Mr. Herbert: By province, what monies have been (a) spent (b) committed under the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme?


Harvie Andre: am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: the amounts approved and disbursed by CMHC, under the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme, are shown in table below.
Neighbourhood Improvement Program, N.H.A., Section 27.5 by Province and Territory, 1973-September, 1976 $000
Province and Territory	Commitments	DisbursementsNewfoundland	2,940	1,447Prince Edward Island	1,733	247Nova Scotia	5,070	368New Brunswick	5,067	401Quebec	24,000	1,466Ontario	33,125	6,274Manitoba	5,650	1,254Saskatchewan	5,250	809Alberta	6,750	2,236British Columbia	9,100	2,321Yukon Territory	-	-Northwest Territories	-	-Canada	98,685	16,823
Order Paper Questions WAR DISABILITY PENSIONERS 
Question No. 299-Mr. Marshall: (Corrected)
In graduations of 5 per cent, how many (a) single (b) married war disability pensioners are there with disabilities between 5 per cent and 100 per cent


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 50	55	60	65	70	75	80	85	90	95	100	Total237	35	98	16	60	31	232	34	82	16	386	44541168	191	490	115	232	120	273	54	99	40	980	2050625	6	11	2	5	4	11	1	1	18	5801430	232	599	133	297	155	516	89	182	56	1384	25540439	73	191	41	119	62	439	53	160	28	625	79504851	834	1950	548	1197	501	1209	373	536	178	2551	7627090	15	34	11	14	14	17	3	4	2	36	15045380	922	2175	600	1330	577	1665	429	700	208	3212	85724


Mr. Herbert: Order Paper Questions


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What proportion of total sales did the four largest wholesalers of food in the industry earn in (a) 1960 (b) 1965 (c) 1970 (d) 1975 (or the most recent year statistics are available)?
2.	What proportion of total sales did the eight largest firms in the industry earn in (a) 1960 (b) 1965 (c) 1970 ([DOT]!) 1975 (or the most recent year statistics are available)?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Ifade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports: 1. The proportion of total wholesale sales in the food industry made by the four largest firms in the wholesale food industry in 1971 was 16 per cent, and in 1973 was 20.1 per cent.
2. The proportion of total wholesale sales in the food industry made by the eight largest firms in the wholesale food industry in 1971 was 23 per cent and in 1973 was 27.5 per cent.
Note: Data for 1960, 1965 and 1970 are not available.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What proportion of total sales did the four largest wholesalers of farm products in the industry earn in (a) 1960 (b) 1965 (c) 1970 (d) 1975 (or the most recent year statistics are available)?
2.	What proportion of total sales did the eight largest firms in the industry earn in (a) 1960 (b) 1965 (c) 1970 (d) 1975 (or the most recent year statistics are available)?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Statistics Canada reports: 1. The proportion of total wholesale sales on farm products made by the four largest firms in the wholesale farm products industry in 1971 was 36.5 per cent and in 1973 was 73.5 per cent.
2. The proportion of total wholesale sales of farm products made by the eight largest firms in the wholesale farm products industry in 1971 was 46 per cent and in 1973 was 82.5 per cent.
Note: Data for 1960, 1965 are not available.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What proportion of total sales were the sales of the four largest firms in the feed industry in (a) 1960 (b) 1965 (c) 1970 (d) 1975 (or the most recent year statistics are available)?
2.	What proportion of total sales did the eight largest firms in the industry earn in (a) 1960 (b) 1965 (c) 1970 (d) 1975 (or the most recent year statistics are available)?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Statistics Canada reports: 1. The proportion of total sales represented by the sales of the four largest firms in the feed industry was (a) not available; (b) 28.8 per cent; (c) 29.4 per cent and (d) 29 per cent (1972).
2. The proportion of total sales earned by the eight largest firms in the feed industry was (a) not available; (b) 28.9 per cent, (c) 39.8 per cent and (d) 28.4 per cent (1972).


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What proportion of total sales were the sales of the four largest firms in the retail food store industry in (a) 1960 (b) 1965 (c) 1970 (d) 1975 (or the most recent year statistics are available)?
2.	What proportion of total sales did the eight largest firms in the industry earn in (a) 1960 (b) 1965 (c) 1970 (d) 1975 (or the most recent year statistics are available)?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Statistics Canada reports: 1. The proportion of total retail food sales represented by the sales of the four largest firms in the retail food store industry were (in percentages) 28 per cent in 1961; 27.2 per cent in 1965; 29.3 per cent in 1970 and 37.7 per cent in 1975. (Data for 1960 are not available).
2. The proportion of total retail food sales sold by the eight largest firms in the retail food industry were (in percentages) (a) 34.9 per cent in 1961; (b) 33.8 per cent in 1965; (c) 36.4 per cent in 1970 and (d) 44.5 per cent 1975. (Data for 1960 not available).


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Loans Approved for Residential Rehabilitation Assistance, NHA, Section 34.1, Rural Areas, Quebec, 1976
Municipal County	Number of Units	Amount $000Abitibi	56	233Chicoutimi	7	17Deux-Montagnes	1	3Dorchester	15	63Gatineau	21	111Labelle	13	53Lac St-Jean West	9	36Pontiac	66	329Saguenay	25	139Y amaska	12	84
Data are preliminary to October 31.


Mr. Huntington: 1.	Did the Department of Manpower and Immigration in 1975, identify 96,000 cases of UIC overpayments in their post audit programme, which resulted in 1,800 prosecutions of claimants for $340,000 in fines and a number of jail terms and, if so, what action was taken against the other 94,200 claimants who received overpayments?
2.	Were such overpayments paid back to the government and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What was the total amount of overpayments to claimants in (a) 1974 (b) 1975?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. No. As a result of the 1975 post audit, 13,003 overpayments were established. Two hundred and sixty-two of these resulted in prosecutions initiated through the courts and records of the penalties imposed by the courts as a result of post audits are not maintained by the commission. However, there were 6,550 fines totalling $541,808 imposed under section 47 of the Unemployment Insurance Act by the commission. Collection action has been taken against all overpayments identified.
2.	Separate records of the amounts collected on overpayments accounts established through post audits are not maintained. The post audit programme is one of several currently used to identify overpayment accounts. The collection records are not established to reflect the programme which identified the overpayment.
3.	(a) 1974-$39,879,600; (b) 1975-$48,217,000.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	(a) How many regional offices are maintained by the Post Office Department (b) where is each located (c) for what area is each responsible?
2.	On what date was each established and with how many personnel?
3.	What is the present personnel strength of each office?
4.	In addition to regional offices, are district or other sub-offices maintained and, if so (a) in what locations (b) how many?
5.	Are the duties performed by those manning the regional and/or district offices line functions, in the chain of command from Ottawa to the operator in
Order Paper Questions
the field, or do they have other functions to perform and, if so, what are such functions?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. (a) 4; (b) Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver; (c) Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Western respectively.
2.	Atlantic region-Established July, 1970 with one regional general manager. Quebec region-Established October, 1970 with one regional general manager and an assistant. Ontario region-Established January, 1970 with one regional general manager and an assistant. Western region-Established January, 1971 with one regional general manager.
3.	Atlantic, 71; Ontario, 93; Quebec, 136; Western, 105.
4.	District offices are maintained within each region as follows: (a) Atlantic region: Halifax, Saint John, New Brunswick, St. John's, Nfld.; Quebec region: Quebec City, Province of Quebec Montreal (2 offices); Ontario region: Toronto, London, Ottawa, North Bay; Western region: Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Vancouver, (b) 14.
5.	Yes, but some of the personnel also provide necessary support services to line management at local levels, some of which was previously supplied from Ottawa headquarters.


Mr. Dinsdale: What are the statistics for damage to parcels in each of the automated postal terminals for each of the five years (a) prior to (b) since automation?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Parcel damage statistics maintained by the Post Office do not designate the location where the damage occurred. Often this is impossible to ascertain. The parcel may have been processed through several plants and carried by various modes of transportation, yet damage, if any, may not be evident until opened on delivery by the addressee.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Is the government aware of the financial positions of the national governing bodies of any sports in Canada and, if so, which ones?
2.	In each case, what is the (a) size of the present surplus or deficit (b) anticipated surplus or deficit for the end of the current fiscal year (c) date on which the fiscal year ends?


Marc Lalonde: 1. The Fitness and Amateur Sport Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare provides contributions on a project basis to approximately 70 national sports governing bodies for the implementation of programs. (See table below.) Such contributions are governed by terms and conditions which require submission of audited financial statements or auditable materials specifically in respect of these contributions. It is not a prerequisite for any contribution to a project that the recipient provide full financial disclosure of all its financial affairs.
80008-7%

January 24, 1977
Order Paper Questions
2. Since the national sports governing bodies are not required, as a condition of receiving contributions, to provide full financial disclosure, information on their overall deficit or surplus position is not available. In relation to federal contributions, audits are performed upon receipt of appropriate accounting materials. If a contribution exceeds allowable expenses, a refund is requested in favour of the Receiver General for Canada; if allowable expenses exceed the original contribution, a supplementary contribution can be considered.
Recipients of Assistance from the Fitness and Amateur Sport Program 1976-77
Aquatic Federation of Canada Federation of Canadian Archers Canadian Badminton Association Canadian Federation of Amateur Baseball Canadian Amateur Basketball Association Canadian Amateur Boxing Association Canadian Canoe Association Canadian Amateur Cricket Association Canadian Curling Association (Men)
Canadian Curling Association (Women)
Canadian Cycling Association Canadian Diving Association National Equestrian Federation of Canada Canadian Equestrian Team Canadian Fencing Association Canadian Field Hockey Council Canadian Field Hockey Association Canadian Womens' Field Hockey Association Canadian Figure Skating Association Canadian Amateur Football Association Canadian Ladies Golf Association Royal Canadian Golf Association Canadian Gymnastics Federation
Canadian Gymnastics Federation (Trampoline Committee)
Canadian Modern Gymnastics Federation
Canadian Handball Association
Canadian Amateur Hockey Association
Canadian Horse Council
Judo Canada
National Karate Association Canadian Lacrosse Association Canadian Lawn Bowling Council Canadian Ladies Lawn Bowling Council

Canadian Lawn Tennis Association Canadian Amateur Netball Association Canadian Orienteering Association Canadian Sport Parachuting Association Canadian Amateur Modern Pentathlon Association Canadian Racquetball Association Ringette Canada
Canadian Association of Amateur Oarsmen Canadian Rugby Union Chooting Federation of Canada Canadian Ski Association (Alpine)
Canadian Ski Association (Ski jumping)
Canadian Ski Association (Freestyle)
Canadian Ski Association (X-Country)
Soaring Association of Canada
Canadian Soccer Association
Canadian Amateur Softball Association
Canadian Amateur Speed Skating Association
Canadian Squash Racquets Association
Canadian Amateur Swimming Association
Canadian Amateur Synchronized Swimming Association
Canadian Table Tennis Association
Canadian Team Handball Federation
Canadian Track and Field Association
Canadian Volleyball Association
Canadian Waterpolo Association
Canadian Water Ski Association
Canadian Weightlifting Federation
Canadian Amateur Wrestling Association
Canadian Yachting Association
Canadian Athletic Therapists Association
Sport Federation of Canada
Canadian Intercollegiate Athletic Union
Canadian Olympic Association
Canadian Women's Intercollegiate Union (CWIAU)
Coaching Association of Canada
Canadian Federation of Provincial School Athletic Association
Canadian Colleges Athletic Association
Canadian Academy of Sports Medicine
Canadian Association of Sport Sciences
Canadian Physiotherapy Association
Canadian Sports Hall of Fame
Canadian Canoe Association White Water Affiliate
January 24, 1977


Mr. Lachance: Between the date of the presentation of the last budget May 25, 1976 and October 12, 1976, did the Department of Labour and Canada Labour Relations Board hire, dismiss or transfer employees to other departments and, if so, how many?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Canada Department of Labour-45; Hired-31; Dismissed-0; Transferred-14;Canada Labour Relations Board-16; Hired-12; Dismissed-1; Transferred-3.


Mr. Lachance: Between the date of the presentation of the last budget May 25, 1976 and October 12, 1976, did the Canadian Wheat Board hire, dismiss or transfer employees to other departments and, if so, how many?


Otto Emil Lang: In so far as the
Canadian Wheat Board is concerned: During the period May 25th to October 12th the Canadian Wheat Board lost 26 permanent and 95 temporary employees by way of retirements and resignations; hired 19 permanent and 47 temporary employees; dismissed 1 permanent employee and 3 temporary employees; and transferred no employees to government departments.


Mr. Lachance: Between the date of the presentation of the last budget May 25, 1976 and October 12, 1976, did the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and Cape Breton Development Corporation hire, dismiss or transfer employees to other departments and, if so, how many?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: Number of people hired, 528*; Number of people dismissed, 0; Number of people transferred to other departments, 23.
* This includes Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration where a great deal of staffing is on a seasonal basis.
The reply for the Cape Breton Development Corporation is as follows: Number of people hired, 94; Number of people dismissed, 9; Number of people placed on inactive list, 12. This information is for the period May 25, 1976 to October 12, 1976 inclusive.


Mr. Lachance: Between the date of the presentation of the last budget May 25, 1976 and October 12, 1976, did the Department of National Defence (excluding Armed Forces personnel), Defence Construction (1951) Limited and National Emer-
Order Paper Questions
gency Planning Establishment hire, dismiss or transfer employees to other departments and, if so, how many?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Department of National Defence
Indeterminate Term
Employees hired	649	6,666(1)
Employees dismissed	4	
Employees transferred to other		
departments	116	
(,) Note: The majority of the term employees were hired to replace or complement Canadian Forces personnel who were assigned responsibilities in connection with the Olympics. They were hired for a period of less than six months and their services in most instances have been terminated.
National Emergency Planning Establishment
Employees hired ,	3	2
Employees dismissed or transferred	Nil	
Defence Construction (1951) Ltd. Employees hired	6	Nil
Employees dismissed or transferred	Nil


Mr. Lachance: Between the date of the presentation of the last budget May 25, 1976 and October 12, 1976, did the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, War Veterans Allowance Board, Canadian Pension Commission, Pension Review Board and the Department of Veterans Affairs hire, dismiss or transfer employees to other departments and, if so, how many?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Hired	Dismissed	Transferred
Bureau of Pensions	4
Advocates
War Veterans Allow-	6
ance Board
Canadian Pension Com-	8
mission
Pension Review Board	-
Department of Veterans 446*	-*	24
Affairs
* Apart from transfers and dismissals, there were a total of 464 separations for other reasons from the department and the agencies.
1

January 24, 1977
Order Paper Questions WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE BOARD


Mr. Marshall: 1.	How many (a) CWA/WVA (b) disability pension cases were handled by the district authority in each province under the Department of Veterans Affairs, as of September 30, 1976?
2.	What amount of money was disbursed for WVA/CWA and disability pensions as of September 30, 1976?
3.	How many persons are on staff at each district authority office administering CWA/WVA and disability cases and VLA accounts?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: i	2.	3.	(a)	Disability	*	Disability	VLA(b)	WVA/CWA	Pensions	WVA/CWA Cases	AccountsSt. John, Nfld.	5,049	Please	$1,039,609	Please	9	Please	PleaseCharlottetown, P.E.I.	1,409	see	311,779	see	3	see	seeHalifax, N.S.	8,364	Note (i)	1,697,846	Note (ii)	15	Note (i)	Note (iii)Saint John, N.B.	5,822	1,303,319	12	Quebec, P.Q.	2,038	437,843	4	Montreal, P.Q.	9,212	1,565,844	21	Ottawa, Ont.	5,111	860,174	10	Toronto, Ont.	12,392	1,829,197	22	Hamilton, Ont.	4,586	635,772	9	London, Ont.	5,830	835,966	9	North Bay, Ont.	2,795	517,889	6	Winnipeg, Man.	5,453	759,593	11	Regina, Sask.	1,767	284,382	5	Saskatoon, Sask.	1,826	312,896	5	Calgary, Alta.	2,985	462,295	7	Edmonton, Alta.	3,105	524,983	6	Vancouver, B.C.	10,620	1,537,456	18	Victoria, B.C.	2,795	368,650	5	$15,285,493	
*War Veterans Allowance district authorities are adjudicating bodies only and, as such, have no staff assigned to their direction. Operations related to WVA/CWA administration are carried out by the staff of Veterans Services program in each district office. Staff members of Veterans Services are also appointed individually by the minister to constitute the WVA district authority for each district as provided by section 23 of the War Veterans Allowance Act in addition to their other duties.
Note (i): The district authority is not involved in decisions on pension matters. Disability pension matters are the responsibility of the Canadian Pension Commission.
Note (ii): The expenditure for disability pensions as at September 30, 1976 was $246,628,096.
Note (iii): VLA cases are not dealt with by the district authority.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: What were the grain demurrage charges for the period October, 1975 to October, 1976 and what were the charges for (a) West Coast ports (b) Great Lakes ports?


Otto Emil Lang: In so far, as Canadian Wheat Board is concerned: demurrage claims paid during the period October, 1975 to October, 1976 totalled $5,045,613.59. Of this sum $4,073,604.38 related to the west coast and the remainder to east coast ports. There were no demurrage claims settled during that period for Great Lakes ports.


Mr. Fortin: Did Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation grant loans to some municipalities in the Constituency of Lotbiniere for the construction of housing units

for senior citizens and, if so (a) which municipalities (b) what are the names of the institutions (c) what were the amounts of the loans (d) what were the refunding terms?


Harvie Andre: am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: (a), (b), (c)-Loans made by CMHC to assist in financing the construction of housing for senior citizens in the municipal counties of Arthabaska, Lotbiniere and Nicolet are shown in table below. Note: Statistics on activities under the National Housing Act, compiled by CMHC, are not based on federal electoral constituencies, but on municipal counties in Quebec, (d) These loans are repayable over a term of 50 years, in annual instalments of principal and interest, at interest rates ranging from 6-7/8 per cent to 10-3/4 per cent, determined by the year in which the loans were approved.
January 24, 1977

Order Paper Questions
Loans Approved to Quebec Housing Corporation, Senior Citizens' Housing Municipal Counties of Arthabaska, Lotbiniire and Nicolet 1968-June, 1976
Municipality	Number of Loans	Number of Units	Hostel Beds	$000
Arthabaska County				
Daveluyville	i	32	-	578Victoriaville	2	40	150	2,076Lotbiniire County	Fortierville	2	34	39	751Lotbiniire	1	-	38	266St-Agapitville	1	20	-	320Ste-Agathe	1	20	-	331St-Apollinaire (mun.)	1	1	39	284Ste-Croix	1	-	47	343St-Flavien	1	-	42	294St-Sylvestre	1	-	32	224Nicolet County	Bicancour	1	66	-	1,086Nicolet	1	52	-	767St-C61estin (mun.)	1	36	-	482St-L4onard-d'Aston	1	21	-	297St-Pierre-les-Becquets (mun.)	1	-	40	2800) Data are net.	
arising from CMHC direct lending, from 1972 to September 1976: Glace Bay-Khattar and Khattar, Simon MacDonald; New Waterford-M. J. Hinchey, Q.C.; North Sydney-David J. Ryan, Murray J. Ryan, Q.C.; Port Hawkesbury-Arthur J. LeBlanc; Sydney-J. Bernard Boudreau, George R. LeVatte, Russell G. MacLellan, Gerald F. Murphy, Q.C., J. Allister Ross, Q.C., G. Alistair S. Smith. Legal fees in connection with CMHC direct loans are paid by the borrower, and CMHC therefore, has no record of the amounts paid to these lawyers. The following lawyers were retained from 1972 to September, 1976, to handle action where arrears on loans approved in Cape Breton, Inverness, Richmond and Victoria counties, Nova Scotia required legal actions:
Costs and Fees
Halifax	Mclnnes, Cooper and
Robertson	$4,587.81
North Sydney	Murray J. Ryan,
Q.C.	$2,296.90
Port Hawkesbury Burke, Vincent and
LeBlanc	$2,006.10


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Were approximately 15% of all grain cars shipped from Western Canada during the current crop year loaded with the wrong kind or grade of grain and, if so, what steps is the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board taking to ensure that this percentage is reduced in the future?


Otto Emil Lang: In so far as the
Canadian Wheat Board is concerned: during the current crop year cars shipped from Western Canada loaded with the wrong kind or grade of grain have amounted to just under 15 per cent of all cars shipped. The Canadian Wheat Board is applying penalties on the basis of two cars lost for every car containing the wrong grade and four cars lost for every car containing the wrong grain. These penalties are applied to the offending companies' weekly car allocation.
3. CMHC follows the normal practice of mortgage lenders in that where a mortgage is taken as security a legal agent is employed to search and report on title, to register the mortgage and advance the mortgage funds and certify to CMHC that its mortgage constitutes a first charge on the property. In the case of loans for the provision of housing to persons of low income, requests for the employment of the borrower's solicitor or notary are in many cases granted where the employment will produce a financial advantage to the borrower. In addition, in the case of loans on existing housing, where the borrower has employed a solicitor or notary to carry out the work of acquiring the title to the property, CMHC may employ the borrower's solicitor or notary to act on behalf of CMHC.


Mr. Muir: 
Mr. Stevens: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,266 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, has the government determined on what date tenders for the construction of a new building (or alternative rental proposals) for a new post office in Newmarket, Ontario will be called and, if not, does it still anticipate an occupancy date of August 1978?
2.	If the government no longer expects to open a postal processing plant in Newmarket by August 1978, on what date does it expect to do so?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: 1. it is anticipated that tenders will be called in January, 1977 for the construction of a new mail processing plant in Newmarket, Ontario, with anticipated occupancy by August, 1978.
2.	Not applicable.

January 24, 1977
Order Paper Questions CANADAIR LIMITED


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Did the Crown purchase Canadair Limited from General Dynamics on January 5, 1976 for a maximum price of $38,150,000 and, if so, what was the value placed on the Crown's obligation to pursue a claim against Northrop Corporation for alleged breach of contract and to pay to Canadair two-thirds of any sums recovered from Northrop?
2.	When the Crown settled the action brought against it in the Federal Court of Canada by Northrop Corporation by paying Northrop $9,000,000, what value was placed on the Crown's counterclaim against Northrop for damages for breach of contract?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Supply and Services as follows: 1. On January 5, 1976, the Crown purchased Canadair from General Dynamics for a maximum price of $38,150,000. The Crown paid $11,479,835 for 1,408,463 shares of Canadair; $25,170,165 for nine outstanding promissory notes of Canadair to General Dynamics, and $1,500,000 representing the company's profit in the period January 1, 1974 to December 31, 1975. The price was determined through a series of negotiations on a net basis for shares and notes and not for individual assets. It is therefore not possible, and would be misleading, to attempt to attribute a specific price to a specific asset.
2.	No value was determined for the Crown's counterclaim when the action was settled with Northrop.


Mr. Laprise: For each of the designated areas in the Constituency of Abitibi were applications for funds submitted under the Housing Renovation Programme and, if so (a) how many were (i) granted (ii) refused (b) for what amounts?


Harvie Andre: am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: to November 1976, 15 loans for $60,700 were approved in Taschereau, and 41 loans for $171,955 in Dupar-quet, Abitibi County under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. Information is not readily available on the number of applications refused.
Note: Statistics on activities under the National Housing Act, compiled by CMHC, are not based on federal electoral constituencies, but on municipal counties in Quebec.


Mr. Gilbert: For each year 1968 to 1975, how many housing units were (a) started (b) completed (c) demolished in (i) Canada (ii) Edmonton (iii) Halifax (iv) Montreal (v) Ottawa-Hull (vi) Saint John (vii) St. John's (viii) Saskatoon (ix) Toronto (x) Vancouver (xi) Winnipeg?


Harvie Andre: am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: see tables I and II below.
Tabic 1.
Housing units started, completed and demolished, metropolitan areas, 1968-1971
1969
1971
Metropolitan Area
Edmonton Halifax Montreal Ottawa-Hull Saint John,
New Brunswick St. John's, Newfoundland Saskatoon Toronto Vancouver Winnipeg
Canada
Started	Completed	Demolished (1)9,003	7,772	6231,444	959	17030,624	25,974	2,1505,642	4,813	333431	394	(2) 390977	1,400	(2) 212,278	2,668	4437,775	28,677	1,65815,690	14,922	1,0794,739	3,615	247196,878	170,993	14,696Started	Completed	Demolished (1)9,807	8,601	4653,318	1,999	18723,650	26,947	1,2637,275	5,140	440439	492	(2) 283771	1,009	(2) 91,935	2,152	5931,874	34,751	1,59617,690	14,247	1,3579,030	5,635	211210,415	195,826	14,370Started	Completed	Demolished (1)6,330	7,129	2432,343	2,520	10423,017	17,693	1,63611,345	6,917	475498	418	(2) 308679	554	(2) 8259	1,117	3030,521	27,562	1,05513,437	13,488	7696,661	6,897	291190,528	175,827	11,844Started	Completed	Demolished (1)11,286	8,252	4462,551	1,951	9122,285	20,405	1,67111,141	10,396	1,5121,048	622	(2) 1991,222	1,049	(2) 10498	487	3233,163	25,441	92715,553	14,984	9917,726	7,461	198233,653	201,232	14,299
(*) Source: Statistics Canada. <2>
City only.
Table 2.
Housing units started, completed and demolished, Metropolitan Areas, 1972-1975
Metropolitan Area	Started	1972 Completed	Demolished	Started	1973 Completed	Demolished	Started	1974 Completed	Demolished	Started	1975 Completed	DemolishedEdmonton	9,500	9,932	(1) 337	7,384	9,803	(1) 373	5,362	7,668	(1) 318	8,647	4,578	(1) 242Halifax	2,540	2,200	119	4,181	2,760	141	3,095	3,255	98	2,708	2,679	60Montreal	24,731	25,219	2,646	30,700	27,832	2,768	24,758	27,726	3,168	26,702	25,377	1,827Ottawa-Hull	14,887	11,469	878	15,511	12,541	534	9,709	15,036	911	7,156	11,313	245
[Mr. Cyr.)
January 24, 1977

Order Paper Questions
Table 2.
Housing units started, completed and demolished, Metropolitan Areas, 1972-1975 1972	1973	1974	1975Metropolitan Area	Started	Completed	Demolished (1)	Started	CompletedSaint John,	New Brunswick St. John's,	1,608	963	(2) 110	1,085	1,566Newfoundland	1,307	1,130	(2) 3	1,705	1,488Saskatoon	877	707	35	1,342	,1,006Toronto	38,695	41,156	835	37,697	34,701Vancouver	16,210	14,044	966	17,334	15,580Winnipeg	9,134	7,187	197	7,698	7,821Canada	249,914	232,227	15,347	268,529	246,581
B) Source: Statistics Canada. O) City only.


Mr. Gilbert: 
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did the government sign an agreement with Maine, USA on lumbering operations in the State by Canadian contractors and, if so, what are the terms of the agreement?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: it has not entered into any agreement with the State of Maine specifically in connection with lumbering operations by Canadian contractors in the State. There is however a reciprocal agreement between Canada and each of
the individual states of the USA respecting the eligibility and payment of unemployment insurance benefits. This agreement has been in effect with most states since 1942. The State of Maine, however, did not subscribe to the agreement until January 1, 1972. The agreement enables persons living in Canada who have worked in Maine and who have credits under the Unemployment Insurance program of that State to claim against those credits through the office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission serving the area in which they reside. The reverse is also true for Maine residents having Canadian credits. In both situations the individual is paid by the Unemployment Insurance agency from which he derived
2288

January 24, 1977
Order Paper Questions
his credits. The other jurisdiction merely administers the claim.
In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned: no.


