1977-07-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a motion of urgency under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion concerns the principle of ministerial responsibility upon which parliamentary government is based. Last week the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) used that principle to defend secrecy in government. This week we have had, first, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) and then the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) deny constitutional responsibility for actions committed by their officials. Yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) who, under Section 70(1) of the Financial Administration Act, is responsible for approving the operating budget of AECL, denied responsibility for losses totalling $180 million over and above the original reported loss of $110 million. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker):
That this House can no longer tolerate the government's flagrant undermining of the principle of ministerial responsibility and, hence, of our constitution and in defence of our parliamentary system requests that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources do resign.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas Department of Finance figures reveal that Canada's international reserves have fallen by $130 million from May 31 to June 30,
and have dropped a total of $746 million since December 31, 1976, and whereas this is the second time in seven months the Bank of Canada has apparently had to spend massive amounts of our foreign holdings to offset a declining Canadian dollar, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield):
That this House ask the government to make a reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs so that a full review of Canada's activities with respect to its international reserves and the falling dollar may be made.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise concerning serious problems within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), which some hon. members have been aware of for some time and which were included in the 1976 report of the Auditor General. In view of the fact that these difficulties will continue to cause hardship for agricultural producers, and in view of the apparent inability of the Minister of Agriculture to efficiently perform his ministerial duties, either through incompetence or as a result of interference by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the Liberal Party of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture be instructed to recommend to parliament ways and means to rectify this intolerable situation which will worsen unless immediate remedial action is taken.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.

July 8, 1977
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who was here a moment ago. Mr. Speaker, I see he has just returned. Was the minister looking for a document in the second official language?
My question to the minister relates to the announcement of the dismissal yesterday of Dr. Foster. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources took that portfolio at a time when he knew the government and people of Canada had been burned once in a negotiation for a nuclear contract with Argentina, and he undertook to have a renegotiation of that contract. I should like to ask the minister whether, when he was told of the terms of the renegotiated contract, he, personally, reviewed the terms of that renegotiated contract in detail and depth?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has looked at the summary of the contract prepared by the Auditor General and tabled before the Public Accounts Committee on April 19, the contract between AECL and CNEA, the Argentinian agency, he would know that there are a large number of clauses. It runs to many, many pages. Those particular clauses were negotiated, to the extent that there were numbers involved, on the aspect of the inflationary impact. They covered both the Canadian services, namely, goods, services and heavy water, and some Argentinian services. That contract was considered by the board of directors of AECL following its renegotiation, and accepted by them. On that basis the government accepted the renegotiation.


Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Every day we hear different varieties and versions of the meaning of ministerial responsibility. The minister is now telling us that ministerial responsibility applies only to short, simple contracts, not to complex ones. I want to know if the minister himself, as the minister responsible who knew a costly mistake had been made in the first contract, took his own responsibilities seriously enough to examine personally all the terms, long though they were, of this new contract before allowing it to be proceeded with?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were to understand the relationship between Crown corporations and the responsibilities of ministers-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We are learning fast.


Alastair William Gillespie: -he would not put that kind of question. He would recognize that Crown corporations had been set up by

parliament to deal, independent from ministerial or governmental interference, in matters of that kind.


CONTRACT WITH ARGENTINA-REASON FOR INCREASE IN LOSS ON RENEGOTIATED CONTRACT
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, twice today the minister has refused to tell us if he exercised his clear ministerial responsibility, he having been given the warning that there had been serious mistakes made in the undertaking of the first contract. The minister has refused to tell us whether he, as the minister responsible through whom that corporation reports, did what he should have done as minister. I ask the minister how he could have been so certain on February 22, as the minister is reported to have said in Hansard in answer to my colleague from Kingston and the Islands, that the top limit of the loss in the renegotiated contract would be $40 million, when yesterday he admitted it was going to be in excess of $130 million? What changed between February and July? What was the minister doing personally to keep track of what had changed, and why we are faced with this serious loss, as he finally admitted yesterday?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I believe I discharged my responsibilities when I invited Mr. Ross Campbell to join the board, act as chairman of AECL and renegotiate that contract. When I heard it would be likely there would be losses-and this is all on the record if the hon. lady would care to read it-I believe I discharged my responsibility in bringing to AECL one of Canada's best negotiators. 1 believe that Mr. Ross Campbell, with his team, were very effective in reducing the exposure of the corporation to the kind of losses it otherwise would have sustained. I believe they were able to effect reductions of something like $70 million or $80 million.
I believe also I discharged my responsibility when I changed the board of directors and appointed a new board to examine the whole question of Financial control. Quite clearly, this has been one of the great weaknesses of the corporation. It was made clear by the Auditor General. A large number of changes have been made in the corporation since the Auditor General made his report public. Indeed, some changes were made prior to that by myself as a result of the changes in the board and bringing in consultants to deal with it.
Information that I gave the House that I believed the exposure would be a top limit of $40 million was based on information that was given to me. It was the best information that the corporation then had. As a result of the teams we put in to deal with this question of financial management and control, the losses exposed to us were very much greater. That is why I acted with despatch and tabled the annual report yesterday, rather than wait for a couple more weeks, and made a statement just as soon as I could with a complete disclosure of the facts as I knew them.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, first we are told that ministerial responsibility applies only to short contracts. Now, we are told that ministerial responsibility extends only to bringing in Ross
July 8, 1977

Campbell to carry the can. What the House of Commons and the people of Canada have a right to know is what the minister did personally to monitor this procedure which he knew had caused serious problems and serious losses to Canada before. We do not want to hear about Mr. Campbell and other people. We want to hear about the man who is responsible to this parliament for reporting for that agency. We want to know what he did.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: Either say something or resign.


REASON FOR PROMOTION OF MR. CAMPBELL
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that his sole responsibility in the $130 million loss was to appoint Mr. Ross Campbell to renegotiate a contract. Mr. Campbell's testimony to the Public Accounts Committee on January 25 of this year was that he had assured the Argentinian government that we, that is Mr. Campbell and Mr. Foster, acting together have the full authority of the Canadian government to proceed with the renegotiation, to sign it and to execute its terms. I wish to ask the minister why Mr. Campbell was promoted to the position of chairman and president of AECL when Dr. Foster was dismissed.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points I would like to make to the hon. lady. First, in her preamble, I think she misled the House. On the second point, it should be obvious to her that when a chief executive officer is removed from his duties, one has to appoint somebody else in his stead until a new chief executive officer can be located. Mr. Campbell has undertaken, on the basis of a recommendation of the board of directors to me, to take over on a temporary basis the chief executive officer's job in addition to his job as chairman of the board. A search committee has already been set up, chaired by one of the members of the board. I hope it will be successful in finding a man with the kind of breadth of managerial experience that is needed-I would expect somebody in the private sector at the present time-to take over that job at the earliest possible opportunity.


ARGENTINIAN CONTRACT-POSSIBILITY OF SANCTIONS AGAINST MR. CAMPBELL IN VIEW OF LOSS ON RENEGOTIATED CONTRACT
Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that Ross Campbell has been Chairman of the Board of the AECL for some two years, that he was present throughout the whole renegotiation of the contract, that he has been reporting to the minister on a continuous basis as to what was going on with regard to the details of this contract, and that the loss has now escalated to a $130 million, I should like to ask the minister what sanctions are to be levied against Mr. Campbell who
Oral Questions
obviously misled him about the effectiveness of the renegotiation of this contract?


Alastair William Gillespie: I have already made it clear to the House that I believe Mr. Ross Campbell is Canada's leading negotiator-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Miss MacDonald:: With a $130 million loss?


Alastair William Gillespie: I believe he has demonstrated this. He has had a distinguished professional career-


Steve Eugene Paproski: What about the rest of them?


Alastair William Gillespie: Are you interested in the answer?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes. We are interested in the truth.


Alastair William Gillespie: Then why don't you listen to my voice instead of your own? If you people don't want an answer, if you are interested only in heckling, I am prepared to wait for a while. When you impugn the integrity of Mr. Ross Campbell as you seem to have done,-I am not sure whether it was advertent or inadvertent- you are making a grievous error and blackening the character of a very distinguished public servant. 1 hope you will withdraw the imputation you have just made.


ARGENTINIAN CONTRACT-REASON FOR DIFFERENTIATION IN TREATMENT BETWEEN MR. CAMPBELL AND DR. FOSTER
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Would the minister give us some rationale as to the distinction he draws between Dr. John Foster and Mr. Ross Campbell?


Alastair William Gillespie: I have given it on a number of occasions and I am surprised the hon. lady cannot see it. There is a difference between being chairman of the board of directors and having responsibility as president and chief executive officer for the corporation. If the hon. lady does not understand the distinction between having full accountability for the corporation and having responsibility as chairman of the board, I do not think I can help her.


ARGENTINIAN CONTRACT-DATE ON WHICH MINISTER LEARNED LOSS ON RENEGOTIATED CONTRACT WAS $130 MILLION
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Following the revelation that EACL stood to lose very large sums of money as a result of the original agreement with the power company of Argentina, the minister repeatedly told the House that as a result of the renegotiation of that contract the loss would be greatly reduced. He gave a figure of $25 million and on February 22 he said it would be $40 million. 1 should like to ask the minister specifically, at what time did he learn that the loss on the Argentinian nuclear reactor would be $ i 30 million? Did he learn this prior to the signing of the renegotiated

July 8, 1977
Oral Questions
agreement or did he get that information subsequent to the signing of the agreement?


Alastair William Gillespie: I got it within the last couple of weeks.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On February 2 of this year, as recorded at page 2638 of Hansard, when I asked the minister about the renegotiated agreement he said that already AECL with its partner Italimpianti had signed the agreement and that the Argentine government had approved, though there were still some details to be worked out and so on. Is the minister saying that he did not know what the terms of that agreement were, that although he knew that the previous agreement stood to lose AECL, it turns out now, $200 million, he did not know that the renegotiated agreement was going to cost the people of Canada $130 million? Was that agreement signed without that information being conveyed to the minister? Did the minister not ask what the loss would be in that renegotiated agreement? Surely that was his responsibility.


Alastair William Gillespie: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did ask, and that was the information I was given-that the range would be something between $23 million to $40 million. It was on that basis, when the previous estimate had been for more than $100 million, that I felt that a good deal had been made in the renegotiation by Mr. Campbell, and I so announced to the House.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to distort in any way the minister's reply, but do I understand that he is telling me that prior to the signing of a renegotiated agreement he was given the information that the loss would be cut to somewhere between $23 million and $40 million, that now he finds that those who drafted that agreement and signed it have incurred a loss of $130 million, and that the man who carried on the negotiations is now being appointed president of AECL? Is that what the minister is telling the House?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am saying that the loss announced yesterday was a loss which was not known to me until the last couple of weeks, that at the time the renegotiated contract was signed the information I was given was the information I have just repeated in answering an earlier question. I also made it quite clear that there was a team of officers involved in the renegotiation and that the renegotiation dealt only with the numbers, based on the case that Canada had, which was that the world inflationary situation had changed and therefore we could expect the customer to renegotiate some of the arrangements.
Remember that that contract was written under and subject to Argentinian law, not Canadian law. It had to be renegotiated against the background of Argentinian law. There was a provision in Argentinian law, we argued, which gave Canada the right to renegotiate those particular terms which dealt with items beyond the control of the corporation, such as world inflation. It did not give Canada or the negotiators the right to renegotiate the language of the contract. Nor did it give

Canada or the corporation the right to renegotiate any estimates that might have been made with respect to man hours, and so forth, in that contract. We were limited in our negotiation to the question of escalation of costs and those matters and I believe, as I have said, that the negotiators were very effective in getting that much better a deal.


ARGENTINIAN CONTRACT-SUGGESTION MINISTER RESIGN BECAUSE OF MISLEADING STATEMENTS OF LOSS ON RENEGOTIATED CONTRACT
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In phrasing my supplementary question to the minister I should like to take his memory back, if I may, to several interchanges he and I had in this House and in the committee wherein it was suggested by me that even on the renegotiated contract price the loss to Canada was going to go to $120 million. That was a conservative approach by me, obviously, as it turned out. Does the minister remember his ridiculing of me in this House and in the committee, and by Mr. Ross Campbell, for even suggesting that figure, and does he remember undertaking that the loss on the renegotiated price in no event would go over $40 million? Bearing that in mind, does the minister not honestly feel that he should now hand in his resignation on the basis of that overt misleading of the members of this House?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wants to make much of an alleged ridicule which I made of him. He seems to be placing it on a very personal basis. I should like to assure him that I have never entered into discussion with him with respect to the affairs of this corporation on a personal basis. I recognize his position as a member of parliament and as a chairman of the committee. I have done my best to provide him with all the information which has been available to me.
As soon as I had the Auditor General's report, I called up the hon. member and I said: "Mr. Lawrence, I hope you will agree that your committee will deal with this on an urgent basis." That has been the basis of my relationship with the committee ever since. I take absolutely no satisfaction in the situation as it exists. I am sure Your Honour can understand the position in which I have been put. I have tried to tell the House why this situation developed. I have tried to explain to the House the reason for the difference in the numbers, which was the lack of financial management and control information.
The corporation sent teams down to Argentina as part of the whole reorganization of the financial management and control structure of the corporation, to examine how that particular project was being managed. As a result of those kinds of initiatives, which have taken place since that agreement, the contract was finally approved in its renegotiated form. It has been as a result of those types of actions that these horrendous numbers have come to the attention of the directors and the
July 8, 1977

management of the corporation, and they have been relayed to me. I have tried to relay them to the Etouse and to the people of Canada at the earliest possible opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is simply this: has the minister submitted his resignation, bearing in mind the whole question of ministerial responsibility, and if not, why not?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


RENEGOTIATED ARGENTINIAN CONTRACT-REASON FOR FAILURE OF MINISTER TO SUBMIT RESIGNATION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, just a few moments ago the minister spoke about his attitude. Perhaps he will recall the House of Commons debate reported at page 3280 on February 22, 1977 when, in an answer to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, he said:
I do not know what further information the hon. member wants. All I can tell her is that 1 think Mr. Campbell was able to negotiate a good deal for Canada.
Further on in the exchange the minister said:
Any time the opposition can show me how they can save $75 million I would like to hear it.
Does the minister not feel, if there was ever an indication of his arrogance and cocksureness in these circumstances, that this is it? Does the minister not feel that he is following in a very bad tradition, the tradition of Stopforth, Higgitt, Cameron and Foster-all of whom are public servants being blamed for ministerial responsibility? When things are going well, the minister takes the credit. When they are bad, he is an innocent bystander.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Is there anything in this case which would compel the minister not to submit his resignation?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Walter David Baker: Through the minister's irresponsibility and incompetence, the people of Canada are now carrying the financial can.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the House leader opposite has challenged me to explain why I might have used language which suggested that the opposition, if they could show me how to save $70 million or $80 million, should do so. I should like to remind them of the reason I said that. I think this was a very considerable accomplishment. They may not think $70 million or $80 million is important. I happen to think it is very important.
Oral Questions


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the minister is dodging and ducking in a way which is not credible to anyone on either side of the House, including his own supporters, with respect to this matter. In fact the minister lost $95 million and was responsible for that loss. He had better face up to that because that is his responsibility. It was a loss in addition to any other loss.
The minister has seen fit to confirm today the person who is responsible for that kind of loss during that period and has increased his executive responsibilities. Is the minister not cognizant of what this means to the credibility of that corporation, to the credibility of the minister himself and to the credibility of the ministry? Will the minister not reconsider his position? Surely there is nothing about his office so precious to him as to undermine the credibility of the entire government in terms of its financial responsibility and its ministerial responsibility? Is his office so precious that his resignation cannot be honestly submitted in the best traditions of this parliament, when incompetency and unaccountability have been firmly established even in the minds of the most unbiased onlookers of the proceedings today?


ARGENTINIAN CONTRACT-OPPORTUNITY OF MINISTER OF FINANCE TO REVIEW INITIAL AND RENEGOTIATED CONTRACTS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. It deals with the same line of questioning which has been put up to this point. In view of the fact that the Deputy Minister of Finance sits on the board of directors of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and is also on the executive committee of that company, would the Minister of Finance indicate to what extent he had an opportunity to review the initial contract which was signed with Argentina and the renegotiated contract?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the standing committee that I have not seen the initial contract. To my recollection, I have not seen the renegotiated one. At that particular time I ceased to be the minister of energy, mines and resources. The Deputy Minister of Finance represents the government on the corporation, but in no way does the Department of Finance exercise administrative responsibility over the corporation.


ARGENTINIAN CONTRACT-METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOR LOSS ON RENEGOTIATED CONTRACT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance as well. In view of the deputy minister's role on the board, as described by the Minister of Finance, would he indicate if the extra $180 million loss referred to yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was included in his budget presentation of March 31? In short, is this $180 million an additional cash drain which is going to be found in this year?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources dealt

July 8, 1977
Oral Questions
with that yesterday. He indicated several ways in which the funding of the cash requirements of the corporation in the current fiscal year would be met. The hon. member specifically used the words "cash drain" in relation to the $180 million. The hon. member may like to read the statement again, and he will see that it is to be a provision in the accounts against potential future liabilities, rather than actual cash drain at this point in time.


ARGENTINIAN CONTRACT-DATE WHEN MINISTER OF FINANCE LEARNED OF LOSS ON RENEGOTIATED CONTRACT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the Minister of Finance. Would he indicate to the House when he first learned of the extent of the true loss in A EC L?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago.


INVESTIGATION OF QUESTIONABLE PAYMENTS-MINISTER'S CO-OPERATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is with respect to his role vis-a-vis AECL. Having regard to the fact that he has indicated that he feels no responsibility for this mess, I wonder if he could now give the House an assurance that there is not a limitless supply of money available to be lost by AECL, regardless of their activities, incompetence and indecision, and whether or not he is in fact co-operating with the authorities in connection with the investigation of other payments that may have been made. It was reported, for example, in the Financial Post of June 18 that the investigation would:
... include a number of newly discovered suspect payments made by Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd.
The article stated that:
Among the transactions reportedly being examined by the RCMP is a duplicate $400,000 item for which there is said to be inadequate accounting.
What I am asking the minister is whether he is co-operating now with the RCMP officials and personally involving himself with the minister responsible, and whether he even knows about the particular investigations that are going on.


Alastair William Gillespie: There is a very strange dichotomy on the other side. At one moment they are saying they want you to involve yourself deeply in some situation-as I understood the hon. member he wanted me to involve myself deeply with the RCMP-but if I were to do that or even try to interfere with the RCMP investigation, I would be the first to be attacked by the other side.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The answer simply escapes any reasonable person. I do not understand what the minister is talking about.
I simply ask the minister whether or not he is co-operating- the word is co-operating-with the RCMP in their investiga-

tion of newly discovered suspect payments by AECL. Is the minister denying now that there are any further payments that are under investigation, or is he now saying that this is the final loss we will suffer with respect to the past transactions of AECL? He can certainly answer that question.


Alastair William Gillespie: Perhaps the hon. member would reread his first question. He will see then why the answer I gave him was the right answer.
On the second question, if he is asking me about the RCMP investigation into other payments that might have been made by the corporation, I am in no position to tell him. The RCMP have not come to me, they have not asked me for any information with respect to any payment. I know of none. I have no reason to believe that the RCMP would be looking at any other. It is for the RCMP to determine. I offered my full co-operation and AECL has offered its full co-operation to the RCMP.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is nonsense. Yesterday in the House the Solicitor General acknowledged there are investigations on an ongoing basis being made with respect to AECL operations in answer to a question from my colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. I am asking the minister now if he will come clean and tell the House clearly and directly whether or not he will co-operate with the RCMP.