Mr. Howie: During the summer of 1976, how many persons were employed at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown under the Student Summer Employment and Activities Programme?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Fifty-six.


Mr. Howie: 1.	How many strikes occurred within the federal jurisdiction for the Fiscal year ending March 31, 1976?
2.	How many man-days of employment were lost by the strikers?


John Carr Munro: 1. Fifty-eight.
2. Nine hundred thirty-seven thousand.


Mr. Horner: 1.	With reference to the statement by the Minister of Transport in the House on October 27, 1976, namely "We have found in the past that where we put in large subsidies, a great deal of misuse of service occurred.", from 1968 to date, in each case where such misuse occurred (a) what was the subsidy (b) what are the details of misuse (c) what was the amount of the subsidy?
2.	From 1968 to date, in each case where no misuse of service occurred, what was the subsidy and the amount?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. (a), (b) and (c) I was not implying that Government funds have been misused. Rather, subsidies distort, over a period of time, the free market forces which are thus discouraged or prevented from providing efficient transportation services thereby eliminating or reducing the requirement for subsidies.
2. Transportation subsidies are voted by parliament and paid by government for various purposes. These subsidies appear in the Main Estimates and the Public Accounts for each fiscal year.


Mr. Herbert: In the recently concluded discussions between the government and the Government of the Province of Quebec, seeking to transfer the Ste. Anne de Bellevue Veterans Hospital to provincial control, what (a) was the amount of cash offered with the transfer at the time of transfer (b) are the future cash payments, other than for the cost of the care of patients who are a federal responsibility?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Although discussions have taken place with the Province of Quebec with respect to the transfer of Ste. Anne's Hospital to
[Mr. Cullen.)
provincial control, the transfer of Ste. Anne's Hospital is not currently under negotiation.


Mr. Herbert: Was an agreement reached between the government and the Government of Quebec in the recent discussions having as their objective the transfer of the Ste. Anne de Bellevue Veterans Hospital to provincial jurisdiction and, if not, for what reason?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: No agreement has been reached between the federal government and the governemnt of Quebec with respect to the transfer of Ste. Anne's Hospital, Ste. Anne de Bellevue to provincial jurisdiction. The transfer of Ste. Anne's Hospital is not currently under negotiation.


Mr. Howie: Has any consideration been given to locating an armoured unit at CFB Gagetown as part of the Base development plan?


Barnett Jerome Danson: The
Department of National Defence has just completed a detailed review of the Canadian Forces structure which included a study of the roles and locations of all units in the Canadian Forces. This review also considered the redeployment of a number of combat elements to improve the geographic distribution of the land forces deemed prudent to carry out tasks associated with the sovereignty role. These considerations form part of the detailed Canadian Forces structure review which has not yet received government consideration. However, this review is not part of the Base development plan.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	(a) What is the present status of construction of the Jacques Cartier Terminal (b) on what date is it anticipated the terminal will be completed?
2.	(a) What is the present status with regard to the ordering of gantry cranes for the Jacques Cartier Terminal (b) has any date been set for the ordering of these cranes?
3.	(a) Has there been any financial commitment from either shipping lines or terminal operators to use the Jacques Cartier Terminal and, if so (i) what shipping lines or operators (ii) what is the extent of the financial commitment (b) will gantry cranes be ordered without or before financial commitments to use the Jacques Cartier facilities have been received?


Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. (a) Approximately 40 per cent completed, (b) Late 1977.
2.	(a) No gantry cranes have been ordered, (b) No date has been set for the ordering of the cranes.
3.	(a) No. (i) Not applicable, (ii) Not applicable, (b) No decision has been made at this time.
January 24, 1977


Mr. Epp: 1.	What was the number of people admitted to Canada under the Chilean Refugee Programme each year since its inception?
2.	What were the names and occupations given at the time of immigration of all refugees admitted under the Programme?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. 1973, 18; 1974, 1,056; 1975, 1,758; 1976, 1,165 (From January 1, to October 31, 1976).
2. It is not departmental policy to disclose names and occupations of individual immigrants.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Were there any recent discussions between the government and the Government of Quebec seeking to transfer the Ste. Anne de Bellevue Veterans Hospital to provincial control and, if so, what data was discussed for the reopening of discussions on the transfer of the Hospital?
2.	Was any consideration given to discontinuing such discussions for a period of (a) five years (b) four years (c) three years?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. There have been some discussions in the past year with respect to the possibility of commencing negotiations on the transfer of Ste. Anne's Hospital to provincial control, however the transfer of Ste. Anne's Hospital is not currently under negotiation.
Order Paper Questions
2. At the time of the discussions it was foreseen that negotiations could be undertaken during the 1977-78 fiscal year.


Mr. Herbert: Was there any disagreement to the (a) level of care to be provided to veterans that are a federal responsibility (b) amount to be paid to the province for the provision of that care in the recently concluded discussions between the government and the Government of Quebec on the transfer of the Ste. Anne de Bellevue Veterans Hospital to provincial control?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: There have been discussions with the Province of Quebec about the possibility of the transfer of Ste. Anne's Hospital, however the transfer of Ste. Anne's Hospital is not currently under negotiation, thus (a) levels of care which are the responsibility of the Government have not been identified, and (b) there have been no discussions concerning payment for the provision of care.


Mr. Herbert: For each of the past ten years, what was the percentage unemployed at the low and high points for unemployment of (a) household heads (b) youths (c) males not included in (b) (d) females not included in (b)?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Statistics Canada reports:
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	Household	Youths	Males	Females	Heads	(Age 15-19)	(Age 20+)	(Age 20+)	Low	High	Avg.	Low	High	Avg.	Low	High	Avg.	Low	High	Avg.1966	1.6	4.5	2.8	6.7	11.1	8.5	2.2	5.5	3.5	1.5	2.2	1.91967	1.9	4.5	3.2	6.8	12.8	9.7	2.4	5.8	4.0	1.8	2.5	2.21968	2.3	5.4	3.7	8.4	16.1	11.2	2.9	7.1	4.7	2.3	2.8	2.61969	2.3	4.8	3.4	7.9	15.2	11.4	3.1	6.4	4.5	2.1	3.3	2.71970	3.3	5.5	4.3	10.5	18.5	14.2	4.3	7.3	5.7	3.1	3.7	3.41971	3.2	6.4	4.6	11.7	20.0	15.4	4.4	8.4	6.1	3.3	4.6	3.91972	3.5	5.9	4.5	11.1	17.7	14.2	4.6	7.7	5.9	3.8	4.9	4.41973	2.9	6.0	4.0	9.2	16.4	12.5	3.6	7.6	5.1	3.5	5.3	4.21974	2.7	5.3	3.9	9.1	14.9	11.9	3.4	6.7	4.9	3.6	4.6	4.01975	3.8	7.0	5.1	11.6	17.8	15.5	4.7	8.6	6.4	4.8	5.8	5.2
Source: Statistics Canada, labour force survey. Data are not seasonally-adjusted and are derived from the survey as conducted between 1966 and 1975.


Mr. Howie: 1.	From January 1, 1975 to November 1, 1976, how many applications for DREE grants were received from New Brunswick and how many (a) were approved (b) were rejected (c) were withdrawn (d) are under consideration?
2.	How many have been under consideration for more than three months?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply for the Department
of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. 150 applications for incentives under the authority of the Regional Development Incentives Act were received by DREE for projects in New Brunswick from January 1, 1975 to November 1, 1976. (a) 56; (b) 19; (c) 54; (d) 21.
2. Twelve. In most cases, extra time was required by the applicant to provide information necessary to complete evaluation of the proposal.


Mr. Lawrence: For the 1975 taxation year, how many persons in Canada with a taxable income of (a) $20,000 to $25,000 (b) $25,000 to $50,000 (c) $50,000 to
80008-8%

January 24, 1977
Order Paper Questions
$100,000 (d) $100,000 and over, received unemployment insurance benefits and, in each income class, what was the total amount paid?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned Statistics indicating the number of beneficiaries in various taxable income brackets are not maintained.


Mr. Howie: 
Mr. Howie: Is DREE assistance available to (a) find (b) assist a suitable industry to locate in the industrial park at Nackawic, New Brunswick and, if so (i) in what form (ii) has any assistance been requested or any efforts been made since January 1, 1975?


Mr.   Eld. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: DREE participates in funding the Capital Regional Development Commission with offices in Fredericton, whose responsibilities include seeking suitable industry to locate in the Industrial Park at Nackawic, New Brunswick. No assistance has been requested from DREE by firms interested in locating in the Nackawic Industrial Park since January 1, 1975.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Has the government a programme or one contemplated to control media advertising of alcoholic products?
2.	In what respect will such control affect (a) newspaper (b) radio (c) television (d) magazine advertising?
3.	Are guidelines contemplated in respect to life style advertising to control the (a) quality (b) time of presentation (c) veracity of advertisement?


Marc Lalonde: 1. The government has prepared proposals dealing with media advertising the objective of which is to reduce the potential impact of advertising as a factor in encouraging increased consumption of alcohol.
2 and 3. The proposals provide for: Altering the review practices of the Beer, Wine and Cider Clearance Committee of the Canadian Radio-television Tele-Communications Commission to eliminate lifestyle scenes from broadcast advertising. Addition of representation from federal and provincial health agencies to the Beer, Wine and Cider Clearance Committee. Addition of a health warning concerning the potential harmful consequences of alcohol use to advertising packages and bottles. Consultations with the brewing, distilling, wine-making and cider-making industries, broadcasters, newspapers and magazines to get voluntary agreement to: (i) restrict hours of broadcast advertising to late evening; (ii) eliminate lifestyle advertising in print, both in newspapers and magazines; (iii) limit expenditures for advertising and other forms of promotion to 1975 levels, or some similar base period. Consultations have been held with the industries affected by these proposals. Their views on the implications of the proposals and their suggestions for possible alternatives are now being considered.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Has the Post Office Department issued an order requiring all cheques for postal meter charges to be certified and, if so, on what date?
2.	Has the Post Office Department received bad cheques in payment of such services and, if so, since January 1, 1975 (a) how many (b) in each case, what amount was involved?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. No.
2. Yes; (a) Two; (b) $376.48 and $320.


Mr. Howie: 1.	As of April 30, 1976, how many women held positions with salaries above $15,000 annually in the Public Service, excluding Crown corporations, boards and agencies?
2.	What is the total number of persons of deputy minister rank in the Public Service, excluding Crown corporations, boards and agencies and how many are female?
3.	What is the total number of public servants, excluding Crown corporations, boards and agencies and how many are (a) male (b) female?


Robert Knight Andras: 1.
As of March 31, 1976, 5,018 indeterminate full time female
January 24, 1977

employees held Public Service positions with annual salaries of $15,000 or more.*
2.	Of 28 persons of deputy minister rank in Public Service departments, one is a woman. Of an additional 21 persons of deputy minister rank in boards and agencies which are designated as departments by the Financial Administration Act, one is a woman.
3.	As of March 31, 1976, the total number of indeterminate full time public servants was 252,167.* Of these: (a) 170,787 are male; (b) 78,147 are female; (c) 3,233 did not supply information concerning their sex.
* All departments and agencies as defined in Schedule I, Part I of the Public Service Staff Relations Act for which the Public Service Commission has sole authority for appointment, and also the Public Service Staff Relations Board.


Mr. Yewchuk: What research projects is the Department of National Health and Welfare sponsoring or conducting on the effects of Amaranth (Red No.2) on human health?


Marc Lalonde: The Department of National Health and Welfare is fully aware of world research on the safety of amaranth and other food colours, and is in continuing close contact with scientists around the world who work in this area. In addition, the department has research projects underway to evaluate the safety of amaranth (Red No. 2). These studies involve an assessment of the purity and chemical composition of the dye in order to identify minor impurities. The toxicity of the impurities is being measured by short-term microbial tests to determine their mutagenic potential. Additionally, the metabolism and pharmacokinetic behaviour of amaranth is being investigated in a variety of animal species in an attempt to select the most appropriate species for chronic toxicity testing. No untoward effects have been noted in any of the tests conducted to date. A study of the teratogenicity of amaranth has recently been completed using cats as the test species. All food colours are being reviewed with a view to tightening specifications with respect to impurities.


Mr. Yewchuk: What research projects is the Department of National Health and Welfare sponsoring or conducting on the effects on human health of chloroform added to toothpastes, cough medicines and cosmetics?


Marc Lalonde: No research projects are being conducted by the Department of National Health and Welfare on the effects on human health of chloroform added to toothpastes, cosmetics and cough medicines. The department is, however, fully aware of the results of studies on chloroform and human health
Order Paper Questions
conducted elsewhere. As a result of a thorough evaluation of world knowledge respecting chloroform and health, a proposal has been formulated to prohibit the sale of products containing chloroform by manufacturers and distributors of drugs and cosmetics with an effective date of September 1, 1977 and communicated to manufacturers on July 8, 1976 (see Information Letter No. 472 attached).
Information Letter Health Protection Branch
July 8, 1976	I.L. No. 472
TO: All Manufacturers of Drugs or Cosmetics
SUBJECT: Proposed Restrictions on Use of Chloroform
New information from a recent study carried out by the National Cancer Institute in the United States suggests that chloroform may be carcinogenic in rats and mice when administered in high doses over prolonged periods. Although there is no direct evidence that chloroform as used in drugs and cosmetics, has caused injury to the health of humans, the new finding raises doubts about the long-term safety of this ingredient.
As a result of this new information the Health Protection Branch has reviewed the need for chloroform in products subject to the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations. The Branch is aware that chloroform has a long history of use in drugs and cosmetics. Presently available information indicates that current usage of chloroform in drug products in Canada is for its antitussive and carminative properties in products taken orally, for its counter-irritant property in liniments, as a preservative, as a flavouring, and as a solvent during the manufacturing process. In cosmetics it is used as a flavouring agent. For each of these applications, it would appear that alternative ingredients are available which currently are not open to suspicion. Therefore, it seems reasonable to discontinue the use of chloroform as an ingredient in drugs and cosmetics so that there will be no possibility of a hazard to the health of Canadian consumers.
It is my intention to recommend the implementation of regulations respecting drugs and cosmetics for human use that will prohibit the sale, by manufacturers or distributors, of products containing chloroform as an ingredient. It will be recommended that these regulations take effect on September 1, 1977. It is considered that there is no immediate hazard from the drugs and cosmetics currently marketed in Canada. Therefore, manufacturers and distributors of these products would be permitted to continue sale of these products up to that date in order to provide for an orderly conversion to reformulated products.
Comments in regard to this proposal should be submitted within thirty days of the date of this Information Letter and directed to:
The Director, Bureau of Drugs, Place Vanier, Tower "B", 355 River Road, Vanier Ontario. K1A 1B8
A. B. Morrison, Ph.D. Assistant Deputy Minister

January 24, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What volume of cargo in (a) tons (b) cubic feet by commodity was shipped by or for the government to the government Quarantine Station on the French Island of St. Pierre for the year (i) 1970 (ii) 1971 (iii) 1972 (iv) 1973 (v) 1974 (vi) 1975?
2.	What ocean freight rate is currently being paid per ton for the major commodities being shipped to the Quarantine Station?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.
(a) Commodity	1970	Tons shipped 1971 1972 1973	1974	1975Hay	636	1036	1321	1350	1294	2145Straw	383	423	227	-	430	709Grain	360	288	352	135	270	365Control cattle	36	44	50	55	47	56Control swine	3	6	2	2	2	2Pig feed	8	0.5	6	7	15	1Disinfectant	1	1	2	1	0.5	8Miscellaneous quarantine supplies	0.6	0.3	2	1	2	2Mineral supplements	-	6	2.5	5	10	-Wood shavings	-	-	-	150	19	-
(b) Not available. All cargo is shipped and paid for on the basis of weight.
2. Not applicable. St. Pierre Quarantine Station has been closed.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): On March 31, 1976, how many (a) female (b) male persons were (i) 60 to 65 years old (ii) 65 to 100 years old?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Estimate as of April 1, 1976 of male and female persons in Canada who were (i) 60 to 65 years old; and (ii) 65 to 100 years old is: 60-64, Male 434,900; Female 462,000; 65 plus, male 855,600; female 1,101,300.


Mr. McCleave: 1.	What are the expected costs of maintaining skeleton staff for each helicopter destroyer, Skeena, Nipigon, Fraser and Ottawa at Canadian Vickers Yard, including, separately, the cost of any allowances for meals and accommodations?
2.	What portion of the costs would have been incurred had the four vessels undergone refit at Halifax Shipyards?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. Nil. Under the terms of the contract with Canadian Vickers

Ltd. the ships Skeena, Nipigon, Fraser and Ottawa will not be manned during the refit.
2. Not applicable in view of the above.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): For the fiscal year 1975-76, what was the total amount of guaranteed income supplements paid to (a) males (b) females between the ages of 65 and 100?


Marc Lalonde: In the 1975-76 fiscal year, the total amount of guaranteed income supplements paid to those beneficiaries sixty-five years of age and older was $923,251,220.
Note: Statistics differentiating the sex of benefit recipients are not maintained.


Mr. Yewchuk: For the year (a) 197! (b) 1972 (c) 1973 (d) 1974 (e) 1975, how many mountain rescue operations were carried out in the (i) Kluane (ii) Nahanni (iii) Yoho (iv) Banff (v) Jasper (vi) Waterton (vii) Aiyuittug (viii) Forillon National Park and, in each case, at what cost?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (i) Kluane
(a) 1971	No. of rescues nil	Cost(b)1972	nil	-(c) 1973	1	$375.(d) 1974	1	$4,800(e) 1975	nil	-(ii) Nahanni	No. of rescues	Cost(a) 1971	N/A	-(b) 1972	N/A	-(c) 1973	N/A	-(d) 1974	N/A	-(e) 1975	N/A	-(iii) Yoho	No. of rescues	Cost(a) 1971	4	$689(b) 1972	2	$432(c) 1973	2	$390(d) 1974	2	$363(e) 1975	1	$1,431
(iv) Banff		
	No. of rescues	Cost
(a) 1971	9	$9,963(b) 1972	14	$15,200(c) 1973	22	$23,195(d) 1974	21	$48,162(e) 1975	18	$31,402(v) Jasper	No. of rescues	Cost(a) 1971	12	$4,286(b) 1972	10	$11,280(c) 1973	10	$3,509(d) 1974	10	$2,919(e) 1975	12	$7,555(iv) Waterton	No. of rescues	Cost(a) 1971	nil	-(b) 1972	nil	-(c) 1973	4	$514(d) 1974	nil	-(e) 1975	nil	-(vii) Aiyuittug	No. of rescues	Cost(a) 1971	nil	-(b) 1972	nil	-(c) 1973	1	$150(d) 1974	nil	-(e) 1975	2	$750(viii) Forillon	No. of rescues	Cost(a) 1971	nil	-(b) 1972	nil	-(c) 1973	nil	-(d) 1974	nil	-(e) 1975	1	$50
Order Paper Questions
lower maximum rate of pay, a demotion, either voluntarily at the request of the employee, or as the result of a joint decision between the employee and the supervisor, they are represented in our statistics. Employees appointed to a lower level within their occupational group: 1968-672; 1969-1,475; 1970- 1,794; 1971-2,115; 1972-2,460; 1973-2,370; 1974-2,832; 1975-2,872. Occasionally a deputy head may find no alternative but to resort to Section 31 of the Public Service Employment Act, which provides for the appointment to a lower maximum rate of pay of an employee for incompetence or incapacity in the performance of his or her duties. During the last ten years, these appointments have numbered as follows: 1967-1; 1968-8; 1969-8; 1970-7; 1971-7; 1972-2; 1973-2; 1974-3; 1975-7; 1976-7 (January 1 to November 24, 1976).
2. Records for years prior to 1975 are not kept in such a way that the salary ranges of these persons can be readily identified.
From:		To:	
PM-1	11,800-14,666	CR-5	11,796-12,901PM-1	11,800-14,666	CR-4	10,394-11,364CR-4	10,394-11,364	CR-2	7,768-8,476CR-4	10,394-11,364	CR-3	9,363-10,232GL-MDO-5	$4.70 p.h.	GL-MDO-4	$4.52 p.h.1976	GL-MDO-5	$5.18 p.h.	GL-MDO-4	$4.97 p.h.TR-2	14,826-19,505	TR-1	7,960-15,850CO-2	19,015-27,688	CO-1	14,129-19,392SR-MAN-5	$4.92 p.h.	GS-STS-3	$4.91 p.h.PI-1	10,619-12,521	GL-MAN-05	$6.06 p.h.STS-5	$5.29 p.h.	STS-4	$5.08 p.h.HP-4	14,996-15,438	GL-VHE-8	$5.44 p.h.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): For the fiscal year (a) 1974-75 (b) 1975-76, did the government make any family allowance payments and, if so, by province (i) what was the total amount (ii) for how many children were such payments made?


Marc Lalonde: 


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In each of the past ten years, how many public servants have been reassigned to other duties because of dissatisfaction with their performance?
2.	What are the salary ranges of these persons?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. Every year a large number of public servants are re-assigned to other duties because their employer is dissatisfied with their performance. If these re-assignments result in an appointment at the same rate of pay, they are treated as transfers and as such cannot be distinguished from transfers for other reasons. However when public servants are appointed to a position at a level with a
Family Allowances
	(a)		(b)	
	1974-75		1975-76	
(i)	(ii)	(0	(ii)($000's)	Children*	($000's)	Children*Newfoundland	55,970	225,016	60,222	226,198Prince Edward Island	10,196	41,189	10,967	82,532Nova Scotia	68,827	277,317	73,594	276,672New Brunswick	58,756	235,555	63,312	237,573Quebec	496,638	1,979,431	528,177	1,975,229Ontario	637,368	2,550,712	685,781	2,562,022Manitoba	81,332	326,209	87,064	326,614Saskatchewan	76,165	305,926	81,641	306,866Alberta	148,095	593,829	160,732	604,621British Columbia	184,145	735,489	198,706	744,181Northwest Territories	4,663	18,358	5,209	19,183Yukon	1,899	7,493	2,108	7,758Tout	1,824,054	7,296,524	1,957,513	7,369,449
Number of children in pay on March 31 of the appropriate fiscal year.

Order Paper Questions AIR COMMAND HEADQUARTERS SALARIES


Mr. Howie: What amount has been budgeted for salaries for the present year of operation of Air Command Headquarters at Winnipeg?


Barnett Jerome Danson: For
Fiscal year 1976/77: Military Personnel, $5,720,000; Civilian personnel, 1,740,000; Total, $7,460,000.


Mr. Howie: Has the Department of National Defence identified one hundred PMQ units at CFB Gagetown as surplus to the Department's needs and have the units been offered for sale and, if so, to whom and for what amount?


Barnett Jerome Danson: The
proposed changes to the land force posture make it necessary for DND to retain all the Gagetown PMQ units for the forseeable future. No units have been offered for sale.


Mr. Howie: L Are any permanent civilian positions at CFB Gagetown being deleted from the plan or organization within the next year and, if so, how many?
2. What is the total annual payment in salaries for such positions?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. Yes. Two.
2.	$19,000.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	For each month since the creation of the Foreign Investment Review Agency, how many cases have come before it for approval?
2.	How many applications have been (a) approved (b) refused?
3.	What is the (a) shortest (b) longest (c) average (d) mean amount of time expressed in days, between the date of application and the date on which a decision was made?
4.	Has the time limit for an offer to purchase ever expired prior to the FIR A making a decision on an application and, if so (a) in how many cases (b) in each case (i) what was the company involved (ii) how many days did it take to make a decision?
1974	1975	1976January	NA	15	18February	NA	10	10March	NA	23	19April	2	19	38May	6	15	33June	11	6	21July	13	18	30August	19	10	37September	6	11	41October	16	16	55November	18	17	31December	11	12	-2.	As of December 3, 1976, the Governor in Council had (a) allowed 345 applications; (b) refused to allow 53 applications. In addition, 65 applications had been withdrawn.3.	Between the date of certification of receipt of an application and the date of decision by the Governor in Council: (a) the shortest amount of time was eight days; (b) the longest amount of time was 484 days; (c) the average amount of time was 112 days; (d) See (c).4.	(a) To the best of the agency's knowledge, there have been at least six acquisition cases in which the offer to purchase expired before a decision was made by the Governor in Council. There may have been other cases as investors are not obliged to advise the agency of any time limits applicable to their investment proposals. Also, in a number of cases purchase agreements have been extended pending a decision under the act. (b) Ordinarily, in cases where a purchase agreement expires before a decision is taken by the Governor in Council and the agreement is not extended, the case is withdrawn and, consistent with the requirements of section 14 of the act, the names of the parties to the proposed acquisition are not made public by the government.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government aware of the observation of the Senate Agricultural Committee that "paternalism overrides all else in agriculture and rural development policy" and that "an imposition of bureaucratic wishes upon and against the farmers' will is all too common" and, if so, is it the intention of the government to look into these reports with a view to changing the present procedure?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Yes. The Industry, Trade and Commerce): In so far as the Foreign government is aware of these observations which are quoted Investment Review Agency is concerned: 1. The number of from page 77 of the report of the Standing Senate Committee reviewable cases received monthly since inception of the For- on Agriculture entitled "Kent County Can be Saved". It is eign Investment Review Act are:	current procedure to involve farmers and/or their representa-

January 24, 1977

tives as much as possible in the formulation and implementation of agricultural and rural development policies and this procedure will be continued.


Mr. McKinnon: As of the completion of the assessment-approval phase of the Local Initiatives Programme in British Columbia, by constituency, how much was returned for re-allocation?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The assessment-approval phase of the Local Initiatives Program has not been completed, and, because of the supplementary allocation to the program, will be prolonged for another few weeks. Until its completion, the amount of unutilized funds available for redistribution cannot be ascertained.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is the decision on the construction of a replacement of Senneville Lodge in Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, dependent upon the transfer of Queen Mary Veterans Hospital in Montreal, for which there is agreement in principle, rather than on the neighbouring Ste. Anne de Bellevue Veterans Hospital where there are no discussions taking place at this time about the transfer and, if so, for what reason?
2.	How many veteran patients are in each of the three locations?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. The decision on the construction of a replacement of Senneville Lodge, Senneville, Quebec, is not dependent on the transfer of Queen Mary Veterans Hospital in Montreal.
2. Ste. Anne's Hospital, 845; Senneville Lodge, 136; Queen Mary Veterans Hospital, 219.


Mr. Lawrence: For the 1975 taxation year, how many persons in Canada with a taxable income of (a) $20,000 to $25,000 (b) $25,000 to $50,000 (c) $50,000 to $100,000 (d) $100,000 and over, received unemployment insurance benefits and, in each income class, what was the total amount paid?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: See reply to Question 1,049 answered this day.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 616, 742, 1038 and 1150 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately. I might point out to the House that the reason in each case is because of the long and detailed nature of the answer.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that these questions be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	(a) How many regional offices are maintained by the Department of Veterans Affairs (b) where is each located (c) for what area is each responsible?
2.	On what date was each established and with how many personnel?
3.	What is the present personnel strength of each office?
4.	In addition to regional offices, are district or other sub-offices maintained and, if so (a) in what locations (b) how many?
5.	Are the duties performed by those manning the regional and/or district offices line functions, in the chain of command from Ottawa to the operator in the field, or do they have other functions to perform and, if so, what are such functions?
Return tabled.