Mr. Lang:: He just said so.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What the minister said, with all due respect, is nonsense. I am simply asking-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister just answered the very question the hon. member is asking.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The minister indicated that, personally, he has absolutely no knowledge with respect to that. I am asking whether he will conduct an investigation with the officials of AECL so that, in fact, he can assist them in co-operating with the RCMP in order to make sure that all illegal and suspect payments are brought to the attention of the RCMP.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that if the hon. member reads the record he will see that that is the very language the minister used in answering him. His words were that he would co-operate and AECL would co-operate with the RCMP.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Did the break-in at the International Education Resource Association on Cypress Street in Vancouver, on January 29 of this year play a
July 8, 1977

part in the Solicitor General's decision to call an inquiry into the matter-one of the reasons the Solicitor General gave was that L'Agence de Presse Libre break-in was not an isolated occurrence as he had previously thought-and could he advise further whether he is aware of any allegations that have been made surrounding that break-in?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: The answer to the double barreled question in both cases is no, Mr. Speaker.


SOURCE OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OF UNAUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES WHICH LED TO ESTABLISHING INQUIRY
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I apologize to the minister. I have written to him but he may not have received the letter, but I am sure the minister would be happy to look into that particular question. My supplementary question is as follows: In coming to his determination to hold an inquiry, did he obtain additional information which led him to that conclusion from his deputy minister, or was there additional information from the RCMP? In other words, what was the source of the information that led him to the conclusion that an inquiry was now appropriate, whereas before L'Agence de Presse Libre matter seemed to be an isolated occurrence? Was it from someone in his own department or was that information volunteered initially from the force itself?


Francis Fox: I believe that I answered the question in detail in my statement to the House. There were matters which were brought to my attention and which seemed to be substantiated. This was substantiated after my initial statement in the House on the APLQ affair on June 17.


Mr. Stanfield:: You are the world figure skating champion, Francis; free skating.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture my question is for the Acting Minister of Agriculture. 1 gave him notice in the House publicly yesterday of the question I intended to ask. I want to pursue the question I asked yesterday about the Farm Credit Corporation, the $308 million agency of the federal government. Can the minister tell the House today what specific action has been taken as a result of the management audit that bluntly disclosed serious morale problems within the corporation, total lack of direction from senior management, moonlighting by corporation employees on government time, and bilingual training for employees working in areas where no second language is spoken?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the document referred to by the hon.
Oral Questions
member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo is the report of a management audit conducted with respect to the Farm Credit Corporation during the winter of 1976-77. I would first state that it is unlikely that we would find many organizations in either the private or public sector that were willing to expose themselves in the manner in which the FCC has done. This was a study based on interviews with staff of the corporation at all levels, in addition to the clients of the corporation with which it deals on a regular basis.


An hon. Member:: Save the speech and answer the question.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: You asked for an answer and you are getting it.
Rather than criticize the Farm Credit Corporation by searching for selected excerpts from the report which are critical of the way it functioned at the time of the study, I believe we should acknowledge that the extensive self-examination which has taken place is a credit to the staff of the corporation and we should sincerely congratulate them for the action which they have taken to improve the corporation in all its facets and to better serve its clients in the Canadian farm community.


AWARDING OF CONSULTANTS' CONTRACT BY CHAIRMAN TO COMPANY OF WHICH HE IS DIRECTOR-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the minister absolutely refused to answer the specific question I asked. He simply evaded it and gave a speech instead which was prepared by one of his officials.
I have a supplementary question. Because the minister obviously does not understand what is going on, my supplementary is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture has confirmed this week that the chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation, Mr. B. Krist-janson, gave consulting contracts totalling $80,000 to the Manitoba Institute of Management, of which he was a director at the same time as he was chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation, and that the contract was awarded without tender, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether the government is satisfied that the awarding of the contract was in no way in violation of the government's guidelines for public servants, particularly paragraphs 3, 7 and 8 which state that public servants are expected to arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent conflict of interests from arising and that public servants should hold no outside office or employment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I presume that the minister is deemed to be cognizant of the law.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: With regard to the contract, the hon. gentleman referred to by the hon. member, namely, the chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation is a member of the board of the other organization, which is a non-profit organization, and I am not

July 8, 1977
Oral Questions
talking of the Farm Credit Corporation but of the Manitoba Institute of Management, Inc. It was in no way unconstitutional or anything else, and there is no harm in this at all.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Is the minister specifically aware of Privy Council Order in Council 1974-4065? Paragraph 7 reads:
Public servants should hold no outside office or employment that could place on them demands inconsistent with their official duties or call into question their capacity to perform those duties in an objective manner.
If so, how does he square that with the statement he just made?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have no trouble squaring that with the statement I have just made. I refer the hon. member back to January 26, 1977 when that question was placed on the order paper and answered in detail. If Mr. Speaker wants to give me time, I will read the question and the answer to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Red Deer.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the increasing number of grain producers and elevator agents in Alberta who are being charged for petty violations of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which are offences only because of bad legislation passed by parliament early in 1972, is the minister giving any consideration to having the Canadian Wheat Board Act scrutinized and amended by parliament so that harassment of producers and agents will not continue?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to have a look at the question with the Canadian Wheat Board as to whether the rules as they now exist are working satisfactorily. I should think hon. members would not want to weaken the position of the Wheat Board and the quota regulations in their attempt to obtain equity between producers and their delivery opportunities as a result of enforcing those rules.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board seems to be preoccupied with prosecuting producers for insignificant misdemeanours instead of going out and selling grain, and in view of the charge made by the premier of Alberta that Canada is being out-hustled in the sale of grain, would the minister tell us when we can see some action to correct these two matters?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is not associating himself with the ridiculous suggestion that the

Wheat Board is being out-hustled when our market share is increasing and when by the time this crop year ends we will have exported in total more grain than in any year but two in the history of our Canadian grain selling effort. We will have a very good year of selling indeed, and forward sales are in an extremely solid position.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question put by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo, and I would like to direct it to the acting Minister of Agriculture. Since there are all the appearances of hanky-panky at the very top level of the Farm Credit Corporation, what is the justification for stripping chairman Baldur Kristjanson of all real executive power and giving operational authority to Murray McBride, a former Liberal member of parliament, who was appointed vice-chairman a little more than a year ago?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, that question is noted.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arnold John Malone: Just so that the record is clear, would the minister confirm or deny the report that within the Farm Credit Corporation there is extensive moonlighting going on and that it is now going on in part on employee time? Would he confirm or deny that?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem denying that report.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Red Deer, and it is addressed to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. The minister spoke of equity of delivery as being one of the principles of the Wheat Board, and I am wondering if the minister can advise us as to the reason the quota in some blocks of the Canadian Wheat Board area is now 12 bushels per acre while in other blocks it is only nine bushels per acre. Is it the intention of the board to equalize the delivery quota?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, while the equity principle and the quota management system are very important, obviously the Wheat Board may from time to time have to move quotas ahead in order to obtain the kind

July 8, 1977
of grain required. This year the demand for a large volume of high protein wheat, for instance, has led the wheat board at different times to give a preference, at least in time of delivery, to those areas where high protein wheat is obtainable.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to find out from the minister if it is the intention of the Wheat Board to equalize the number of bushels per acre delivered. 1 think specifically of the Moose Jaw area where one farmer can deliver to Moose Jaw on a 12-bushel quota and one to Pasqua on only a nine-bushel quota. This is exactly the same kind of wheat grown side by side.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in the last conversation I had with the Canadian Wheat Board about ten days ago it was indicated to me that the board's objective was essentially to equalize on the nine-bushel quota. Any move ahead of the nine-bushel quota would have been solely with the objective of obtaining the kind of grain required. I would want to re-check with the board, but I would not expect the board to be able to equalize on that basis in the course of this crop year.


Thomas Gordon Towers: And you say you haven't been out-hustled?


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday during a press conference he gave in Ottawa, he urged the civil servants of the Montreal area to use both official languages. 1 would therefore like to ask the minister what kind of sanctions he intends to apply to this group?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the sanctions applicable to employees who do not fulfill the obligations of their functions are well known to the bargaining agents and members of the unions. They range from reprimand to suspension, and suspension can be for different periods of time. Finally, there is the possibility of dismissal if an offence-and I call them offences-is sustained or repeated over a period of time.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Since his predecessor, or the government, had promised to give a premium to civil servants who work in both languages, could the minister advise us how he can threaten to suspend these people while he, his predecessor and his government have totally refused to respect the commitments made a year and a half ago?
Oral Questions


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that is not an accurate statement. The government did commit itself to the inauguration of the payment of compensation for the delivery of services in both official languages, with the details to be worked out within the government and then through consultation, particularly with the national joint council. The committee of the government, which has been reconfirmed by me on behalf of the government on several occasions, and again yesterday, was that such payment will be retroactive to November 1, 1976. One of the reasons for the delay in working out the details of this is the complexity of the issue itself which has been exacerbated because we have undertaken, as is publicly known, a comprehensive review of the implementation of the Official Languages Act, including that implementation that particularly affects the public service. The payment of compensation for bilingual services is related to many factors, which are the subject of this comprehensive review. It has been indicated that that review is close to completion, and when it is completed I will be in consultation with the bargaining agents and with the national joint council to work out the details of that compensation plan.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the acting Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or, in his absence, the acting acting minister or perhaps to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that recently disclosed information shows that the wholesale price of sugar has declined significantly over the last few months and in view of the fact that the retail price of sugar has not declined at all in proportion to the decline in the wholesale price, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House if he will instruct the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to consider action under the Combines Investigation Act against the chain stores which are keeping up the price of sugar? If not, can he tell the House why he has not so instructed the department to undertake that kind of action?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to respond. I have been in conversation with the Anti-Inflation Board in this respect. They have monitored that situation and their conclusion was that the retail price change or the situation the hon. member referred to, was substantially confined to the Toronto market where previously the retail price of sugar had been used as a loss leader in retail food operations. The conclusion was that, throughout the country, the retail price had been tracking the wholesale price of sugar over a period of time. They are keeping the Toronto situation under close watch.

July 8, 1977
Oral Questions POLYSAR


POSSIBILITY OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST MANAGEMENT IN VIEW OF COMMITTEE REPORT
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance as minister responsible for majority shareholdings in the Canadian Development Corporation which in turn is the owner of Polysar. In light of the report of the Public Accounts Committee tabled yesterday, can the minister inform the House whether, in view of the committee's request, disciplinary action has been taken against the management?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to bring the report of the Public Accounts Committee to the attention of the management of the Canadian Development Corporation, the parent company of Polysar, with the indication that I expect them to take the disciplinary action that the facts warrant.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. For the information of the minister I understand Mr. John Silver of the public relations department of Polysar says such action has been taken but he would not disclose the details. Would the minister undertake to report to the House on this as soon as possible?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to report to the House or a committee.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister inform the House if there are any new developments on the purchase by the Department of National Defence of parcels of land in the city of Winnipeg for the location of a defence research centre and has any deadline been established for the commencement of construction?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give an updated report at this time. Negotiations for land are still taking place. I thought they had been completed but I understand they have not. I have asked for an update on the situation by next Monday.


DEFENCE RESEARCH CENTRE AT WINNIPEG-POSSIBILITY OF TRADE-OFF BY LOSING AIR COMMAND
A. Daniel McKenzie: A supplementary question. May I ask the minister if he is under any pressure or is he giving consideration to moving air command headquarters from Winnipeg to Ottawa? Is there to be a trade-off, that is, to get the defence research centre we lose air command headquarters or are we to lose both establishments?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of trade-off or losing air command. Air command is well established in Winnipeg and is doing a first-rate job there with excellent people who are happy in that great city.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Special Committee on TV and Radio Broadcasting of Proceedings of the House and its Committees-Mr. Speaker.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order as a result of incidents that occurred during question period today and on previous occasions. At the outset, I want to say to Your Honour that I do not, of course, challenge your rulings and interpretations placed upon what transpired in this House, but I think it is important to seek clarification.
On Wednesday, as reported at page 7367 of Hansard, I responded to a statement made by the Solicitor General and made what I considered to be an accurate and appropriate point, that I believed the rejection of my request concerning the tabling and printing of material in Hansard had been refused because of consent not being forthcoming from the government benches. Your Honour indicated-I take it, to correct a statement I had made in the course of my presentation-that in your hearing there were cries of "No" from both sides of the House. That is the essence of it, although it is reported as one intervention.
Today I was involved in questioning the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on what I think is a most important duty of a member of parliament, the scrutiny of public expenditures. I will review the questions as they are reported in Hansard, because I do not want to do a disservice to anyone in this House. The purpose of my questions was quite clear in my own mind. I wanted to determine whether, in the case of this minister, we had a situation of culpability by virtue of gullibility, or whether there was some perspective on the part of the minister with respect to the responsibility of government, represented by the minister responsible for AECL, to involve himself in the activities of AECL.
The point I am making is that the questions I raised today were directed to finding out the extent of the minister's involvement. In the first question I asked, generally, whether he was personally involved in co-operating with the RCMP to determine whether there were fresh instances of wrongful payments by AECL. He answered that he would co-operate and he was involving himself. I recall that. The second part of
July 8, 1977

my question was more specific. I asked whether the minister would become involved by asking senior officials of AECL to report to him on these matters, and to find out whether they are co-operating. Your Honour suggested to me that, in effect, 1 was asking the same question and that the minister had already answered it. I understand the rules are that the minister need not reply.
My submission to Your Honour is that I have asked different questions respecting a very important matter. The minister should have the right to respond, if he desires to do so, by giving the same answer; he has to stand on his record, or he can sit in his place, as he did during the course of questioning, and not answer at all. I should like clarification on whether I can ask these different, specific questions, although they are generally related. Your Honour's interpretation of the minister's answer is part of the decision on whether I could ask another question. That is the point of order. Your Honour seemed to be interpreting the fact that he had given an answer as co-operation. 1 suggest my question was something quite different.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member raises two points which he says are not differences with the ruling 1 have given. If not, I do not know what they are. He will have noticed that today I permitted repetition and quite generous extension of some of the restrictions that might have been imposed on the question period. For example, a series of questions was directed to the minister on whether he should resign. That question can, in most circumstances, be set aside as being argumentative in the first place. The question seemed to me to have a serious tone, however, and I permitted repetition of the question by two other members. I think that was a rather extraordinary extension, but the circumstances were extraordinary.
As the hon. member will realize, I do not like to use technical rules in the question period to interrupt questioning on a very important subject. The hon. member put a question and a supplementary. During the answer to the supplementary, the minister said he wanted to make it clear that he would co-operate and that AECL would co-operate. He used those very words. The purpose of the hon. member's second question was specifically to ask the minister, not what he had said in his first answer but whether he and AECL would co-operate in the investigation; and that is what the minister answered.
The hon. member used the same language in the third question. I think it is incumbent upon the Chair to make an interpretation, if there is a rule, as there is. This also gets into part of the point of order: since there is a rule which says that questions which have been answered cannot be asked again, the Chair must enforce that rule. If, as the hon. member is advocating, that ought not to be the case, it would require a change in our procedure. The hon. member is advocating that that ought not to be the case, and that hon. members ought to be permitted to repeat questions when they are not satisfied with the answers, and the minister should simply be allowed to refuse to answer or to stand on his record. That is not the practice of the House. As long as the practice of the House
Bilingual Air Traffic Control
remains the way it is, when I hear repetition of a question that has just been answered I have to rule it out of order.
Regarding the incident of the statement of the Solicitor General on Wednesday, I intervened because the hon. member is entitled to deal with representations for which he is responsible with respect to responding to a statement by any minister at any time or, in using his privileges, to speak or to put questions to the House. But when the hon. member indicated, as he did that day, that consent came only from one side of the House, he involved the Chair and made a reflection on the ability of the Chair to make a judgment. That was an incorrect reference to the situation and to the decision I had made. I therefore intervened in the circumstances. But this happens rarely.


TRANSPORT
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like, under Standing Order 41(2), to table, in both official languages, copies of the interim report of the commission of inquiry into bilingual air traffic service in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have tabled the interim report of the commission of inquiry into bilingual air traffic service in the province of Quebec. I am equally pleased with the recommendations contained in this report, which have the full support of this government. It is a most significant document. Its recommendations and their subsequent implementation are a significant step toward resolving the issue of bilingual air communications in Quebec without jeopardizing air safety. The commission's report states as follows:
The evidence on record leads to the conclusion that operational efficiency will not be affected at the three locations where the introduction of bilingualism is recommended.
The commission also notes that to its knowledge-
There has never been an accident or incident in the province of Quebec that could in any way be said to be related to the use of the two official languages in air traffic control.
The commission's mandate is to examine the safety-related aspects of expanding bilingual air to ground communications in Quebec. It is obvious that the recommendations contained in this interim report are the result of thorough and lengthy examination of all the implications. It is the commission's recommendation, and the intention of this government, to immediately authorize air to ground communications for aircraft flying under visual flight rules at St. Hubert airport. In this aspect it is significant that the commission refers to an earlier study which found as follows:
The St. Hubert airport is one of the busiest general aviation airports in Canada and its operation is considered to be outstanding. The introduction of the French language, at the request of the pilots, will not degrade the safety of the operation and, in fact, is expected to enhance it because of the improved comprehension of pilot-controller communications.

July 8, 1977
Bilingual Air Traffic Control
The commission also recommends, as the first stage in implementing bilingual air to ground communications in the Montreal area, that controllers be authorized to communicate in both official languages with VFR flights passing through the Mirabel control zone on their way to other destinations. This will mean a considerable saving in fuel and flight time, eliminating the need to fly around the control zone. We plan to implement this recommendation by October 1. Thirdly, the commission recommends that bilingual air to ground communications be provided to VFR flights entering what is known as the Montreal terminal radar service area, which overlays the Mirabel, Dorval, St. Hubert and part of the St. Jean control zones, up to altitudes of 9,500 feet.
We expect to introduce bilingual air traffic services in this area by January 1, 1978, when the additional controllers required to provide the service will have completed their training.

1 would like to congratulate the commission on the work that it is doing, and on its continuing efforts to ensure that concerns for air safety are thoroughly investigated and that appropriate action or precautions are taken. In addition to safety concerns which have always been the government's main consideration, I am also pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that the commission concludes that these recommendations will not significantly increase costs. The commission has upheld the view of this government that it is possible to ensure that air traffic control services are provided in both official languages in the province of Quebec without jeopardizing air safety. This is in keeping with the government's policy and objectives for bilingualism.
I am confident that this interim report and government action arising from it will be satisfactory to all concerned. The co-operation we have received from Canadian aviation groups and associations on this whole matter has been most useful and greatly appreciated.

As a result of the recommendations tabled here today, and of the government's intention to act upon them promptly, we have taken another important step toward removing a serious, divisive factor which has extended far beyond the field of aviation and has threatened national unity. I am, therefore, confident that these recommendations by the commission will receive the full support of all members of this House. I should add, Mr. Speaker, that consultations with interested organizations concerning the report began this morning, and should some of them wish to make a formal statement for the attention of the House I will be pleased to table it, for the record, at some future time.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) for his French. I see here further evidence of the efficiency of the bilingualism policy in Saskatoon, as well as in High River, Alberta.