Mr. Muir: 1.	What projects has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion assisted municipal units to undertake in Nova Scotia and, in each case, what was the (a) municipal unit (b) project (c) amount of the assistance?
2.	Are there projects for municipal units to which DREE has pledged assistance in Nova Scotia that have not as yet been undertaken and, if so, what (a) are the units (b) is the project (c) was the amount of assistance pledged?
Return tabled.


Mrs. Appolloni: Did the Department of National Health and Welfare conduct a study on the possibility of allowing voluntary retirement at age 60 with relative benefits under the Canada Pension Plan and, if so, what were the conclusions?
Return tabled.


Mr. Kempling: 1.	How many man-years were used by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in preparing the Working Paper on Patent Law Revision and the proposed Patent Law?
2.	How many persons were involved in preparing the study and legislation and, how many (a) had an intimate knowledge of Patent Law (b) were economists (c) were from other disciplines and what were such disciplines?
3.	Were consultations held with the Patent Institute of Canada, patent attorneys, patent agents and Canadian Patent and Development Ltd. and, if so (a) on what date (b) in what locations (c) who was in attendance?
4.	What was the total cost of (a) the Working Paper (b) all salaries and wages (c) consultants fees (d) printing and preparation (e) administrative costs?
5.	How many briefs were received from the (a) private sector (b) government agencies on the proposed Patent Law Revision and draft legislation and, in each case, what is the name of all those who made submissions?
Return tabled.

January 24, 1977
Unemployment


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 1,073?
[ Text]


Mr. Towers: As of this date, how many payments have been made into the Grain Stabilization Account and, in each case (a) on what date (b) in what amount?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the Canadian Wheat Board is concerned: (a) As of November 17, no payments had been made into the grain stabilization account, (b) a payment was made November 18 of $29, 664,329.20.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the revelation that since the House last sat, unemployment has risen to 7.5 per cent, the announcement of further forecasts that unemployment throughout 1977 will remain at the highest level since the Second World War, and that related to these two points, the government has not announced, since the House last sat, any new job creation programs-and I include answers in the House this afternoon-or its intention to do so in the near future.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) gave the Chair notice of his intention to propose this motion pursuant to Standing Order 26, and accordingly the Chair was given an opportunity to reflect on the propriety of the subject matter with respect to the terms of not only the language of Standing Order 26 but also its clear application in respect of the precedents of the House. In that regard I refer the House to two previous rulings, one on June 12, 1973, when my distinguished predecessor, in respect to a

proposed motion pursuant to Standing Order 26 dealing with regional unemployment and national inflation, had this to say:
Putting aside for the moment that the proposed request may be contrary to that section of the Standing Order which prohibits the raising of more than one matter, the Chair has frequently stated in considering proposed motions to adjourn the House that the question that must be determined does not necessarily concern itself with the importance of the topic raised but rather with the requirement that the matter should be one that must be given urgent consideration under the Standing Order.
In considering that portion of the hon. member's proposition which deals with regional unemployment, I think it is fair for the Chair to say that while the topic is one which has been of concern to all members, it is also one of a continuing nature which, as such, does not seem to meet the requirements of Standing Order 26.
On November 9, 1976 the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby put before this House a similar motion related to unemployment. At that time I had the following to say:
Certainly, that language would indicate that a matter such as unemployment or any other matter of national concern would fall into that category. However, the practice and precedents in the House have indicated that the primary consideration which should govern the decision of the Chair in reference to this Standing Order is not so much whether a matter is one of continuing concern but, specifically, whether it is of critical proportions and constitutes a crisis as opposed to being chronic. While the matter of unemployment can scarcely be brushed aside as not qualifying under the opening paragraph of Standing Order 26, I am sure hon. members would agree that it is a matter of continuing concern as opposed to one of crisis proportions.
Therefore, in respect of that rationale which was based on the very clear ruling of my predecessor, I would have to find that unemployment remains a matter of continuing concern, and that in the opinion of the Chair, the subject-which at least in terms of its continuing nature, although perhaps related to a particular event, may in the future qualify under the Standing Order in its continuing nature-is not a matter for debate under Standing Order 26.
Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council) moved:: That this House approves the radio and television broadcasting of its proceedings and of the proceedings of its committees on the basis of principles similar to those that govern the publication of the printed official reports of debates; and That a special committee, consisting of Mr. Speaker and seven other members to be named at a later date, be appointed to supervise the implementation of this resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
January 24, 1977


Some hon. Members:: No.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the adoption of this motion will have a direct and important effect on the democratic process in Canada. In this debate we must face head-on questions about the precise role of this House in our democracy. We must decide whether broadcasting will enhance that role and whether it will do so without sacrificing any of the fundamental rights and privileges of parliament.
Broadcasting raises a number of important questions, but we must begin with a clear appreciation of the functions of this House and how broadcasting is likely to affect them. To begin with, the House of Commons, with the other place and the Crown, makes the laws of Canada. Broadcasting will in no way affect the legislative function of parliament. It will not alter the role of the House as a law-making body. The House has, however, a number of equally important functions on which broadcasting will exert a direct influence. First, the House is the forum in which the government must defend both its legislative proposals and its administrative actions. Second, the House provides a framework in which the opposition parties expose their views and prepare to take over the role of governing. Third, the House is the body to which Canadians send their representatives, not only to support or oppose the government of the day but to intervene on their behalf.
Clearly, broadcasting will influence these functions. It will inform Canadians about what the government is doing, about what the opposition is proposing or exposing, and about the manner in which members represent their constituents and play an integral role in the governing process. In short, broadcasting will let Canadians know better what is being done here on their behalf. This cannot but have an important influence on the role parliament plays in Canadian democracy. In this age of communications, those institutions which fail to communicate their objectives and purposes lose both relevancy and meaning for the public. It is not enough for parliament to be flexible, for governments to be responsible. Achievements must not only take place but they must be seen to take place for the public to retain its interest and confidence.
Broadcasting is certainly the best way to ensure that Canadians, particularly young Canadians, understand what we are doing here and how we are doing it. And if Canadians are well informed they will better be able to respond and will keep our democracy dynamic by letting us know what they think. This could in the future have a direct impact on the way we meet our many challenges in the constitutional field, in social and economic policy, in communications, in transportation and in the many other areas of government activities. On the fundamental question, therefore-the question whether broadcasting will strengthen Canadian democracy-my answer is an unequivocal "Yes".
Now I should like to deal with a number of other questions which the motion raises. First of all, like any proposal for a major departure, it raises not only the question, "Why?" but also the question, "Why now?" and, "How will the operations of the House be affected?" A short historical comparison provides good guidance. As late as 1874 the Canadian House
Broadcasting House Proceedings of Commons did not publish an official report of its proceedings. Observers of parliament were obliged to rely on what Sir John Bourinot referred to as "partial imperfect reports in the newspapers". The opponents of printing the debates cited arguments now familiar to us. According to them, the publication of debates would drastically alter the nature of the House, leading to more and lengthier speeches, grand-standing and further domination by the occupants of front-bench seats. They feared that printed reports would be distorted by their political opponents, and they argued that the technical expertise-presumably they meant shorthand reporters-was not available or, at least, was priced beyond the means of the government. Their ultimate assertion was that nobody would pay attention to the printed reports anyway.
Publications of our present Hansard began in 1875 and the opponents of publication were quickly proved wrong. I doubt if anyone today would seriously propose that we abandon the printing of these reports. The technological developments of the last 100 years have transformed the debate over a printed Hansard into the present debate over what can best be described as an "electronic Hansard". Not surprisingly, we must now answer, again, many of the questions answered 100 years ago: Has the broadcasting proposal been thoroughly studied? How will broadcasting affect the dignity, privileges and immunities of parliament? Will parliament be able to stand the kind of exposure television gives? Who will control the production of the electronic Hansardl What use will be made of the productions? What will be the cost?
The broadcasting proposal has been thoroughly studied. Television first appeared here in 1957 when parliament was opened by Her Majesty. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) merits the credit for this first step. We have had it back temporarily for special events since then. Proposals for broadcasting parliament have been discussed on many occasions. On June 5, 1967, there was a debate on a private member's motion by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman). A similar motion was debated on an allotted day motion by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) on March 26, 1969. There was a debate in February and March, 1970, on a motion to refer the subject to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, and the adoption of this motion led to a two-year study by the committee. The result of the committee's deliberations was a report to the House on June 30, 1972, which recommended the implementation of broadcasting as an electronic Hansard. It is perhaps worthwhile reminding the House of some of the observations made in the report, as follows:
Radio and television and particularly the latter have become the most important media of mass communications and exert a powerful influence on public opinion.
If parliament excludes itself from access to the broadcasting media it may well deny itself the opportunity of making its most effective public impact.
Parliament represents the people: and one of its prime responsibilities is to inform the people. The people therefore have a right to see their parliament in action and through television coverage this right could become a reality for all people from coast to coast.

Broadcasting House Proceedings
Those are the observations of the standing committee of the House of Commons. These conclusions have formed the basis for the government's attitude and actions on broadcasting since 1972. Speeches from the Throne in January, 1973, September, 1974, and October, 1976, have repeated the government's intention to proceed; and for more than a year my predecessor, the hon. member for Eglington (Mr. Sharp), had on the order paper in his name a motion identical to the one now under consideration. At the same time, the government commissioned a number of technical studies, including a cost study tabled by my predecessor last June, and a half-hour videotape presentation in both official languages entitled "Broadcasting Parliament" which was shown to the party caucuses, the cabinet and the press gallery.
This is the background. It is now the government's responsibility to bring the question before the House for a decision. This we are doing, encouraged by the exhortation of members opposite.
Turning to the question of how broadcasting will affect the dignity, privileges and immunities of parliament, we must recognize that some action may be necessary but that there will be no sacrifice of existing privileges and immunities. One of the purposes of the special committee to be appointed on the adoption of the motion before us will be to examine this question. If the committee finds legislation on the matter necessary, the government will bring in the appropriate bill. Parliament would also, of course, ensure that the use made of broadcasts does not infringe the privileges of the House.
The broader question about the influence of broadcasting on the dignity of parliament is closely linked to the question about whether the House can stand the kind of exposure television gives. This is a matter of concern to all members. For my part, I do not subscribe to the view that the House cannot stand exposure. The purpose of broadcasting is not to provide entertainment, nor to convert the House of Commons to "show business"-although it displays such proclivities from time to time. The purpose is to provide Canadians with information and an archival and educational record of the proceedings. All members are aware that debate in the House is occasionally something less than scintillating, and that Canadians cannot be expected to remain glued to their television sets while we discuss such exotic things as bills dealing with consular privileges. But it is foolhardy to argue that Canadians will not understand the workings of the House and that exposure will be unhealthy. Indeed, exposure may well exert a healthy influence on the calibre of debate and the enthusiasm with which members put forward their views. It may also produce a better public understanding of the fact that a member's duties extend well beyond attendance in the House and often centre on the need to intervene on their constituents' behalf with the government and its agencies. In short, I have confidence both in the ability of this institution to adapt to new challenges and in the ability of Canadians to understand the workings of parliament.

The experience in other legislative bodies which have permitted broadcasting supports these positive expectations. Any observer of legislatures around the world recognizes that broadcasting has not had the negative effects foreseen by its critics. Television broadcasting is carried on in the Alberta and the Ontario legislatures on an ad hoc basis by the media. Nova Scotia has permitted experimental television broadcasts. Recently, the Quebec government has indicated that broadcasting of the proceedings of the Quebec assembly may become a reality in the near future.
At the international level, broadcasting is even more prevalent. Television broadcasting has taken place at the United Nations for some time, and a total of 21 national parliaments permit either live or recorded television broadcasts. Radio broadcasting, still a very important facet of communication, has been permitted by a number of national parliaments in addition to those permitting television broadcasts. Members of the House will, of course, know that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-the Islands (Mr. Douglas) deserves recognition as a pioneer of radio broadcasting for his role in initiating radio broadcasts of the Saskatchewan legislature over 30 years ago.
Turning to the matter of production and control of the "electronic Hansard", several points must be made. First, production is to take place on the same basis as the present production of the written reports; that is, under the authority of the House as exercised by Mr. Speaker. The standing committee chose this option over control by the media or some external body or enterprise. The reason is clear; only supervision of production by the House itself, through Mr. Speaker, can ensure that the record of the proceedings is complete and that parliament's traditions and procedures are respected.
The second point about the proposed system is that though parliament would assume responsibility for producing the official "electronic Hansard", it would not assume responsibility for the editing of broadcasts by the media. It would not be consistent with the freedom of the press for parliament or the government of the day to attempt to direct how and when use should be made of the broadcasts. Though some members may hold reservations about the impartiality of the media, it is clear that editing by parliament would create controversy and confusion and, at the same time, impose a form of censorship undesirable in our democracy. Thus, parliament would produce the basic material, in both official languages, as it now does the printed Hansard. But broadcasters, educators and researchers would use the material according to their requirements. This would, of course, be subject to insistence by parliament that its fundamental rights and privileges be observed, as it is now the case with the written reports.
My third point about the proposed system concerns the distribution of the "electronic Hansard",. In the initial stages of the implementation of the resolution, parliament will be brought to Canadians primarily over the existing radio and television networks and private stations. The major Canadian networks have already indicated their interest, and it is reasonable to expect that they will fill the very valuable role of
January 24, 1977

showing parliament on news, public affairs and documentary programs. Looking at the longer term, the report of the standing committee dealt with possible means for broadcasting, on a national basis, as comprehensive a record of the proceedings as possible, to give the public the opportunity to view the proceedings without intermediate editing by the media. The government endorses the principle that Canadians should be given direct access to the proceedings. Of course, many technical and practical problems will have to be worked out before such transmission becomes a reality, and it is likely that this will be one of the later stages in the implementation of the resolution.
Looking ahead, then, when the motion is adopted, the committee will be set up and charged with supervising the installation of production facilities, examining the distribution needs of the media and members themselves, and reviewing methods of ensuring that the rights and privileges of parliament are preserved.
Though broadcasting would not begin the day after the adoption of the motion, televising of special occasions, such as the budget debate, by temporary equipment would be possible almost immediately, and work on installation of the permanent system should be well under way by the end of the summer recess.
I do not intend to describe at this moment the nature of the production facilities which are envisaged, since I understand other members wish to comment on this subject in some detail. Let me say simply that technological innovations in recent years have made it possible to instal a completely remote-controlled system in which neither cameras nor production personnel would be visible, and to light the House without causing the physical discomfort we have experienced on occasions in the past.
Finally, I should like to deal with the question of cost. The feasibility study undertaken by the CBC, and tabled in the House, estimated capital cost for installing the production facilities at $3,269,000. The annual operating cost was estimated at $935,000. These costs are considerable, but let us not use this as a red-herring argument against broadcasting. At present, the total annual printing bill for parliament is approximately $3 million, $2 million of which is accounted for by printing the debates of the House, the Order Paper and Votes and Proceedings.
Clearly, the operating cost for broadcasting, at less than half parliament's annual printing cost, cannot be considered a serious impediment. Broadcasts could reach millions, while Hansard has a circulation of under 14,000. In terms of percentage increase in the cost of operating parliament, broadcasting costs would amount to an approximate 1.7 per cent increase in the present total of $56 million.
I have no doubt we will hear complaints during the debate about how broadcasting will end traditions here. Yet, while listening to arguments about privileges and rights we should bear in mind remarks of Edward Blake, a most distinguished
Broadcasting House Proceedings
parliamentarian and a member of the government that instituted the printed Hansard. He said:
The privileges of parliament are the privileges of the people and the rights of parliament are the rights of the people.
Now that broadcasting is technically possible, we cannot ignore our responsibility to the Canadian people-the responsibility to allow them the fullest knowledge of what is being done on their behalf here in parliament. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the House can move rapidly to a favourable decision and that we can move ahead in a very fundamental innovation in the operation of the Canadian parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in the last portion of his speech the minister quoted Edward Blake. In looking across to the other side of the chamber day by day I am reminded of Disraeli who, when looking at the treasury benches, saw before him a row of extinct volcanoes. When I look across to this government, what I see reminds me of a mud flat after the tide has gone out.
I listened with some interest to the minister's speech. I am somewhat amused by this government's issuing a clarion call for openness in parliament. This, from the mouth of the government House leader, is really a blasphemy considering what the government's attitude has been toward openness in government, in parliament, in answering questions or anything else with regard to providing a look into the operations of government by we whom the government House leader described as the representatives of the people.
Aside from its dullness, the speech is a list of pious platitudes from this government which speaks in the name of openness-believe it or not, this government that denied to this House a full debate on Viet Nam during the course of the twenty-ninth parliament. When that debate, which was called by the minister's predecessor, got a little hot, it was immediately cut off. The government has asked the opposition to debate national issues such as unemployment on its opposition days. It volunteered no initiative itself. The government has not given the House of Commons and, therefore, the people of Canada, an opportunity to discuss for even one day the cold ramifications arising from our position as a nation in the world in terms of foreign affairs. The government House leader is a former foreign affairs minister. Perhaps that is the reason we have not had the debate on that point.
This move by the government at this time is just so much hypocrisy. It is shrouded in the swaddling-cloth of questionable piety, on the one hand, and synthetic rectitude on the other.
We are back, after a parliamentary recess, faced with about the same legislative wasteland that we faced before we left. In terms of the order paper, after a month there is nothing new that shows itself. It is not even worth opening. It would not even be interesting to a student of the history of this time. There is nothing that faces us in this House except the fact that it is becoming glaringly apparent that the government wasted the recess. That is not to say they did not communicate

January 24, 1977
Broadcasting House Proceedings with us. I received a letter, today, dated Friday, January 21. It was not delivered to my office this morning, or on the weekend; it was delivered to me in the House today. It states:
In managing the business of the House, I have in mind that members can give effective representation to their electors only if they have adequate and frequent contact with them.
Has anyone thought that the government might have done a little bit of work at Christmas? After all, the government are paid extra salaries with respect to this matter. It then states:
If the House continues to move at its pre-Christmas pace, 1 fear that there will be even less time available for members to spend among their constituents.
Isn't that a great way to start off a session?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You had better table the letter, now that you have read it.


Walter David Baker: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the letter. I have copies of it here. Unfortunately, I do not have it in both official languages, but it would be equally offensive in both official languages. It goes on to state:
As a first planning step, we should attempt to agree on the completion of the 13 items on which the House has already taken some time.
Historic sites-is that what the government House leader has in mind as business to occupy us in this period of restraint when, notwithstanding the platitudes of the government, people are having trouble with respect to the fight against inflation? Almost 800,000 people in this country are unemployed. There are 82,000 more people unemployed now than there were last August. Is that the issue of priority?
The first step is for the government to make up its mind as to what are its priorities. In taking that first step there might be other things more relevant than the particular matter before us today. This is management by the managers, the technocrats, the men and women who pride themselves on being able to manage the economy, the House, and people's lives, the so-called indispensibles who have led us into an economic valley of the shadows. The government has demonstrated today its inability to solve anything, even to settle priorities for itself and rise to the challenges which face us. It cannot even order the priorities of this House responsibly. Even the most ardent apologist for the government is embarrassed by what has happened in the first part of this session, and equally embarrassed by the sense of priority shown in the designation of government business today.
It is important that the public should know the government's priorities. There is no evidence of any intention, for example, to bring forward a freedom of information act, which ought to be the cornerstone of the open government to which lip service was given in the pieties which have been expressed on the other side; this is something for which my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has called repeatedly.
Let me make this clear: the prospect of the broadcasting of our proceedings has a wholesome, tantalizing effect upon me. Frankly, I should like to see such broadcasting started in the
[Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).J
public accounts committee when we are dealing with the foolishness of government, when we are dealing, let us say, with a report of the Auditor General. I would love to have seen the television cameras in the House when the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) was trying to justify the appointment of a royal commission on a royal commission. I would love to have seen television in the House of Commons when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) asked the House to accept that the expenditure of $740,000 of public funds was a worthy price to be paid for his meanderings across the country to preach the gospel. He could do this in living colour and we would catch the blush on his cheek. It would be a wonderful thing to see him standing there with all the apparent innocence of a newly-laid egg.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: If broadcasting is to be the order of the day, we must debate it. But I hope the government does not believe the people of Canada will be fooled by this parliamentary diversion. They see their country going to hell in a hand-basket, aided and abetted by a government which is suffering from an acute case of the political DT's.
It is obvious that television is, really, the meat of the debate. Television is a many-faceted medium. On the one hand, it trivializes matters of importance, and on the other it can elevate the rare or the unrepresentative to omnipresent reality. All of this is paid for by distorting our evaluation of our own needs and confusing our judgment as consumers. Yet the very people who curse at commercials and sterile programming assume that television's intrusion into everything is either natural or inevitable. That is the remarkable thing about the present debate: except for a number of concerned people in this chamber, a debate on the subject of broadcasting House proceedings could hardly be said to exist. Our constituents believe that television is coming to the House. They are not interested in the argument for it or against it. They want to be able to watch it when it comes-and many of us suspect they will probably turn it off soon afterward. I suggest it is this sentiment of inevitability, as much as any conclusive debate, which will bring television into this chamber.
With a considerable number of reservations which I and those who follow me will put on the record, we will support the main object of the motion. Indeed, it is difficult to counter the weight of the argument that the people have a right to see and hear what is happening in parliament. But there are some deep reservations felt in this place and elsewhere, and I intend to express some of them in the form of an amendment. In particular, we protest vehemently the manner in which broadcasting is being introduced. The motion amounts to a strictly "take it or leave it" proposition, and we know that those opposite have been instructed to take such an attitude.
There are two fundamental questions to be dealt with. First: If the proceedings of this chamber are to be broadcast, by what process will broadcasting be implemented, and how will the innovation be evaluated? Second: What will be the effect of bringing into a chamber, whose chief purpose is to deal
January 24, 1977

thoroughly with detailed and complex business, a medium which is judged by its ability to entertain? I want to deal with the second question first. We have to be concerned whether the selective cameras will give an accurate picture of what is really happening on the floor of the House. Despite our rules, it sometimes happens that more than one person is speaking at once, or is competing for the attention of the Speaker by a process which is somewhat undignified. Mr. Ward, the Associate Editor of Hansard, has made a comment with respect to that matter which I should like all hon. members to read. However, the question of the camera's view is the smallest part of our concern: the use made of film by various news editors will be the most important cause of concern to us all. What will those editors look for? Will they look for evidence of hard work, careful preparation, intelligence, persistence, perception? Or will they look for excitement and drama-and, in the process, attempt to create it? Will the questioner be in the evening news film clip, or will it be just the minister replying, however reluctantly? A need will arise, so far unfulfilled in the print media, for commentators who understand our procedures; and we must assert that those procedures are not irrelevant simply because they are complicated.
If television does bring about a change in our chamber-as many hope, and some fear-will that change be for the better or for the worse? Will we get along with it a freedom of information bill to provide the depth in our debates which people will expect, or shall we merely be driven to shorter speeches for the sake of better television as opposed to better debate? We must hope-I certainly hope-that television and the public reaction to it will not compel us to sit here during the discussion of business which does not immediately concern us and at times when we should be in our offices or in committee discussing things which do.
There is an expectation that television will highlight our so-called archaic rules. I imagine the government looks forward, as a result, to acquiring more power because the exercise of power is more entertaining than the tedious process of probing, delaying, exposing and qualifying, which is the task of the opposition. I assure the government that we shall continue to discuss rule changes which will give parliament the power to provide those checks on executive action which it is the purpose of parliament to provide, but that we shall resist any change which confuses relevancy with entertainment.
If I have been expressing anything, I have been expressing the doubts of one forced to run across unknown fields when prudence and experience dictate that we walk. We grow weary of watching the government advance with blind and extravagant confidence, and then retreat with banners flying, and public relations men trumpeting as though predictable defeat was justified by blatant confession.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize that our reservations are put forward on behalf of the institution of parliament. As a party, we feel that the government's rashness will be its own undoing. Viewers are bound to tire of the government's persistent assertion that the release to parliamentarians of studies done at public expense is, somehow, never in the public
Broadcasting House Proceedings interest. They will demand more than slick answers in the question period, and will wonder at the casual passing to powerless parliamentary secretaries of important policy questions, which we saw today. They will be astonished to see billions of dollars of estimates whisked through after only cursory examination. That is the effect of the rules of this House now. It is going to make very depressing television for Canadians. I think it will be so depressing to them that the advent of television-and I support it for more than just this reason-is likely to speed the Liberal party's demise and its removal into a period of rest, which it deserves beyond measure.
Perhaps for all of us our constituents will appreciate the grinding tasks that we must perform, and perhaps they will come to reject as inadequate analysis the fashionable cynicism purveyed about us from time to time. I hope that will be the case. In short, Mr. Speaker, we must hope that good television and good parliamentary democracy are natural companions. We will have to wait and see, though, because no one in this chamber can predict that.
Will television bring out the best, or the worst, about this institution, or make no difference at all? That should be a sobering question for parliamentarians, and it is a shame that in the resolution as it is now framed we will not have the chance seriously to study the possibilities.
We are not without forerunners in this experiment, and we are not compelled to jump into broadcasting with all its unknowns. In Alberta, viewer ratings are so low that the networks are discussing turning over the broadcasts to the educational channel. In Nova Scotia, where a three-week experiment in televising the proceedings took place in 1971, no one has made any further demands for its continuance. In Ontario, where cameras have been admitted to the legislature, very little actual coverage takes place. In B.C., after many reports on the subject recommending broadcaster access, the government indicates that they have no immediate plans to allow television in the House.
As well, these arguments are related to the type of coverage that is, in the end, permitted. Saskatchewan has had radio broadcasts of House proceedings for almost 30 years with very little negative consequence. Television brings its own impact, but radio, in fact, may not. Perhaps the only clear message in all of these pro and con arguments is the need to discuss carefully, and introduce slowly, any major broadcasting efforts. Even the most trivial change in our rules seems to get more attention than is implicit in the resolution that is before the House with respect to broadcasting.
Where, for example, is a study on the implications of this move for parliamentary privilege? We can accept the platitudes of the government House leader, but where is the study and where are the conclusions? Is parliament to take part in this, or is it all to be done in the privy council office? Should we not have a committee report on our vulnerability to libel and slander laws before approving this motion? Will we be

Broadcasting House Proceedings
restricted in what we say, and to what extent? Conversely, what protections will other Canadians have from televised slanders? There is a vast difference between an intemperate remark in this House which may be buried in Hansard, on the one hand, and an insulting or libellous phrase broadcast on national television.
Where, too, is the chance for us to determine whether this is the most cost-effective way of providing broadcast facilities? The government House leader says the sum of $3.5 million will be the cost, but it will probably be more than double that. One million dollars is required for operating expenses. I hate to use the word, but I am sure it is a "conservative" estimate. What we are doing here, Mr. Speaker, really is subsidizing the networks. We have no idea whether MPs will be happy with the facilities or whether or not the networks will use them to any significant extent. Are there no cheaper alternatives? What chance have we to ask the networks how they plan to use the films? Does the government intend to ask the networks whether they plan to contribute to the cost so that the burden will not all fall on the public purse?
Not only do we have no committee stage before we are faced with the motion, but the motion itself in its very terms is a study in obscurity. It proposes to establish broadcasting "on the basis of principles similar to those that govern the publication of the printed official reports of debates". What are these principles, Mr. Speaker? Obviously, not all the principles that apply to Hansard can apply to broadcasting. MPs cannot send the electronic Hansard out to their constituents to provoke interest or clear the record. There can be no in-House editing. We cannot append anything to it. An electronic Hansard is primarily for the use of the media, and not the member, and there can be no greater deviation in principle than that. It is something that this House as an institution ought to consider.
According to the motion, we also get a committee, not to estimate the need or set the method, not to evaluate performance or hear complaints, but simply to supervise the implementation. Is that the only term of reference? When is the implementation stage deemed to be finished? More seriously, we wonder if its deliberations are of any use at all because the Privy Council, in making the technical decisions, has probably now decided the ethical questions as well.
Why cannot we make what may be a far-reaching change one step at a time? Would it not be more logical to discuss this fully in a committee with the power to make judgments on whether we broadcast at all, and if so, how? It does not seem right to me that the executive should make, on behalf of the House, a decision which could have an enormous effect in its outcome on the way the House, is proceeding.
A committee of parliamentarians should have been established as a first step. Some will say, as the House leader said, that a committee was established in 1972. He said it in such a way as if that committee had finally and completely made recommendations respecting not only the principle but now it was to be implemented. If that is what he meant by what he said in his speech, then I say with regret that he misled the House, though I am sure he did so inadvertently. I ought now

to remind the House of what in fact that committee did recommend in 1972. I will simply read that committee's recommendation. It was as follows:
Your committee, while agreeing in principle with radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of legislative assemblies and their committees, believes that certain further steps should be taken before a final report is made and therefore recommends:
(a)	That a cost and technical study of building, equipment, personnel and other requirements consequent upon the introduction of radio and television broadcasting of the House of Commons and its committees be undertaken in consultation with this committee-
This has not been done. No subsequent committee has been consulted, and the technical studies are internal documents. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, not one member of parliament has received those internal documents, yet we are asked to deal with this matter.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They have been tabled.


Walter David Baker: The second part of that recommendation-


Mr. Reid:: They have been tabled.


Walter David Baker: All right, so they have been tabled. The recommendation continues:
(b)	That closed-circuit experimental broadcasts by radio and television of the proceedings of the House and its committees be undertaken in consultation with this committee-
I think that is an equally sensible suggestion, but it has been ignored by the government in this present proposal. The recommendation continues:
(c)	That your committee be authorized, in the light of the above-mentioned studies and experiments, to make further recommendations to the House for ultimate decision.
Not the executive branch, Mr. Speaker, but a standing committee of the House of Commons. I think the committee hit on the logical sequence. The tabling of those documents may have taken care of the first, but the second and third remain outstanding and are relevant. First, careful study by a committee of the implications of broadcasting, followed by an experiment. We might have tried radio and then television, for their advantages and disadvantages are by no means identical. Finally, we should have a chance to evaluate the experiment- not after people have forgotten about it, not when new initiatives must be taken to raise the topic again, but before expensive, long-term commitments have been made and after people have had a chance to watch it, conscious of its status as an experiment.
The committee on procedure and organization of the twenty-eighth parliament was worth listening to only when it proposed changes in the rules that would accrue to the advantage of the government. Apparently it was not worth listening to when it declared the virtues of careful thought and cautious progress.
In supporting this resolution in principle we on this side of the House are hoping that the most optimistic predictions

about broadcasting will be realized. We accept that at its best television can educate people to the complexities of politics, of public issues and to the duties of citizenship. Televised proceedings have the potential to give viewers a better idea of reality than the hurried summations of reporters or the reworked and revised opinions we give downstairs at the scrum. People will have a chance to see that although there are elements of comedy and occasionally tragedy in this place, it operates mostly on hard work and long hours. Both criticism and praise for this institution and its members will have a firmer foundation.
As I said before, any reforms forced from outside may rebound to the benefit of parliament and not the executive. The need for a freedom of information bill will become obvious, as will the importance of real control by this House and its members of the estimates of the spending of government.
We should be willing to promote the maximum degree of public access compatible with our need to discuss seriously the nation's business, but there should be no confusion in our minds. This is not a step toward an open parliament. We already have that. It is, rather, a step toward an illustrated parliament. For if we are to have openness in this country, and if we are to have openness in respect of this government, more courageous action is required by the government, and that action we eagerly await. But from what we have heard in the last few days, we are, perhaps, not about to get it.
There are members in this party around me who advocated broadcasting House proceedings long before this motion was presented and, in fact, long before my predecessor in Gren-ville-Carleton led the original committee investigation. There are also people who have always had strong objections; objections which I do not think were considered as they should have been by those who drafted this peremptory motion. In a debate that concerns the nature-and I underline the word "nature"-of our roles as parliamentarians, we should not pretend to an artificial unanimity which does not exist.
A Progressive Conservative administration will view television in this House as an experiment. We will do what should be done by this motion, that is, set up the machinery for evaluation and review and decide whether to continue and, if so, on what basis. In the meantime, sir, it is unfortunate but true that what the predecessor to the present government House leader said on October 28, 1976, would occur has not in fact occurred. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp), in an interview by William MacPherson of the Ottawa Citizen on that date, stated that the new resolution would contain all the proposed safeguards against interference with MPs privileges, something that is not evident in the present resolution nor the ones that he himself, as former House leader, put on the record.
We can speculate that the government is withholding these protections to which I have referred in my speech in terms of this resolution for some reasons of its own. 1 happen to think- and I hope this view is shared by people who care very much about this institution-that the reservations in the report of
Broadcasting House Proceedings the committee of 1972 meant something and that the report of 1972 is not yet closed.
For these reasons and the reasons I have discussed, which will be expanded upon by other members of this House, I should like to propose an amendment to the resolution before us. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after the word "that" in the second paragraph, and substituting therefor the following:
"The cost and technical studies of building, equipment, personnel and other requirements consequent upon the introduction of radio and television broadcasting of the House of Commons and its committees be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization for study and report, and
That the committee examine the possible effect of broadcasting on the rights and immunities of members of the House and the rights and protections due to the public, such examination to include the subject matter of any relevant report made to the House by the special committee on the rights and immunities of members, and
That experimental broadcasts by radio and television of the proceedings of the House and its committees be undertaken in consultation with the committee, and
That the committee be authorized, in the light of such studies and experiments, to make further recommendations to the House before permanent broadcasting facilities are installed.
While that motion is being delivered to you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to the tabling of the letter referred to during the course of the debate which was requested for tabling by the government House leader.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. In respect of this last point I would bring to the attention of hon. members that according to Standing Order 41(2) the tabling of documents can only be done by ministers of the Crown or by parliamentary secretaries. Let me refer hon. members to citation 159(3) of Beauchesne's fourth edition which reads as follows:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest. The same rule, however, cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda.
The hon. member is seeking leave as a private member to table a letter which he has not really identified to the Chair. Of course, the Chair is under the impression that it is a letter which was sent by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) to hon. members of the House, but it has not been identified as such. Of course, the House is the master of its own rules, but based on previous rulings by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux I would even hesitate to seek unanimous consent for the proposal of the hon. member to table the letter. I base that on a ruling of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux of March 20, 1973, as follows:
The rules do not, of course, provide for the tabling of documents, even official documents or so-called confidential documents, quoted in the House by private members. The rule only applies when such a document is quoted in debate by members of the government. It cannot apply to hon. members generally. The suggestion is very often made in debate, when hon. members refer to or quote from a document, that the document in question be tabled. Certainly we would become involved in a very complicated practice, a practice which could easily lead to abuse, if we made it possible for members generally to table documents. I think that is not the purpose of the rule dealing with the tabling of documents.

January 24, 1977
Broadcasting House Proceedings
At this point the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) sought permission to ask the House for its unanimous consent. Mr. Speaker then added to his comments the following:
Obviously there is not unanimous agreement. In any case I would hesitate to seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow a private member to table a document. I doubt whether this would be a good practice in which to become involved.
In any case, the House is master of its own rules and, as I have said, so as not to open the door to the tabling of any documents by any hon. members in the House perhaps I could make a suggestion which could be acceptable to the House. Perhaps by consent we could attach the letter to today's Hansard.


Walter David Baker: I did not mean to cause a fuss, Mr. Speaker; I was only responding to the shouts from the other side to table it. I am sorry that we will not have it. If that is a suggestion that you are putting to me, sir, I will certainly withdraw the request. I would be delighted to have the letter attached to today's Hansard. I think it will be a very interesting document as we move into this session.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there consent to having the letter referred to by the hon. member attached as an appendix to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Some bon. Members: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not seem to be unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Where are the cameras?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Give us your first official statement as whip, Gus.


An hon. Member:: Spineless!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Coming back to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), it is my feeling that it might be preferable for the Chair to take it under advisement, because at first glance I am hesitant to accept it in its present form. At the same time, I might read paragraph 6 of citation 202 which reads as follows:
It is not an amendment to a motion to move that the question go to a committee.
Farther on, paragraph 15 of the same citation reads:
An amendment approving part of a motion and disapproving the remainder is out of order.
I have the impression, after quickly reading the amendment proposed by the hon. member, that it might have this effect. So I would prefer to look at it more closely and give a ruling later. In the meantime, if the House agrees, I will call on the
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.)
hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) to continue the debate. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should say at the outset that I almost lost a bet. Earlier today I discussed with a colleague my concern that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada so far has been able to go through this parliament without taking a stand on any issue. I said that I believe this will continue, and the colleague said, "No, you watch; they will come down definitively and unequivocally on the television debate issue".
I listened with great care to the House leader of the Conservative party speaking, and for the first three-quarters of his speech I said to myself, "My goodness, I have lost my bet; they will make up their minds on this issue." He gave all the arguments in favour of adopting television and radio broadcasting of the proceedings of this chamber to bring it up to this point in the twentieth century. However, I then heaved a great sigh of relief because I won my bet. The House leader of the Conservative party produced an amendment which completely contradicted everything he had said. If the House accepts the force of the amendment put forward by the hypocritical Conservative party, this committee will look into the cost of applying broadcasting to the House; it will look into its effects on the rights and immunities of all members of the House; and it will have the right to make further recommendations and, presumably, the right to kill the whole idea.
In short, what the Conservative party wants, as usual, is to have it both ways. They want to be able to trot out all the nice arguments in favour of something, but instead of having the guts to follow it through and maybe take some flack about some bad aspects, they withdraw and say, "Let us have the committee do what in fact two committees of the House have done already in two parliaments, in two sessions, that is, look into the whole issue of broadcasting the proceedings in the House." I have heard a lot of hypocrisy from the Conservative party, but they outdid themselves today. I can say that we will have nothing to do with that absurd amendment, even if Your Honour rules it is in order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Anything like that from you is a compliment.


John Edward Broadbent: We hear a front-bencher of the Conservative party, who recently discovered there was unemployment in Canada, say, "Look at what the Gallup poll said". That is the gist of his comment. The implication is that my party has remained at 16 per cent and his party has gone up. Of course I want my party to go up in popularity, but I tell the hon. member that I and my colleagues were elected to the House of Commons not to play popularity games, not to be cynical on both sides of this issue, but to take a stand. We will defend the government today, and we do not mind doing that when they are right. I say to the hon. member that his party has remained in almost perpetual opposition in this century in the House of Commons, certainly since the Second World War. The fact
January 24, 1977

that it does not have the intellectual and moral fortitude to come down on issues perhaps has a lot to do with that.
Having said these words about the official opposition and its great resolution to come to grips with policy, I want to say also that having spent some time prior to this weekend touring part of the province from which the government House leader comes, that section of Cape Breton where 30 per cent of the labour force is out of work, having come from Newfoundland where 30 per cent, in real terms, of the adult population is out of work, having learned that in six months alone 20,000 Newfoundlanders have given up looking for work and have withdrawn from the labour market, and having listened to the President of the United States who campaigned in the past year on the basis that in his country unemployment was the number one economic issue and has decided that his administration would allocate billions of dollars to deal with unemployment, I was disgusted as a Canadian member of parliament to hear last weekend that the government, after four weeks of sitting back during the Christmas recess, and during that time hearing another forecast that unemployment in Canada in 1977 was going to be the highest at any time since World War II; and, the highest since World War II, I repeat, to the House leader who comes from a province that suffers from unemployment-


An hon. Member:: Get back to the bill.


John Edward Broadbent: I am coming to the bill very soon, Mr. Speaker, because I am going to say that one of the advantages of television will be for the people of Canada to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of this land get up, as he did today in the House when he was asked about unemployment, shrug his shoulders and turn to a parliamentary secretary to answer the question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: How can you defend such a government?


John Edward Broadbent: I say to the government that if they do not smarten up soon they will be out on their collective asses. That is where they will be in terms of the concern of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Remember that, Allan.


John Edward Broadbent: The government House leader smiles. I ask him to go back to Cape Breton and talk to the workers in the Toyota plant who, as he probably knows, have been out of work for 11 months, men whose average age is about 40. They have been 11 months without employment and without any action by this government. Let him explain to them how he can bring in today this kind of bill.
Do hon. members know what bill the government is going to introduce next? It is a bill concerning the metric application to agriculture. That is the second priority. The first measure the government brings in is this measure, which any sane person in
Broadcasting House Proceedings
the twentieth century will accept. We are not going to dillydally around and shilly-shally like the Tories. We accept the committee report. We accept its recommendations. The Tories supported it in committee; now they are backing down again. We support the idea. But why could the government not come in today and recognize, as the President of the United States has recognized for some time, that this continent is in trouble? It is in trouble, but hon. members opposite sit and do nothing. They sit and do not care. I suspect they are sitting and hoping for the American economy to turn around and bail them out before the 1978 election. In the meantime, 800,000 Canadians go without jobs.
I conclude that the government has the wrong set of priorities, but that could be illustrated in a rather democratic way if we had television and radio brought into this House. We accept unequivocally-not in a qualified way-the recommendation in the resolution which has been brought before the House today for debate. I would have thought that the Tory members would have learned something from the experience in the Ontario legislature. The experience there has illustrated that there is no problem with television if implemented along the lines under which it is proposed to implement it under this resolution with a committee chaired by the Speaker of this House. Another legislature, the Tory legislature of Alberta, has had its proceedings broadcast and there have been no problems concerning the rights and immunities of members to which the federal Tories refer in their amendment. The experience in Canada and in countries abroad which have introduced radio and television has been positive.


Mr. Kempling:: What is the rush?


John Edward Broadbent: The Tories ask, "What is the rush?" The Tories have had a hell of a time getting into the twentieth century, and they say that anyone wanting to get us into the latter part is rushing it. The result of the experience in other legislatures has been a feeling that an updating of media coverage is long overdue.
Not many people subscribe to or read Hansard. It is an important document, but it does not have immediate relevance to most people. Most people read the press, and fortunately the press has reported parliamentary proceedings from the outset. We have had radio for a long time, and I am pleased that the government House leader gave credit where it is due to one of my predecessors, a former leader of this party. When he was premier of the province of Saskatchewan, he did not hesitate or equivocate. He was the first premier in this land to introduce radio, which was then the new and expanding medium, to cover the proceedings of the legislature. That was 30 years ago. We are 30 years behind.
So by all means let us proceed with this resolution. We are not going to put up a series of debaters. We are not going to support an amendment which would delay its passage. We want it passed and implemented so that the people of Canada can have access to the proceedings of this House which they should have had many years ago.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, instead of advocating economic measures, the government is presenting this motion about the broadcasting of our proceedings as a high priority. The motion is as follows:
That this House approves the radio and television broadcasting of its proceedings and of the proceedings of its committees on the basis of principles similar to those that govern the publication of the printed official reports of debates:
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, it is without knowing neither the technical aspects nor the way our proceedings will be broadcast that we should accept such a measure in principle so that the Canadian public knows what is happening and what approach Parliament is taking to the various problems facing our fellow citizens.
Of course, our party is favourable, in principle, to an extensive broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons. We are not worried at all by such a measure. On the contrary, the more Canadians realize the inefficiency of Parliament the more will they know that we spend days and days debating secondary matters whereas major problems such as those relating to the dairy policy, the review of the banking system or the unemployment rate are not discussed in the House of Commons but simply awarded. For example, the workers of the textile industry see that they are systematically losing their jobs, in Sherbrooke, in Quebec City, in Louiseville and in Drummondville-


An hon. Member:: Because of imports ...


André-Gilles Fortin: -because this government protects and encourages imports. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, the more Canadians will realize these facts, the better for democracy in our country. In the interest of our country, it is urgent that Canadians realize how we are losing our time in the House. I regret to say so but it is true.
Mr. Speaker, milk producers in Quebec are now systematically stopping their operations. They are penalized because they have worked. And instead of solving this problem the government goes on letting dairy products and secondary dairy products enter our country and gives high priority to measures concerning the metric system and the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House. Mr. Speaker, to my mind this is sheer inconsistency.
January 24, 1977

Moreover, at a time when our country has no industrial strategy not only to alleviate unemployment but also to protect existing jobs everywhere in the country, we are asked to discuss, on the first day of 1977 after the winter recess, a subject that we have been discussing since 1967. We talked about it again in 1969. We talked about it agin in 1970 it is still dragging on. So, it is not that urgent.
Mr. Speaker, I am simply saying that it is a shame and that we are not prepared to write a blank cheque the way the government is asking us, that is accepting in a way the principle of broadcasting the debates of the House of Commons since we do not know the practical rules, nor do we know the financial implications of such a proposal, nor do we know the procedural adjustments this would bring in the House. That is why, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I want to assure the other members of this House of the cooperation of our party when it comes to implementing the broadcasting of the debates.
We want to give the following warnings forthwith: first, we will have to change since the government wants to discuss that topic, since the government does not consider it important to review unemployment, the dairy policy or textile imports and the 50,000 unemployed in Quebec who are not entitled to benefits because the minister is mixed up. Mr. Speaker, let us have a small 10 minute discussion on that. For example when ministers come in and decide to make a statement in the House and do not have the courtesy to give members of the opposition a copy of the statement, they voluntarily put us in an impossible situation in the sense that they are asking us to reply on a technical statement without any preparation and without a copy of the statement, and that puts every one of my colleagues in a position that is absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable.
Before we accept to have all or part of the debates broadcast we should have a written guarantee on co-operation or the obligation to cooperate with respect to the statements made in this House, and in both official languages, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes ministers table statements in one language but some of us do not read English or do not understand it or would feel more at ease in their mother tongue. They brag about wanting to make this country bilingual but fail to act accordingly even in the House of Commons. I say this is a right that members of the opposition have. If television gets into this House, as we want it to in principle, and if ministers take advantage of it to try to prove to the public the incompetence of some members of the opposition by making technical statements at the last minute without giving us a copy of their remarks, the aim which is to better inform public through broadcasting becomes a mere political game in which they will try to distort the business of the House. Before we agree to allow TV cameras in this House, if we want the public to be well informed we shall also have to revise the oral question period. If the government wants to allow the broadcasting of the daily oral question period we shall seek assurance that the present distribution of questions, particularly supplementary questions, will be changed and adhered to.
Broadcasting House Proceedings
Today, Mr. Speaker, more than five supplementary questions have been put not by the same person on the official opposition side but by several other members. The matter of a better distribution has been discussed for a long time in this House, in several committees and with the Chair. We have always been favourable to a certain number of supplementar-ies by the same person who put the original question but not by other members. And if the right which is given to the Progressive Conservative party to ask supplementary questions when they did not put the original question, if the Chair gives this right to the Progressive Conservative party it should also be given to the Social Credit party of Canada because otherwise, Mr. Speaker, it will become a mere game. Again the situation is distorted as we are not treated equally and in such conditions we cannot accept to play the broadcasting game.
I find it difficult to understand, Mr. Speaker, how we could approve in principle the broadcasting of our debates. It would be a good thing in principle since it would enable the Canadian people to understand how our democracy works, to see the members of parliament at work, to see for themselves the action of the government in relation with specific problems. Because of television, the government will surely have to act more wisely and more quickly concerning the current problems facing our fellow citizens. Therefore, in principle, this would be a good thing.
Mr. Speaker, this can become reality only inasmuch as members of Parliament and the political parties represented in the House are truly treated on a equitable basis. The oral question period should be reviewed and better distributed. It is illogical to accept presenting such an image to the public when we are not treated equally in the House. This is a fundamental requirement!
We could also talk about the length of debates, Mr. Speaker. What exactly would be broadcast? Only the question period? Will the private members' hour, from 5 to 6, also be broadcast? This is an important period since this is when my colleagues of the Social Credit Party of Canada can often submit notices of motions or bills. This segment of the debates where we could show private members' business to the Canadian public, this period which is botched most of the time, shall we broadcast it? This is another of the things that we must know before giving our final agreement.
Mr. Speaker, in other words, the government is simply asking us in this resolution no. 8 to accept generally, without discussing technical questions like those that I have just mentioned, the need to broadcast our debates. Then the government suggests that we form a special committee to see to the implementation of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be wiser to select a committee to weigh and attempt to answer the questions I have just raised, before going through with the motion. As it were, the government House leader is suggesting we should put the cart before the horse. If we followed his suggestion, we would grant approval in principle without knowing where we are going. I

January 24, 1977
Broadcasting House Proceedings think the government will understand our reluctance to give the motion unreserved approval without certain safeguards. It is important for Liberals, Conservatives or anyone else for that matter to realize that everything is possible in politics, and that broadcasting might eventually serve to rebuild the Liberals' image throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this verges on politics. But before I conclude, there is something I want to put on record once more. I circulated across the country during the holidays, partly before, partly after. I went through the province, I saw people totally helpless, and industries shut down because there is no industrial strategy. My colleagues from Rimouski, from Roberval, from Bellechasse had the same experience. This applies throughout northwest Quebec. The feeling is that nobody is listening anymore.
Projecting Parliament's image will not solve unemployment. Nor will it prevent the flow of imports that are submerging our Canadian markets and constantly kill jobs here. Broadcasting will not give Canadians more amenities, nor will it change the Anti-inflation Act. What may I ask, is this motion No. 8 on broadcasting doing in the picture? It is a totally ridiculous priority. The government should realize that in addition to losing touch, they are now at a loss to understand Canadian problems and priorities.
I suggest to the government leader that we will not approve this motion so long as we have no absolute guarantee from the government that they will put forward practical policies for fighting unemployment, that they will develop an industrial strategy to protect existing jobs and control imports, so long in other words as we have no assurance that this government has a plan to manage the country and get it out of the current chaos.
Even if as a general principle this is acceptable, the government must understand that as far as members of the Social Credit Party are concerned, radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of this chamber do not constitute a priority, but the economy does. We have been elected to represent the people, not to entertain them. It is indeed important to broadcast the parliamentary proceedings and it is important for Canadians to know how parliamentary work is done and to see what is taking place here, day after day, but as my colleague from Rimouski (Mr. Allard) said, it is even more important to give bread to Canadians and to the workers.
Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons I must let the government leader know that we are deeply disappointed with the priorities he set before us. I have in my hand this ridiculous list which he sent to the House leader of our party in which he complains about the inefficiency of the House of Commons. He recognizes it while putting the broadcasting of inefficient things as a top priority. This shows Canada that we badly need some leadership in our country, as there is a total lack of it now.
The government complains that we spend too much time discussing, but let us have a look at the list it sent us. Bill C-3, on the Canada Deposit Insurance Act; to date we have spent exactly 30 minutes debating it. Now, is that abuse? Bill C-8, on satisfied securities, we have debated exactly 13 minutes.
[Mr. Fortin.)
Bill C-12, on income tax agreements: we have discussed exactly 12 minutes. Bill C-5, on currency and exchange matters, we have studied for one hour and 40 minutes. And I could go on like this, Mr. Speaker, which shows that the government, while knowing the facts, tries to distort them. We too have those facts; we can prove to this House that its business is slowed down, not by the opposition but rather by a government that has no solution to put forward or to oppose to the various problems; and that, coming up against very serious ones indeed, it does not know how to approach them, it has no solution to suggest and that, consequently, it tries to accuse the House of Commons of inefficiency in an effort to cover up its own lack of leadership.
That is the fundamental reason why the government, on the very first sitting in 1977, without wanting to speak of the unemployment and other problems, imposes that ridiculous policy on us, Mr. Speaker, a policy that will change absolutely nothing, economically, for any Canadian, anywhere in Canada, quite content with entertaining the people to evade the problems.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I should like to give the government one assurance and repeat that, in principle, we can only be in favour of televising the debates in this House thus enabling Canadians to be better informed; but before agreeing to passing this resolution in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, we will demand formal guarantees on some technical aspects, from the start. The leader of the government, who initiates the business of this House, will have to guarantee the changes I have just asked, concerning the oral question period, and the statements of the minister. We also have a number of other proposals to put forward in this respect. Otherwise, the government leader is venturing out into some sort of tower of Babel in which televising our debates will only perpetuate the downgrading of the role of public men in Parliament, since the rules of the game will not be fair and because all hon. members will not be put on an equal footing.
Mr. Speaker, in short we want the members for Rimouski, Roberval, Bellechasse, Shefford, Abitibi or Villeneuve (Messrs. Allard, Gauthier, Lambert, Rondeau, Laprise, Caouette) to be treated on an equal footing during the proceedings in this House, otherwise the government leader will realize that our co-operation is not quite a foregone conclusion.