Sir, it is now more than a year since this commission of inquiry was established by the government to bail the Minister of Transport out of the confusion and division he had created over this whole question. Now, after 12 months of detailed deliberations by the commissioners, we have an interim report which, frankly, does not move the situation very far forward. At least I suggest the minister exaggerates when he calls the recommendations of the report "a significant step toward resolving the issue of bilingual air communications".


Mr. Blais:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I am pleased to see the Postmaster General applauding my observation that it is an exaggeration to so describe the report. The recommendation in support of bilingual VFR traffic at St-Hubert simply confirms what, in fact, has been operating practice for much of the private traffic at that airport during recent months. It merely confirms a recommendation made to the then minister of transport in March, 1975, by Project Bilcom, the study carried out at that time by the ministry in co-operation with CALPA and CATCA- The same study, Project Bilcom, also recommended, more than two years ago, in favour of bilingual advisory services. That recommendation, too, has now been confirmed by the commission.
Beyond that, sir, this interim report does not appear to contain much in the way of findings, particularly in respect of the major questions of commercial traffic at Dorval and Mirabel. I say it does not appear to be so because the minister has tabled a complicated, extensive document. I appreciate his courtesy in making it available to us some two hours before its presentation in the House. We may have further comments to make on it later. I made it clear when the commission was established that we in my party would accept the unanimous findings of the three commissioners. We are certainly prepared to support the unanimous recommendations contained in this report.

Apart from this, I can only hope that the commission will speed up its subsequent studies on the matters which are still pending, and particularly on the wide problem of communications as far as instrument flight rules are concerned.
I am very conscious of the technicality of several points but I am also aware-as 1 am sure hon. members on both sides of the House are-of the symbolic importance of all this matter for many Canadians, and therefore of the necessity to solve this problem in a fair and equitable manner as soon as technical conditions permit.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues I welcome the report and the statement the minister has made. I will not quibble about whether it confirms what we knew in the past. It has already been indicated that this has been a serious and divisive issue in Canadian politics. I am delighted with the conclusions that have been reached by the commission. I am delighted with the
July 8, 1977

recommendations, and we look forward to their speedy implementation. I am for once, happy, to say I am in complete agreement with the government.


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) table the interim report of the commission of inquiry into bilingual air traffic service in Quebec.
First, I should like to thank the minister for having had the courtesy to table the report in both official languages. He did not try, as his colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) did yesterday, to table a report only in English under the pretext that waiting for the translated version would have delayed tabling the document. Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the ministers, that this is the last time we allow unilingual documents to be tabled, even in French. If the ministers are in such a hurry to table their documents, let them speed up the translation. We will not allow a single unilingual report to be tabled, and I do not want to have to say it again. If they need that to learn what elementary courtesy is all about, we will show them.
Mr. Speaker, to come back to the report tabled today, I am sure all hon. members who believe in Canadian unity are pleased with its findings. Indeed, the report recognizes that bilingualism is no threat to air safety in Quebec.
One can read the following statement in the same report: there has never been an accident or incident in the province of Quebec that could in any way be said to be related to the use of the two official languages in air traffic control. Mr. Speaker, that gives the lie to the racists and alarmists who, through terror and duplicity, have tried to crush the legitimate expectations of French-speaking pilots and controllers. Mr. Speaker, the report goes on to say that it is safer for everybody to have all pilots in the air functioning in a language they comprehend, capable of fully understanding instructions addressed to them, and able to give clear and accurate reports of essential flight information.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this sentence admirably sums up our position concerning bilingualism in air traffic control; we are happy to see that the commission in its interim report states identical principles as those we, in our party, have sustained for quite a long time.


REPRESENTATION AND ELECTORAL DISTRICTS READJUSTMENT ACT (ONTARIO) MEASURE RESPECTING READJUSTMENT OF ONTARIO ELECTORAL DISTRICTS
Robert Knight Andras: for leave to introduce Bill C-60, to readjust the
Ontario Electoral Districts
representation of Ontario in the House of Commons and to readjust the electoral districts in Ontario.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is not able to be here today. However, he wanted it brought to the attention of the House, and I agree with him, that this bill is not being introduced by the responsible minister. We do not want to block the bill, but we do want to bring to Your Honour's attention the past practice with regard to reasonable doubt and other considerations not being within the purview of the minister's responsibility. In this case the bill should be in the name of the President of the Privy Council rather than that of the President of the Treasury Board. I want to make that notation with respect to the introduction of this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did raise that point at an earlier date and the Chair has been made aware of it. We have attempted to give it some study. There is no indication, in our review, that it is a point of such sufficient gravity that it should prevent the introduction of the bill. However, it does raise some rather interesting long-range problems on the question of ministerial responsibility. The point is well noted. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), on a point of order.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, as a member from Quebec I feel obliged today to refuse that the bill be read for the first time now. If I may, I should like to say why I object.
First, the bill infringes upon the privileges of hon. members from the province of Quebec who are less numerous than those from Ontario who will be even more numerous, without Quebec getting an equitable adjustment. In my opinion, all Quebec members in this House should rise against the introduction of this bill which infringes upon their privileges and we say if Ontario has one more seat, let Quebec have one more as well.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was prepared to permit the hon. member a brief point of order to indicate to the Chair his intention to take a position with respect to the bill. If it had gone on any longer, I would have considered it to be a speech on the motion itself. It is extraordinary to have a motion for first reading opposed. Therefore, I intended to allow the hon. member some latitude in order to indicate his position to the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Armand Caouette: No.

July 8, 1977
Petition


Mr. Speaker:: May 1 record that as being carried on division?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw Your Honour's attention to some remarks made last night by myself in response to a question on the "late show" brought forward by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton.
[ Translation]
As you can see, the French translation, at page 7459 of Hansard does not reflect the spirit of what I said in English, at least of some terms I used in my speech. I admit that it is difficult to translate technical terms and I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that "commercial taxes" and "business taxes" are not necessarily synonymous. With your permission, I would like to get in touch with the officials of the reporting service or the Bureau for Translation and ask them to correct at least six words which substantially alter the meaning of the speech I made in English last night.


Mr. Speaker:: The point raises a consideration with respect to the translators. With technical answers of this sort, often there is some advance preparation of the answer. In the circumstances, it is most helpful. Perhaps it does not occur to hon. members, and I speak of members on both side of the House, that where the translation of technical language is concerned members might want to give consideration to providing in advance a text in both official languages, if in fact an answer has been prepared, in order to assist in the translation of the technical language. That is a consideration that members may wish to keep in mind.


TRANSPORT
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of some 3,000 Capreol area residents expressing their objection to the "Preferred plan for western transcontinental passenger train service" by the Canadian Transport Commission. The plan will, if implemented, mean a very substantial loss of jobs and services not only in the Capreol area but throughout northern Ontario. The petitioners call on parliament to provide for further studies of the social and economic impact on northern Ontario of the implementation of this preferred plan, and to provide assurances that people in the Capreol area will not find their livelihood threatened by the reduction of passenger train service.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: The following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,651 to 2,716, inclusive.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the AI-7 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the AI-7 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows: AI-7: Department or Agency: MOT, (a) 1976, 81; (b) 1974,51.
(l) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions. Footnotes to Questions 2,651-2,716
(l) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
<2) Source: Senior Executive and Equivalent, Information Sub-System, Treasury Board Secretariat, March 31, 1974 and March 31, 1976 conditions.
(3)	Source: Justice Department, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
(4)	AV is presumed to be AU, Auditing.
(5)	VT is presumed to be UT, University Teaching.
<6) IS-7 non-existent level.
<7) FS-6 non-existent level.
(8) Data are collected quarterly and therefore they are not available for April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 and instead March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 data has been substituted.
Department or Agency Codes: AGR, Agriculture Canada; AIB, Anti-Inflation Board; ARC, Public Archives; AUD, Auditor General's Office; BGC, Board of Grain Commissioners; BPA, Bureau of Pensions Advocates; CAE, Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise; CCA, Consumer and Corporate Affairs; CDC, Canadian Dairy Commission; CEO, Chief Electoral Officer; CGC, Canadian Grain Commission; CGE, Canadian Government Grain Elevators; CIC, Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat; CLR, Canada Labour Relations Board; COL, Commissioner of Official Languages; COM, Department of Communications; CPC, Canadian Pension Commission; CSM, Metric Commission; CTC, Canadian Transport Commission; DND, National Defence Department; DOE, Environment Canada; DPW, Public Works Department; DSS, Supply and Services Canada; DVA, Veterans Affairs Department; DVL, Veterans Land Administration; EMR, Energy, Mines and Resources; ENR, National Energy

COMMONS DEBATES____________________________________7477
Order Paper Questions
July 8, 1977
Board; ESR, Energy Supplies Allocation Board; EXC, Federal Court of Canada; EXT, External Affairs Department; FIN, Finance Department; FIR, Foreign Investment Review Agency; FPR, Federal-Provincial Relations Office; GGS, Governor General; HER, Heritage Canada; IAB, Immigration Appeal Board; IAN, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs; IDA, Canadian International Development Agency; IJC, International Joint Commission; INC, Information Canada; INS, Insurance Department; ITC, Industry, Trade and Commerce; JUS, Justice Department; LAB, Labour Canada; LFB, Canadian Livestock Feed Board; LRC, Law Reform Commission; MID, Manpower and Immigration; MOT; Transport Canada; MST, Ministry of State for Science and Technology; NCC, National Capital Commission; NHW, Health and Welfare Canada; NLI, National Library; NMC, National Museums of Canada; NPB, National Parole Board; OPM, Prime Minister's Office; PCO, Privy Council Office; PEB, Pension Review Board; PEN, Canadian Penitentiary Service; POD, Post Office Department; PSC, Public Service Commission; RCM, Royal Canadian Mounted Police; REA, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration; REE, Department of Regional Economic Expansion; RTC, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, RTP, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission; SEC, Secretary of State Department; SOL, Ministry of Solicitor General; STC, Statistics Canada; SUC, Supreme Court of Canada; TAR, Tariff Board; TAX, Revenue Canada, Taxation; TBD, Treasury Board Secretariat; TCB, Textile and Clothing Board; TXB, Tax Review Board; UAH, Ministry of State for Urban Affairs; UIC, Unemployment Insurance Commission; WVB, War Veterans Allowance Board.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the SX-4 level?


Robert Knight Andras: Data are collected quarterly and therefore they are not available for April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 and instead March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 data has been substituted. The number of persons employed at the SX-4 level on March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:
SX-4<*
Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
AUD	1	1
DOE	1
FIN	3	3
FPR	1
ITC	1	1MOT	2	2PCO	2REE	1TBD	1 2
(2) Source: Senior Executive and Equivalent, Information
Sub-System, Treasury Board Secretariat, March 31, 1974 and March 31, 1976 conditions.
<8) Data are collected quarterly and therefore they are not available for April 30(a) 1976 (b) 1974 and instead March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 data has been substituted.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the SX-3 level?


Robert Knight Andras: Data are collected quarterly and therefore they are not available for April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 and instead March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 data has been substituted. The number of persons employed at the SX-3 level on March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:
SX-3<8)
Department or Agency	(a) 1976	(b) 1974AGR	5	3CAE	2	3CCA	3	3COL	1	1COM	5	4DND	4	5DOE	8	9DPW	6	5DSS	5	5DVA	1	2EMR	3	5EXT	1	1FIN	7	2FIR	1	FPR	1	IAN	6	6IDA	3	2INC	1	1INS	1	1ITC	7	6LAB	3	2MID	8	. 7MOT	12	7MST	4	3NHW	9	6PCO	5	2POD	4	3PSC	3	5REA	1REE	5	5RTC	1	SEC	3	2SOL	1	1STC	4	5TAX	3	3
7478

July 8, 1977
Order Paper	Questions	
Department or Agency	(a) 1976	(b) 1974TBD	14	8UAH	2UIC	5	4
(2) Source: Senior Excecutive and Equivalent, Information Sub-System, Treasury Board Secretariat, March 31, 1974 and March 31, 1976 conditions.
(8) Data are collected quarterly and therefore they are not available for April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 and instead March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 data has been substituted.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the SX-2 level?


Robert Knight Andras: Data are collected quarterly and therefore they are not available for April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 and instead March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 data has been substituted. The number of persons employed at the SX-2 level on March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:
SX-2<8)
Department or Agency

(a) 1976	(b) 1974
5	6
1	1
6	3
8	5
8	6
1	1
	1
1	1
7	3
4	4
3	4
26	9
17	13
19	14
4	5
19	15
4	2
2	3
15	14
2	
2	
11	7
2	2
2	1
1	1
Department or Agency	(a) 1976	(b) V
INS	1	
ITC	25	21LAB	5	3MID	16	9MOT	20	7MST	7	3NHW	13	13NMC	3	NPB	1	PCO	5	7PEN	3	2POD	7	7PSC	6	3REA	2REE	19	8RTC	2	2SEC	5	1SOL	3	3STC	11	13TAR	1	TAX	12	5TBD	32	12UAH	4	3UIC	8	4
<2) Source: Senior Executive and Equivalent, Information
Sub-System, Treasury Board Secretariat, March 31, 1974 and
March 31, 1976 conditions.
(8) Data are collected quarterly and therefore they are not available for April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 and instead March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 data has been substituted.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the SX-1 level?


Robert Knight Andras: Data are collected quarterly and therefore they are not available for April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 and instead March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 data has been substituted. The number of persons employed at the SX-1 level on March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:
SX-1<* * * 8>
Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
AGR	10	8
AIB	l
ARC	l
AUD	8	1
BGC	i
CAE	12	16CCA	19	14CDC	l	i

July 8, 1977

Department or Agency	(a) 1976	(b) 1974
CEO	2	
COL	2	2COM	17	16CTC	10	6DND	16	15DOE	29	28DPW	21	22DSS	34	33DVA	8	8EMR	6	3ENR	3	1ESR	2	EXT	4	5FIN	6	7FIR	3	FPR	2	GGS	1IAN	40	28IDA	20	13IJC	1INC	4	5ITC	39	33LAB	5	4MID	31	25MOT	42	49MST	11	9NCC	4	5NHW	32	27NMC	1	1NPB	1PCO	11	14PEN	7	3POD	24	17PSC	15	12REE	11	14RTC	3	3SEC	14	13SOL	6	5STC	11	9sue	1	1TAX	16	15TBD	41	44TCB	1UAH	10	8UIC	16	14(2) Source: Senior Executive	and Equivalent, Information	Sub-System, Treasury Board Secretariat.	March 31, 1974 and
March 31, 1976 conditions.
(8) Data are collected quarterly and therefore they are not available for April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 and instead March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 data has been substituted.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the ES-4 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the ES-4 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
AGR	12	9
BGC		1
CCA	10	8
CDC	1	
CGC	1	
COM	3	5CTC	11	7DOE	20	9DSS	2	EMR	20	6ENR	8	4FIN	32	29FIR	2	FPR	1	IAN	7	5IDA	1	2INC	1ITC	14	10LAB	2	3MID	19	13MOT	8	5NHW	12	11PCO	3	POD	1	2PSC	1	1REA	1	REE	11	13SEC	4	2SOL	3	1STC	57	43TAR	1	TAX	1	1TBD	15	4TCB	1UAH	12	6
<* Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the ES-3 level?
80020 -9 V2

July 8, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Robert Knight Andras: 


Mr. Oriikow: The number of persons employed at the ES-3 level on April 30 On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each (a) 1976 (b) 1974 1974 by each department follows:	department at the ES-2 level?
	ES-3		Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):		
Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974	The number of persons employed at the ES-2 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:	AGR	30	23	AIB	1	CAE	1	CCA	9	10	ES-2	CDC	1	1	Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974CGC	2	AGR	70	41CLR	1	AIB	3	COL	1	BGC	2COM	8	6	CAE	3	CTC	16	5	CCA	21	9DND	1	1	CDC	1	1DOE	46	30	COM	25	20DPW	1	CTC	41	30DSS	5	3	DOE	69	56EMR	17	20	DPW	3	1ENR	16	9	DSS	2	4ESR	1	EMR	48	38FIN	28	21	ENR	16	14FIR	5	ESR	4	IAN	22	7	EXT	3	2IDA	4	2	FIN	82	67ITC	11	15	FIR	10	LAB	9	10	FPR	1	LFB	1	1	IAN	41	31MID	23	23	IDA	6	3MOT	26	14	ITC	26	28MCC	1	LAB	20	18NHW	49	22	LFB	1	PCO	3	MID	61	46POD	5	3	MOT	43	32REA	2	MST	2	REE	32	33	NCC	2	2RTC	2	1	NHW	55	40SEC	4	2	NPB	1	]SOL	2	PCO	1	STC	144	105	PEN	2	1TAR	7	7	POD	9	5TAX	3	PSC	1	1TBD	5	10	RCM	1	UAH	10	9	REA	1	UIC	5	2	REE	37	16RTC	5	4SEC	9	1SOL	9	3(l) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services	STC TAX	254 2	209 1Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.	TBD	28	10Note: See also Footnotes	1 to 8 and appendix attached to	UAH	7	9Question No. 2,651 answered this day.	UIC	19	5

July 8, 1977

(1) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.

Question No. 2,659-Mr. Orlikow:
On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the AG-6 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the AG-6 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows: AG-6: Department or Agency: AGR (a) 1976: 7, (b) 1974: 6.
(l) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the TI-8 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the TI-8 level on April 30(a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
CTC	1	1DND	3	2MOT	12	11
(1) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the GT-8 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the GT-8 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency


[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
INC	3
ITC	1
NMC	4	2
(1) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.
Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the GT-7 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the GT-7 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
ARC	1	
DND	1	1DOE	2	1DPW	3	1DSS	8	EMR	1	1EXT	1IAN	12	3INC	5MID	1MOT	11	5NHW	2	1NMC	11	5SEC	1	1UIC	1	
(1>
Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the IS-7 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the IS-7 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976 (b) 19741
* (6)
CCA	1
DPW	1
(a) 1976
2
1
(b) 1974
2
7482

July 8, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
DSS	1
FIN	1
ITC	1
LAB	1
NMC	1
PSC	1
SEC	1
STC	1
TAX	1
TBD	1
UAH	1
UIC	1
<0 Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
(6) IS-7, Non-Existent Level.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the IS-6 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the IS-6 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
AGR	2	
CAE	2	
CCA	2	1
DOE	1	
DSS	1	1
DVA	1	
EMR	2	1
EXT	2	
GGS	1	
IAN	2	1IDA	1	1ITC	3	1JUS	1	LAB	1	MID	5	MOT	3	NHW	4	1NMC	1	PCO	1	PEN	1	POD	1	2Department or Agency	(a) 1976	(b) 1974REE	1	SEC	1SOL	1	STC	2	1TBD	1UAH	lUIC	1
(1) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the FS-6 level?


Robert Knight Andras: (7) FS-6, Non-Existent Level.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the FS-5 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the FS-5 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows: FS-5: Department or Agency: EXT (a) 1976: 17, (b) 1974: 9.
(,) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada. April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the FS-4 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the FS-4 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency	(a)	1976	(b)	1974EXT	43	43ITC	20	12

July 8, 1977_____________ COMMONS DEBATES_________________________7483
(l>
Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the FS-3 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the FS-3 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency	(a) 1976	(b) 1974EXT	135	136ITC	68	61MID	23	14
(1) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the FS-2 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the FS-2 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency	(a) 1976	(b) 1974EXT	189	178ITC	114	85MID	73	86
(1) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the FI-7 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the FI-7 level on April 30
(a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:
Order Paper Questions FI-7
Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
AGR	1	1CAE	1	1CCA COM	1	1DND	2	1DOE	2	1DPW	1	1DSS	11	7EMR	1	1FIN	1	1IAN	3	4IDA	1	1ITC	3	4MID	1	MOT	6	3NHW	3	4NMC	1	POD	3	3PSC	1	RCM	1	1RTC	1	SEC	2	TAX	2TBD	19	18UAH	1	1UIC	1	(l) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.	Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8	and appendix attached to	Question No. 2,651 answered this day.	
Question No. 2,671-Mr. Orlikow:		
On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were		employed by each
department at the FI-6 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons emloyed at the FI-6 level on April 30		
(a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:		
FI-6		
Department or Agency (a) 1976 (b) 1974		
AGR	2	
CAE	2	iCCA	1	iCOM	1	CPC	1	iCTC	2	2DND	8	3DOE	4	3DPW	4	4DSS	24	27DVA	4	2EMR	1	1
July 8, 1977
Order Paper Questions		
Department or Agency	(a) 1976	(b) 1974EXT	1	1FIN	1IAN	6	2IDA	1INC	1ITC	2	2MID	4	MOT	12	11NCC	1	1NHW	5	6PEN	3	POD	5	5REE	1	1RTC	1SEC	1	SOF	1	TBD	15	18UIC	2	2(,) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services	Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.	Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8	and appendix attached to	Question No. 2,651 answered this day.	
Question No. 2,672-Mr. Orlikow:		
On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons '		ivere employed by each
department at the WP-7 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the WP-7 level on April		
30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:		
WP-7		
Department or Agency (a) 1976		(b) 1974
AGR		1
DVA	1	1IAN	7	12NHW	2	3NPB	7	PEN	4	2PSC	2SOL	2	
(l) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the WP-6 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the WP-6 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
DVA	4	3IAN	3	5NPB	11	4PEN	3	4
(,) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the SI-7 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the SI-7 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
ARC	I	1DOE	1	1DVL	1ENR	1FIR	1	IAN	1	1LAB	6MID	1	MOT	1	3RTC	2	2STC	10	8
(1) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the CO-4 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the CO-4 level on April
30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:
July 8, 1977



Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
AGR	1	2CAE	1	1COM	1	1DND	3	DPW	2	1DSS	15	14EMR	2	2IAN	1	1IDA	1ITC	1	1LAB	1	1MID	1	1MOT	2	2NHW	1	1PSC	1	1REE	1	1STC	2	4TAX	8	7TBD	1	1UAH	1	UIC	1	1(1) Source: Master Output Support	File, Supply and Services	Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions. Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to	Question No. 2,651 answered this day.	
Question No. 2,676-Mr. Orlikow:		
On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons		were employed by each
department at the CO-3 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the CO-3 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:		
CO-3		
Department or Agency (a) 1976		(b) 1974
AGR	3	2
AIB	2	
CCA	17	4COM	6	4CSM	4	DND	1	DOE	5	2DSS	2	EMR	2	1FIN	1	FIR	13	IAN	22	15INS	12	12
Order Paper Questions
Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
ITC	167	139
MID	1
MOT	1
PSC	1
REA	8	3REE	120	40RTC	5	4
(1) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the CO-2 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the CO-2 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
AGR	10	
CCA	36	16
COM		3
CSM	22	
DOE	5	6
DPW	1	
DSS	2	1
FIN		1
FIR	13	
IAN	68	44INS	39	20ITC	408	436JUS	1	1MID	1	MOT	1	REA	6	8REE	97	68RTC	9	6TBD	1	3UAH	1
(1) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the AS-8 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the AS-8 level on April 30
(a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:
7486

July 8, 1977
Order Paper Questions AS-8
Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
AGR	2	1ARC	1	2CAE	2CCA	1CLR	1COL	8COM	2	3CTC	1	2DND	11	9DOE	10	5DPW	36	28DSS	23	23EMR	2	1ENR	1	1EXT	6	5FIN	1	lGGS	2	1IAN	3	1ITC	2	1JUS	2	2LAB	3	1MID	8	5MOT	14	4MST	1	lNCC	1	lNHW	4	2NMC	1	lOPM	1PCO	1PEN	10	3POD	4	5PSC	5	3REE	1RTC	3	3SEC	3SOL	3STC	1TAX	2TBD	32	21UIC	2
(l) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada. April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the AS-7 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
AGR	2	2ARC	4	1CAE	3	2CCA	lCIC	1CLR	lCOL	7	6COM	6	2CTC	2	2DND	22	17DOE	16	14DPW	29	28DSS	15	10DVA	3	3DVL	1	1EMR	1ENR	1	1EXC	1	1EXT	2	2FIN	1	1IAB	1	1IAN	12	12IJC	1	1INS	1ITC	1	1LAB	1MID	14	16MOT	31	17MST	12	11NHW	8	7NMC	1PCO	1	1PEN	4	2POD	10	13PSC	7	1REA	2	1REE	3	1SEC	4	4SOL	1STC	1TAX	4	4TBD	51	34UAH	1UIC	5	6


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each <l>
Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services department at the AS-7 level?	Canada. April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.

July 8, 1977

Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.

Question No. 2,680-Mr. Orlikow:
On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the CS-5 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the CS-5 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
AGR	1	2CAE	1	1COM	1	1DND	3	DPW	2	1DSS	15	14EMR	2	2IAN	1	1IDA	1ITC	1	1LAB	1	1MID	1	1MOT	2	2NHW	1	1PSC	1	1REE	1	1STC	2	4TAX	8	7TBA	1	1UAH	1	UIC	1	1
0) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada. April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the TR-6 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the TR-6 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows: Department or Agency: SEC. (a) 1976: 4. (b) 1974: 2.
(1) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada. April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the TR-5 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the TR-5 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
PCO	1
SEC	16	9
(1) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada. April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the TR-4 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the TR-4 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
PSC	1
SEC	78	60
(l) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada. April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the ES-5 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the ES-5 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
AGR	5	5CCA	4	2COM	2	2CTC	2	1DOE	4	5EMR	3	3ENR	1FIN	2	2IAN	1ITC	3	4MID	2	4
80020 -101A

July 8, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
MOT	2	3MST	1	2NHW	2	2REA	1	REE	2	4SEC	1SOL	1	STC	28	35TAR	1TBD	1	3
(1) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note- See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the AC-3 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the AC-3 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
INS	5	5UIC	1	2
(1) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the AC-2 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the AC-2 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
INS	5	2
UIC	1
(1) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the PS-5 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the PS-5 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
PEN	1
PSC	1	2
(I) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the LS-6 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the LS-6 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
AGR	1
DOE	1	1NLI	3	2 (l)
(l) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the HR-5 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the HR-5 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
ARC	1	1DND	1	1

July 8, 1977

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
IAN	1	1NMC	3	5
Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the AV-7 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The AV group is presumed to be the AEJ group, Auditing. The number of persons employed at the AU-7 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows: AV-71 * * (4): Department or Agency: TAX (a) 1976: 8, (b) 1974: 7.
(,) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
(4) AV is presumed to be AU, Auditing.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the AV-6 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The AV group is presumed to be the AU group, Auditing. The number of persons employed at the AU-6 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:
AV-6<4)
Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
AUD	4	3
CAE		2
DSS	7	5TAX	18	24
(l) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
<4) AV is presumed to be AU, Auditing.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the AV-5 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The AV group is presumed to be the AU group, Auditing. The
Order Paper Questions
number of persons employed at the AU-5 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:
AV-5<4>
Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
AUD	1	
CAE	12	14DSS	9	5ENR	1	1FIN	2TAX	86	62TBD	1
<>>
Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
(4) AV is presumed to be AU, Auditing.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the AR-8 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the AR-8 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
DND	1	1DPW	2	3IAN	1NCC	2	2NHW	1	1
(1) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the AR-7 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the AR-7 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
DND	1	1DPW	12	9
July 8, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974	Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974IAN	5	3	PEN	1MOT	1	2	REE	3
(l) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the AR-6 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the AR-6 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
DND	2	2DPW	25	18IAN	7	5IDA	1	MOT	4	4NCC	6	5NHW	2	2REE	1(1) Source: Master Output	Support File, Supply and Services	Canada, April 30, 1974 and	April 30, 1976 conditions.	Note: See also Footnotes	1 to 8 and	appendix attached to
Question No. 2,651 answered this day.
(l) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the CH-6 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the CH-6 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department of Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
ITC	1
NHW	1	1
(1) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the CH-5 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the CH-5 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the AR-5 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the AR-5 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency	(a) 1976	(b) 1974DOE	3	3EMR	1	3NHW	2	2
Departement or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
DND	5	4DOE	1	1DPW	32	19DVA	1IAN	22	10IDA	1MOT	11	12NCC	6	4NHW	1	
(,) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the VS-6 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the VS-6 level on April 30
(a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

July 8, 1977



Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
AGR	1	3NHW	1	2
(l) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the VS-5 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the VS-5 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
AGR	13	10NHW	6	6
(l) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the VT-7 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The VT group is presumed to be the UT group, University Teaching. The number of persons employed at the UT-7 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows: VT-7(5): Department or Agency: DND (a) 1976: 3, (b) 1974:
1.
(l) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
(5) VT is presumed to be UT, University Teaching.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the VT-6 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The VT group is presumed to be the UT group, University Teaching. The number of persons employed at the UT-6 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows. VT-6(5): Department or Agency: DND (a) 1976: 1, (b) 1974:
1.
Order Paper Questions
<>>
Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
(5) VT is presumed to be UT, University Teaching.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the VT-5 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The VT group is presumed to be the UT group, University Teaching. The number of persons employed at the UT-5 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows: VT-5(5): Department or Agency: DND (a) 1976: 1. (b) 1974:
1.
<'>
Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
(5) VT is presumed to be UT, University Teaching.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the VT-4 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The VT group is presumed to be the UT group, University Teaching. The number of persons employed at the UT-4 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows. VT-4(5): Department or Agency: DND. (a) 1976: 50. (b) 1974: 36.
(1) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
(5) VT is presumed to be UT, University Teaching.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the VT-3 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The VT group is presumed to be the UT group, University Teaching. The number of persons employed at the UT-3 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows. VT-3(5): Department or Agency: DND. (a) 1976: 54. (b) 1974: 44.
<[DOT]>
Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
(5) VT is presumed to be UT, University Teaching.

July 8, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the Senior Statistician (SRS) level?

Question No. 2,706-Mr. Orlikow:
On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the PG-6 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the PG-6 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the Senior Statistician (SRS) level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows. MA SRS-1: Department or Agency: DSS (a) 1976: - , (b) 1974: 1.
(1) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.
AGR	1	
DND	6	5DOE	1	1DPW	1	DSS	83	80IAN	6MOT	1	1PEN	1	1POD	1	PSC	1TBD	2	0) Source: Master Output Support	File, Supply and	
Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On Apri] 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the Chief Statistician 1 (CST) level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the Chief Statistician 1 (CST) level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:


[Stage Direction]
Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
DSS	3	2ENR	1	2STC	2UAH	1
0) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.
Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the PE-7 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the PE-7 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency


(a) 1976	(b) 1974
2	2
1	1
2	1
1	2
5	2
	1
3	1
1	1
	1
1	
1	1
1	1
4	3
2	3
1	
1	1
1	1
4	4
17	20
1	1
1	2
3	1
	1
1	
4	4
15	10
	1
1	
July 8, 1977

<[DOT]>
Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the PE-6 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the PE-6 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency	(a) 1976	(b) 1974AGR	4	3AIB	1	ARC	1	1CAE	2	3CCA	2	COM	1	1CTC	1	1DND	7	6DOE	4	4DPW	6	5DSS	9	13DVA	6	4EMR	1	1EXT	1	3FIN	1	2IAN	6	6IDA	2	1INC	1ITC	2	1JUS	1	1MID	5	4MOT	10	6MST	1NCC	1	1NHW	5	4NMC	1	PCO	1	PEN	7	POD	5	9PSC	45	27REE	2	SEC	1	2SOL	2	STC	2	6TAX	2	1TBD	22	28UIC	3	1
Order Paper Questions
(l) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada. April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the PE-5 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the PE-5 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
AGR	6	5ARC	1	1AUD	1	CAE	8	5CCA	2	2CEO	1COM	2	2CPC	1CTC	2	2DND	10	5DOE	10	8DPW	4	8DSS	9	6DVA	6	7EMR	4	7ENR	1	1EXT	4	3FIN	2	1FIR	1	IAN	11	9IDA	2	1ITC	1	3JUS	2	1LAB	1	2MID	4	7MOT	20	19NCC	1	2NHW	8	6NMC	1	NPB	1	PCO	1	1PEN	2	8POD	18	12PSC	54	57RCM	1	REA	1	1REE	1	3RTC	2	1SEC	2SOL	2STC	2	2
July 8, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
TAX	12	10TBD	23	20UAH	1	1UIC	9	8
ll) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada. April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the LA-3 level?
(1) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada. April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
<3) Source: Justice Department.
Note: See also Foonotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.

Question No. 2,714-Mr. Orlikow:
On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the AO-EPS-3 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the AO-EPS-3 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows: AO EPS-3: Department or Agency: MOT. (a) 1976: 2. (b) 1974:
1.


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the LA-3 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency	(a) 1976	(b) 1974CTC	1	1ENR	1	1JUS<(l) * 3)	32	31RTC	1	1u) Source: Master Ouptput Support File, Supply and Services Canada. April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.	
(3) Source: Justice Department.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the LA-2 level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the LA-2 level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:

Department or Agency	(a) 1976	(b) 1974BPA	19	20CTC	6	5ENR	2	1EXT	2	1IAN	2	4JUS(3>	253	212NHW	1	1NPB	1	1RTC	2	1
(l) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the Statistician 5 (STA) level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the Statistician 5 (STA) level on April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974 by each department follows:


[Stage Direction]
Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
DOE	1
DSS	5
ENR	
MOT	1
POD	4
STC	14
UAH	1
(l) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada, April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.
Mr. Orlikow: On April 30 (a) 1976 (b) 1974, how many persons were employed by each department at the Chief Statistician 2 (CST) level?


Robert Knight Andras: The number of persons employed at the Chief Statistician 2 (CST) level on April 30 (a) 1976 9b) 1974 by each department follows:


July 8, 1977____________ _
MA CST-2 Department or Agency (a) 1976	(b) 1974
DSS	1
ENR	1
STC	1	1
(1) Source: Master Output Support File, Supply and Services Canada. April 30, 1974 and April 30, 1976 conditions.
Note: See also Footnotes 1 to 8 and appendix attached to Question No. 2,651 answered this day.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that Bill C-49, to amend the Canada Pension Plan, be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Bill C-49, I want to thank all hon. members who participated in the debate on second reading and in the discussions of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
As I have noted on several occasions, the two major amendments contained in Bill C-49, represent a historical change to the CPP, one of Canada's largest social security programs, by taking a major step towards recognizing the work of a spouse in the home.
The provision to split CPP pension credits on marriage dissolution will provide protection for the spouse who works in the home when it is most needed. The special child-rearing drop-out will protect the CPP benefits earned by persons who leave the labour force to raise young children. These amendments go a long way towards the objectives of providing recognition and financial security under the CPP for spouses who work at home while retaining the compulsory, contributory, earnings related characteristics of the CPP. I must remind the House that these amendments have been approved, indeed proposed, by the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Committee and the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Moreover, the proposals, except the second one, have been endorsed by the provinces. The second proposal has been approved by nine
Canada Pension Plan
of the provinces, the only exception being the Ontario government.
In the deliberations of the committee a week or so ago, a question was raised as to whether the special CPP child-rearing drop-out would maintain equity between groups of beneficiaries. It was suggested that the provision would constitute a subsidy to parents who are relatively well off financially since only in these families could the mother, or father, afford to drop out of the labour force to raise young children. However, it is not at all that clear-cut, since so many factors determine whether or not a person leaves the labour force to raise young children. For example, single mothers who are unable to find work would benefit from this provision, as would parents of large families where the cost of providing alternative care for the children prevents the mother from returning to paid employment.
Other factors which enter into the decision of whether to work in or outside of the home are job opportunities, availability of day care facilities, career aspirations, personal convictions as to the preferred method of child-rearing and so on. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to identify any specific group of contributors who would benefit from the special child-rearing drop-out provision. Consequently, it cannot be said that the provision would lead to subsidies for any particular income class.

Another question raised in committee related to the provision of the CPP coverage for family workers. Under the current provisions, a spouse who is employed by his or her spouse in a family business cannot contribute to the CPP. Some members suggested that income splitting between the two spouses should be permitted in these situations so as to allow both spouses to contribute to the CPP.
First, I should note that this matter relates to part I of the CPP which falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Revenue. Since the Department of National Revenue was assigned the responsibility for collecting CPP contributions, the provisions in the CPP which deal with coverage and contributions were of necessity tied to the Income Tax Act. Under that act, where one spouse is working for the other in an unincorporated family business, all the income is declared by one spouse and only one spouse contributes to the CPP. This, as hon. members know, is necessary under a system of progressive tax rates to prevent such couples from dividing income to pay less income tax; otherwise these couples would enjoy a very special advantage over other married couples, as well as single persons.
Similarly, to allow both spouses working in an unincorporated family business to contribute to the CPP would be to confer a very special advantage to a very specific group of persons. As well, it could be viewed as tantamount to permitting voluntary CPP contributions for a particular group of persons since there would likely be a strong element of personal discretion involved in "assigning" earnings to each of the two spouses. Such a provision would also be considered as inequitable vis-a-vis all one-wage-earner couples where the

July 8, 1977
Canada Pension Plan
wage earner is not in a position to divide his or her earnings with the other spouse. In fact, such a measure could be viewed as unfair by all couples where the incomes of the two spouses differ significantly.

However, I must emphasize that the proposed provision to split CPP pension credits on marriage dissolution is intended to recognize marriage as an economic as well as a social partnership towards which both spouses contribute whether they work together in a family business, whether they have separate jobs or whether one spouse works at home while the other works in paid employment. This provision would ensure that each spouse retains a fair share of joint assets towards which they both contributed during marriage.

Another point raised during discussion was the question of voluntary contributions for spouses at home. This matter was studied extensively by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and by the CPP advisory committee at my request a few years ago. I have tabled the reports provided by these bodies. The subject has also been studied by members of the committee on national health and welfare. I am sure members will have given their attention to those two reports.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: They don't impress me.