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity of speaking today on a subject that has been dear to my heart for some years, years long before I entered this House of Commons, years when I think I had an opportunity to learn about the power and the importance of modern electronics, radio and television.
In speeches I gave to constituents over the Christmas break, and in discussions I have had with colleagues for some five or six months, I have tried to argue that if Canada and Canada's parliament face crises today in the survival of the nation, if we face very real dilemmas such as the problem of inflation and the concurrent problem of increasing unemployment, that
January 24, 1977

finally the real crisis of today in Canada is a communications crisis. The crisis is that Canadians in one part of our mosaic have no idea what Canadians in the other parts are all about.
The phrase "national unity" is not simply a phony or political word or phrase of propaganda. It is the foundation-stone upon which this country was built more than 100 years ago. It is the foundation upon which the future of this country now must be rebuilt. It is a question of a breakdown in communication so that regional disparities-the needs, the differences, languages, the background of various parts of Canada-are not understood by other parts of Canada. It is the communication breakdown that leads us to the crisis we face today.
From the beginning, the focal point of all these problems was discussed here in parliament. This is the place where it was funnelled down to. The narrow focal point of all our problems and how to correct them has been the Canadian House of Commons. It is here where we discuss and learn about problems faced by our colleagues from other parts of the country. It is here where I learn about prairie wheat, the problems of groundfish in the maritimes, the ambitions and desires of peoples in the Yukon, and the difficulties in northern Ontario because of pollution of the waterways. Indeed, it is here that I learn that people in Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax, Regina and Winnipeg may suffer problems even as I know my own people suffer in Toronto.
This is the focus where we, as members of parliament, as elected representatives, begin to understand the other parts of our country. We, as MPs, have to begin to appreciate the compromise. We must begin to come together and work out a pattern that is reasonable for all, if in each case specific to some. It is for that reason this debate does indeed have great importance. Television and radio in the House of Commons is a crucial first step in what I hope will become over a period of time a massive attack on the failure to communicate with the Canadian public and, thus, their inability to appreciate the great country that we have.
The Canadian public, by and large, does not know the existing laws of Canada. They do not begin to even understand what laws are before this parliament for change. They do not know what proposals are in the new laws that they might question. They are not well aware of what the opposition charges are flaws in the proposed changes which the government has put forward. Today, Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada, in putting forward its program, has the frustration of the public not appreciating the quality or goodness in that program and, in turn, the same public not being able to judge if there are, indeed, serious errors.
One of the great fears, I believe, of many members of parliament in bringing television into the House of Commons is the public's perception of politicians, by some at least, of us as a lazy lot, of us as a group of people who don't care, of us as a mindless lot on the government side or, indeed, within the opposition parties, of us as individuals without the views of
Broadcasting House Proceedings individuals, without the strength to represent the particular area we have been elected to represent.
Mr. Speaker, we are an imperfect lot: I will certainly admit that, as I think most hon. members would. But surely there is nothing more essential today to end that kind of cynicism, that kind of misunderstanding, than to let the Canadian public see what really happens, to see what really goes on and to learn how diverse this country really is, how multi-faceted it is and how difficult it is to govern and, indeed, how difficult it is to be parliamentarians and try to resolve problems within parliament because of its diversity.
In speaking to this issue at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Quebec City in the summer of 1973, and again in Toronto in the summer of 1974, I gave one of my favourite examples of how the system breaks down. It is only one example, but it is one of which I am particularly aware because of my background as a journalist within the broadcasting media. I said that every day in question period history is at least twice rewritten before it reaches the Canadian public.
The print media and the broadcast media sit in the gallery and fervently write and record the questions put by members of the opposition and the charges they make. They also fervently record what government representatives reply. With that, they all fervently run down to the scrum, where they fervently re-do it after cabinet ministers have checked with their aides and changed their facts and straightened out the mess, and certain members in the opposition have picked up the idea or attack of the other opposition party and straightened it out or improved upon it. By the time they finish up with the interviews in the scrum, the print media, with all the notes they have already made, then go back to the people they just interviewed or overheard and rewrite it again as they go over the situation once more.
Mr. Speaker, nothing could be more fundamental than allowing the Canadian public to see exactly what happens, to see the talents and abilities of the opposition, the talents and abilities of the government, or the lack thereof on both sides. Let the public judge at the first instant, without second-guessing or second-judging or rewriting what happened in the parliament of Canada today. That will not for one moment eliminate the right of the print media or the broadcast media to go down to seek further interviews, to seek clarification or to challenge what has been said. But the fact is that the public will at last begin to understand what this country is and will begin to understand the variety of interests and demands, depending on what part of the country is being represented.
We cannot all be here all of the time. I am speaking here about the fear that constituents will say, for instance, that the hon. member for York West is not in his seat today. The fact is that the essence of successful communication is to have people understand what is true, what is real, not misunderstand and therefore not really know what is happening.
I do not feel worried. As a parliamentary secretary for at least another five months-I have held that position for a year and a half already-I am unable to ask a question in the

Broadcasting House Proceedings
House of Commons. My constituents will not see me bobbing up to put the government on its toes. Because of my workload as parliamentary secretary, and because my constituency is very large, I often miss debates in this House in which I would otherwise like to participate. I am not worried about how I will appear. I can do my homework, and so can all other members of this House. I will find my moments to rise in debate, though as a government backbencher I probably will not hit the television screen very often, nor the radio stations.
The fact remains, however, that Canadians may begin to understand what this country is all about. They may begin, by hearing voices from different parts of the country, by listening to different ministers posed with different dilemmas-because what is good for one part of the country may not be good for another-to understand just how this nation works and how parliament must be understanding and make compromises if this country is to survive.
Certainly, when the government House leader spoke of the first step as placing the debates of parliament over television and radio under the Speaker so that a totally objective recording can be made and, in turn, the media, without influence, editing and deciding what they want to use, and then, as a second step, having some means of making available broadly to Canadians the ongoing events of the House of Commons on a daily basis, I very much support that thrust.
I would also like to put in a plug to the government House leader, through you, Mr. Speaker, that we consider at the earliest possible responsible date the televising and broadcasting of committees of the House of Commons, or at least, at the first stage, making available the visual and audio transcripts of those meetings. I cannot think of a better way of showing the Canadian public how members of all parties and on all sides thoughtfully try to improve laws and fight for the rights of their constituents. This is an ongoing procedure and it would show the expertise members bring with them from their constituents or their own professional backgrounds. I hope the covering of committees will not be too far off if, indeed, this motion is successful.
I heard in the speech of the House leader for the official opposition some considerable doubt and fear of this whole issue. I must say that for one who is as active as he is in making speeches in the House of Commons and putting forth his faith in the Canadian system, I was very disappointed to hear him take the thrust he did today. It seems to me to be as mad, in the sense of insane, to oppose the televising and broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons as it would have been for the civilizations of thousands of years ago to have opposed the wheel or, indeed, to oppose the learning of language so that they could communicate with one another.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: The civilization we live in today, and the pressures of our society, make it fundamental that we try to ease the pressures, burdens and confusion of the public here in Canada by bringing to them directly the issues of our country

from its various parts and also the attitude of the government and the opposition. I would like to claim, and I believe it to be true, that it is not being done under the present system.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith)-Indian Affairs-Relocation of departmental offices in Hull; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Search and Rescue; the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)- Finance.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a disposition to allow motions Nos. 4 and 7 to stand so that we could go on with motion No.8 in the name of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway).


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk) moved:: That in the opinion of this House the government should consider the advisability of establishing a universal cost of blindness allowance for the legally blind of not less than $200 per month and to be indexed to the consumer price index annually.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of honour that I introduce this motion, a motion which almost on the surface would suggest that it needs no debate and that it would certainly meet with the acceptance of the government even if over the years it might have been reluctant even to consider a blind allowance or a negative income tax or a minimum subsistence level for those who are legally blind in Canada.
To set the stage for the background to this problem I want to read three preliminary clauses which I did not include in my original motion. I put forward the following as a preamble:
January 24, 1977

Whereas in general blind persons do not have similar opportunities to compete with the sighted in sustaining their own livelihood, and
Whereas the handicap resulting from blindness generally results in lower incomes and restricted opportunities for employment, and
Whereas there are additional living costs directly resulting from blindness-
Then my motion is as follows:
In the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing a universal cost of blindness allowance for the legally blind of not less than $200 per month and to be indexed to the consumer price index annually.
It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that last August there was presented to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) the report of a study entitled "Vision Canada". This was a study jointly undertaken by the National Council of the CN1B and the Department of National Health and Welfare, and I want to quote from it because I believe that the subject of blindness is not one that ought to be debated in this chamber in an emotional way. The arguments and positions put forth on behalf of the legally blind in Canada themselves have merit on which to stand. This study was conducted by a Professor Cyril Greenland and, as I have mentioned, was presented to the minister some seven months ago. At page 3 the following appears:
The extent of unmet needs, revealed by this study, presents a great challenge to all Canadians. It is obvious that no single agency, however well intentioned and resourceful, will be able to overcome the years of neglect, prejudice and intolerance which is the common experience of handicapped people in our society. The commitment to remedy these injustices must be manifested by the federal and provincial governments in the form of rational social policies and a greater investment of public funds in the human services.
Long before I was even of voting age, Mr. Speaker, colleagues of mine on this side of the House were asking the government to bring in legislation to provide for an allowance for the blind. For example, my colleague for Cumberland-Col-chester North (Mr. Coates), and my colleague for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), have on many occasions in this chamber asked the government to bring forward legislation to establish a minimum income for those legally blind. As everyone knows, blindness is a handicap. In 1975 there were just a few less than 30,000 legally blind people in Canada. This number will increase by the year 2000 to some 50,000.
The report "Vision Canada" was national in scope. It was preceded by months of research and study and countless hours of conversation with legally blind people in order that the recommendations that Professor Greenland put in his report were able to reflect the basic needs and desires of the legally blind. If I may use a biblical expression, the stones cry out for justice. The stones in this case, the legally blind, are crying out for a basic income. Let me refer to page 117 of this report, which has to do with a basic income for the blind:
The prime need of all blind Canadians is a basic or guaranteed income of a sufficient amount to provide life's necessities at a level which will permit the recipient to live in dignity.
I want to point out here that in the province of Manitoba there are no allowances for the legally blind. If they cannot earn their own way by employment, then they have no recourse but to go on welfare. Why is this, Mr. Speaker? Is it because they do not want to work or they have no skills? No, it
Blindness Allowance
is because they have a handicap that prevents them from competing in the marketplace. All these blind people are asking for, and what I am asking for on their behalf, is that the government take action now to establish a basic income to compensate the legally blind for their handicap. The quotation on page 117 continues:
For the older and more senior blind citizens, a reasonable basic income would provide that sense of security so requisite to contentment and peace of mind. For the younger and youthful blind citizens the reasonable basic income would provide the financial security which would permit them to move from occupation to occupation in search of one which was satisfying both mentally and financially.
It would be an understatement if I were to say that blindness costs money. There is a cost to blindness. I could say much about the cost of blindness, but I shall point to only two specific areas of cost to blind persons which are not common to the sighted. Again I want to quote from this impartial study conducted by Professor Cryil Greenland at page 113, under the heading "Transportation":
In our opinion and because transportation is the major, or at least one of the greatest problems of blind people, we feel that government financial assistance should be provided to help combat this frustration. In this day and age when traffic is a major concern even for sighted people, blind people are penalized in that they cannot safely travel alone.
For blind people to have the kind of mobility that you and I, Mr. Speaker, take for granted every day costs them additional money. The basic blindness allowance for which I am asking would compensate them for that. It would be a basic income from which blind people could pay these additional costs.
A second additional cost for blind people which is not common to sighted people is in the area of shopping. My ancestors were not Scottish, but I can spot a deal a mile away, Mr. Speaker. When I am shopping in shopping centres I watch for those bright red or yellow signs indicating that certain articles are on sale. It is obvious that those who cannot see also cannot see the bargains. According to page 13 of the report, it costs the legally blind from 10 to 15 per cent more per year to live because they cannot take advantage of the kind of shopping deals that we sighted Canadians can take advantage of.
I see my time is slipping by quickly, Mr. Speaker, and I think others of my colleagues want to speak, but let me simply repeat that blindness is a handicap and that a basic pension would, simply compensate them for that pension. If I may go back to page 13 of the report "Vision Canada", a comprehensive and excellent report that I commend to every member of this chamber who ought to take the time to read it, the following statement is made:
Provincial income security programs, cost-shared with the federal government, were designed to reduce the worst effects of poverty. However, since no Special allowance is made for the extra cost of blindness, blind recipients are in fact denied "a compassionate and equitable guaranteed income".
I took the time to calculate the cost to the Canadian taxpayer through this government or the treasury of the country of this allowance for the blind of a minimum $200 a month. If you multiply $200 a month by 12 months of the
2312

January 24, 1977
Blindness Allowance
year, times the number of legally blind, it would cost the taxpayers in the neighbourhood of $72 million per year.
It has often been said that you can measure the compassion and the justice of a great civilization or nation by the way it treats its handicapped and socially deprived. It seems to me this is a small price to pay. As one Canadian taxpayer, I not only encourage the government to go forward with this program but I am prepared to carry a greater tax burden through my income tax and that of my wife, who has a full-time job, in order to establish this kind of financial compensation to the handicapped blind. Surely the government can afford this amount of money out of the $42 billion it spends per year. This is a small amount in comparison to the total.
To again use statistics from this article in "Vision Canada", less than 25 per cent of the legally blind in this country work. This means that the bulk, 75 per cent, are living for the most part from the public purse in terms of welfare. This is indeed degrading. This is not the result of lack of will to work, or industry on their part; it is because they cannot compete for many jobs because of their handicap.
I stand in this chamber today speaking on behalf of those who do not have sight. As I am sure do most members of this chamber, I place a great premium and value on my sight. I represent the 30,000 Canadians who are legally blind. I do not beg for charity; I reason for justice.


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) on his presentation. Like that hon. member, and I am sure every other member of this House, I, too, place a great deal of value and store on my sight. I thank the hon. member for bringing this matter before us for consideration at this time. The hon. member's suggestion is that the government should consider the advisability of establishing a universal cost of blindness allowance for the legally blind of not less than $200 a month which would, of course, be indexed to the consumer price index annually. This indexing would, over the years, bring the cost much higher than when it started.
I should like to note, if I may, certainly not to detract from the hon. member's suggestion or because I do not have a great deal of sympathy for what he proposes, a number of arguments which I feel should be put forth in considering this most commendable proposition. These are arguments that would certainly come forward during the course of a study of this kind and arguments that a government, no matter what government at the time, would have to take into serious consideration. Of course, $200 per month indexed to the consumer price index annually, regardless of income or need, has also been stipulated. The government does not at this time foresee such an allowance being paid for this or any other segment of the Canadian population in the near future.
This is not to say that the government, myself and other members of this House, are not sympathetic to the plight of blind people. Hon. members can be assured that the government recognizes the severity of the handicap imposed by blindness and that it also recognizes that the problem is

particularly serious when the disability is present from early childhood and has prevented persons from obtaining an education which would permit them to compete in today's labour market, a highly competitive labour market at the best of times. In this respect the blind certainly are among a large number of people who are at a similar disadvantage because of a variety of physical and social handicaps.
I think it is a little unfair to propose a $200 monthly allotment for the blind and not take into consideration those persons who, through no fault of their own, have been handicapped in other ways. I am thinking of the paraplegics, multiple amputees or the person who has suffered, through no fault of his own, mental retardation from the time of birth. These people have to be taken into consideration, as well, by anyone who considers the extension of a universal program to all registered blind persons in Canada. Limiting the program to those people would not be fair without extending the same benefits to the other disabled segments of our society.
Secondly, while the hon. member for Selkirk said this would be costly, we must admit that it would be very costly because, as has been suggested, there are more than 30,000 blind people in this country. I think the hon. member would find that this number could be extended to 50,000, and at $200 a month that would come to $100 million per year as an extra expense to the government purse. In 1975 there were 30,000 blind persons in Canada registered with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. It is estimated by the CNIB that there may be in excess of 50,000 who could be certified under the act. As I suggested, the cost of a universal allowance of $200 a month would amount to about $100 million annually, and indexing would increase that amount considerably in the future. As the hon. member has said, this is a large amount.
In examining this problem, the government must be concerned primarily with measures which would benefit needy persons as a whole rather than certain categories within that group. Consistent with this philosophy, the Canada Assistance Plan was introduced in 1966, affording the provinces greater flexibility in providing for assistance to all persons, not only to the blind but to those with other handicaps. Therefore, most Canadian provinces have discontinued their participation in both the disabled persons' allowance and the blind persons' allowance programs in favour of the broader approach afforded under the Canada Assistance Plan.
Until a new system is implemented, the Canada Assistance Plan will continue to operate. Under this plan persons who are in need can apply for assistance through the general assistance program in each province, and if they are blind they can receive additional assistance because of that impairment. Under the plan the federal government shares in the cost of aid granted to the people in need. However, it is the provincial governments which administer these programs, and as such the criteria for eligibility are set at various levels. Let me point out that the general assistance plan has been in effect across Canada in all provinces. As a matter of fact, a single, blind person in Newfoundland would receive $250 a month, while a couple would receive $398. In Prince Edward Island, a single

person receives $182 and a couple receive $243. In Nova Scotia, it is $226 for a single person and $356 for a couple.


Jack Marshall: What was the figure for a single person in Newfoundland?


Crawford Douglas: It is $250, under a means test. In New Brunswick, a single person receives $316 and a couple receive $456. In Quebec, the figure is $217 for a single person and $347 for a couple. In Ontario it is $250 for a single person and $458 for a couple. In Saskatchewan it is $235 and $340. In Alberta it is $241 and $266, and in British Columbia it is $215 and $430. The problem that could arise is that if the hon. member's suggestion were accepted, it could be to the detriment of those who do not qualify under the means test but qualify only under the proposal put forward by the hon. member. On examining this problem, the government is concerned primarily with measures which would benefit all the needy, not just those afflicted with blindness, which is, of course, a very serious affliction indeed.
There are two other programs which I should like to mention which serve to improve conditions for the blind. Those are the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons program and the national welfare grants. The vocational rehabilitation program has been in operation since 1952, first under the authority of an order in council, and since 1966 under the authority of the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act. The legislation was originally administered by the Department of Labour and subsequently by the Department of Manpower and Immigration. However, since 1953 responsibility for administering the program was transferred to the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Under agreements concluded with all the provinces and territories except Quebec the federal government contributes 50 per cent of the costs incurred by the province in providing a comprehensive program for the vocational rehabilitation of physically and mentally disabled persons. This program includes such services as medical, social and vocational assessment, counselling, restoration services, provision of prosthetics, training, maintenance allowances and the provision of tools, books and other equipment. These services are provided directly by the provincial government or purchased from voluntary agencies.
Shareable costs also include the salary and necessary travelling costs of the staff whose duties are directly related to the vocational rehabilitation program and other administrative expenses necessary for the co-ordination of delivery of services to the disabled. It provides 50 per cent of the costs incurred in the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons. The federal government also provides consultation and advisory services to the provinces, develops standards and undertakes research. During the fiscal year 1975-76, over 50,000 handicapped persons received services across Canada and these were shared under the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act. The federal contribution that year was $16.5 million.
Blindness Allowance
It can readily be seen that the federal government is actively engaged in assisting not only the blind but any disabled persons who need service, and through this effort creates equality of opportunity for the handicapped so that they can move from a condition of dependence to a state of greater self-reliance. Basically, this is what we are talking about, and certainly what the hon. member for Selkirk is talking about; namely, the ability of a disabled person-in this case, a blind person-to become self-reliant.
For a child who has grown up with the affection, love and care of parents, which is usually heaped upon these disabled youngsters, it must be a traumatic experience to reach an age at which parents can no longer be with him or her because of disability, health reasons or death. It must be traumatic for such a young man or woman to be thrust into society and have to cope with the day-to-day occurrences from which they had previously been shielded by their parents.
We must consider also providing the handicapped, whether they are blind, paraplegics or mentally incapacitated, with the type of services of which they themselves can take advantage. In urban transit we must provide better accessibility for those in wheelchairs to get to buses and subways so as to better integrate them into the travelling community. We must also provide assistance for the blind to enable them to make better use of public transport and communications systems. I believe that this is where money should be spent, rather than handing money to these people. We should update the services which the federal, provincial and municipal governments provide for the handicapped, not just for the blind but for all the handicapped, through the wide spectrum of these cases which will be put in the public domain.
We should certainly consider welfare grants when we look at the over-all costs in the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Selkirk. The welfare grants directorate provides annual sustaining grants to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and l'Association canadienne-fran9aise des aveu-gles. Sustaining grants are provided to enable these organizations to continue to focus on planning and co-ordination of services to blind Canadians. In 1976-77 the sustaining grant provided to CNIB was $83,000, while that to l'Association canadienne-franfaise des aveugles was $13,000.
In addition, project funding may be provided for project activities such as specific planning projects, formulation of change in response to a current crisis or a current social problem, studies and consultations, especially of a goal-oriented nature, and inter- and intra-agency co-ordination. In 197677 project grants have totalled approximately $30,000.
On April 18, 1973, the Minister of National Health and Welfare presented a working paper on social security in Canada as the government of Canada's contribution to the launching of the joint federal-provincial review of Canada's social security system. The working paper on social security admits-and I think I and anyone else would agree-that in Canada today there are many deficiencies in our social security system. The working paper has identified seven of them. Needy and blind persons in Canada suffer particularly from
80008-9Vi

Blindness Allowance
lack of co-ordination of the elements of Canada's income security system. It is well known that blind persons may receive assistance through the provinces' general assistance program or the blind persons' allowance program. Other blind persons may receive assistance under the Canada Pension Plan or the workmen's compensation legislation. What is even more difficult in the case of blind persons in need is the number of authorities with which they have to deal federally, provincially, municipally and locally.
I think this is an avenue of approach for federal-provincial co-operation to allow these people better access to these authorities and to give them information as to how best to put their case forward, and to put it forward to the authorities who are best able to get them the most assistance in the shortest possible time. An hon. member who has his sight realizes how confusing it is when he himself goes to various departments for assistance. That is a matter which certainly deserves a great deal of study.
The citizen is expected to co-ordinate all of these bureaucracies if he is to resolve the financial problems with which he is confronted, a degree of co-ordination which even the governments themselves-and we had better admit it-have been unable to achieve. In addition, on top of the indignity of dealing with so many agencies, there is the additional indignity of the stigma which has come to be associated with social assistance.
During the recently concluded social security review which has taken place over the last few years the needs of the blind in the context of the review have been actively considered. Last February the federal government presented income support and supplementation proposals to the provinces which would, in the long run, ensure higher benefits and improve the administration of the social security system in a number of significant ways. At the June meeting of the ministers the majority of the provinces agreed that a guaranteed income should be made available to persons whose incomes are insufficient because they are unable or not expected to work, and that there should be a system for supplementing the incomes of those who are able to work but whose incomes are not adequate for their needs. Under this proposal provincial governments would deliver the benefits to the people who qualify for them, and the federal government would share in the cost at a rate of two-thirds of the cost of the supplementation program and 50 per cent of the cost of the support program. This program, when implemented, would give substantial help in meeting the financial problems of Canadians in disadvantageous situations, including, of course, blind persons.
Once again I want to commend the hon. member for Selkirk for his presentation. It is an honourable one which I think deserves serious consideration. However, I would like to ask that when considering this we consider not only the blind but all those who have any impediment whatsoever, whether it be through blindness-


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


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to compliment the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) on presenting to this House a resolution which merits the support of every hon. member. It merits the support of every hon. member because it zeroes in on a very unique and special type of disability from which, fortunately, not a great many Canadians suffer. However, their number is significant enough that as private members of this House we should give special consideration to their problem.
The hon. member for Selkirk did an excellent job of presenting a case which I believe merits the special consideration of all hon. members because of the uniqueness of the disability. It is difficult for us who sit here to appreciate fully the darkness of the world which surrounds those who are cursed with this terrible tragedy in life. Everything about our world is associated with sight, and yet these people must live in darkness and bravely go their way trying, in their unique situation, to live with their disability.
One thing which bothers me a little bit about these private members' debates is that, almost without exception, the government seems to feel it has to ask one of its representatives to stand in this House and outline the position of the government and what it is doing in whatever field the resolution happens to fall. It was nice to hear the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas) indicate that he has some appreciation for and understanding of the reasons for the hon. member for Selkirk's proposing the resolution in the first place. He then went on to itemize the various things the government is doing at this time, in effect indicating to the hon. member for Selkirk that there is really little hope or compassion in the minds of the members of the government or any intention of doing anything about what he is proposing in his resolution. I believe that if we have compassion in our souls for our fellow men and if we recognize the very special disability blind people have, we should speak from our hearts rather than use the political dogma of the party in power.
The government should say to these people who are blind that it recognizes the very special disability they face in trying to live in this world, and we, members of parliament, collectively should urge that the government try to recognize this special disability. While we cannot overcome this disability, we should at least provide an extra little bit of material assistance which might help to provide opportunities which, as a study pointed out, these people cannot find in the world today in the present circumstances and under the present welfare system which has been developed by the government. Sure, there are other kinds of disabilities, and all disabilities should be recognized to a greater extent than they are now. As far as I am concerned, the amount of disability assistance itemized by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey indicate a degree of inequality for those people who have disabilities because of the despicable needs and means tests which are imposed upon them and because of the investigators who arrive at their homes to find out whether they are getting this much, that much, or too
January 24, 1977

much, and are at all times trying to cut down the amount of money which goes to them to meet their needs and requirements.
On December 29 on behalf of the registered blind people of my constituency I received from Mr. William G. Hope a petition with hundreds of signatures on it, urging the governments in Ottawa and in Halifax to take certain special actions because of this special disability and the resultant disabilities which go with being blind. I immediately forwarded the recommendations in this particular petition to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in Ottawa and to the minister of social services in Halifax. The recommendations were these:
Remove the present inequitable means test used to categorize blind persons in allotting allowances or raise the present ceiling to $8,000 per year for married couples.
Provide free prescription drugs to registered blind persons through the M.S.I. program.
That is a Nova Scotia program. There are hundreds and hundreds of signatures. These blind people are under the leadership of Mr. Hope, who is partially blind and whose spouse is blind. They worked together with the blind people in Cumberland county to put this petition together.
This motion is an indication of the fact that the hon. member for Selkirk recognizes that blind people are not getting enough attention, either from the federal or provincial governments, to enable them to overcome the very significant disabilities they face in their every-day lives. For this reason I commend him as highly as I can. There are a lot of other things he could be saying in this House that would probably be more politically advantageous to him. It is probable that in his constituency there are very few blind people, just as there are in all 264 constituencies in this country, but that did not stop him from feeling compassion for people who have a very special and unique disability, and for singling them out. While I recognize that there are many other disabled people in this country, blindness is a very special and unique kind of disability and should receive special consideration by the Government of Canada or the province in which these people live.
As the hon. member has said, what he is asking for is not that much, but it would be a guarantee. For instance Mr. Hope, who presented the petition to me, just happened to be able to secure employment. But as a result his wife lost her allowance. In other words, as soon as he was able to find employment she was penalized, even though by his finding employment she did not then discover that she could see. She did discover, however, that no further assistance was available to her to overcome her disability.
I say that this House, this parliament, if it has compassion, if it has a collective soul, will take to heart what the hon. member for Selkirk has proposed in his resolution and try in some way to show the blind people of the country that parliament does relate to the problems they face. When it is a unique problem such as blindness we should endeavour to put our stamp of compassion on a special kind of legislation that
Blindness Allowance
will single them out. We should show that we will endeavour to assist them in a material way to overcome some of the real and terrible problems that they face in their everyday life.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Selkirk, and to tell him that this is what I think members of parliament should be doing more often. If they did, then the people in Canada would think that parliament was a lot more realistic about the problems that face the people of this country.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate that I warmly welcome the presentation of this motion by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway). I wish also to indicate that it has my support. There are one or two changes I should like to see made to it and I shall indicate what they are in a moment. The main point I want to make, however, is that what is asked for in this motion is a policy that I believe we should follow.
I listened with interest this afternoon to the first speech made by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas) since his appointment as a deputy whip on the government side. I noticed with interest that he expressed sympathy with the motion put forward by the hon. member for Selkirk, but then he turned around and threw cold water on it or, in effect, opposed it. Why do I say that in effect he opposed it despite his expressions of sympathy? I say that because at least the hon. member for Bruce-Grey came to grips with what is the heart of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Selkirk, namely, that we should not apply to our blind persons the stigma and indignity of means tests. Those words "stigma and indignity" were words used by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey. But precisely because the assistance that blind persons can get today, whatever the amount, is under a means test, I say that is the way we are treating them.
From the late twenties when pensions for the blind were first added to the Old Age Pensions Act, until the end of 1951 at which time that legislation was replaced by the Old Age Security Act, the Blind Persons Act and the Old Age Assistance Act, there was a relationship between blind pensions and old age pensions. It so happened that in those years both were subject to a means test but at least there was a continuing relationship and, when the old age pension went up, the blind pension went up as well.
Beginning on January 1, 1952, we established a new regime under which we put old age security on a universal basis, but this was not done with pensions for the blind. In the intervening period the difference in the amount available has widened instead of the parallelism being maintained.
The hon. member for Bruce-Grey makes something out of the fact that most provinces assist the blind now under the Canada Assistance Plan rather than under the Blind Persons Act. They do that because the legislation that has been drawn up by the federal government makes it at least a little better to do it under the Canada Assistance Plan. He also makes the point that if we are going to do this for the blind we should do it for paraplegics, multiple amputees, and other disabled per-

Blindness Allowance
sons. I agree, and that time may come. What bothers me in all these fields, especially when we go into the general programs that do not recognize categories, is the continuance of the idea of the means test.
The hon. member for Selkirk and the hon. member for Bruce-Grey both talked about sympathy for the blind, and the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) emphasized that all of us in this House have that sympathy. But, Sir, the basic difference is that the motion before us wants a universal non-means test pension for persons who suffer from blindness, whereas the hon. member for Bruce-Grey wants us not to go that route but to provide assistance for the blind under a means test or some kind of social assistance program. I take my stand on the same side of the issue as the hon. member for Selkirk. Perhaps he will allow me to say I have been taking it since long before he was of voting age. I regret that we are not giving special consideration to the blind as I believe they deserve.
This is a private member's motion. I believe we should support such a motion and I do not want to be guilty of seeming to talk something out and therefore I shall conclude my remarks. I said that if I had been consulted by the hon. member for Selkirk before he drafted his motion 1 might have offered a couple of suggestions. One is that I do not think the $200 figure is high enough. Today when we have responsible bodies suggesting that a person needs $350 or $400 just to exist, or $700 for a couple, I do not think $200 a month per person is high enough. Maybe the hon. member drafted his motion a long time ago and has not brought it up to date.
The other thing I should have liked was for the escalation to be on a quarterly rather than on an annual basis. I am not arguing that there is a great deal of difference between the two formulas but we already have a situation where a number of pensions are escalated quarterly and others only annually. Those who get their escalation annually feel they are being short-changed, as they are if you do the arithmetic all the way down. I am glad to see the hon. member for Selkirk nodding his head. If we could get this motion passed and get it to committee for consideration, perhaps those two changes could be made. In any case, I take my stand again for pensions as of right without a means test for those Canadians who suffer from blindness.