Marc Lalonde: Both reports have recommended against such a proposal. I should like to take a minute or so to go into this matter, since I know it is of interest to hon. members. There is one solution which appears to be attractive at first sight. Indeed, one wonders why it should not be applied. It is only when the subject is studied more carefully that one finds many drawbacks and difficulties attached to such a proposal. The present objective basis for determining the extent of a contributor's coverage under the plan-namely, his earnings- could not be applied to the voluntary participant, so alternate criteria would have to be developed for the housewife. If a limit were to be applied to a housewife's contributions, how would this be defined: in terms of an absolute amount, a percentage of her husband's earnings, or some other factor? Also, how would the employer's share be determined in this case; and who would pay it?
In addition, major changes would have to be made to the more attractive provisions that arise from the compulsory features of the plan. If this were not done, and if voluntary contributors were allowed to determine the extent of their participation, they could, for literally a few cents a year, generate full orphans' benefits and surviving spouse pensions equal to about 40 per cent of maximum levels after three years' contributions; become eligible for disability pensions equal to about 30 per cent of maximum levels after five years' contribution; and at retirement they would become eligible for 10 per cent retirement pensions.
The most important considerations, however, are issues involving basic social equity, the future operation of the

Canada Pension Plan, and private insurance and pension plans. These issues may be summarized as follows: first, if housewives are allowed to participate in the Canada Pension Plan on a voluntary basis, this option would tend to favour wives in families having the willingness and financial ability to participate. Wives in lower income families would have an extremely limited capacity to take advantage of such an opportunity.
Second, can the needs of wives at home be considered separate and apart from those of other individuals who undergo long periods of no earnings because of unemployment, ill health, extended education and other reasons?
Third, if housewives with no earnings are permitted to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan on a voluntary basis, should any provision for voluntary participation be extended to housewives with part-time earnings, and other part-time and low income workers?
Fourth, if an opportunity were extended to some, or all, wage earners to supplement their Canada Pension Plan coverage on a voluntary basis, a situation would be created whereby wage earners could transfer their coverage under private pension plans to the Canada Pension Plan. The differences in funding arrangements between the Canada Pension Plan and private plans would provide a substantial incentive for many to make such transfers. If this were done on a large scale, it could seriously undermine the position of private pension plans.
Fifth, actuarial reports which the government has tabled in parliament from time to time indicate that the financial provisions of the Canada Pension Plan will have to be reviewed at some future date. If such a future review should lead to an increase in contribution rates, would volunteer participants be allowed to reduce or withdraw their participation? If this were permitted, the increased costs of the pension credits accumulated by the volunteer participants would be passed on to the participants who are required to contribute to the plan on a compulsory basis.
The equity of such an arrangement could be the subject of serious criticism if the bulk of volunteer participants came from higher income families, and if large numbers of compulsory participants were comprised of low wage earners. These consequences could be avoided if volunteer participants, once allowed to participate, were required to maintain their participation or, if allowed to reduce or withdraw their participation, were required to accept a reduction in the value of their accumulated pension credits. Such alternatives, however, would likely be considered as acts of bad faith on the part of the government.
Voluntary coverage for housewives is an alternative which might appear attractive on the surface, and I must say that I, like many others, was very attracted by the subject before studying it. However, it does raise some very difficult issues for which answers are not readily apparent. This is why I asked two independent advisory bodies, like the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Committee, to study the matter extensively and to produce a report, which as I have said before I have made public. Both reports rejected the notion and concept of volun-
July 8, 1977

tary contributions to the Canada Pension Plan and, in effect, every provincial minister around the table with whom we discussed the matter rejected this approach to amending the Canada Pension Plan at the present time.
I remember that the former member for Vancouver-Kings-way, a very remarkable woman, made a great contribution in this House to the cause of women and social equity. She studied the question extensively herself, and during the last few meetings that we had while she was sitting in the House- this is reported in the debates of the parliamentary committee studying the matter at the time-she indicated, having examined the matter extensively for several years, that she had come to the conclusion that the Canada Pension Plan was probably not the proper vehicle to achieve such a purpose. 1 think it is a tribute to the sense of fairness, perceptiveness and knowledge of this eminent lady that she herself had come to that particular conclusion.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I recall to the House that the Canada Pension Plan Act requires that the endorsation of provinces with at least two-thirds the population be obtained to amend the act. We have been able to obtain the endorsement of all the provinces to the first major proposal contained in this bill, and the province of Quebec is amending its plan in a parallel way to the proposals contained in this bill. As a matter of fact, the second proposal is one which was initiated at the beginning by the province of Quebec and endorsed by all other provinces except Ontario.
In view of the difficulties we have had with the provinces and between the provinces in arriving at a consensus on the amendments before us, one can imagine the almost insurmountable difficulties that would arise in the sense that there would be no support at all from provincial governments for an amendment dealing with the voluntary contribution of spouses at home at the present time. It would appear that the Advisory Council on the Status of Women was very concerned about this particular issue and is continuing to examine it further to ascertain what are the most appropriate solutions to the type of questions raised in terms of social equity and justice, and also in terms of ensuring equity and fairness particularly to women in society. They have come to the conclusion, after having studied the matter quite independently and objectively, that this technique of voluntary contribution was not the appropriate one to achieve this particular purpose.
These are the comments that I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, as we consider third reading of this bill. May I thank hon. members both in committee and in the House on second reading for having supported the bill, and I thank all opposition parties for endorsing the provisions contained in the bill.
[ Translation]
I also want to thank hon. members for the constructive suggestions advanced in committee related to rectifying errors in a person's contributory period. My department will explore, in cooperation with the Department of National Revenue, the alternative ways in which CPP contributors could be informed of their right to receive statements of their contributory records.
Canada Pension Plan
In conclusion, I might note that Bill C-49 also contains a few smaller amendments which will enhance the operations of the CPP and provide fairer treatment of contributors under the plan. I am thinking here, in particular, of the provision to pay retroactive CPP retirement pensions to contributors under age 70 and the removal of the current limitations on benefits payable to orphans and to dependent children of disabled CPP contributors. Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their considerate attention and I hope the bill will be supported by all parties.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been before the House and the committee for a relatively short period of time. Therefore, I welcome this opportunity to take part in a debate concerning its provisions. I am particularly pleased to hear the remarks of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and to follow him in the comments I wish to make. As he has said, Bill C-49, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, appears to have the approval of all parties in this House, albeit, as I am sure he will recognize, with some reluctance regarding certain of its provisions. However, I cannot let this occasion pass without registering my deep and abiding anger at this government that once again we are faced with legislation in this House which discriminates against the rights of a certain group of Canadian citizens, namely, women who work in the home.
The minister can sit there and shake his head, indicating that he does not agree with that statement, but I should like to tell him that that is the result of this bill. I recognize the benefits of the bill. 1 recognize that in a limited fashion it reduces certain inequities, but let me say to the minister that it is a bitter disappointment to those of us whose expectations were raised last fall as we listened to the words of the Speech from the Throne. Those words were misleading, and I remind him what was said at that time:
You will be asked to consider amendments to the Canada Pension Plan which would further recognize the value of the contribution made to the family and society by both marriage partners, in the event that one remains at home to raise children while their partner works outside the home.
Many of us understood from those words that in amending the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan the government would implement a very fundamental and heretofore totally neglected principle, namely, that women, no matter where they work, are contributors to society and their rights as individuals to contribute to and benefit from the Canada Pension Plan, as indeed from all comprehensive social programs, would be guaranteed under law. Whatever else this bill accomplishes, it does not address itself to that principle. That is what was indicated in the Speech from the Throne.
First of all, I want to make it very clear why I refer to women when dealing with the rights of those who work in the home. I have looked at the most recent statistics and I know they indicate that some 10,000 males list housework as their

July 8, 1977
Canada Pension Plan
major occupation, but over 4'/2 million Canadian women are classified in this category, which is about one-fifth of our total population. While I recognize the contribution of the 10,000 males in this regard, the reality of the situation is that 99.8 per cent of the persons who work in the home are women. My major concern is for this group of people in our society. When the Canada Pension Plan was introduced back in 1964, it set out to provide benefits for contributors. The words of the act read as follows:
-establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions and supplementary benefits in Canada payable to and in respect of contributors.
The key word is "contributors". One particular group of Canadians, women who work in the home and who contribute to the social and economic well being of this country, are not contributors to the Canada Pension Plan, nor are they permitted to be contributors to that plan. They are excluded from that opportunity. We have just heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare say that they are excluded from that opportunity. 1 ask the minister, is this what he calls social justice in this country? Just recently this House passed a human rights bill. With the following noble words the human rights bill was introduced:
Every individual should have an equal opportunity with other individuals to make for himself or herself the life that he or she is able and wishes to have, consistent with his or her duties and obligations as a member of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex or marital status-
I contend that women who work in the home do not have, in the words of the human rights bill, an equal opportunity with other individuals to make for themselves the life that they are able and wish to have, when they are denied the opportunity to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will call it one o'clock.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the luncheon adjournment I had been trying to impress upon the minister that women who work in the home do not have, within the terms of the human rights bill, an equal opportunity with other individuals to make for themselves the life that they are able and wish to have, when such persons are denied the opportunity to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan. I contend very strongly that housewives should have this right. It is a principle that should be respected as a right of an individual in our society-a right that is basic to that particular individual and

not because the person is attached to another member of our society as some sort of chattel or appendage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Lalonde, you male chauvinist.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: She should have the right to contribute, as do all other productive members of society. But at present she is denied that right. Faced with Bill C-49, I have to ask myself whether the intent of the Canada Pension Plan does not, indeed, abuse the principle stated in the human rights bill. Perhaps I go a little too far when I say that the way in which the Canada Pension Plan presently operates violates human rights, but this could be settled definitively if some woman who works in the home would challenge it in the courts. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to encourage such a woman who does work in the home to take her case to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan to the courts and have it decided in that way.
I would like to say to the minister that in his remarks before the luncheon adjournment I feel that he misrepresented very seriously the position of the former hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway in her support of the purpose and the principle that I have been stating.


Mr. McGrath:: Shame on you.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: In consideration of this bill during second reading and in committee, there were two matters that struck me. The first was the matter of voluntary contributions to the Canada Pension Plan by persons working in the home. That subject was raised during debate on second reading, it was raised in committee, and it was dealt with here by the minister, with lack of sensitivity. I know that he said he found the proposal to be attractive on the surface, but that is the whole problem. The minister looks at this in a superficial way. He passed it off-would not deal with it himself-to the Advisory Council on the Status of Women.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Just listen-ecoutez.


James Aloysius McGrath: How are you going to defend this on the hustings?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The minister referred the matter, since he could not come to grips with it himself, to the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and, as he stated, for certain reasons they rejected it. I must say that I have read their report and I am deeply disappointed in their findings. I have not been persuaded by any of their arguments. The reasons and objections they set out-as were the ones that the minister put forward this morning-had to do with the mechanics of making voluntary contributions operative, rather than with the justice of the case.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is an elitist report.
July 8, 1977


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I know, as well, that during the committee hearings a departmental officer, a bureaucrat, rejected the proposal. She intoned that the persons likely to contribute voluntarily are only those who can afford to, and that the payments may become prohibitive, particularly for low income families. What I would like to know is, on what basis, on what data, did that bureaucrat make her judgment? How does she or anyone else, including the minister, know what any group of persons would do if given a choice? How did that bureaucrat know, and how does the minister know, that some woman presently in a low income bracket, whose work is in the home, if given the opportunity would not choose to put her few dollars into a pension plan with the expectation that her later years would be financially more secure? What right has any bureaucrat to dismiss arbitrarily or, indeed, what right has the government and the minister to pre-empt the right of choice of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are making as vital a contribution to this society as do women who work in the home? What right has the minister to pre-empt that choice?


James Aloysius McGrath: None, and they make a bigger contribution than most.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I realize that there may be difficulties in implementing such voluntary contributions. 1 am not denying that. Certainly inequities may arise, but difficulties and inequities should not stop us; rather, they should challenge us to get on with facing up to this question. Surely it is not beyond our capability to redress inequities should they arise. Ways can be found. This bill is an example of measures introduced to correct shortcomings of previous legislation. However, as we have seen so often, it falls far short of what it should be, because the government takes the easy way out. Rarely do we see substantive legislation which comes to grips directly with the existing structures of our society, even though principles to change such structures are reiterated time and again, as they were in last year's throne speech.
The minister, his department and his advisers are so bent on finding obstacles to measures which would accomplish a basic change that they fail to address themselves to the principles they themselves enunciate. There is always difficulty in implementing programs which would achieve the delicate balance of justice for society's members. But to accomplish something you must have the will to accomplish it, and what is evident in this series of housekeeping measures-measures which merely tinker with the structures we now have in place-is that this government lacks the political will to tackle a basic change. As a result of the assumption that it is too difficult to implement measures to make substantive changes which would allow for the equitable distribution of benefits, and because the government will not come to grips with this question, one-fifth of our population, or 4.5 million women who work in the home, are denied the opportunity of participating in a pension plan which the rest of society is accorded as its right because of the contribution it makes to the productivity of this country.


James Aloysius McGrath: To the eternal shame of the minister.
Canada Pension Plan


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I would like to remind the minister that doing housework is contributing to the productivity of the country. Recent studies commissioned by Statistics Canada were undertaken by economists at Queen's University. They were finished in May. Those studies estimate the value of housework to be in the vicinity of $60 billion, or over one-third of our gross national product. That is the value placed on work in the home. 1 do not mean to imply in my remakrs that because they do not have an opportunity to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan, women in the home are completely denied benefits under the program. Oh, yes, housewives do get payments. They get survivor benefits. But given the current payments under the plan, survivor benefits for a woman who has chosen to work in the home amount to $109 per month maximum. For her counterpart who has chosen to enter the so-called work force the pension would be $173 per month maximum, fully one-third more.
Let me assure the House that that difference of $66 a month is very important to the recipient. But even more important than the amount is the fact that the homemaker is denied the right to choose to be in the higher benefit range. That is the point I want the minister to recognize, to realize, because this is not the first time the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is also responsible for the status of women, has denied rights to a particular group of women.


James Aloysius McGrath: He should resign that responsibility forthwith.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Just to take the minister's mind back, in the legislation establishing the spouse's allowance we have the demeaning situation where the older spouse, generally the male, has to give his written consent before the younger spouse, the woman, can collect the spouse's allowance. Has the minister any idea of how degrading and demeaning this is to women? Does he have any idea what it means to women to be relegated to that second-class status? When will he come to a recognition that certain principles which reflect the self-worth of an individual are important because of what they mean in terms of human dignity and not merely in dollar terms?
A second point about this bill which concerns me greatly is the drop-out provision and its long-term financial implications. Questions have already been raised as to its actuarial soundness. They were raised by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), and I certainly share my colleague's reservations. But an equally important and overriding consideration is the potential for conflict this provision could cause among groups of women. Tensions could be created as a result of preferential treatment for different groups. The woman who drops out of the work force to raise children will have her Canada Pension Plan payments subsidized during those years. The woman who cannot afford to drop out of the work force for an extended period to raise children is denied such a beneficial subsidy.
However, the woman who chooses to work at home and raise
children receives no benefits at all as an individual. She is not
even given the right to participate in the plan. This is why I

July 8, 1977
Canada Pension Plan
contend that there is a certain insidious discrimination here which makes one group in particular seemingly inferior to others in that rights and benefits are denied them. Knowing that their contribution to the gross national product of this country is indeed significant-as I have stated, $60 billion is the figure which has been attached to it-we can only conclude that housewives are not inferior in contributing to our society, but only in receiving its benefits.
I acknowledge that Bill C-49 would make certain beneficial changes to the Canada Pension Plan, but it will not result in eliminating the major inequity in the plan-its major shortcoming-that of denying to certain individuals the right to contribute to the plan. Until the government faces up to that problem, until it summons enough courage to do so, we will continue to have in this country measures such as this bill which belittle the contribution of women who work in the home.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this subject largely because my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), had to be away from the House for very important reasons. It is not often that happens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Had he been here, he would certainly have spoken on this bill, as he has spoken on every question relating to pensions that has come up for more than a quarter of a century. We in the New Democratic Party naturally support the basic principles of the Canada Pension Plan. We look upon it as the only pension plan in this country which provides that a person who works is not penalized if and when he or she changes jobs or is laid off, as is the case with private pension plans. In virtually every industrial pension plan the worker who is laid off or who changes jobs suffers a very sharp penalty. He usually gets back only the money he put in, and very often without any interest it may have earned, and almost always does not get the matching contribution which the employer could have been paying into the plan.
The Canada Pension Plan is the only one in Canada that is universal and where the benefits are indexed. That is tremendously important. In recent years the cost of living has increased by 6 per cent to 10 per cent. A person who retires in 1977 may find, if it is not indexed, that by 1982 or 1987 his pension is not sufficient for his needs. Many people have pensions associated with their work, and until about a year ago they had reason to believe they could live their retirement in comparative comfort. The cost of living has gone up so rapidly, however, that if the amount of pension is fixed they often find they cannot even afford to continue living in the house that may have been their home for about 30 years.
A great campaign is being waged at the present time to convince the public that indexed pension plans such as the plan for the federal public service would bankrupt the country. In my opinion, this view is being put about by the insurance

companies. We do not believe it is true. We believe this country can afford to index pension plans, as has been done in Germany and Sweden where retiring workers draw something between 60 and 65 per cent of the best five years' earnings as pension. They are indexed either to the cost of living or to the average increase in industrial wages. This party proposed plans such as the Canada Pension Plan long before it was introduced, and of course we support any improvements the government can be persuaded to bring forward.
I have to say, on my own behalf, however, and as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said on second reading debate, that while the changes are headed in the right direction, they are of small importance. They will not greatly improve the benefits presently received by people who qualify. The amendments do not recognize the role of the spouse working in the home, nor do they provide any recognition or financial security for the spouse. The minister said he had looked at this question with a good deal of sympathy. He reminded us that the former member for Vancouver-Kings-way, Mrs. Maclnnis, always advocated this and said that in her later years he had come to doubt her position.
I am not very impressed with what the minister had to say about the Advisory Committee on the Canada Pension Plan. Mrs. June Menzies, vice-president of the Anti-Inflation Board, was formerly a member of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and was very vocal and active in matters relating to improvements in the status of women. That was all right as long as she did not have any authority. She said all the right things as long as she was just in an advisory position. But when she went to the Anti-Inflation Board, government policy and directives suddenly had a great deal to do with her decisions on improving the status of women.
At the Health Sciences Centre in Winnipeg a committee was established to look into discrimination against women employees. Management and the union were represented on this committee, which reported that women workers were being paid less per hour than men for doing exactly the same work. It recommended that the jobs be reclassified and the pay for women workers be increased. Union and management negotiated and reached an agreement which brought women much closer to pay equality with men than before. Where the increase in pay for the women was more than it was for the men, however, the Anti-Inflation Board rejected it. The union appealed to the board-after Mrs. Menzies became a member-and the board awarded the women an increase of 25 per cent or less than the union and management agreed upon.
In light of that decision, I do not have much faith in Mrs. Menzies or in the minister's belief in protecting the status of women. These organizations are composed almost exclusively of good Liberals who will not do anything to disturb the wishes of the government. When it comes to a choice of whom will they satisfy, the government or the women we are supposed to represent, I believe-as I think the evidence will prove-that 95 per cent of the time they will come down on the side of the government. So I do not pay too much attention to the
July 8, 1977

supposed views and studies of organizations such as the minister mentioned.
The bill, as we see it, does two things. It provides, in the event of a marriage breakdown, where the marriage has lasted three years or more, that the combined assets of the couple can be split between the parties 50-50. We think it is a good move and support it. The bill also makes a slight change with respect to women contributors. It provides that if a person has been a contributor but stays home a few years to raise children, provided the children are not over the age of seven those years can be dropped from the number of years involved in the calculation of personal retirement benefits-in this case they would usually be payable to a woman-at age 65.
I said earlier these two changes are small in their effect. Because the bill does nothing for women who do not work after marriage but devote their time to bringing up children, it is not overly significant. All our pension legislation, with the exception of the old age security pension legislation, provides for payments to women only in as far as a woman has been married to a man who qualified for a pension under legislation providing for veterans' pensions, CNR pensions, public service pensions or the Canada Pension Plan. There is no provision for paying benefits to women who stay at home, raise children and look after the household. This bill does not recognize their contribution. We think it is wrong. The rationale behind this shortcoming is that the Canada Pension Plan is an employment-related pension plan. We think the minister's statement given earlier today is based on too narrow, too restrictive and too legalistic thinking.
Let me repeat what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested on second reading of this bill. The hon. member suggested we should provide that every person between the ages which apply in the Canada Pension Plan, namely, the 47-year period between the ages of 18 and 65, who is not employed and not contributing to the Canada Pension Plan should get a certain percentage of credit toward a supplement to his old age security pension, a certain percentage for each year he is not a CPP contributor. Although a specific percentage perhaps is not too important at this time, my colleague suggested that in principle we should think about a 2 per cent per year contribution up to a maximum of 40 years. That would allow a woman to get about 80 per cent of what the Canada Pension Plan pays to those who contributed. If we were to do that, when the couple retires the husband could look forward to receiving the Canada Pension Plan benefits to which he contributed, and old age security, and the wife could look forward to the old age security payment and about 80 per cent of the Canada Pension Plan.
We are going to support the bill, but think the minister needs some new advisers who will be a good deal more innovative and adventuresome in their thinking than his present advisers.
Canada Pension Plan