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) makes a lot of sense, but three hon. members have already taken part in the debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) did not share exactly the views of the hon. member for Selkirk, so that in spite of the odiousness of this action, I shall have to fight in the House against this suggestion and this for the following reasons.
Like the government I represent, I am very much concerned by the problem of the blind, by the handicap of these people, but instead of considering individual cases, this Liberal

administration, which is in agreement in principle with the concept of helping the blind, cannot support a social security system which would be based on categories. It feels that the need is of greater importance than the root cause of this need, whatever the handicap may be, whether old age, mental deficiency or physical disability. It feels that any handicapped person, whatever the nature of the handicap, should receive assistance from the government.
That is why, since 1973 and together with the provincial governments, this administration has been carrying out all sorts of studies which have already resulted in a guaranteed income plan for all these handicapped persons, and following consultations since June 1976 with the province of Quebec under the Bourassa administration, the federal government will introduce, between now and June 1977, a bill to provide for the assistance of handicapped persons because they cannot support themselves, and not for any so-called compensation we may owe them. We shall give them a minimum income if they really cannot earn it themselves. But what we shall try to give them instead is the means to help themselves.
Practically all disabled persons ask us to let them help themselves. And I think it is most pernicious to think that it is enough to give them a $200 cheque as the hon. member for Selkirk said, or a $450 cheque escalated on a quarterly basis, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said. I suggest that the most important aspect when we are talking about physical disabilities of any kind is never to forget human dignity. That is why the government wants to introduce a social service bill which will respect the principle whereby all groups like the elderly or the disabled of any kind should have access to community services just as anybody else, and furthermore that the community should be responsible for making those services available to everyone.
I wonder why an unemployed man can take advantage of government manpower centre services while the handicapped-be it blindness, deafness or any other disability-do not have access to facilities enabling them to earn their living. The bill will be particularly aimed at extending the range or services available to the disabled and in addition its object will not only be to provide for the training of handicapped but to improve their ability to be self-sufficient. Among the items for which the provinces may demand cost sharing will be diagnostic and assessment services, uninsured health services, consultant services, pre-vocational training as well as an extensive series of services.
The federal government will bear over 50 per cent of additional transportation costs incurred by the physical handicapped to reach an adequate place of work. The federal government will pay increased grants to companies which would like to improve and set up facilities providing permanent jobs to the handicapped.
To my mind, the opposition errs in its proposals, as I said at the start, by classifying the handicapped in categories. I went to university with a handicapped student who took down his notes during classes as fast as I could myself, though I was not blind. What bothered him most, I feel, was the fact that he felt
January 24, 1977
different from the other students and that they considered him to be different from them. But, from the time when his friends, of whom I was, looked upon him as any other human being who was able to earn his keep, though with limited means, he felt accepted, useful to the society in which he moved, and which considered him no longer as a burden but rather as a human being capable of giving.
Indeed, the government I represent tries to give every possible tool to the handicapped that they might play the social role that can be theirs. I congratulate the hon. member for Selkirk who considers it worthwhile to look into the fate of the handicapped; but we must not believe that that is something the hon. members of 1974 or a new government have just discovered. The Canadian government has always concerned itself with this issue, with the support of the opposition, and we are trying in 1977 to prepare a bill that will take care of the essential, namely the human value. As long as this value is not taken into account, other members may be lead to believe that we want to generalize and, indeed, the fault with a great many laws is to establish categories. When bills are of a general order, applying to everyone, according to simple conditions, the people wherever they are can understand them better and therefore derive greater benefit from them. Any man can then fend for himself, eventually sorting things out and revalorizing himself.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has already announced this bill on social services and I believe he will be able to meet his provincial counterparts soon and set out precisely, since there is a new government in Quebec, what the programs entail and what advantages there will be for the provinces, and I am convinced that every Canadian and every Quebecer will be able to take advantage of this new legislation.
Since it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the hon. member for Selkirk. I invite him to take part in the work of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs so he may argue his points as well as he did this afternoon, but in a wider scope.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Broadcasting House Proceedings


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen:
That this House approve the radio and television broadcasting of its proceedings and of the proceedings of its comittees on the basis of principles similar to those that govern the publication of the printed official reports of debates; and
That a special committee, consisting of Mr. Speaker and seven other members to be named at a later date, be appointed to supervise the implementation of this resolution.
James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, at this point in speaking to this motion to have television in the House of Commons I should like to refer briefly to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the house leader for the official opposition. At one point I believe he said the government wants to run across an unexplored field. He went on to list a number of fears, a number of negative possibilities. He raised the question of cost. He suggested he wanted more studies, and even a study of studies.
In response, with as little politics involved as possible, I want to point out, as did the government House leader earlier in the day, that in 1957 television first came into the House of Commons. Fully ten years later, in 1967, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), I believe, brought forward a private member's bill. Two years after that, and still almost ten years ago, the hon. member for Peace-River (Mr. Baldwin) brought forward a private member's bill or motion which was passed and which led to a committee investigation. The issue has now been broached in three throne speeches.
We heard from the government House leader that more than 40 countries around the world have their parliaments or centres of democracy or government broadcast and/or television. Surely at this point when almost the majority of legislatures across Canada have television and broadcasting, or are proposing it, the central government and the Parliament of Canada are long overdue in taking that step.
For the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton to say the government wants to run across an unexplored field is not quite an expression of reality.


Walter David Baker: That is not quite what I said, but it will do.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: The hon. member moved an amendment which says we should have a committee study the matter further. Once again the opposition seems to commit a crime of which it all too often accuses us. Nothing could be more absurd than to have a committee study the work of a committee which is trying to resolve a very crucial issue if Canadians are to understand what parliament and, more important still, what Canada is all about.



January 24, 1977
Broadcasting House Proceedings
The minister in his comments made several points which I should like to mention again if I may. The televising and broadcasting of the House of Commons proceedings would be under the authority of the Speaker who survives in his office only because of support from all sides of the House of Commons. This is a guarantee of objectivity and efficiency in the recording or broadcasting of the events which take place in this Chamber. Further, the government House leader gave us his assurance that all parliamentary rights and privileges will be observed and upheld, and that if they are abused by anyone taking advantage of those broadcast tapes they will be answerable to the House of Commons which is, of course, finally the highest court in the land. And yet the media will continue to be free to edit and select as it sees fit, at its own discretion. For its competence or lack of competence in doing so it will be answerable to its viewers, to the Canadian public, and to the Canadian Radio and Television Commission. Finally, it will be answerable to this House if abuses take place.
Technical problems will of course occur, but not ones which are in any way insurmountable. Lighting can easily be arranged to avoid causing extra heat or difficulties to the eyes of those within the House of Commons. Those kinds of difficulties with television were conquered several years ago. Cameras can be placed unobtrusively, as the study done last year under the authority of the House leader at that time showed. There is no need to use "on air" lights or things of that nature which would be distracting to the on-going business of the House of Commons. Something very important to me as a member of the Chamber is that this Chamber and its beauty can be maintained and not damaged in any way.
Costs are something which the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton chose to comment on, especially when he interjected several times during the speech of the government House leader. At one point I believe he commented "What about our pensioners?" when there was mention of costs. I should like to point out that the annual cost of running television and radio in the House of Commons, of having these recordings available and of telling and showing Canadians what is happening, would be less than $1 million. On the other hand, if we were to say that we were not going to let the Canadian public understand better what is going on here but instead are going to assist our pensioners, this would work out to 50 cents per pensioner per year.


Paul Yewchuk: That is fine.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: The hon. member says that is fine, Mr. Speaker. I suspect that if the hon. member thought this out thoroughly rather than simply interjecting he would say, if the issue of pensions is an important one and there should be an increase, what better way of focusing on that than allowing the Canadian public to see issues like this debated in the House of Commons of Canada? I know that the hon. member has some pertinent and wise things to contribute to this debate, and I look forward to hearing him when he gets Your Honour's attention.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that when Hansard, as vital as it is, has a circulation of 14,000, when the operating cost is going to be about one third the current annual cost of Hansard but is going to reach not multiples of tens, 20's or 50's but will reach a hundred or even a thousand times the current circulation of Hansard-and a thousand times 14,000 is 14 million- then surely for an investment that represents an increase of less than 2 per cent of the budget for the operation of parliament we could better tell Canadians what is happening and what this country is all about.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Would you pay it?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker,-1 often find that when I speak in the afternoon the Conservatives are fairly well mannered, but after dinner they become very noisy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: It seems to me to be an incredibly negative reflection on us all that we should not sooner be prepared to show the public their House of Commons and their elected representatives.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That was a cheap shot.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) says that that was a cheap shot. It is only because I respect that particular member that I have not replied to a number of cheap shots that have been made since I rose to speak. No matter how opponents of this resolution fog this debate, essentially it is: will the Canadian public at last be able to see and hear by means of modern technology what happens in the House of Commons, how it works and what the issues are, or will most of them still have this denied to them?
It seems to me that all of us as members of parliament are terribly anxious, when we receive visits from groups in our ridings, and when those with constituencies not too far from the capital have groups of school children coming here by the thousands in the summertime, to have them come in and see our Chamber in operation, and to speak to them. Yet when we try to keep together a country that stretches thousands of miles from shore to shore, is it fair to people in British Columbia, the maritimes, the north, and in remote areas that they not be given a better perception of what is happening here, what the issues are, and what other parts of the country are all about, as represented by various speakers in this House?
The committee fulfilling the directions of the motion will be made up of MP's from all sides of the House of Commons. Surely they can reasonably consider the problems involved and find answers to technological problems. To stall further and deny access to these basic instruments of communications to Canadians seems to me to be nothing but simply and directly unjust.
Radio has been in Canada, Mr. Speaker, as a tool of communications for almost 60 years. We have had television
(Mr. Fleming.]
January 24, 1977

now for more than 25 years. Yet the focal point where all the diverse interests of our country come together to argue and debate and find consensus is still unavailable to those people who want to understand our system better. It seems to me that every concerned Canadian who believes that communications today are one of the major drawbacks to holding together this country should support this motion.
We are in an electronic age which is moving so rapidly it befuddles the mind. But these modern scientific advances must be used to help Canadians overcome pressures and misunderstandings. The greatness of our country is its size, its diversity and its potential. We have survived for over 100 years with geography that confounds us. Our mountain ranges run north to south while our country runs east to west. We have overcome huge distances and stayed together. In the past, despite communications shortcomings, we have managed to tell each other the story of ourselves and have survived.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I believe that few members of the House who are thoughtful about the Canadian situation would deny that we have a very real crisis on our hands, perhaps the greatest crisis we have ever had. If we cannot on all sides of the House of Commons agree better to communicate to the Canadian public the diversity of our nation and the efforts all of us are making, from every part of Canada, to solve our problems, then we are not going to have a united Canada in the future.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering what has happened to the government's sense of priority. I have listened today to the speech of the government House leader, to that of the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming) and to other speakers, in the context of a parliament that is reassembling after a month's adjournment, and the first order of priority is whether or not we should televise and broadcast the proceedings of this House. What kind of a sense of priority does this government have?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The answer is none.


James Aloysius McGrath: At a time when we are facing record high unemployment, when the Conference Board in Canada predicts that this year will see even higher unemployment, and reports in its latest findings that the five eastern provinces, for the year 1977, will have on average in excess of 10 per cent unemployment, we are debating this resolution. The two provinces with the highest rate of unemployment, according to the findings of the Conference Board, are Quebec and Newfoundland.
I heard the leader of the NDP speak with a great deal of feeling, he having made a tour of the provinces of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, about the situation that prevails there. In my own province, Sir, as of this moment we in fact have a real unemployment rate of 35 per cent. Some 55,000 people in my province out of a total work force of 183,000 are drawing unemployment insurance. In order to qualify for unemployment insurance you must be available for work. Another 9,000 are on short-term assistance. Some 64,000 people are drawing
Broadcasting House Proceedings unemployment insurance and able-bodied short term assistance. Statistics Canada is using new methodology, and it estimates that the rate of unemployment in my province is about 14 per cent.
Where are our priorities, Mr. Speaker? I sometimes wonder whether this place has lost touch with reality. Here we are discussing the tinsel, unreal world of television. I suppose in a way that is appropriate, because we all know that what goes on here is often unreal. It is certainly out of touch with reality for parliament to be seized today with a debate as to whether or not we televise our proceedings when the future of the country is at stake. There are stresses and strains on confederation today of a kind that have not existed in the last 100 years. We have unemployment today such as we have never seen since the second world war.
I suppose it is appropriate that we should be discussing this resolution, but I would say to the House, let us get on with it. This resolution in one form or another has been with us since 1972, but there are some very important factors of which we seem to have lost sight. For example, what has become of the findings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization which worked long and diligently during the last session of parliament? What happened to the report of that committee? There is no move by the government House leader, or the government, to bring forward a new reference to the committee so that report could be brought before the House. There was, indeed, no reference made today by the government House leader to the impact that this resolution will have on the rules of the House.
Let me make it clear that I support the principle of televising the proceedings of this House. My House leader has put forward the position of this party that we support the principle of this move. I also submit to you, Sir, notwithstanding the fact that you have yet to make a ruling on the amendment put forward by my House leader, that it would be logical to consider the impact this will have on the rules of the House by sending this resolution to the Procedure Committee. We should consider the fact that the findings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, structured during the last session of parliament to revise our rules, have yet to be brought before the House. We should further consider the fact that this reference in the last session to that standing committee did not cover rule changes in the context of televising or broadcasting the proceedings of this place. Surely if we are to contemplate this move we must do so in the context of the impact and the effect it will have on our procedures and standing orders.
It would seem to me to be logical and sensible for the House, having agreed to this matter in principle, to take the next logical step of referring this matter back to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. That would give the committee the opportunity to assess the rules and the need to change them to accommodate the new effect television will have on the proceedings of this place.
2320

January 24, 1977
Broadcasting House Proceedings
I was among those who were opposed at first to this proposal. I was very vehement and adamant in my opposition to televising and broadcasting the proceedings of this House. However, Sir, the key word is relevancy. I fear that this place is becoming irrelevant. All we have to do is examine the record of the government during the past session.
A year or so ago the House brought in new standing orders which made possible under the rules of the House a practice that had been in fact a tradition of the House, and that was for ministerial statements to be made in the House with the right of members of the opposition parties to reply to those statements. The House obviously felt the need to regularize that procedure and tradition of the House in the rules, and we did so by Standing Order 15(3). Yet almost every time there is a statement of any consequence to be made, notwithstanding the fact that the House is in session, the ministers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) go outside this House to make these statements, thereby depriving parliament of the opportunity of responding.
Reference has already been made to the Prime Minister's statement of November 23, probably one of the most important statements ever made by a head of government in this country, in the context of what happened in Quebec on November 15, what this would mean for the future of the country and for the future of federal-provincial relationships in the immediate future. The House was in session at that time but the Prime Minister went on national television, completely ignoring parliament in this most important statement affecting the very future of the country. I suggest that was contemptible on the part of the Prime Minister. I believe that if the House had provision for televising and broadcasting its proceedings this is the kind of abuse that could and, I suspect, would be stopped.
Again I could refer to the statement made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) on December 2. The minister made a very important announcement about the new search and rescue policy for Canada. He chose to make that statement outside the House, notwithstanding the fact that the subject had been the topic of debate throughout the last session of parliament and had become a matter of great concern here and throughout the land. Yet with the House in session, the Minister of National Defence elected to make his statement elsewhere than in this House, thereby depriving opposition members, especially members directly affected from both coasts and from Great Lakes constituencies, of an opportunity of having input to that new policy and an opportunity to react to it, or to question the minister on it as is provided under Standing Order 15(3).
Again, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) on December 22, with the House in session, called a press conference to announce the management policy of the government in respect of the 200-mile limit which was proclaimed on January 1. If there ever was a statement that was relevant to parliament and that should have been made in this House it was this statement on a subject that had seized the attention of the House for several years, namely, the role of
(Mr. McGrath.)
the government and its managerial responsibilities in connection with the implementation of the 200-mile limit. Yet that statement was made outside the House. We did not have an opportunity to question the minister on it or to react to it.
That is why I came to the conclusion that with the changes in the rules, and with this growing propensity on the part of the government to go outside this place to make announcements, whether by press conference, by speeches, or by federal-provincial conferences, this practice could possibly be arrested and in that context this place would become more relevant if its proceedings were televised and radio broadcast. That is why I changed my view.
I also had reason to change my view when it became evident to me that the government was somewhat less than sincere in its attempts to get the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to change the rules of the House. Let us take a look at the rules. I have already referred to ministerial statements which, since December, 1974, have been provided for under the standing orders, with the growing practice of ministers circumventing that rule by making statements outside the House.
We should also take a look at the impact of television in the House on our supply procedures which, God knows, are already inadequate. I suppose this may bring on the necessary reforms to our supply procedures when we have cameras in the House, particularly if the country can witness the spectacle and humiliation of parliament having to rubber-stamp appropriation bills as they come before the House without having any proper examination of the estimates leading up to them. Indeed the standing committees of this House are so overloaded by legislation and so encumbered by the growing complexity of government estimates and the form of those estimates that there is never a year goes by when there are not a number of departments whose estimates never get to committee because of the guillotine supply procedure under the rules, whereby the estimates are deemed to have been passed and reported by the committees as of the end of May of each calendar year.
Perhaps cameras in this place would expedite the necessary reforms, which I believe everybody is now prepared to concede are long overdue, to give this place some control over government spending. If we had cameras here when we went through the procedures of dealing with appropriation bills, virtually having to rubber-stamp billions of dollars in government spending without adequate examination, that one spectacle would be worth having those cameras here. I believe that that would bring home to the people of this country more than anything else the spectacle of parliament having no control over government spending. For that reason I believe that television in the House would be an improvement.
What about the standing committees of the House? Would it not be logical that we should perhaps start by televising the standing committees? Certainly the rules have to be amended to change the procedures within the standing committees. I

think everybody will concede that under the rule changes under which parliament now operates the standing committees do a reasonably good job in examining legislation. Legislation is given proper examination clause by clause, and indeed in many cases legislation is improved by the committees when it is reported back to the House. But the rules of the committees have to be changed to make the committees more relevant in terms of their ability to examine government spending and to call ministers to account for overspending their estimates, and indeed committees must be given the power to take the necessary initiatives, when they deem it advisable, to look on an ongoing basis into government spending, notwithstanding any rules of the House which may make it necessary to have estimates reported back to the House on a certain day.
We should take a look at the impact of television in the House on the most important part of our parliamentary day. A part of our parliamentary proceedings which has assumed a new importance and a new relevance as a result of the new supply procedures, the only part of the parliamentary day when we can hold the government accountable, is the question period. But the question period is at best an ineffective instrument to hold the government accountable. However, it is all we have. I believe the question period procedures in the House can be improved, and indeed I believe they will have to be improved before the House can agree to having television cameras in this place.
I believe that these reforms cannot be looked upon in isolation, just as I believe that by having this matter referred to a committee after the House has voiced its opinion on the principle-which 1 believe will find certain majority support- the committee will then have an opportunity to examine the need to change the rules in the context of the new situation which will emerge as a result of televising the House or providing, as the government House leader likes to say, an electronic Hansard.
There is one part of the government's proposal that has me somewhat troubled. The government has departed from the recommendations of the committee in one very important part. The committee recommended that the televising of the House be done on an experimental basis. 1 believe that to be eminently sensible because obviously we will have to look at the effect of television in the House on the rules of the House. Consequently I believe that before we put any permanent fixtures in place, before the House adopts any permanent procedures, it would do well to think that it will do this first on an experimental basis so that the procedures can be worked out as we go along. But in order to get at this in the context of the rule changes, in order to give all members of the House an opportunity to reflect on what this will mean to them individually in carrying out their responsibilities in this place as representatives of their constituents, it would be eminently sensible to have this matter referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, not in isolation but in the context of an examination and a reassessment of our standing orders and procedures in the light of the impact that television will have on these standing orders and procedures.
Broadcasting House Proceedings
I hope that the government House leader will agree to this proposal-if in fact Your Honour finds it admissible, which I hope and believe that you will-so that we can get on with the real priorities of the House and of the country, the priority of jobs and the priority of the future of confederation itself.


Hon. Jeanne Sauv6 (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me and enabling me to take part in this debate on the introduction of television in the House of Commons. I hope to be brief. I shall just take the time to underline the advantages I can see in televising the debates of the House of Commons.
As far as I am concerned, I think that we will derive greater exposure from the process, and exposure being the essential quality of politicians in the twentieth century, I think we need it more and more in our trade. Televising the debates of the House of Commons will thus spotlight government policies and motivations in the establishment of its programs and I think it will enable the Canadian people to have a much better perception of their representatives in the Parliament of Canada.
The measures we are proposing now will enable us directly to address the people, better than all the other measures which have already been taken such as the opening of the galleries of Parliament to the public and to the press, and the introduction of written Hansard.
I admit, Mr. Speaker, that I found it difficult to convince myself when speaking before a necessarily restricted audience in the House of Commons, and I understand the difficulties of having better attendance in the House. It remains that hon. members must address an audience which is necessarily very restricted.
I for one can hardly imagine that I am speaking to the nation, that all Canadians are listening to what I have to say, while a great many hon. members, who are overworked, must of necessity carry out their business in the House and listen to me only absent-mindedly.
Thanks to television broadcasting, we will be able to speak to the Canadian public as a whole. In my mind, this proposal to have our debates broadcast is certainly a new and most important progress of democracy within our society. If you will allow me this return to the past, Mr. Speaker, this bring us back to the "agora" of Ancient Greece, the open air meeting place where people would get together to obtain first hand information, without the assistance of intermediaries or, for that matter, translators, and where they could judge on the spot the effectiveness, sincerity, wisdom and what have you of their elected representatives. Little by little, the "agora" went indoors. Even during the last centuries, the proceedings took place in assembly halls such as this, their walls adorned with silk and velvet drapes, their floors covered with thick carpets, in certainly splendid, even impressive surroundings. However, gradually a protocol and a decorum quite foreign to the people was introduced in those rooms and the atmosphere so created could induce the governors to govern cautiously.
80008-10V2

January 24, 1977
Broadcasting House Proceedings
Today we propose to recreate the agora, but for everybody, for the people, for the Canadian people. Through the electronic Hansard we shall open the walls of this House to all Canadian citizens who will be able to follow our proceedings. If they wish, they will have direct access to our work. No longer will they have to rely on distorted or incomplete reports interpreted or revised by someone else. I do not say that the role of the media is not important. I do not say that they should not continue to interpret and report our proceedings but Canadians will be able to see directly what we are doing, when we are doing it.
There will also be an element of entertainment that might revive the interest of the public in parliamentary business. And if they continue to read newspapers, at least they will be able to compare their own perception of facts with the interpretations given by the media and those of us who sometimes complain about the misinterpretation of the media will no longer have reason to complain as our intervention will be on the record and will have been seen and heard by a large part of the Canadian people. Furthermore, as those interventions will be Filmed and kept in the archives, newsmen will have there, I suppose, a reminder of the ethic that makes the glory and the honour of their trade.
But the opposition does not appreciate this attempt, this decision of the government to open Parliament. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) complained earlier that some ministers make statements outside the House and carefully avoid making them in Parliament. I do not see the logic of his objection because if we broadcast our proceedings, ministerial statements will be recorded immediately and broadcast to all interested people and they will not have to use more efficient means outside the House. We propose a more open Parliament and it is precisely the wish of the hon. member. And we are using the best means available to make Parliament more open.
Opposition members are calling for a legislation to ensure access to information. They make no distinction between information which should be available immediately or a little later and information which would likely jeopardize certain negotiations. They are totally irresponsible when they advocate full access to any kind of information and in all circumstances. They want information to be more readily available. That is also our hope, and we have announced a legislation on access to information. But before the fact, we are offering, through the television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons, immediate access to the most important information, that is what is happening in the Parliament of Canada. There are opposition members who are opposed to this project of televising the proceedings of the House of Commons.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) was wondering this afternoon if Parliament would resist such an exposure? I ask in turn another question. Are opposition members afraid of not resisting scrutiny in this public forum, in the true sense of the word, that the television broadcasting of our proceedings would make of Parliament?