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I must advise hon. members that if the Chair recognizes the minister, he will automatically close debate on the bill. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for the contributions made on behalf of their own parties on this subject. I think all in this House recognize the important contributions housewives make to society. The Statistics Canada study on the subject was designed to show the major contribution which housewives doing voluntary or unpaid work in the home make to our gross national product.
We must stress one point. The Canada Pension Plan has nothing to do with meritorious or non-meritorious work. It is related to the salaries and wages people are paid. The plan operates on the basis of the actual wages or salaries paid, not on the quality or type of work done. The legislation does not give people the right to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan. It creates the obligation to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan. People have no choice except to pay a certain amount of their salary, as determined by law, into the Canada Pension Plan fund.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) raised certain arguments concerning the right to contribute to the plan, but never concentrated on the other aspect of the argument, namely, what is the real nature of the plan? I suggest that aspect should be examined carefully. The hon. member also mentioned the spouse's allowance. 1 stress that this question relates to whichever spouse is the older. The reason for written consent is that the person who has a direct and full right to an old age security pension could see his or her pension reduced by the amount paid by way of spouse's allowance. It is normal, in such circumstances, for the spouse over age 65 to give written consent for a possible reduction of the pension to which that spouse would otherwise be entitled.
I regret that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) should have expressed his unfavourable views about the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. My only comment would be this: if he cannot trust the independent advice of such a body, I wonder if he would even trust the advice of provincial governments of his own political persuasion. As I said this morning, not a single provincial government is willing to propose or support the principle of voluntary contributions with regard to spouses at home. The government of Ontario so far has opposed even the relatively small proposed change with regard to spouses who stay home to look after children. One cannot doubt what their reaction would be to the kinds of proposals and ideas expressed this afternoon. The question of remuneration of spouses at home and their rights to contribute to various schemes raises certain difficulties. The question has been studied extensively by various bodies. Perhaps the question cannot be resolved aptly by use of the Canada Pension Plan, but it may require some other mechanism for its solution.

July 8, 1977
Employment and Immigration
I repeat, the Canada Pension Plan is an earnings-related program and has nothing to do with the kind of work a person does. Having said that, 1 thank the House for having considered this bill, and its promise to support it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House prepared to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed and bill read the third time and passed.


EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION REORGANIZATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, July 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cullen that Bill C-27, to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be read the third time and do pass; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Peters.
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this debate to support the motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). He correctly pointed out that instead of attacking the unemployed in Canada, as this legislation does in a very discriminatory and unfair way, the government should be bringing forward measures to create job opportunities for Canadians. We find this a totally convincing example of the insensitive nature of this government.
In speaking to the motion for a six months' hoist, not only do we say that jobs ought to be created instead of attacking the unemployed, but we can provide, in the example I am going to give, very specific information about how, within the government's own operations right now, it should be providing significant increases in employment for Canadians. In so doing, I want to address myself to the concerns of the automotive industry, that sector of the Canadian economy which employs over 100,000 Canadians. That sector has been virtually ignored by this government since 1965. Since I came here in 1968 there have been three ministers of industry, trade and commerce. They have not made the effort they ought to have made to create more jobs for Canadians by improving that agreement.

I remind the House that that agreement came into being in 1965 as a result of continuing balance of payments problems that existed between Canada and the United States. We were losing billions of dollars cumulatively, hundreds of millions of dollars annually, in trade with the United States in the automotive sector. Ironically, the proposal of the Canadian government at that time was to set up what became subsequently for the Americans their DISC program. We were going to establish that in 1965 as a way of extricating ourselves from this serious problem. Understandably, the Americans objected. A series of negotiations took place. The result was the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement of 1965.
I want to quote from clause 1 of the agreement. I notice the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) is in the chamber. This matter ought to concern him. Clause 1 of that agreement is very relevant to the kind of concerns that we now have in this House-namely, jobs. It states that the purpose of the agreement was for each country "to participate on a fair and equitable basis in the expanding total market of the two countries". We were supposed to get real and substantial benefits. As a result of this agreement, the Americans have tariff-free access to the Canadian market. One of the consequences of this was supposed to have been a substantial reduction in the price of cars to Canadian consumers. I will get to that in a few minutes. Another major consequence was supposed to be a real increase in employment opportunities for men and women in Canada. That, too, was to follow from the agreement.
That pact has been in existence for more than the nine years that I have been here as a member of parliament. After being elected to this place, representing an automotive constituency I spent some time looking at the pact. I made some criticisms to the then minister of industry, trade and commerce, the hon. Jean-Luc Pepin, who interestingly enough has taken on other errand-boy tasks for the government. I pointed out to his successor, now the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), and the present minister some very serious problems in the implementation of the auto pact as it affects the Canadian economy, the Canadian consumer and the Canadian worker.
All of this has been documented by a study, not by the NDP research staff, some trade union in Canada or some source whose credentials the government might question, but by a special task force from within the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. What have we learned? That study was tabled in the House about a week ago. It points out that there are serious problems in the parts sector of the Canadian industry, in investment patterns, in research and development, and last but not least it singled out very serious injustices being done to Canadian consumers who are paying millions of dollars a year, cumulatively, more for cars than they ought to be paying.
I want to deal with some of these points in series. First, employment, which is our paramount concern in this House right now, at least on the opposition side and certainly for Canadians whether they live on the east coast, on the prairies
July 8, 1977

or in the west. What has happened in this industry which now employs in excess of 100,000 Canadians and could be employing 20,000 to 25,000 more if we were getting what we should be getting out of the agreement? Between 1964 and 1973, according to the government's own figures, production in Canada in this industry increased by 77 per cent. During the same period, jobs increased by only 30 per cent. Production went up considerably. Employment did not go up nearly as rapidly.
There is one obvious explanation for a good part of this gap. There was a rationalization of the production lines on the Canadian side of the industry. For example, instead of producing 13 or 14 models on the assembly line in my home town of Oshawa, this was reduced to two, three or four lines. That increased efficiency considerably. It meant we could produce more, not only in Oshawa, Oakville, Windsor and other automotive assembly plant locations in southern Ontario, but also in Ste. Therese, Quebec. We could produce more cars, in a more simplified fashion, at lower cost.


Walter David Baker: Where was your Monza made?


John Edward Broadbent: My Monza is a good Canadian-made car, made in that fine province of Quebec. Although improved efficiency of the Canadian operation accounts for part of the gap which exists between a 77 per cent increase in production and only a 30 per cent in employment, it cannot account for all of it. There have to be other reasons. I note, in passing, that during the same period, U.S. production increased by only 10 per cent while employment went up by 13 per cent. Whereas in Canada production increased at a much higher rate than the level of job creation, in the United States it was the opposite: the U.S. had a lower increase in production but a higher increase in jobs. It is jobs that ought to concern us. The minister responsible must find out why, on a comparative basis, more new jobs exist in relation to increases in production in the United States than in Canada.
I want to turn to the parts sector, which in one sense is the essence of this industry. Since 1964 we have experienced a net deficit in trade with the United States of $16 billion-not thousands, or millions, but billions of dollars in trade and automotive parts.
In 1975, Canadian consumers used some 12 per cent of all the north American automobile parts manufactured on this continent, but we produced only some 7 per cent of them. So we are producing about 5 per cent less than we are consuming. The reason is that since 1965, 80 per cent of the investment in the parts industry in North America has occurred on the American side. The point is, investment is what creates jobs, and as long as they are getting 80 per cent and we are getting only 14 per cent, the Americans are getting the jobs, not us.
The idea behind the pact was that both countries were to
share, on an equitable basis, in future growth in the industry. I
emphasize that this has not taken place in the parts sector. The
Employment and Immigration
American plants have the growth; the Canadians have not. If we had been getting our share of investment, it would have meant thousands of additional jobs for Canadians in Windsor, in St. Thomas, in London, in Oakville, in Kitchener, in Ste. Therese, Quebec, in St. Catharines, in Oshawa, and elsewhere. Thousands of additional jobs would exist if the government had been doing what it ought to have been doing in the past ten years, that is, monitoring the effects of this pact in a serious way. But it has neglected to do this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The other aspect of the agreement which concerns us all comes under the label of "three p's"-prices, products and productivity. I am glad the Minister of Finance is here. One of the arguments he trots out time and time again to justify the controls program he brought in is that Canadian productivity has never been as high as that of our American friends. It is interesting that we have never brought down a sector by sector breakdown of this suggestion. I suspect I know why. It is because if he did, the figures would not support his case.
We have them now for the automobile sector, however. Look at the products structure of the industry. I think this is scandalous in terms of what the pact was supposed to do for the Canadian consumer. Ninety per cent of Canadian families own automobiles, and 100 per cent of those families are being gypped under this pact because they are paying too much for their cars. What are the figures? This is the first time they have been available to us. I intend to compare the profits of the Big Four auto makers in Canada with the profits they make in the United States. The period is from 1971 to 1975. Let us start with a small company, General Motors, that pygmy among corporations. Their return on capital investment in the United States in this period was 8.9 per cent. In Canada, it was 11.1 per cent. Ford made 5.1 per cent in the United States, but in Canada it was making 12.7 per cent. Chrysler was making 1 per cent in the United States, but 6.2 per cent in Canada. American Motors made 4 per cent in the U.S., but 8.2 per cent in Canada. In every case, the Big Four in the auto business were almost doubling their profit margins on operations in Canada compared with what they were making in the United States. That situation is, surely, scandalous.
Related to this is the issue of productivity which I have just mentioned. The minister and his colleagues frequently sound gleeful as they point out that Canadian workers are less productive than are our American friends. The reality is just the opposite. They are more productive. Let me put on record, for the benefit of the Minister of Finance, comparative productivity figures as between Canadian and United States workers in the automotive industry. In 1967, two years after the pact came into being, Canadian workers were only 95 per cent as productive as Americans. But from 1965 on the picture changed completely. In 1968 the Canadian figure was 117 per cent. In 1969 it was 129 per cent. In 1970 it was 131 per cent. In 1971 it was 128 per cent. In 1972 it was 115 per cent. In

July 8, 1977
Employment and Immigration
1973, the last year for which we have figures, it was 110 per cent. The picture is clear: Canadian workers are producing more than the Americans in terms of unit hours worked.
Despite this, the automobile industry, as I have pointed out, is making almost double the rate of profit in Canada as it is making in the United States. Does the improved productivity north of the border find a reflection in cheaper cars for Canadians? If we accept the conventional argument which the Minister of Finance used to make, the conclusion ought to be that Canadians should be paying perhaps $200 less per car than our American neighbours. What is the reality? The reality is, as every Canadian knows, that we are paying anywhere from $300 to $2,000 more for a car made in Canada and sold, say, in Toronto, than is paid for the same car sold in Buffalo, New York.
This is another scandal in terms of the economic consequences of the auto pact. People who work in automobile communities know very well what the situation is. As cars come down the assembly line, you see two red Chevy Impalas coming down the line. One has a sticker on it saying it is being sent to Saskatoon. The other, an identical car, is being sent to Buffalo, New York. For some reason, the price tag on the car going to Saskatoon is several hundred dollars higher than that attached to the car which is being sent to the United States- and I am allowing for the difference in tax. There is no justification for this situation. If any sort of logical economic reasoning were applied, Canadians would be getting their cars cheaper than their American friends. Instead, they are paying hundreds of dollars more. This has got to change.
The other point I want to make relates directly to jobs in research and development. Right now, not only in North America but around the world, billions of dollars are being spent on research and development, particularly in order to develop more efficient engines which consume less fuel. This is a long overdue development. As I say, billions of dollars are going into research and development, directly affecting job creation. Some $2 billion is being spent currently by the Big Four in the United States. How much is being spent in Canada? Virtually nothing. The report which was sent out by the minister's own department tells us-these are not the precise words-that virtually nothing is being spent on research in Canada. The fact of the matter is that Canada has become almost entirely a nation of automotive assemblers as far as this industry is concerned. We carry out practically no research. I wish to quote from the minister's own report:
An important consequence of this concentration of development effort is that the U.S. has experienced most of the direct benefits which flow from this form of activity.
Not only do Americans gain the primary jobs when companies are hiring men and women scientists for research and development work in the industry, but the spin-off benefits of the work done, which have an impact on many sectors of the economy, accrue to the United States, not to Canada. So again this means a significant loss of potential jobs.

I come immediately to make some recommendations regarding what can be done to improve the situation and ensure that Canadians, particularly in the context of employment, get some benefit from the auto pact. First of all, in order to protect the parts industry, which has been losing billions of dollars annually in terms of trade deficit, major modification of the pact is required. We have to change one of the safeguards in the pact, which is probably the best approach, to ensure that a certain percentage of cars produced on the Canadian side of the border are constructed of Canadian parts. Or if the parts industry in Canada is to grow at the rate it ought, we should ensure that a certain percentage of the parts used in cars made on either side of the border comes specifically from Canada. What we need is some protective mechanism to ensure that the parts industry remains viable.
This is important in regard to jobs to be provided in the early future as well as for the future of the industry itself. If we do not protect the parts industry and it continues to dwindle in size, then ten years down the road the United States will have us over an economic barrel. If all that we have are assembly plant operations, the Americans will say it is too bad, we should scrap the pact. They will say "All that you Canadians have are assembly plant operations; the essence of the industry is located in the United States, which is where the parts are, so we have you just where we want you". I do not have what I regard as an empty-headed, anti-American bias, and I am not saying that the Americans will inevitably say that. But I am saying that in terms of Canadian interests we must not create a situation in Canada where, if we do become involved in hard-headed bargaining in the years ahead regarding the future of the industry, we could find ourselves without any parts sector.
We must also make it a provision of the pact that a certain percentage of the annual investment in research and development on the part of the big four is spent on the Canadian side of the border. So far as consumers are concerned-I see the Minister of Finance is in the Chamber-the Government of Canada should be saying to the big four, either next week or at the end of the month, that, with the 1978 model year, prices to Canadian consumers of Canadian produced cars must not be one cent higher than the price charged for the same cars in the United States. It is time that the Canadian government had enough gumption to call in the directors of the big four in Canada and to tell them it is time to put up or shut up. For ten years they have been promising a reduction in price. It is time that we got it, and it should begin with the 1978 model year.
In view of the cumulative deficits which are being experienced in automotive trade between Canada and the United States, we are now almost back to the situation we were in prior to the pact coming into force in 1965. Last year we had a net deficit of over $1 billion. In terms of our balance of trade figures, impact on the Canadian dollar, and loss of jobs, we need a more comprehensive and systematic review of the pact as a whole. There have been some positive benefits from the pact, and anyone who denies it would be crazy; but there are also a number of severe liabilities in it for Canada,
July 8, 1977

and if it is to continue there must be a systematic and comprehensive revision of the pact in Canada's interests.
[ Translation]


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment situation in Canada in general, and in my area in particular, affects the people concerned so severely that I consider it my duty to speak again at this stage of the debate in view of the numerous representations which have been made to the Manpower and Immigration Committee by various representative organizations, many of which have pointed out the serious consequences of the legislation we are now debating.
It is inconceivable that Bill C-27 might be adopted without major amendments to its various clauses. I support without hesitation the proposal to postpone the passage of this bill and refer it for further study so that we may eventually come out with effective legislation which will improve the distressing unemployment situation prevailing at present. Unemployed workers are said to be living off the backs of those who are fortunate enough to have a remunerative job. As far as I am concerned, those who live at the expense of workers in our society are rather those who exploit them. Unemployed people are entitled to benefits; they are not a present from the government. They are also entitled to objective and honest information.
There is no reason why the unemployed should be penalized for the least omission. There is a penalty when the employee quits his job on his own, even though he has been exploited and has suffered inhuman working conditions. They will not further inquire, they only take the employer's statement. There is a penalty when the unemployed do not actively seek a job, even if there is not one available and if 30 per cent of the labour force is idle. As I said before, I believe, rules on searching for employment seem to have been inspired by an old Burmese saying that there is no gold in every rock but there is no harm in looking for it. So the officials say look for a job even if there is not one. Can you imagine! There must be something wrong with the legislation if civil servants feel compelled to issue such instructions to the unemployed.
And just to give you an idea of the situation, I am going to point out evidence of searches for non existent jobs. We know that for some time now senior officials of the commission have most probably given directives to their employees. They will not tell us about it but we can read between lines that claimants are expected to scout around for a job. I do not object to officials of the commission suggesting to the unemployed means of securing a job. However, let us not exaggerate. We have to consider the various factors involved. First, the local unemployment rate, second, the number of industries likely to require labour, third, the time of the year, as it may affect workers in forestry, agriculture, fishery, and other seasonal industries, finally, and this is a very important factor, the working and wage conditions prevailing at the places to which a worker is directed, the cost of moving, and the expected
Employment and Immigration
duration of employment: all these aspects must be checked over by people who are well aware of the working conditions prevailing in the place suggested to the applicant. We are well aware that as a result of these guidelines the unemployed had to seek jobs in an area where manpower did not have an available job. I wonder what is the use of those centres. Yet, they are supposed to provide whatever information is available. With thousands of job vacancies on file which cannot be filled by the unemployed, with the people in the area coming to see them fairly regularly to see if they have anything interesting to offer them, why then force a man who is without a job and without income, except for unemployment insurance benefits, to spend money on taxis to scout around for a job in neighbouring villages, 15, 20 or 25 miles away from home. For him to look around in his own community is not good enough. He is told: You limit your availability to your own area. But if within a radius of 25, 30 or 50 miles, covered by manpower districts, jobs cannot be found, why require the unemployed to spend what little money he gets from unemployment benefits to remain entitled to them?
Those bureaucratic requirements do not solve the problem of unemployment but rather help to exhaust the patience of the employers who have too many workers, and that of the jobless who cannot find work. I know a lot of employers back home. Some of them have written a special letter to be given the fellow when he shows up. They just date the letter and sign their names to it. They say: We have no work. Yet, the commission forces the fellow to go to the office. Then we are told: The commission does not oblige you to find work but only to look for some. Can you imagine anything like that! Have the fellow spend money looking for work that simply does not exist at some times of the year. As I said before, you have to hold a middle course between the two extremes, then have reasonable requirements. I shall give you a few examples to give you an idea of the situation.
I have here the case of a well-intentioned 19 year old whom I know very well from St. Pascal de Kamouraska who has been unemployed for several months. He would work occasionally. He would manage to find a job for two or three days and mention the wages he earned on his weekly reports. Some weeks he would not find anything at all. He was regularly pestered by commission officers: There is a mistake here, you forgot to mark this, you forgot to mark that. His parents had made a lot of sacrifices to get him educated. On October 27, that young man tired of the Unemployment Insurance Commission monkey business joined the army. At that point he practically had no other choice.
I have here a young girl, well educated, coming out of school with a good secretarial course with typing and shorthand. She made many contacts. I have a whole page here. She applied for a job at 50 to 60 places. She did not find any. She adds at the end of her letter that she contacted the Unemployment Insurance Commission, Quebec Hydro, Bell Telephone, the Canada Manpower Centre, the Unemployment Insurance office in Riviere-du-Loup, the Manpower Centre in Quebec City, Cabano, the Quebec social services centre, as well as Riviere-