Mr. Speaker, since I came to this House, I have seen things that the hon. members of the opposition would perhaps not want to be laid before the eyes of the general public. For instance, the frequent absence of some members. The opposition tactics of planning very cunningly a rotation system for its members, a system that is only known to them and that we must try to thwart at some crucial moments in the House. They subject us to sudden fits of attendance and absence which prevent our members from spending as they do the necessary time in their riding. Of course, those are quite obvious tactics, but they shirk their parliamentary duties when they do not play the game, because there are some unwritten rules that the members opposite should obey. They take unreasonable advantage, Mr. Speaker, of the game of hide-and-seek at the time of crucial votes in this House.
Ever since I came to Parliament, I have secretly blamed the opposition for this and I now dare voice it publicly tonight because our role, as representatives of the people, is difficult enough to expect the cooperation of both sides of the House in allowing all hon. members, those of the opposition as well as those on the government side, to perform properly their duties as parliamentarians and representatives of the people. But all this, with the televising of our debates, will be brought out in full daylight: a mere travelling of a camera will enable one to see who respects the House and who does not.
Another thing I shall be delighted to see, Mr. Speaker, will be the televising of the question period. This House witnesses moments without equal when the questions of the opposition are direct and go straight to the core of current events, when questions and counter-questions fly on all sides, when the outstanding parliamentary talents of our Prime Minister come into play. We have quite a show on some days. We have no fear, Mr. Speaker, of letting the nation see that show. On the contrary we long for the day when we can let everyone know, on a daily basis, how the Prime Minister fights for the interests of the people.
We on this side of the House are ready to meet that challenge because on many occasions we tested the Prime Minister's qualities as a parliamentarian. I do not say that the opposition does not have its own good parliamentarians. Some days, when some of them are on their toes, we also have a good show from the other side of the House. But since the opposition too has its artful, able and competent parliamentarians, why not make them known to the whole nation? That is in fact the proposal we put forward to you: it will be an even contest for both sides of the House. Perhaps it is because the malicious intent of certain questions raised by the opposition will in the end become far too clear that they oppose that project. And perhaps it is because some people, whose talent can only be exercised through misdirected controversy, will be absolutely deprived of means if they were to change their style.
I am convinced that a broadcast question period will impart a much more resposible approach to that aspect of our deliberations. As a matter of fact, ours is more interesting than that

of other countries, because very rarely is there prior notice and that element of surprise, which is peculiar to our House, will undoubtedly get people interested and bring them to listen to the question period.
I am therefore convinced that broadcasting the question period will change its style and, who knows, will perhaps give rise to questions much more relevant to the true concerns of the people. Why should we be afraid of this experience, Mr. Speaker? I do not understand the hesitation of the opposition members and I can only think that they are afraid to lose face before the judgment of the people which will certainly be merciless when they witness our debates directly.
Another aspect of our debates which will greatly benefit from broadcasting concerns our speeches. As many are aware I had a career on television and in the trade we always say that there is nothing that cannot be said in five minutes. Of course,we must know what we are saying, choose our words well and not repeatourselves. The operation of Parliament would benefit from being much more concise and much more controlled on both sides of the House. Because of the misuse of the privileges of the House, certain members often lose sight of their subject and take the time of the House, certain members often lose sight of their subject and take the time of the House to say unimportant things. All this, Mr. Speaker, will not hold up very long on television.
Moreover, by broadcasting House proceedings, we may obtain the parliamentary reform that government members urgently request and which the gentlemen on the side of the opposition refuse because they are obviously not interested in seeing this Parliament operate efficiently. This would cause their downfall. They do not want Parliament to operate efficiently because it is not at all in their interest.
And they count on the fact that there is in the House a certain theology of consensus concerning parliamentary reforms. Well, like many others, this theology could undergo a very fast evolution in view of the impatience that the people will surely express if we continue to delay needlessly the broadcasting of House proceedings and if we continue to multiply speeches simply to kill the time required for the passage of legislation. The opposition is also opposed to parliamentary reform and, like the hon. member who spoke before me, I believe that the broadcasting of the debates of the House will probably hasten parliamentary reform, which would allow us to keep pace with the twentieth century and operate Parliament as efficiently as possible in this day and age.
Similarly, television helped bring to an end the Vietnam war. For example, the single fact that each night of the week people could see real soldiers, both Vietnamese and American, being killed on a real battlefield, very quickly caused them to beg: "Stop! You cannot go on fighting when this war destroys human beings and also countries."
Those who analyze such situations say that television helped bring to an end the Viet Nam war and forced the leaders to stop it. Television has also known critical periods such as when narcotics were very popular in the United States. They were very popular simply because each day this subject was men-
Broadcasting House Proceedings tioned and discussed on television. Because of the overexposition due to television, some events are overlapping which, more rapidly than with other media, forces those involved to take stock. I think that if our proceedings were broadcast, we would all improve very rapidly the quality of our remarks in the Hous and we would realize very rapidly that we should be more pertinent in the House, closer to the true concerns of the people. This we should recognize with humility; we take the habit of discussing and of talking to each other in the third person. These are things that people may not understand very well. I repeat that we will rapidly come to the conclusion that we should change our style and improve the quality of our work in the House.
As for me, I think that the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons will improve Parliament and this is the goal I want to reach by supporting the present motion concerning the broadcasting of our debates. This measure will also have the great advantage of closing the almost inevitable gap between the people and their Parliament. Our country is large, the members must spend all their time in Ottawa and those of us who live in the extreme parts of our country find it very difficult to organize their timetables so that they can be in their ridings and fulfil their parliamentary duties as well. But if by means of television we can do both we will be physically present in the House and we will also be present in our ridings, then, the people will see us work as their representatives. Consequently this inevitable gap will be closed, which becomes more and more important. By the way, we know that in many cases people are not interested at all by the work of their representatives. Consequently we will be much more present before our electorate when the proceedings are broadcast; this measure will help people better understand what we are working at, what we do in Parliament. Maybe by following our proceedings they will be able to realize how tenaciously we try to fulfil our duties and this in their best interest.
Consequently, it is difficult for me to understand the reservations of the opposition about this motion concerning the broadcasting of our debates. Their reservations sound like the old objections about Hansard. When the proposal was put forward to print the record, there were objections similar to those we are now hearing from hon. members opposite. But the printed record has proven altogether useful, has it not, Mr. Speaker? We are now proposing nothing more than an electronic record, a medium in agreement with current technology. Nothing less, nothing more.
Before I conclude, I would like to share with you, Mr. Speaker, the experience of a smalj community called Ferme-Neuve, some 100 miles north of Ottawa. When I went there to make a speech, I was told that the community television station was broadcasting the city council's proceedings. When in the course of a council session the debate became animated and expressed the people's concerns, citizens came en masse to the council room to set nearer to their representatives and hear them debate. To me, this is a good example of TV's possible

Broadcasting House Proceedings achievements in the way of getting the people nearer to their representatives and their work.
I believe that if we try this, people will rediscover Parliament. In so doing we will do Parliament a service, because we dared put it in better perspective. It takes daring indeed to broadcast our debates. This will put Parliament in better perspective, and as in Ferme-Neuve people will come to us in greater numbers. Canadians will rediscover that here, in Canada's Parliament, are people who want to serve them.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight as the member from Okanagan-Kootenay and nothing more, representing a geographical area and sent here for the second time as the representative of the 100,000 or so people who occupy that specific geographical area. I speak as one who has opposed the televising of the House of Commons on principle through both my terms in parliament. It was lonely back in 1966 and 1967 at a time when television was new and seemed to offer some of the hopes expressed by the minister who has just completed her remarks. However, it is not so lonely now when a great and rising chorus of voices has been added to the people who see television as something less than it has been portrayed to us in the address we have just heard, and in other remarks on the subject.
I would like to begin with a quotation that is cynical. It was written by a British Columbian who, according to some speakers, should be thirsting to have this place televised. He writes for the Vancouver Sun and for Maclean's magazine, Allan Fotheringham. He has not been any particular friend of the Conservative party or myself. I do not share all of his cynicism, but I think the lines with which he begins his column in the latest issue of Maclean's are significant to this debate this evening. He states:
The essential invention of government is the myth. A party in power that can take fantasy and sugar-wrap it into a guise resembling fact is a successful operation. It is why, as the House of Commons opens its lungs for 1977, the Liberals are decorating their legislative list with the machinery to televise parliament. There is a very good reason why the Liberals, after shying so long from appearing naked before the curious public eye, are being so vocal about this selfless act. It is now quite harmless to televise the Commons because nothing of importance happens there anymore.
I do not quite believe the last line, but I suspect the opening lines have much to say about the real purpose of this activity in which we are now engaged. We heard a great deal about opening up, but I trust Mr. Fotheringham more than the remarks we have just heard.
Televising the House of Commons should not be seen as a simple technological advance. It strikes at the heart of our democratic government. I believe that our form of representative government under constitutional monarchy and responsible to the elected representatives is the best guarantee for democracy yet invented. It should be appreciated and guarded for its own sake.
In that regard, it should be recalled that the original House of Commons was not secure until it was powerful enough to

exclude a variety of people from its premises. I know that some of the most ardent advocates of televising this Chamber would fight to the death a latter day intervention in this Chamber by direct intervention of monarch, governor, or even member from the other place. Why they should welcome so enthusiastically and uncritically a technology and technicians who would wield an enormous power over each one of us, I do not know.
This proposal, if effected, would alter the privileged status that we as members have long enjoyed. There are important questions of privilege that must be settled prior to any televising of this place. I trust others will develop that particular point as this debate continues.
A popular belief holds, however, that representative democracy is inferior somehow to direct democracy. We had it rephrased again this very evening. The idea persists that long ago in a golden age direct democracy developed in Greece and that, somehow, any subsequent variety has been inferior to the original. As with any golden age it cannot be contemplated without nostalgia and a longing to retrieve the irrevocably lost.
Television with its awesome power to hold attention and to entertain is seen by many as the vehicle through which direct democracy can be returned to the people of a vast and populous land.
During the twenty-seventh parliament, when the question was raised and the advent of TV in the Commons seemed imminent, I was asked by a reporter, "Wouldn't you like to talk to your constituents through television?" His tone indicated no possibility of a negative answer. Yet implicit in the question are two assumptions that need examining. First is the assumption that my constituents would ever see me via television. I have been excised from enough reporting emanating from this place to know that one's chances with the press are slender indeed. I hold no hope that photographers and editors of film would do better by me than do reporters.
There is, however, an essential.difference between television reporting and newspaper journalism. The member, ignored by the journalists, has several methods of presenting himself to his electorate. He can attend local events, speak at his own meetings, write for the local papers or write letters to the editor, and, as a last resort, he can even buy advertising space in the local papers. The printed Hansard, too, serves as his court of last resort, proof that he has been present and has participated in parliament.
But television is something else. If the member was excised from everyday's televising over four years' time, his re-election would be virtually impossible. And what recourse would he have? Who could afford to buy the time on national television to counter the impression that either he had never been there or had never been worth televising?
The second assumption is also important. What guarantee would I have, as a member, that what was televised back home was flattering to me or even neutral toward me? On one or two occasions in this House I have even fallen asleep when some member on the other side has carried on at great length to
January 24, 1977

little point. Suppose that had been captured indelibly and forever on the screen?
There are two variations of what is going to happen in the House once it is televised. One is that a powerful committee would see that nothing untoward is ever turned out over the television system. We have the other voice, again embraced in the last speech, that there would be an enormous file of tapes kept forever. I can imagine! The cabinet cannot keep a thing secret for a moment. The leaks from that place are notorious, and have been for years. What security we would have that some unflattering and some misleading tape would not appear I do not know. However, those are minor matters compared to the really important points about the proposal to televise this place.
Everyone who comments on televising the House of Commons admits that it will change the House. Many say it will change it greatly. Again there is an assumption that needs examining. It is assumed that the changes will all be to the good. Television is seen as a broom sweeping clean, reforming, brushing away the irrelevant, the tedious, polishing up the debate, shortening it, illuminating the decisions, and improving the legislation. What a hope!
There are things that can be done to do that. Some have already been mentioned. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could make his main statements here, as could cabinet ministers.
Anyone appointed to or recognized by the press gallery should be required to spend at least one hour of each working day listening to the debate in this place and commenting on it. One of the reasons why the level of debate has fallen so badly is that nobody does this any more. So no score is kept as to who is an effective debater, as to who can hold the attention of this Chamber, as to who is capable of saying anything relevant. That sort of change has come about in the 11 years since I first took my seat here.
There are things which need to be done, and those are two which would help enormously to improve the quality of debate.
Surely, too, we must look at other aspects of Canadian life which have not benefited from television. Can any hon. member point to one institution in North America which has benefited since the advent of television? Hockey has greatly changed since television, but has it really been improved? It is interesting to note that when the television of hockey began we were told the days of the commentator were ended, that Foster Hewitt was finished, that he would not be needed because people could see and hear for themselves what was going on. How wrong that prediction has proved to be.
There is very little about televising an institution such as this which is predictable in advance. I suggest there is nothing predictable in advance about televising this place. Already we can see the game being played by the government, and perhaps by the opposition too: it will damage you but it will enhance us. That line is being handed back and forth, but we cannot predict such a result with any certainty because the results of
Broadcasting House Proceedings televising any institution are bound to be unknown until the attempt has been made.
Violence in hockey is attributed to television by many thinking people. Violence in the House of Commons is virtually unknown now, but could it be kept out of a televised House? Ratings are the important thing about television, and what would improve a rating more than if an hon. member from one side or the other were to run across and punch somebody in the nose? It would mean a dramatic increase in public attention, no doubt. But would television in the House really favour the genuine over the phony?
I suggest we seriously consider the quality of what passes for religious broadcasting in North America today. I am glad the previous speaker mentioned theology because we are now into the province of myth, theology and blind faith. We have heard a variety of blind faith expressed here already this afternoon. CBC drama has not been confined to parliamentary language. Would it be possible to refrain from bolstering a weak speech by the profanity which bolsters so much weak writing for television? I doubt it very much.
There are some on the other side who think they would be marvellous performers and stars of the show. I know the Prime Minister sees television as providing a restorative to his fading career-that he sees himself as the Mother Dexter of Parliament, over the hill and prone to profanity. After the speech we have just heard there is a danger that the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) may become the Carol Burnett of this place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Earl Johnston: We are called to this assembly as members of parliament to debate and to legislate, and, increasingly, to act as ombudsmen. If the government wanted to bring in any measure which would improve the ability of members to perform their tasks it could have introduced a bill to fill the long-awaited post of ombudsman for the national administration. That would have been a worthy bill and it would have freed members of parliament from much of the work they must perform along those lines. We should always be conscious of the need to improve our performance in any of our roles as debaters or legislators, but if the House is televised we shall face a new demand, not for better legislation, not for better debate, but for better television. I submit that the changes forced upon us would be toward that goal. We would end up with our own cosmetologists, our own lighting men, and our own stars.
We have been sent here to represent our constituents. My constituents are the people for whom I speak. I am sure it is not my job here as the member for Okanagan-Kootenay to speak for the nation, and I can see many ways in which my role in this House would be complicated if every time I rose in this Chamber I had to contend with the thought that I was speaking not to my fellow members assembled here as legislators but to the nation. I am afraid that is a task which does not thrill me and one which my ego, such as it is, does not appreciate.

January 24, 1977
Broadcasting House Proceedings
The most important argument of all derives from information obtained from a variety of writers who have had occasion to study the medium. We should remember, as well, that television is illusion and that it works best, if it works at all, as entertainment. The French philosopher-sociologist Jacques Ellul put it best in his book "The Political Illusion" in which he said:
Finally, TV's effect on politics is being much discussed. The televised transmissions of parliamentary sessions, the direct exposure of politicians, the possibility a statesman has to show his face to everybody when making a speech-all this, it is argued, provides some sort of direct democracy.
As we have noted, however, this entirely passive role of the citizen has nothing to do with a working democracy. Such TV transmissions illuminate precisely the division discussed above: on the one hand there is the political spectacle, on the other, the reality of power. TV accentuates the spectacle, on the other, the reality of power. TV accentuates the spectacle and makes it all the more special because it gives the individual the impression of life itself, or reality directly seized. He will say: "Political Affairs? Of course, I've seen this important debate in the Assembly, where everybody played his role so seriously. The State? Of course. General de Gaulle or Mendes-France talked to me yesterday over the TV."
The examples given are French, of course, because the author is French.
All that is just a spectacle, appearance without root, such a game. And precisely because all this is only a game, such a telecast is possible. The real political mechanism-the state structure-remains completely hidden, outside all control, all the more so as the flickering little screen fixes the individual's attention on the spectacle and prevents him from searching deeper and asking himself questions as to the true nature of power.
This shows the folly of pretending that the televising of the proceedings of this Chamber will accomplish any part of the crusade which the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has carried on so long, as a result of which the pressure generated by his efforts is being felt by the government over there. Again, we get a trade-off which will really satisfy no one. Just as the trade-off of the abolition of capital punishment for gun control did not fool the people of Canada, so this trade-off will not fool them either. In fact I can think of nothing more detrimental to the successful conclusion of the effort to obtain open government than the televising of this Chamber, thus creating the illusion to which reference was made over and over again by the Minister of Communications when she said it would open this place up, while being unaware of the other point which is so crucial to anything like the free workings of a democratic government.
There have been other warnings that have been pertinent. Malcolm Muggeridge, a long time television personality, has this to say:
The media enormously distort life. People are given a surface picture which they come to believe-the legend made visible, the word become television. It promotes complete conformism. A phrase like "population explosion" is bandied about as if it meant something!
Or Blaik Kirby, writing in the Globe and Mail and speaking of Muggeridge's series "A Third Testament", says something that applies precisely to what is planned for the House when he writes:
... but nothing can be done really well on TV that is not properly adapted to the visual medium,-

This is one of the problems with this place; it is not adapted to the visual medium. It is not adapted to television now, but it would be because the demand would come and we would be forced to conform.
It is a pity, in a way, that the leader of the NDP is leaving because it was from that corner of the House that so much utterly unquestioned faith in regard to televising the proceedings of this Chamber comes.
We get back to the idea of myth that Fotheringham used:
In any case, it is quite certain that myths in our western civilization are connected with action, and incite to action. In that sense the definition of myth as "a motivating global image" is certainly the most exact. This myth is indeed a vigorous, highly coloured, irrational representation, charged with the entire believing capacity of the individual. It is, for the most part, a subconscious image, because the religious charge which it carries gives it an appearance of obviousness and certitude so fundamental that to become conscious of it is dangerous. Conscious awareness would run the risk of weakening the certitude. The person with a confused sense of it escapes the clarity of seeing the myth as myth. He can continue to take refuge in certitude.
I know this most important point is also the most misunderstood, Mr. Speaker, because it moves into the realm of the new sacred and the new mythological. It is one of my personal disappointments that some of the reverend gentlemen who are also members of parliament, and whom, one would assume, would know much about the former sacred and the old mythology, have themselves joined in demythologizing the old sacred, and seem to be unaware they are taking upon themselves a new sacred and have accepted a new mythology. So they will not be aware of the loss of objectivity in discussing this measure. In conforming to this world, spokesmen have raised modern technology to a level beyond criticism-irony of ironies!
I heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) speak of the right to know, that televising this Chamber somehow will provide the right to know. The most ancient of temptations, Mr. Speaker, is the right to know. It is the original one. That is the new myth, the myth that has been exposed, and first exposed by a Canadian prophet, Marshall McLuhan. He has spoken in his own country, and although perhaps unhonoured he has been generally unheard and almost completely misunderstood. Again I would go back to Ellul's writing; he has appreciated what we have heard but to which we have paid so little attention. He says:
Anonymity can no longer be assured by ancestral tradition in a society geared to the future and rejecting continuity with the past.
That is an excellent description of North America.
The anonymity is now assured by the mass media. The someone who carries the story to all, the someone who is completely known and completely anonymous and is assimilated to the "no one" speaking in the myth, is, par excellence, the television announcer.
That is where we find, not the birth of modern myth, but its guarantee of mythical authenticity. The transformations produced in the modern psyche by the mass media, the disconnected order of the discourse, the reappearance of global mythical thinking, the rejection of rational logic, the instant seizure of the real, etc., that has all been thoroughly shown, demonstrated and explained by Marshall McLuhan.
Yet it is as if he never wrote, Mr. Speaker. He has been a true prophet who has said these things 20 years ago. One listens in vain for any indication that he has been heard and
January 24, 1977

understood, unless it is that he has been heard and understood so well by the government opposite that this exercise we are engaged in is a completely cynical one, and I suspect that might be the truth.
I should like to quote McLuhan himself on the subject of control. He said:
No society in history has ever known enough about the forces that shape and transform it to take action to control and direct new technologies as they extend and transform man. But today, change proceeds so instantaneously through the new media that it may be possible to institute a global education program that will enable us to seize the reins of our destiny-but to do this we must first recognize the kind of therapy that's needed for the effects of the new media. In such an effort, indignation against those who perceive the nature of those effects is no substitute for awareness and insight.
The extensions of man's consciousness induced by the electric media could conceivably usher in the millennium-
Having heard so many speakers from the other side, that surely may be what they believe. But he warns:
-it also holds the potential for realizing the Anti-Christ. Cataclysmic environmental changes such as these are, of themselves, morally neutral; it is how we perceive them and react to them that will determine their ultimate psychic and social consequences. If we refuse to see them at all, we will become their servants. It's inevitable that the world-pool of electronic information movement will toss us all about like corks on a stormy sea, but if we keep our cool during the descent into the maelstrom, studying the process as it affects us, and learning to program and control it, we can come through.
I wish I could be as optimistic as Marshall McLuhan. Certainly the LaMarsh commission appointed by the premier of Ontario, headed up by that very good friend of the government opposite who was a cabinet minister for so long, is having a difficult time drawing any report to any kind of conclusion. When the report does come I am very skeptical that it will result in any effective control even of violence, regarding which there is a profound feeling that somehow technology and television have got well away from us.
There are other Canadians of sense on this subject. Professor Norman Ward of the University of Saskatchewan, in a cautionary letter to the Speaker of this House, says:
It is simply not true that the camera does not lie; it can lie more spectacularly than any unaided human being, and given the nature of some of the House's proceedings, it is likely that members will sometimes want to help it along in that direction.
And later:
I know that Hansard is far from being a perfect record, but compared with the hit-and-miss selectivity of live television it is incomparably more reliable than the fleeting pictures would be; yet it is almost inevitable that the pictures would have a greater impact on the public.
It is there, Mr. Speaker, that we so often get the argument that television will let people know what is going on, or that it is the same thing as the print media and we are under no greater threat from the cameraman than we are from reporters in the gallery. But both Marshall McLuhan and Norman Ward warn us about this.
I could also quote Robert Fulford who talks about Peter Gzowski's shift from the medium of radio to television. He says:
As I saw the first show, it again occurred to me that the nature of unrehearsed entertainment TV makes every subject trivial. Television, unless it's prepared
Broadcasting House Proceedings
with the greatest care-as in good drama, comedy, and documentary-turns everything it touches to dross.
Again, from the performances opposite it would not take much of a turn, but nevertheless for those who hope that the unstructured televising of this Chamber will result in great television, I think they are caught up in a powerful illusion.
Robert Fulford goes on to say:
What Johnny Carson knows about TV-and the people who are hoping for a rtfpeat of This Country don't know-is that it needs to be entertaining all the time, all the time.
This is the secret Johnny Carson knows, and that's why he never stops pushing, jiggling, tickling his fellow performers; we've taught him to fear our finger on the ChannelMaster, and that's why he's a nervous wreck. That's also why nothing of any permanent interest gets said on his show.
We can turn to the latest Chayefsky film, a film that has not reached Ottawa yet, called "Network". I would suggest very seriously, Mr. Speaker, that the Speaker of this House ought to arrange a private showing of that film for all members, because the technology has been around really for quite a long time now. There are people in this 20th century who are pretty conscious of the effect it can have and who are sounding warnings to us that we are paying no attention to at all.
Anyone who dares to stand up and say he is opposed on principle to televising this House is charged as being, at best, a red neck and, at worst, a dinosaur or Neanderthal, and those terms are used here with the suggestion that we are being dragged kicking and screaming into this century. The warnings are coming from this century, and they are coming from people who look ahead. They are truly prophetic people.
Television takes an illusion and makes it truth, and I think that's irresponsible and destructive. The worst thing is that the public takes it all seriously.
He also said:
To me, television is the symptom of something awful that could turn into something worse.
Ponder that, hon. members, because we have been told repeatedly already today that this place is something awful. But, believe me, televising it and the effect of televising this place could be something still worse, and we should remember that Chayefsky says:
I won't say television is any more corrupt than any other media of communication-movies, newspapers, even politics-but it does have a scope others lack ... it comes right into your living room and pounds its message into your brain.
Of course the character in the film played by the late Peter Finch says:
Television is not the truth . . . Television is a-
I will bleep out the next word in true television style and continue as follows:
-amusement park. Television is a circus, a carnival, a travelling troupe of acrobats, story tellers, side show freaks, lion tamers and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business.
At this point one could fairly ask where the demand for televising the House originates. Certainly it does not originate with the general public. I asked the then President of the CBC, Laurent Picard, a year or so ago whether the CBC was under

Broadcasting House Proceedings
any pressure from the public to produce this service, and his answer was a flat no. From that followed the question, what size of audience would there be, and the estimate given by Mr. Picard was less than 1 per cent. Yet we have had suggested already this evening that televising this House would reach a majority of the population at any one time. I do not believe that.
I will not discuss the issue of cost at all. If televising this place would improve its basic roles and functions in any way; if it would mean better debate and better legislation, then the cost would not be important at all. But when we know that it will not achieve any of those things, when we know it is a cynical trade-off of something the government is now willing to allow in order to prevent something else from happening to it, and that other thing it dreads so much is open government, then we should not for a moment accept this when we want that other.
There are great minds who question the desirability of televising the House of Commons. The debate we are engaged in can be intellectual on the negative side. It does deal in myths and theology and sacreds and profanes. It is time that some hon. members on all sides of this House began to sort out the myth from the reality, and began to look with some objectivity at the proposal before us that, if permitted to proceed, could well destroy this institution which is the one bastion of our democracy that remains.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: While following this most interesting debate, Mr. Speaker, and I think it has been interesting, I could not help from having my mind go back to a situation that took place about 13 years ago. It was my first experience with television just after being elected when I was as green as grass, or even greener than that. I was invited to go to Montreal to attend an all-party television show that was supposed to discuss the future of political parties in Canada.
I went to Montreal and walked into this all-party show. The leading player was the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). There was also in attendance a non-partisan chap by the name of Egan Chambers, who was a former Tory MP. The unbiased, impartial chairman was the present hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). That was the group that met me in Montreal for this unbiased, all-party show. In thinking back on that it would seem to me I would rather take my chances with television in the House of Commons.
Let me say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) that I listened to his speech with interest. I have always admired the sincerity of that hon. member. He said something by which he hoped to make his point, but as I listened I thought in fact he was reinforcing my position in supporting television in the House of Commons.
That hon. member was suggesting that he wanted to speak only to his constituents. I know that hon. member, and I do not
(Mr. Johnston.]
think he meant to say that or suggest that his responsibility was only to his riding, or that those of us who come here are here only responsible-


An hon. Member:: He said just to those in the Chamber.


Max Saltsman: I know the hon. member, and I am sure he would not want to leave that impression. He said he wanted to speak directly to this Chamber and to his constituents. We are not here to speak to each other, we are here rather to speak to the nation. Our oath of office is not to our constituents or to each other. Our oath of office is to the nation. This is a national forum, and this country is in serious trouble for one reason or another, as a result of economic problems, problems in respect of confederation with provinces trying to opt out or change the terms. One of the reasons for this trouble is that too much of what takes place in this Chamber that is not noticed by the public takes place on behalf of a particular group, a particular section or a particular region instead of the nation as a whole.
Instead of coming here to try to keep this country together we come here to represent specific groups or regions when we should be trying to do as much for all the people of this country wherever they may live. I suggest regionalism is one of the sicknesses of Canada. It is too easy to make the kind of speeches I have heard in this House which are directed specifically to an individual's constituency or one group. If such speeches were read by other people in this country they would be appalled. It is too easy to clip out sections of Hansard and send them out to a local area, making a hero of yourself in that locale, while at the same time tearing down this country and the confederation we should all be trying to uphold.
It is about time the people of this country had an opportunity of looking at the performance of their members of parliament. Perhaps this is not the way a member wants his constituents to see him, but the people should have an opportunity of seeing the performance and behaviour of their member in this House. Let them see him directly without interpretation or the particularization that comes with selections from Hansard.
I heard the hon. member who preceded me speak about the people who are going to watch television, that there may only be one per cent, which may be true. I do not know but I suspect there may be a very wide audience if we televise the House of Commons. My wife complains to me that ever since I became a member of parliament I never take her to the theatre. I say, why should I go to the theatre, I make my living there! I am there all the time.
We tend to underestimate the vitality of this place. I know that this place can be a bore and I know it can be awfully foolish, but it is also capable of high drama and of the noblest of sentiments. I have come to appreciate and admire not only this institution but the people on all sides of the House who are in this institution. I do not know why we are afraid of exposing this institution to the public gaze. I think it is strong, I think it is worthwhile, and I think it will benefit from it. The weak-
January 24, 1977

nesses that are here can be exposed. Surely if something is strong, it can correct itself, and people will understand the weaknesses.
When my friends come to visit the House of Commons and they sit in the galleries, they walk away from this place saying to me, "Look, we never realized how dramatic and how exciting this place can be". This place can be dramatic and exciting. Real drama takes place here, such as the capital punishment debate and other debates which have taken place. These debates are an ornament to this country, and to thought in our society. I think we should provide the opportunity for people in Canada to view and to hear them, because few people do. There will be a thousand times more people than those who read Hansard who will get a picture of the House of Commons.
All of us who support this measure of the government at this time-and I should say that originally this was not a government measure but a private member's measure,-myself included, have for the last 12 or 13 years been putting forward resolutions to televise the House of Commons. It is not as though this just happened overnight and the government has just become aware of it. Like so many things the government does, it does perhaps the right things for what sometimes seem to be the wrong reasons. I will give the government the benefit of the doubt because this is not the time to cavil about it.
I do not want to go through the exercise of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). It is difficult to know whether he supports the measure or does not support it, but meanwhile he used the opportunity to lambaste the government for all kinds of things that have nothing to do with this debate.
As I listened to the debate this evening I wondered, if there had been televising of the House of Commons in effect tonight, who would have come off best. I think that my leader would have come off best because he made the most intelligent speech of the whole lot. The next one would have been the government House leader, and the last would have been the spokesman for the Conservative party because his speech would have been seen as a kind of ploy. I think that perhaps this is one of the things of which the official opposition is afraid.
I do not think there can be any doubt when I say that the government is probably doing the right thing for the wrong reason, that one of the reasons for haste is that we have a government which is in serious trouble. Their analysis has told them, and my analysis has told me, that televising the House of Commons will help the government and hurt the opposition. I am not saying that this is out of some Machiavellian aspect of television, but I think it is vitally important, even if that is the consequence of televising the House of Commons, that the television come in here, and I think it should happen quickly. I do not think that this should be dragged out and held over for a long period of time.
At no time in our history have we needed to have the House televised as we need to have it televised now. I can think, for instance, of English speaking Canadians who say to me that
Broadcasting House Proceedings the government is full of French Canadians, all they have is French Canadians on that side. That is the misapprehension of many people in this country. Of course it is not so. On the other hand, you have people in Quebec saying that the whole government is run by les Anglais. It is about time that the people of this country saw what their parliament is like, saw that in fact there is representation of both French and English Canada, saw in fact the goodness that exists in both these people, and the sincerity which exists on both sides and how hard some of us are trying to keep this country together. I think that, if we televised the House, only good can come out of this important debate that is taking place in our society. The sooner we do it, because time is critical, the better the chance we have in dealing with what I think is an enormously serious problem and one that has to be dealt with as quickly as possible. I cannot think of anything that will do more to dispel some of the ignorance and prejudice with regard to what exists in this Chamber than letting the people see for themselves those who represent this country.
You may say that some of the things they are going to see will not be all that pleasant. That is fine. The Canadian people are not that weak stomached that they cannot stand it. I can only say the kind of thing that Cromwell said when somebody asked him how he was to be painted. He said, "paint me with my warts on". Let them see their parliament with its warts on. The warts are not that significant as to destroy what I think is a favourable picture of the institution which legislates in this country.
I want to come back to something I started to say about the effect that television would have, that it would benefit the government and be to the disadvantage of the opposition, at least in the initial stages. The reason I say this is that the present bias of the news media is to attack the government on every occasion and to make it look in fact worse, if that is possible, than it actually is. But the bias of the media in this country-and it is not because the government is Liberal, they would do the same thing if the government were Conservative or NDP-the actual tendency of the media now is to attack every institution that exists.
This is something that has happened in this country over the last number of years, and the only explanation I can come up with-and I am not saying it is something the media can do something about, I do not think they can because it is the nature of things-is that over the last number of years, with the decline of a number of competing newspapers, radio and television stations, the media has felt called upon to prove its purity and to show that it is not an institution, although it is the greatest establishment in this country. It feels called upon to attack, as a matter of course, every institution, whether it is the Workmen's Compensation Board, the Ontario government, the federal government, the Manitoba government, or the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. There is a presumption of guilt if you are a government agency or if you are an established organization.
I suppose that one of the reasons they do it-I know many newspapermen and I have a tremendous admiration for them

Broadcasting House Proceedings
and for many of the editors in this country-if you are a one newspaper organization or you are the only newspaper in town, you have to show that you are not the establishment even though in fact you are. How do you show this? You show this by attacking everything that exists. I feel that very often the newspapers-less so the television and radio-see themselves as the official opposition. It is very difficult to get any kind of statement out of here if the press gallery does not accept it as important.
It is the press gallery that sees itself as the official opposition and, to some extent, treats the opposition with contempt, treats the opposition in the way a puppeteer treats his puppet. They have to jump according to the issues they think are important. If they think scandal is going, scandal is what the opposition must talk about, even though the problem is unemployment. We in this party have seen unemployment as being a serious issue just now. Now the media is picking unemployment as an issue. We have been saying it for six or eight months while the media have been screaming scandal on their front pages. The greatest scandal in this country is the fact that there are 800,000 people out of work, and there is a government that is not doing very much about it. It is that kind of bias that exists in the newspapers, and I do not know that anything can be done about it.
To tell the newspapers what to print is unthinkable. That is the last thing we want, but we have to recognize what is happening to the media, and we have to recognize that Hansard is faceless and opinionless-it just records what we say- and this House desperately needs to have something which records exactly what is said and something which is not interpreted to tailor the headlines for a particular day or the editorial needs of a particular medium. This resolution will favour the government because the government, bad as it is, never looks as bad here as it looks in the press.
Judging by the press one would think the government never did anything right. I at least concede that occasionally it does something right, but one would never know it from reading the press. I seldom feel too terribly sorry for the government, but there have been occasions when I have. There have been occasions when charges have been made by the opposition, or by writers and reporters, and the minister involved has come out with what I thought was an irrefutable argument against those charges. Whereas the charges were banner charges, the refutation of the minister might have taken a paragraph on page 17: "The minister says that is not so", and they print only part of what the minister had to say.
I think our society is in danger of tearing itself apart. There can be such a thing as institutionalized criticism or institutionalized bias against the things which hold this country together, and those cements are not all that powerful. There has to be some way of enabling each side to be heard, each side to stand on its own-the public has enough intelligence to examine, and people do not need any editorial comment to go with it-and that is what television will do for this House.

From what I have been able to read, one of the reasons Hansard was brought into the British House of Commons was that while reporting was not allowed, just as television is not allowed in this Chamber, reporting in fact always took place whether allowed or not. The problem was that the reporting was not responsible, it was inaccurate, and it was biased. The British House realized reporting would take place anyway, so they wanted it at least to be factual, and that is how we got Hansard. Televising the House of Commons would be an extension of Hansard.
I would like to use a quote I found in something called "The Procedure of the House of Commons" by Joseph Redlick, 1908. It reads as follows:
The great Dr. Johnson was one of the regular reporters: he gave accounts of parliamentary affairs in the leading periodical, The Gentleman's Magazine, under the mask of proceedings of the Senate of Lilliput or of Rome.
Then in a footnote the author puts this down:
Dr. Johnson afterwards confessed that he had himself composed many of the parliamentary speeches published by him, or at all events had freely ornamented them as he thought fit. In doing so he claimed to have held an even hand between the two parties: at the same time he declared that he had "taken care that the Whig dogs should not have the best of it."


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Newspapers haven't changed much, have they?


Max Saltsman: Well, at one time I would have put it a different way. There was a time not so long ago when there were more newspapers in places like Toronto or some of the other cities when in fact there was a biased Liberal press and a biased Conservative press. Those of us in the NDP or the CCF were fully aware of what kind of press we used to have, and in fact, just like the House of Commons, the Liberal press would go exactly for the Liberal line, the Tory press would go exactly for the Tory line, but at least there was some kind of balance in that. At least we knew where they stood. There was a time when I first came here when there were what were known as government reporters who had the inside track with the government and who took handouts from the government. I suppose where there was biased press or partisan press, that is what it was about. If the government had a story to leak, it was not leaked to the television networks; it was given to one of its inside reporters, and it suddenly showed up as an exclusive.
If there was a Conservative government, the story would show up as an exclusive in a Conservative newspaper; if there was a Liberal government, it would show up as an exclusive in a Liberal newspaper. Those days have passed because of changes in newspaper ownership and because of the change in the nature of the media, and we have to recognize that. For all the evil in that old system-and it was a pretty evil system in the sense that newspapers were either for this party or that- at least everybody knew what the colours were. If people did not like what one newspaper had to say, they could go to another one, or they could buy them both and make a comparison, although in fact few people ever did. They simply bought the newspaper which happened to reinforce their own particular prejudices and stayed with it rather than look for an unbiased position. However, in fact the thing which may save
January 24, 1977

this House-because this institution is in trouble, just as the country is in trouble-is televising it.
If things go wrong with televising, they will change. I do not want to go into technique. I do not know what the technique will be. I presume it will be to focus on whoever happens to be speaking rather than to look around to see who in the back row is picking his nose or something like that.


An hon. Member:: Disgusting.


Max Saltsman: I presume, Mr. Speaker, you would not permit that kind of editorializing, although I might add that I do not know of any hon. member who would do such a thing.


John Edward Broadbent: On this side of the House!


Max Saltsman: On this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Max Saltsman: I was going to say something worse, but I could not think of anything worse at the time.
The House will change, and so it should. I know some of my hon. friends are concerned that some members are going to ham it up for television.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: They might grow a beard.


Max Saltsman: Some people may grow a beard in order to look more photogenic. I have met many members of parliament, and with the greatest of respect to my colleagues and to my friends, I have to say that there is not one of them who does not have a little ham in him, whether it is an editorial ham or a flare for writing or a flare for phrase making. What will change, or course, is that Hansard and newspaper reporting give an edge to those who can use the written word, and television will give an edge to those with blue eyes. Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, on December 1, 1976, I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) if his department was planning to move its offices from Ottawa to Hull in the near future and, if so, whether Indian people were consulted about the move. In reply the minister confirmed that the move was imminent, that it was a Treasury Board decision and that he did not think the
Adjournment Debate
plan was made in consultation with Indian people. This government preaches consultation but promotes confrontation with the Indian people. I am sure that the minister is aware of the fact that there is a strong feeling among the Indian people that the offices should remain in Ottawa.
At a meeting between the National Indian Brotherhood and the minister on November 19 he was made aware of the position of the brotherhood on the matter, the position being to have the offices remain in Ottawa. The minister promised to discuss this with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien). To date there has been no further communication with the National Indian Brotherhood about this matter.
Why is there a strong feeling about the office remaining in Ottawa? First, under 4 per cent of Indians in Canada are French speaking. Second, government has had an ongoing commitment to employ Indians within the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Given that there is more than a reasonable possibility that the department, once relocated in Quebec, will experience more pressure to have all its employees bilingual, an even greater barrier will be created for Indians who want to work for the department. There will be an even greater emphasis that Indians be trilingual in most cases. This is so, as most Indians in Canada today are already fluent in both an Indian language and English. The bilingualism program already requires a third language-French. If the department moves into Quebec, given its present atmosphere, the pressure will be even greater. Thus a system already by nature unfair to Canada's Indian population for the most part will be further intensified, resulting in even fewer Indian employees at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and, accordingly, fewer programs and policies designed to meet the needs of the majority of Indian people.
Third, the government has a commitment to have continuous, ongoing dialogue with the Indian people of Canada. It is only in the last few years that Indian people have begun to come to Ottawa for talks with government. Now, at long last, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is more centralized with most of its offices located at the Centennial Tower Building at 400 Laurier Avenue, West, and at the Journal Building at 365 Laurier Avenue, West. These places have become familiar to the Indian people. I fail to understand how a move to Hull can be considered-a move that would jeopardize the kind of involvement of Indian people that the department should be promoting.
Fourth, the organizations and other departments that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Indian people are most closely involved with are in Ottawa, and all within walking distance of each other-for example, the National Indian Brotherhood at 102 Bank Street; the Inuit Tapirisat at 222 Somerset Street, West; the Native Citizens Directorate, Secretary of State Department, at 66 Slater Street; and the Office of Native Employment, Public Service Commission, at L'Esplanade Laurier, and, of course, the loca-

Adjournment Debate
tion of the parliament buildings is also in close proximity to all of these.
The final argument is, of course, the cost. It is no secret that relocation of a department the size of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is a costly venture. It means moving approximately 3,000 employees, two thirds of whom occupy offices or cubicles in either the Centennial Tower Building or the Journal Building. It does not take a financial expert to calculate that the amount that will be expended on such a move will be exorbitant. At a time when Indian bands are being daily refused their requests for funding of essential programs at a time when the school construction program is years behind, at a time when Indian housing is at its poorest, the federal government still has enough money to relocate the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development without even considering the needs and desires of Canada's Indians.
There is no argument to support the conclusion that a move to Hull of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will result in any benefit for Indians. Will the programs improve? Will the policies and programs be more relevant to Indian needs? Will there be greater opportunity for Indian involvement, Indian input, or Indian employment? I think not.
We have heard that the justification for moving the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to Hull as perceived by the federal government is that this move is part of a massive decentralization policy. The Department of Veterans Affairs is going to Prince Edward Island. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is going all the way to Quebec-or should I say just one mile away, across the river to Hull. This is ridiculous-a farce!
How were these key departments chosen? Who decided which ones should move? Whoever was charged with the responsibility should have realized that a department as unique in nature as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development-a department which serves one key segment of the population-Indians-warranted much more consideration than was afforded it.
If the minister fails to acknowledge this concern, I feel he is acting irresponsibly toward the Indian people-the people his department exists to serve. It shows that this government is saying "to Hull with the Indians".


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I reply to the hon. member for Churchill (Mr! Smith). The decision to move the headquarters of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development over to Hull has been taken by the Treasury Board on advice from the Department of Public Works. This decision is part of a plan to achieve a better balance in the distribution of public service employees and facilities in the National Capital Region, more particularly, between the cities of Ottawa and Hull.

At the moment the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has its headquarters accommodated in eight different buildings in the city of Ottawa. There has been a need to consolidate those offices for some time. The Treasury Board has decided that the department was a logical candidate for the moving of its headquarters into the new facilities that are being built in Hull.
In answer to the hon. member, neither the Indian people nor the department have been consulted about the move, but they have been informed of the decision. The minister has taken up the matter of the moving of -the headquarters of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development over to Hull with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) to ask him to reconsider the decision. This was done as a result of adverse reaction to the move which came principally from the National Indian Brotherhood and Inuit Tapirisat of Canada which are both based in Ottawa. It was done also because of objections voiced by some provincial Indian associations that the minister had occasion to meet during the last four months.
It strikes me that, given the location of both the National Indian Brotherhood and the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, and the need to increase the frequency of face to face encounters between senior officials of their organizations and of the department, Treasury Board would want to reconsider this decision. In addition, because of the number of Indians who are located in Ottawa for purposes of pursuing higher education and seeking employment, and who need periodic assistance and counselling, the department might find it necessary to set up some offices here and employ additional staff if the departmental headquarters moved over to Hull.
The hon. member who raised the question will note that action is being taken. We hope that some reconsideration will be given to this by the President of the Treasury Board.


SEARCH AND RESCUE-REPORT OF TASK FORCE-DATE OF PUBLICATION AND POSSIBLE TABLING
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House during this late show the question of the implementation of search and rescue operations in the province of Newfoundland, a matter which I brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) on November 15. Iam pleased to note that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dionne) will be replying because this really has more to do with that department.
While I have raised this matter on many occasions, I want in the short time allotted to me tonight to point out some fundamentals that are being completely ignored by those responsible in government to implement a surveillance and control capacity that will be required by Canada if we are to achieve the objectives for which we should strive in relation to our declaration to extend our fishing zone to the 200 mile limit.

As a result of the thrusts of my colleagues and myself over the past few months in an effort to get the government to deploy elements of the search and rescue capability, we have as yet only convinced the government to station one or two helicopters in Newfoundland on a semi-permanent basis, and other hardware in Gander.
While we are appreciative of the fact that the government listened, we are far from achieving what should be the requirements for protecting our 200-mile zone because the additional deployment announced is evidence of the lack of fundamental military knowledge in defence tactics which can be related to surveillance and patrol.
The extension of a 200-mile zone prompts the realization that Canada will be responsible to provide surveillance over some 600,000 square miles of coastal waters, a massive task that requires an extensive effort in funding and hardware, as well as logistic capability.
The land mass that will be in the forefront to provide the surveillance of foreign vessels in the province of Newfoundland and I am amazed that neither our Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) nor his officials realize what is involved. The height of their ignorance-I do not want to use that word, but I have to-is that any line of defence, to use a basic military term, cannot be confined to a small portion of the area to be defended and I ask that those concerned should look at a map of Newfoundland and of Canada and of the Atlantic region to see the phoneyness and lack of appreciation of fundamental basic training that are evident. In this regard I refer to the fact that the Minister of National Defence looked at the matter from a purely phony political standpoint rather than a strategic one, by not including in the deployment of necessary equipment the western sector of the province of Newfoundland. But what is more despicable to me is that I pointed this out to him in a co-operative manner, and in spite of promises made to me, 1 have been completely ignored, and this is evident, that even though I have been promised a hearing with top officials, it has been denied.
On the west coast of Newfoundland the sector of the province that I represent in this House, there exists a vacated strategic base, which was occupied during World War II by the Strategic Air Command of the American Air Force, which still offers every logistic support for a search and rescue base of operations. It has more than adequate fuel capacity, hangar space, housing accommodation and technical capability, not to mention the fact that it was considered during World War II to be strategically sound enough in the defence of our nation to warrant the expenditure of multi-millions of dollars to support the defence of North America. And yet the Minister of National Defence chose to ignore the economic benefits to station an element of the force in that area, but rather bowed to pressure on a political basis.
What I detest, however, Mr. Speaker, is that I was promised, verbally in discussions with the minister, a hearing to put my case before senior officials of the Department of National
Adjournment Debate
Defence. It is also hard to understand that at this late date the report of the Canadian Coast Guard task force review of the national search and rescue policy revision has not even as yet been tabled for debate, in spite of repeated assurances that it would be submitted to Cabinet six months ago.
I have tried, Mr. Speaker, in my representation over the years to be reasonable, but it is now finally obvious that I am barking in the wind, and I use "barking" advisedly, and regardless of the three minute reply which I am about to receive I can only deplore the attitude of not only the minister but also his Chief of the Defence staff, the great pretender, who in his declarations of national defence is just as phony as his minister, and I can only repeat what I said in a motion to this House, that they should both be dispatched to the nearest basic training centre for a refresher course not only in basic training but also in common courtesy and sincerity in their obligations to the nation which they represent.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to reply to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). I will try to deal with the main points that he raised in his question. I might point out that I am replying tonight on behalf of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) rather than the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). Since the question was originally asked by the hon. member on November 15 the Minister of National Defence has been made responsible for all aspects of search and rescue, so my minister is now responsible for answering all questions on search and rescue.
However, it seems to me that the hon. member is confusing search and rescue with surveillance of the 200-mile limit. I respectfully suggest to him that he should make representations to the minister and to departmental officials with regard to the abandoned base at Stephenville and with regard to the surveillance capability which the department, in conjunction with the Department of Fisheries and the Environment, will be establishing for the surveillance of the expanded coastal zone.
I must, however, take exception to the statement that the minister and his officials do not understand what is involved. From personal knowledge and experience I am well aware that they do understand what is involved. They are working actively and seriously to see that the involvement is fully met both by men and equipment from within the armed forces and other departments that will work in conjunction with national defence in search and rescue, and eventually in surveillance work.
It disturbs me to hear the hon. member say that he has been ignored by the minister and departmental officials. I do not understand how that came about and I want to assure him that I will certainly bring that part of his comments to the attention of my minister at the earliest opportunity. I have found the hon. member to be a rather serious and objective member of the opposition and I would hope, in fact I know, this is some oversight for which there has to be a genuine explanation.

January 24, 1977
Adjournment Debate
The department has established a search and rescue centre at Gander. The main reason is that Gander has the facilities to accommodate that armed forces unit and it is also the most open area of the province of Newfoundland in regard to weather. It is the area from which helicopters take off and land most efficiently during the largest number of days of the year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The time allotted to the parliamentary secretary has expired.


FINANCE-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF FIGURES SHOWING SALES OF UNITED STATES DOLLARS DURING LAST TWENTY DAYS- NET CHANGE IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE POSITION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question tonight on this adjournment debate arises from a question put by myself to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) on December 10, reported at page 1869 of Hansard. At that time I asked the minister if he could produce certain figures that would show the true exchange position of Canada with regard to the outflow of foreign funds which resulted from the Canadian dollar falling quite dramatically in the latter part of November. In my question I asked:
As figures released last week reveal that $803 million of our U.S. dollar reserves, about 23 per cent of the total, was used in late November to resist a fall in the Canadian dollar .. . would the minister table the daily trading figures and forward positions for the past 20 trading days so that we might better understand the magnitude of the drain on our dollar, for which there is a 1962 precedent inspired by his predecessor, Mr. Turner?
The general reply of the Minister of Finance was that he felt that the publication of such figures would not be in the best interests of Canada. The reference that I made to Mr. Turner appears in Hansard on October 18, 1962, page 673. At that time Mr. Turner, faced with a similar position when he was being denied the daily trading records of the exchange fund, made quite an impassioned plea-in fact, it was his maiden speech in the House-in which he pointed out that he had asked for an order asking for the daily trading figures. He stated that notice for production of the figures had been delivered, and he then said:
The Minister of Finance, when he replies to this motion, may say that the figures 1 am seeking are privileged because it is the custom of the Bank of Canada to publish these figures on a monthly basis only.
In short, Mr. Turner was well aware of the fact that the then minister of finance, used the same old stock argument the present Minister of Finance uses, but Mr. Turner went beyond that in pressing his case when he said:
-I suggest to Your Honour that the rest of us are entitled to go through and to inspect the tables and the figures in question. If the situation were otherwise the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the government as a whole would be suggesting for this House a double standard, namely, one standard for the government and another for the opposition and the rest of the members of this House.

Mr. Turner went on to make his case by stating:
-the purpose of the question now being considered is not merely to secure production of Figures necessary to the public but also to protect the rights of parliament itself and every hon. member.
In this respect I would suggest that Mr. Turner when speaking was quite accurate. Unfortunately we are now faced with a situation in which, as I pointed out, on November 19 in this House during debate on the income tax legislation that is still before the House, there may be arguments afoot concerning exchange matters. Let me refer Your Honour to page 1204 of Hansard for November 19 where I pointed out that we should be able to have a full review of the exchange fund in relation to Bill C-5, which dealt specifically with the exchange fund. I stated that:
I hope he will change his mind, come to the committee, and give us the information to which we are entitled-
I was referring to the Minister of Finance. I went on to state:
There are many rumours in the business community today and I think it is high time the minister set the record straight.
The minister got very haughty then and said:
Rumours of what?
I then suggested to the minister that if he had come to the committee meeting the day before I could have put the stories to him and he could have had the opportunity of answering them. We now know the rumours to which I was referring. The hard fact is that the Canadian dollar was placed under perhaps the most severe pressure, so far as our exchange situation is concerned, of any time in our history.
I think this is particularly pertinent when we bear in mind that Mr. Turner referred to the publication on a daily basis of exchange figures over the period from April 9, 1962 to June 22, 1962. This was in reference to a debate that had taken place and was almost a focal point of the June 18 election of 1962. Those that now govern in this country were then in the opposition and they made a great show over what they regarded as a major exodus of funds. This was certainly one of their key issues during that election campaign.
The hard fact is that when the figures were finally tabled in this House showing day-by-day what had been the exchange position it turned out that from April 9 to June 22, 1962, the total exodus amounted to $461.7 million. Within a few days, as I have already indicated, in November of this year there was something in excess of $800 million that went out, yet the Minister of Finance refuses to give this House an accurate reflection on a day-to-day basis of exactly what the story was in November and, more important, what it was in December.
Monthly figures were published for December showing that there was a major inflow of exchange reserves during that month. There are now new questions as to where in fact that inflow came from, and did the government in fact engage in a futures operation in order to cover a position that had developed during November?
In short, there is absolutely no reason why the government should not publish, after the fact, the day-to-day figures
January 24, 1977

showing the exchange position for Canada, and that is what we are asking.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this subject. It is one of interest to me. I want first to reject the notion that this is an issue involving the public's right to know. Of course it is easy to make the case that hundreds of millions of dollars are involved here in assets and the people have a right to know the arguments. In fact, they are delivered the monthly figures that reflect what has happened, and the Canadian people are in a position to judge the stewardship of the Bank of Canada and the Government of Canada over these tremendous funds and assets. But the hon. member himself indicated in his question the very kind of difficulty that will result, the kind of misinterpretation that will take place even among Canadians who are as well informed as is the hon. member opposite.
He referred to the allegation which turned out not to be true, as he subsequently illustrated, that the Canadian dollar for a period was under tremendous pressure. He said-I believe I am quoting him accurately-that it was under the greatest pressure that it had ever been in our history. Then, a few sentences later, he referred to the fact that in another few days there was a tremendous inflow of sums. He has the December statement and he knows there was a tremendous inflow of sums. If you take a photograph at the end of the day and you see hundreds of millions of dollars flowing out, it is like focusing only on the day and it can be misinterpreted that
Adjournment Debate
the Canadian dollar is fundamentally very weak, that we are in a great deal of trouble and that something has happened that will have important implications over a long period. Then, a few days later hundreds of millions of dollars are flowing back in, as the statement at the end of December shows.
I think the Canadian people ought to know what happens to these hundreds of millions of dollars, but I would argue that they do find out on a monthly basis and they can judge the stewardship of the government and of the Bank of Canada of these enormous and important reserves. To look at it on a daily basis can only result in hysteria by some people, and in efforts by opposition parties and other critics who exaggerate and distort the events that have taken place to draw totally unjustified long-term interpretations that are subsequently shown by events to be not at all what they appear to have been at the beginning. It is important that the Canadian people be told fully what the balance of transactions is. This should not be otherwise.
I have one more concluding sentence, Mr. Speaker. If any strategy at all is to be followed by those responsible for our exchange transactions, if any policy is to be followed at all, there has to be some manoeuvrability and freedom from the kind of interpretations which result from daily or hourly news reports.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, January 25, 1977