July 8, 1977
Employment and Immigration
du-Loup, where Mr. Jean-Rock Larochelle, officer Belanger- she mentions all that here and then concludes her letter by saying:
I would have another 20 names to mention, but having already taken enough of your time, I will stop here. It is almost discouraging to go over all those addresses without any prospect of work yet.
So, with all those facts, the executive management of the Unemployment Insurance Commission is still forcing public servants administering local offices to make people spend money to look for work. I have another case here. An ambitious young man wanted to work at any cost. He had already paid us several visits. I told him: My boy, one way perhaps to wake up a couple of them would be to write the Minister of Labour in Ottawa. Contact the Quebec minister and various government officials. We are going to see their response. Here it is.
Someone, a senior official in the Riviere-du-Loup Manpower Centre, sent him the following reply:
The recruiting of workers for this project-
He wanted to work in the James Bay area.
-has been referred to us for a reply.
Workers for this project are recruited through the Quebec manpower centres and not our Department. We therefore suggest that you communicate with the Cabano office, where you will obtain all the required information.
This man was writing to the Director of Manpower, and he was writing directly to the then minister of manpower (Mr. Andras), and this is the reply that he received:
Mr. Robert Andras, Minister of Manpower and Immigration, has asked me to reply to your letter. I am sure that you will understand that it is your own Canada Manpower Centre which is in the best position to help you. It is only at CMC that you will find people able to advise and help you.
The letter closes in saying:
I strongly advise you to remain in close contact with your Canada Manpower Centre in Riviere-du-Loup. The Manager has assured me that he and his staff will do everything possible to help you, and I hope that their efforts will soon bring positive results.
He was in regular contact with the people of the Riviere-du-Loup-Montmagny-Cabano Manpower Centre.
Here is another letter. This again was written in the hope of getting work in the James Bay area. The reply was as follows:
You can rest assured, sir, that we are giving very particular attention to your case and that we shall communicate with you as soon as a position that could interest you becomes open.
This letter was signed by Yvon Bergeron, Recruiting Coordinator for the James Bay Development.
I have another one here which has been sent directly by the Department of Labour in Ottawa and it is signed by an executive assistant. That man wanted to work at the James Bay project, in Labrador or any other place, he had no definite choice. He was readily available. He was prepared to go any place in this country to find a job. Here is the answer:
As this subject is under the responsibility of the Minister of Labour and Immigration, the Hon. Robert Andras. I took the initiative of forwarding your letter to his office so it will receive appropriate attention. I am convinced that they will communicate with you within a short time.

I have here another answer from Mr. Boucher, manpower consultant. That letter has been sent from Riviere-du-Loup and it says:
However we will keep your request in our records and communicate with you if we hear of a suitable job opportunity ...
1 could read you similar letters for 20 minutes. I will not do it because I have many other things to tell you today. But I wanted to give you an idea about this matter, which I would call the job seeking nonsense at times when there is no employment or almost none in the area. Why compel the unemployed to spend money on taxis when he does not even have enough to begin with, just so he can get a written statement from an employer he has visited? That does not make any sense. Does Bill C-27 now being debated contain clauses with a view to preventing that kind of nonsense? The administrators of the unemployment insurance have no such guidelines, so it is a free-for-all.
I understand that and I will not criticize the civil servant of my region or any other for that matter. I have letters from just about everywhere. I have read some from the Bay of Chaleurs. I have one sent from Manitoba by a young woman, originally from Kamouraska. She was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits because she had left her job as a secretary for the Department of National Health in an area where there was a lot of work, to find employment in Manitoba, where it was said that work was not easily available. They did not want to pay. Yet they ended up paying and on top of that the computer which usually gives so much trouble to the unemployed had been helpful to this young woman in this instance because the commission has paid the weekly reports that had been submitted. The commission had granted her a period of 15 weeks for rehabilitation and all the reports she had submitted had been requested after the amounts were paid, but she never paid it because she had no reason to do so.
I contacted the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Manitoba and all the correspondence had been written in English. They did not want it to be brought up before a board of referees because the director, a certain Mr. Boult from Edmonton, had acknowledged that he would have to admit he had corresponded in English, a thing for which he apologized, by t'ne way. So you have an example of what happens. And that in my opinion, is taking place all across Canada.
1 am well aware of the problems of the area covered by the offices of Levis, Riviere-du-Loup and Quebec City.
It happens very often that I have business there, on behalf of employees in the Portneuf area or elsewhere. 1 have an illustration here. I will not mention the name, because I am somewhat sorry for the gentleman. I am told he is ineligible. He is rather old, and he lived in Tourville, Ste. Perpetue, St. Pamphile. Those are the three villages around his home. I am told he is ineligible for an indefinite period starting from October 31, because it has been established he was not ready and available for work. We have hundreds of those letters.
July 8, 1977

I have here four workers in my area of Mont-Carmel, Messrs. Roland Drapeau, Jacques Desjardins, Rene Levesque, Serge Levesque, and also Maurice Gagnon. The commission wanted them to go to the north shore, even though they live in Mont-Carmel. They had worked on the north shore before, where they had paid contributions. Circumstances are favourable sometimes to go to the north shore, so they had done so as I did myself when I was a lumberjack. So those five workers made the trip, only to find there were five feet of snow. So they all came back. The money was spent for nothing. It happened, although I am not saying it does too often. Sometimes the bureaucrats have a better understanding of their responsibilities.
We see the results of inquiries, the way they are done. I know some inspectors. They tell me they are paid to do exactly that, and if they don't they can be fired. So they ask all sorts of questions of the unemployed, who don't know much about the statute. They try to trap them. It is an easy job for anybody who is very familiar or simply conversant with that unstraightforward act. There are a lot of ways to get answers under which the assumption can be made that things may have happened in such and such a way. So the inspector helped inflict setbacks. I have the report here. It is astounding indeed to see what happens. It is another way of telling people that all this in the act, which is too complicated.
Some ministers have already told me that they will try to streamline this complex legislation, which is even worse than the one before us. I wonder how this will be possible because there will be tremendous delays and thousands of workers will suffer as a result of a poorly worded legislation. For instance, when they run out of arguments and because there is a mistake in his weekly reports, the unemployed will be told that his claim is in a dormant file-since we do have dormant files, and I believe many public servants are in a dormant state as well, which is unfortunate, because the unemployed, who live at the end of the row in some concession or whatever, right in the middle of a village but several miles away from the Commission's office, have no other income. Some of them are married and have two or three dependents for whom they must provide food and shelter. They are going to get all kinds of silly answers, such as dormant files, technical mistakes, such or such incident which occurred in the payment centre in Montreal.
We have already requested on several occasions-and I was not the only one to make that request-that payments be made through district offices, which would be possible, I believe, and it would be more convenient for those people who are living not too far from the office. However, everything is centralized in Montreal, because-and I will have the opportunity to deal with this subject later-in the back of their minds some people figured that this centralization at the same time would allow officers of National Revenue to deduct the amount of tax deemed deductible so as to better control, later on, the matter of insurability, employment opportunities and so on. They have available numbers and addresses-but I shall deal with the matter later on.
Employment and Immigration
Here is another case of administrative difficulty, that of Mr. Martin of Riviere-Ouelle. His weekly reports came in late, his parents forwarded them to him in Alma, where he had gone to find employment near Lac Saint-Jean. From there, Mr. Martin sent them back to the commission. When commission officers received the reports from Alma, they managed to bungle things. They sent a letter to the claimant asking him to account for the periods he had been away from his area, instead of paying him then what was due to him; there was a delay of one month and a half in the payment of his benefits.
Now, I wonder, why complicate life for people like that.
A further example of confusion: a benefit period established from October 13, 1976, ineligibility from November 20, ineligibility ended on November 29. Now what happens? They realize that the claimant is ineligible on November 20 and on November 29, they say that he is no longer ineligible. Why not take the time to look into the matter before making such decisions?
I have here a letter which I found rather amusing and I would like to read part of it into Hansard. A lady is writing to me because she cannot obtain the information she wants. You can judge by yourself. She writes: I inquired at the Riviere-du-Loup office and they replied the first time that the postal strike had delayed the mail. The second time it was the storm. The third time it was the Christmas holiday, and yesterday the New Year's holiday. I am getting impatient, I am entitled to my unemployment insurance. I paid my contributions and I want my benefits. I was going to see a lawyer when someone advised me to write to you.
That is why I have this letter before me now. I understand the problem was finally resolved, but the lady had to wait far too long. It does not make sense to have a claimant wait so long for benefits she is entitled to. According to some officials, the unemployed should listen to the radio and look for job opportunities in papers. If the unemployed moves, there is a penalty, he has to pay for the moving. As you can see, the unemployed pay themselves for the operation of unemployment offices. And in addition to mistakes and delays, some officials have the gall to try and make them pay twice.
And that is not difficult to prove: I am going to do just that right now. The unemployed are stricken by the hundreds from the rolls of the unemployment insurance offices for all sorts of insignificant reasons which result from the administration of unduly complicated legislation and regulations which in no way meet the needs of a great many of the unemployed who are faced with the problem of an extended period of unemployment.
I have hundreds of examples of unemployed people who are the victims of red tape, because the legislation and regulations have been drafted by officials who have never been unemployed or faced with the difficulties of unemployment. I am going to tell you the various ways these guys are taken advantage of: Insurable employment. Let us consider this for a while and see what happens. A person is working in a plant.

July 8, 1977
Employment and Immigration
The owner of the plant keeps part of his salary as dues to the various plans, whether it be unemployment insurance premiums, income tax, the Quebec Pension Plan, and just about everything which is deducted from pay cheques nowadays. Then, when things slow down in the industry, a number of people are laid off and compelled to apply for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Commission pays during three, four, five or six months. But one day the commission sends an inspector-probably more thickheaded than others; in his own way he asks a series of questions to both employer and employees and then the commission decides that those jobs are not insurable. And the workers are told: It is unfortunate but the job you had was not insurable. The income tax people then inform them of their decision. It does not take long. They are told: Your job is not insurable.
Obviously, they were already paid benefits. Then the Unemployment Insurance Commission claims amounts depending on how long the person was unemployed. What can the person do? Those workers go and see their representatives, a lawyer of the legal assistance office or anyone to find a solution. I have here a case which was submitted to me-I took only one, but I have fifteen, a whole list before me-which I will submit to you. Seven seamstresses were working at home. Why were they working at home? It is easy to understand and the judge of the federal court understood very quickly. It was because the owner had set up a sewing shop employing around fifteen persons. It was an old house he had converted into a shop. There was enough room for five or six women to work there. So he had divided the job between those women who wanted to work at home.
It was a kind of production line: one woman would make shirt sleeves, another one the front and a third one the back; then all these pieces were sent to the manufacturer to be assembled. So, various claims up to $1,500 were made to the commission regarding these claimants, dating back to 1974. It took three years before we were able to bring this case before the Federal court. Fortunately we were able to meet the former ombudsman, Justice Marceau, who understood very quickly what the situation was. I have the decision here. The Crown attorney tried to explain that these positions were not of the kind that could be covered by unemployment insurance, using a lot of previous decisions to prove his point. The employer was there. What happened then? First, the women who were working at home have been incessantly bothered by UIC officials asking them to reimburse benefits that, according to them, had been overpaid.
Moreover, one of these women-I could name her, for I have her name here-had worked for another employer and when she became unemployed again, she submitted a claim to the UIC, but with the benefits she was once more entitled to get the UIC officials tried to reimburse what they considered as overpayment for 1974.
From 1974 to 1977 those employees went on working, but they stopped paying unemployment insurance contributions and their employer said: I am looking forward to the day when this case will be settled. A good many employers could have

deducted unemployment insurance contributions, and the court case heard on March 24 finally put an end to all this nonsense. I have heard of 20 or 22 similar cases. In Riviere-du-Loup, on May 20 I believe, a Monday anyway, I was before the judge at the federal court and I met the former minister of public works, Mr. Justice Dube, who is a federal court judge and whom I was very pleased to meet. There were two cases: one was about a man who had worked during the summer for his father, harvesting and doing farm work. His father was a lumber dealer, selling and transporting lumber. It was perfectly insurable employment, but the commission blocked it all. There was another worker from Saint-Jean-de-Dieu, not from my riding this time, but it often happens that people from another riding close to mine tell me about their problems. In that case, the employment was not insurable. He was a carpenter who was repairing the house of a farmer, a very ordinary house as all farmers have in our country, but this was not an insurable employment. Four weeks of non-insurable work, while he had already a number of insurable weeks, but as he was three weeks short these four weeks were not insurable and he was not eligible for benefits.
There are all kinds of tricks, all kinds of gimmicks, as I said earlier, and I could show you that very few unemployed people cheat. Of course there is the odd one because our legislation is full of loopholes, but most cheaters in the entire administration of the unemployment insurance are not those people. If they exist it is because the law has many gaps and allows bureaucrats to withhold benefits which are payable to unemployed people in a fix. It is the way I see our law and I challenge anyone to tell me otherwise because I can support my views with plenty of evidence I can produce any time to show that it is the way things happen.
I know another case which will show you the deficiency of this legislation. I know a man who has worked for 15 years for the same employer and who still works at the same place. Nevertheless, in 1975 he was told that his job was not insurable. He operates a tree-harvester in the bush. We went though a lot of proceedings. It is now in court and I do not know when the hearing will take place, but they seem to be a little faster these days. I was told once they were short of staff, but I suppose that with the very high rate of unemployment in Canada, there are also some unemployed professionals. They have hired some additional staff, because it seems to go a little faster now. That man had been working for 15 years at the same job which had always been considered insurable. In 1975, he made his application as usual. In winter time he is unemployed, as he is a bushworker. After the New Year, there is a period when there is not much to do in the bush, so he lives on unemployment benefits. After a while he was told: This job is not insurable. Then the income tax officials came into this. They like to protect the funds, everybody knows them, they try to get as much as they can, so the job was not insurable. The Commission asked for a refund for excess payment. The man said: 1 cannot pay that; I am unemployed. When I am working again, I will attend to that. He told me about it. I contended to the Commission that it was an insurable job. Then they went
July 8, 1977

through the red tape as slowly as ever. The following year, he took the same job, with the same employer. 1 have all the information here in front of me. We will have a good laugh in the federal court. The following year he submitted his application, the Commission officials accepted it and paid the benefits. They paid, but they paid in a funny way. They declared he was eligible for benefits, but they withheld the cheques he was entitled to, for the refund of the excess payment they had made the preceding year. Elave you ever heard of such inconsistency? I have at hand a letter from the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin). We wrote the minister to find out if those jobs were insurable or not. This is her answer, I have it here. 1 have sent it to them in Riviere-du-Loup. I brought it recently to the attention of the umpire's registrar but they keep collecting though. The amount has been decreased a little: they collected $1 a week for three months. Imagine! How foolish it is, for the principle's sake, to collect from him $1 a week when there is still $570 to collect; they will not collect it because they do not have the right to do so. Then they will have to give him back what has been collected, that is for sure.
Here is what the Minister of National Revenue wrote on April 29:
I thank you for your letter dated February 26, which has been referred to me by the President of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The interest you are showing for the insurability problem of the workers specialized in logging operations is appreciated. Interpretations have been issued by some employers in 1976 to the effect that tree harvester operators did not have an insurable job because they were not hired under a hiring contract as required by Section 3 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. However, having considered additional information subsequently provided by these firms, my officials reversed their previous interpretations. As a result, the Unemployment Insurance Commission has been advised of this new decision, and I am confident that these workers will recover their entitlement in a very near future. I hope that this information will enable you to give a satisfactory answer to your constituents, and I regret any inconvenience they had to bear.
Just imagine! The Commission guys keep trying to collect from my man here, Charles-Emile Lagace. They do not understand. They and the income tax people are going to tell me, as I said on the phone this week, that this is a decision from the minister. Yes. This may mean something but the act is there and civil servants proceed according to the provisions therein. Have you ever heard anything so crazy? The Minister of National Revenue and the bureaucrats under his authority admitted themselves they had made an error of interpretation and that everything would soon be corrected, but it has not been yet.
What does Bill C-27 provide to correct such nonsense? Nothing. That is why I am against it. And I am even very surprised that there are not more opponents. 1 commend my friends of the NDP who seem to grasp the situation and are
Employment and Immigration
making tremendous efforts to persuade the government that this bill should be modified. But I am surprised indeed that there are so few others like them. I guess this can be attributed to the general desire for our summer recess. Indeed, some are dying for a vacation, but that does not mean we must let a bill through that is going to do so much harm to a great number of unemployed workers.
1 have here another case. It is about a 63 years old fellow. I know him very well. He had the misfortune to be ill and after undergoing the necessary treatment, he submitted a claim for sickness benefits. He received his 15 weeks allowances. And after he had recovered, he applied for regular benefits. He was told that he needed a medical certificate stating that he had actually recovered. Therefore, he went to see his doctor. Doctors are getting tired of filling in all these Commission's forms.
If you were aware of some of the telephone conversations a doctor back home has had with an employee of the commission, you would be surprised, because there are all kinds of requirements. One would have to write whole pages to say such things as: Yes, the man was sick, but now he feels better and could do light work. He could go to work. The doctor would have to say that. Then, though it does not make much sense, I always advise the man to get a doctor's certificate. He has one. I have it here, in front of me and I quote from it: 1 hereby declare that Mr. Castonguay has been fit for work since January 20, 1977. But there again, his own doctor is speaking. For crying out loud, why be picayune about that too? That is not enough, you have to see an independent doctor. And so the correspondence starts all over again. It takes an awful lot of time. The odd storm comes up too, once in a while. Finally, the man goes to Montmagny. Saint-Pam-phile is quite a distance from Montmagny. So, he sees a doctor there. This doctor sends his certificate to the Commission, but by now it is March 21. During the whole period from January to March 21, he has not been eligible because someone did not trust the certificate he had obtained from his own doctor.
Let us see what the board of referees say about the procedure. That is why legal aid lawyers were insisting so much and so rightly saying that boards of referees should be made up of competent people who know what the law is about, people who can determine with a sound judgment whether a claimant is in his right or not. I often go to the board of referees. It is a place I find very funny-always unanimity, never any dissension. Those guys sure get along fine.
I note from the reaction of the labour representative that he seems to agree with what they tell him because that makes a lot of sense but the decision is always unanimous. Fortunately, decisions are overruled but sometimes I note they are not and I find it quite strange that there should not be any dissension. It is so easy. 1 personally sat eight years on UIC boards of referees and when I found that the chairman or the management representative was going too far, then I would record my dissent. That allowed the unemployed or his representative to
7510

July 8, 1977
Employment and Immigration
go before the umpire without asking for the permission of the chairman of the board.
Just imagine! When the decision is unanimous you have to ask the chairman of the board of referees for permission to get a new hearing or go before the referee. That does not make sense. The chairman of the board of referees just made a decision after eight or ten days and he is told that his decision is no good, they want permission to appeal. He always says no. He does not say so himself but he has an official of the Commission say it for him. So that is the result of the red tape from legislation that gives trouble to unemployed workers.
About the individual I was talking about earlier let us see what the members of the board of referees say: In this case, the availability of the claimant-and this is not happening in Riviere-du-Loup but in Levis-is related to the recovery from an illness he had in the fall of 1976. The claimant's file is all mixed up, according to the claimant, his doctor, the examining doctor from the Commission and another doctor mentioned in the file. The availability of the claimant is really related to the medical evidence given in the file. But today, the claimant says that he was admitted to the Hotel-Dieu Hospital in Levis. This is true. He was sick for 15 weeks.
While confined there, he was told that he could go back to work in December 1976. In fact, he felt well enough to work in December 1976, but his regular doctor, to be sure that he was all right, told him to wait until January 20. The claimant says that he was examined at Laval Hospital and that he again saw his regular doctor in January and that he saw Dr. Mignault in December, January and February. But our files show very little result from all these meetings with the claimant's doctor. Consequently, the board of referees upheld the decision of the commission.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him that his time has expired. Nevertheless, he may go on with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: No.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion to give this bill a six-months' hoist because I believe that the premise of the bill is wrong. It has one obvious purpose-to reduce the number of people entitled to draw unemployment insurance benefits. That would save the Government of Canada a very substantial amount of money, but at the expense of the individual and of the municipalities that will have to bear the cost of welfare support for many of the people who will cease to draw unemployment insurance benefits.
One has to assume that the government has brought this bill forward because it believes there are substantial numbers of the over 900,000 people unemployed who could find jobs but simply do not want to work. There cannot be any other reason for this bill. I cannot believe that even this Liberal government would be so cruel as to want to take people off unemployment

insurance benefits who are willing and able to work but who simply cannot find work because jobs are not available. An examination of the government's own statistics quickly shows that assumption to be false.
In May over 900,000 people were unemployed, according to the figures produced by Statistics Canada. We all know that a large number of people are out of work who are not included in this figure-people who have given up trying to find work because they know jobs are not available for their skills, or because they live in slow growth areas. According to Statistics Canada, in the month of May there were 35,300 job vacancies in Canada. That means that if every job was filled on the day the figures were taken, there would still be close to 900,000 people unemployed. The percentage of vacancies compared to the number of people unemployed is 4 per cent. In other words, for every 100 unemployed persons, only four jobs were available.
I might be able to understand the logic of introducing this bill if this high unemployment were a sudden phenomenon. And the government cannot claim it is introducing this bill because the unemployment insurance system was not meeting the needs of the people. If it makes such claims, they are not true.
The incidence of unemployment has been rising in the last few years. I shall not quote figures of the last two years, but I shall put on record figures relating to a few months in 1977. According to Statistics Canada, there were 932,000 unemployed in Canada in February, 1977, as compared with 800,000 unemployed in February, 1976; or seasonally adjusted, 7.9 per cent of the labour force was unemployed in February, 1977, as compared with 7 per cent in February, 1976. In Quebec, a province to which members have devoted considerable attention these past few months, there were 303,000 unemployed in February, 1977, as compared with 225,000 in February, 1976, almost 50,000 more people being unemployed this year. Is it any wonder a substantial proportion of people in Quebec have lost enthusiasm for Confederation, for one Canada? Instead of concentrating on bilingualism and language, as the government has done recently, it would be better advised to solve the problems of the economy.
The Globe and Mail of March 16, 1977, reported as follows:
The official number looking for work totalled a record 932,000 last month, according to Statistics Canada, raising the seasonally adjusted rate to 7.9 per cent. If other jobless who had not looked for work in the previous four weeks are included, the actual total of unemployed in Canada was well over a million.
Responding to criticism in the Commons, Finance Minister Donald Macdonald said the unemployed would receive 'substantial attention' in the budget planned for March 31.
And Manpower Minister J.S.G. Cullen told the opposition parties that it was no answer 'to react in panic' to the situation, especially since employment was still rising and the government has already announced make-work programs.
Speaking of work programs, I told the House the other night that the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre had received the grand total of $100,000 this year for Canada Works, as compared with $939,000 it received last year in LIP grants.
July 8, 1977

Next I shall quote part of George Radwanski's column in the Financial Times of March 28, 1977, entitled, "Unemployment: A Bungled Job." Mr. Radwanski, whose column 1 read regularly, is not one of the government's bitter opponents. On the whole he is kindly disposed to it, but he said this in his column:
It is simply not true that the jobs are there to be had, if only the unemployed weren't too lazy to pursue them. For 932,000 unemployed, Statistics Canada listed only 37,800 full-time job vacancies. For at least 894,200 Canadians, in other words, all the zeal in the world couldn't produce a steady job.
This carries a number of consequences.
In the first place, it violates one of the most basic objectives of a free, prosperous society: To give every willing citizen the opportunity to pursue gainful employment commensurate with his abilities. Without that opportunity, many other freedoms mean little. When unemployment becomes widespread and chronic, the whole system is working badly.
Secondly, unemployment exacts a heavy social cost. When people are involuntarily cut off from the job market, their self-esteem diminishes, their sense of alienation from society steadily increases and at a certain point they simply stop trying, creating a lasting pattern of non-productivity and dependency.
I hope the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) is listening, for he is supposed to be concerned about national unity. I wanted to put Mr. Radwanski's thoughts on record, because they echo mine and I have been accused of speaking them for partisan, political reasons. Mr. Radwanski went on to say:
There is also a risk of serious political consequences. Unemployment is becoming particularly serious among the young, with the seasonally-adjusted rate in the 15 to 24 age group now running at 14.4 per cent; this is the age group, of course, that can most easily become radicalized and alienated. The problem has special dimensions in Quebec, where the youth unemployment rate stands at 16 per cent. That can make pro-Confederation arguments sound rather unconvincing to young Quebecers, and contribute to the volatility of the situation.
Despite these hazards, present levels of unemployment are no unforeseen accident.
Mr. Radwanski analyses carefully-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills, and private bills.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could rise on a point of order to inform hon. members, before the House proceeds with private members' business, that the government proposes to call order No. 51 on Monday, the amendments to the criminal law.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Order No. 15, in the name of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin).
Broadcasting Guidelines


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Shall it stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order No. 16, in the
name of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Shall it stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order No. 18, in the
name of the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis).


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Shall the order stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order No. 19, standing in the name of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman). Shall the order stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, if I may rise on a point of order, I think there is general agreement to proceed with Bill C-229, and to limit the length of speeches. I understand several hon. members wish to participate in the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that all orders prior to order No. 29 under private members' public bills shall be stood at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: And that the length of speeches shall be limited to ten minutes, in accordance with the wish brought to my attention earlier?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is so ordered.


BROADCASTING ACT
James Aloysius McGrath: that Bill
C-229, to amend the Broadcasting Act, (guidelines respecting
portrayal of sex and violence), be read the second time and
80020-1 I Vi

July 8, 1977
Broadcasting Guidelines
referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say this bill, which I had hoped would form a vehicle for debate and be referred to the committee for discussion and examination of the evidence, is to be talked out. 1 have learned that through the usual channels, and in saying that I do not reflect on any members of the House. I do not wish to reflect on the parliamentary secretary, who is doing his job, or on any member who may contribute to the debate; but as a legislator and parent I regret that this matter will not be seized of the attention of the Parliament of Canada, the only legislature in this country with jurisdiction in this area, and I say this despite actions taken by other jurisdictions. I think particularly of the LaMarsh commission which the government of Ontario set up and which recently brought down its report.
It is not my bill that is important, it is the subject matter that is important. My bill is merely a vehicle to get this matter before the attention of the House and, I hope, before the attention of the committee.
On June 14 i wrote to the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve), bringing to her attention the fact that the LaMarsh commission would be reporting and that my bill would be coming up for debate on this date. 1 stated that I had asked the government to postpone debate earlier because the minister was out of the country. I felt it would not be fair to her or this important bill if it came before the House while she was away. Obviously she then would not be in a position to have any input into it whatsoever. In my letter of June 14, which has not been acknowledged, I said and 1 quote:
I would like to point out that the bill was merely intended as a vehicle for debate and a means of providing the House with a reference so that the Broadcasting committee could look into this whole area. This, of course, is especially relevant in the light of the LaMarsh commission findings and my purpose in writing this letter is to ask your co-operation in allowing the subject matter of the bill to be referred to the Broadcasting committee so that parliament will have an opportunity to go into the findings of the LaMarsh commission, examine your own position in this regard and generally to call for witnesses so that a determination can be made by the committee as to just what action would be appropriate for the federal government to follow in this rather controversial issue ...
As you know, the Canadian Federation of Women's Institutes, the Canadian Federation of Home and School Parent-Teacher Federations, the Canadian School Trustees Association and latterly, the National Council of Women representing over 750,000 Canadian women have all passed resolutions supporting the principle of my bill.
That is the end of the quotation from the letter. To set the perspective or the tone of the debate, perhaps 1 could give a brief history of what has brought us to this point today. In 1972 the Surgeon General of the United States, having been commissioned by the Congress of the United States, as a result of the findings of Senator Pastore and his Senate Committee, issued a report after a two-year study. In that report it is stated, and I quote:
The overwhelming consensus and the unanimous Scientific Advisory Committee's report indicate that televised violence indeed does have an adverse effect on certain members of our society ... It is clear to me that the causal relationship
(Mr. McGrath.]
between televised violence and antisocial behaviour is sufficient to warrant appropriate and immediate remedial action . . . There comes a time when the data are sufficient to justify action. That time has come.
That was the Surgeon General of the United States in 1972. On February 26, 1975, I introduced this bill into the House, prompted by the findings of the Surgeon General of the United States and my own concern as a parent.
Following that, the then solicitor general, now the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand), being the responsible and socially minded minister that he is, conducted his own study. In fact he made a point of going to the United States and speaking to the Surgeon General's people and Senator Pastore. He returned convinced that there was a relationship between the increase in violent crime in Canada and violence over television. Indeed he went so far as to say on November 17, 1975, as reported at page 9110 of Hansard, in reply to my question, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, we have had consultations with the CRTC and the Department of the Secretary of State on this matter and it is still under study. We may have more to say when the Minister of Justice and myself announce our package on violent crime before the end of the year.
That is how concerned the minister was. He wanted a provision in the bill on violent crime, the so-called law and order bill. That is the last we heard from the government on this matter.
The next event to transpire was the CRTC, as a result of my speeches across the country and the concern that was and still is growing from every source, especially parents, sponsored a symposium in August, 1975, at Queen's University, in which 1 had the honour to participate. The evidence is in the report of the symposium.
Finally there was the LaMarsh commission which was set up by the government of Ontario. It reflected the concern of that government, and the inability of the Government of Canada, the government which has sole jurisdiction to act. That commission immediately set up public hearings across the province of Ontario. I had the honour of presenting the first brief. The findings of the commission are clear, unambiguous, precise, and definite as can be. It said this:
The Commission was to determine if there is any connection or a cause-and-effect relationship between this phenomenon and the incidence of violent crime in society.
The phenomenon is television violence.
The short answer is yes.
That is a direct quote from the report of the LaMarsh commission. More evidence has very recently come to light. It is from the American Medical Association. 1 am sure one of our learned colleagues from the medical profession will probably participate in this debate. Referring to a poll taken by doctors of the AMA they stated, and I quote:
According to the poll, doctors said heightened aggression in children, nightmares, epileptic seizures and injuries resulting from imitating TV incidents are among problems that may stem from video violence.
That is a direct quotation from the American Medical Association on June 20, 1977.
July 8, 1977

I appeal to hon. members to allow the subject matter to go to committee so that the committee can examine the LaMarsh commission and our own medical association, and all the evidence.
My final word is from Dr. Robert Liebert who is recognized as the distinguished authority in this area. He is of Columbia University, New York. He was the principal consultant for the United States Surgeon General. When he appeared at the symposium sponsored by the CRTC he said, and I quote:
.. the cumulative effect on children of violent television programming is like the planting of a bomb that might explode within 10 or 20 years. Every murder or violent act a child witnesses on TV," he said, "is like a small, even a miniscule weight placed on the balance."
We are playing with fire. Every day we lose is vital time lost. 1 again appeal to the House to allow the subject matter of my bill to go to committee. I do not want to have it on my conscience if this bill is talked out. That will be the invidious position of the last member who participates in this debate if he or she agrees to talk out this bill just to satisfy the pique of the Minister of Communications who has failed to provide leadership in this very important area.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is important for members to avail themselves of the opportunity to participate in the debate on such an important subject matter as that before us this afternoon in Bill C-229. Before 1 get underway with my remarks, 1 wish to read the contents of the recommended change to the Broadcasting Act:
The Broadcasting Act is amended by adding immediately after section 47 thereof, the following:
48. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Commission shall by regulation establish guidelines respecting the portrayal of sex and violence during the broadcast of a program.
(2) No licensee shall broadcast a program portraying sex and violence contrary to the guidelines.
First of all I want to congratulate the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) on his tenacity. We know that for many months, indeed for many years, he has given of his time in an attempt to assist the community by ridding us of this problem, the abuses we see from time to time committed by the electronic media.
I received a communication from the hon. member recently in which he mentioned that the National Council of Women, the Canadian School Trustees' Association, the Canadian Home and School and Parent-Teacher Federation and the Canadian Federation of Women's Institutes have all gone on record as national organizations in support of the bill. I should also like to take this opportunity to say that during the period I spent in municipal government I sponsored a resolution from the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities to the same effect.


Walter David Baker: I remember that.


Maurice James Harquail: I am sorry to report to the House that this was about seven years ago and that the Canadian Federation
Broadcasting Guidelines
of Mayors and Municipalities has not taken the action 1 hoped it would. We know, now, what the results have been. Therefore when I learned of Bill C-229, I felt that since I had not experienced very much success in the small way of my contribution through the CFMM, I might take the opportunity this afternoon to support the hon. member's bill.
Turning now to the subject matter, I have some information 1 would like to put on record. According to Statistics Canada, 97 per cent of Canadian homes have one or more television set, and according to the Nielsen TV Index, pre-school children aged from three to five who are at home watch TV for an average of 54 hours each week, or approximately 64 per cent of their waking hours. By the time a child is five and reaches kindergarten he has spent more time watching television than a liberal arts student spends in the classroom throughout his four years in university.
The National Commission on Crime and Violence reports that American children and young people spend from one quarter to one half of their waking hours watching television, with only sleep consuming more of their time. By the time a child is 14 he has watched the violent assault or destruction of nearly 18,000 human beings on television. During an average year, an older child attends school for 980 hours and watches TV for 1,340 hours, so that by the time he graduates from high school he will spend between 11,000 and 12,000 hours in the classroom and more than 52,000 in front of a TV set.
We all know that figures can be shifted from one side of the picture to the other according to what side of the argument one prefers. That is not my purpose this afternoon. But 1 believe there is sufficient evidence to support the argument that there is abuse and blatant negligence-I guess that would be the word-on the part of some producers who seem to have been given carte blanche, wide open authority with huge budgets, to take us into an area into which I am satisfied and convinced the majority of Canadians do not want to go. When I think of the non-action of the CRTC and the negligence of the CBC in allowing this type of trash-I suppose that is the word-to be put before Canadians, especially young Canadians, I just do not feel that, given the mechanisms we have in Canada both federally and provincially, in this case federally, we should put up with it.
1 feel we are in a position to bring in legislation or to give a direction in policy to have this curtailed if not arrested completely. I am not saying we should try to get into people's minds. That is an approach taken by other countries, and one which we all oppose.
1 think that in every society people should be allowed to make decisions for themselves. Therefore, even though some people in the adult community might not be capable of watching this type of program I should like to leave it to their decision. Nevertheless, I feel some limitation should be imposed, at least with respect to pre-school children and children up to the age of 14, 15 or even 16, maybe, and that the type of sex and violence portrayed on television ought to be eliminated completely between the early hours of programming, whenever they get under way, 7 a.m. or 8 a.m., until at

July 8, 1977
Broadcasting Guidelines
least 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. I feel there is an onus upon parents to see that children have retired by that time, and if there are adult people who wish to watch this type of program after the evening news, that is a decision for them to make. But a child might see in 30 minutes as much violence as most adults experience in a lifetime. It is easy for young minds to understand, because it is vivid and graphic, and above all it is cruel and is presented as a way of life. This leads me to say that no one is safe, adult or child, from the rising level of television-stimulated violence in our society.
Those of us who are careful and diligent enough, and conscientious enough, to regulate our children's television fare carefully and hence protect them from a great deal of violence, could very well find our children victimes of violent young people whose parents are, indeed, not so conscientious and who abdicate this important aspect of parental responsibility. So in that regard no one is safe.
Not surprisingly, the introduction of television after the Second World War brought with it a controversy that closely resembled the previous discussions on radio, films and pulp fiction. This debate started in the United States in the early 1950's and grew increasingly animated throughout the next two decades. During that time, the Americans produced no less than four major government reports, dealing directly or indirectly with the subject of violence on television. These included the Kefauver Inquiry of 1954 on Juvenile Delinquency, the Dodd Surveys of 1961 and 1964, the Mass Media Task Force of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence of 1969, and the Report of the Surgeon-General on Television and Social Behaviour in 1972. Without fail, all of these documents concluded that there was too much violence on television.
Then, of course, the consensus of the research community is that the more people watch portrayals of violence on television the more likely they are to engage in aggressive behaviour. This applies especially to children. In this context, the term "aggressive behaviour" refers to acts ranging in severity from verbal abuse to criminal violence, and is best understood-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member to tell him the time allotted to him has expired.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise today to take part in this debate in support of my hon. friend from St. John's East with a special feeling of pleasure and pride at being able to support in this Chamber the work of one I regard as the leader in this Chamber-there are others who participated-in advocating a form of regulation of sex and violence in public broadcasting. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is known for many things, not least of which is his eloquence, a quality which was displayed so well yesterday in the debate on national unity. He has a tremendous feeling for the atmosphere in which his children, and the children of others, can best grow.

I listened with interest to the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail). I recall his work with the Canadian Association of Mayors and Municipalities. What the hon. member for St. John's East is trying to do by this bill is something which parents in Canada would like to see this parliament act upon, and act upon with despatch. I am very much discouraged by the intimation of the hon. member for St. John's East that the bill, which is meant to establish guidelines respecting the portrayal of sex and violence through the broadcasting programs, is not likely to receive second reading and referral to a committee. I say that especially in view of the tremendous amount of evidence that there is a damaging quality to the impressionable minds of children of tender years by what can be seen on the television screen.
I would hope that no one would interpret this bill as an act of censorship; it certainly is not that. But it is a bill which is intended to allow a body duly authorized by this parliament to establish guidelines. It is an attempt to allow evidence to be heard in order to establish some reasonable middle ground in terms of the obstruction of one's right to view what one wants, on the one hand, and the untrammelled right to view, on the other.
I do not think there is any doubt at all that the age of a person or child governs the impression that is made, whether for good or for evil. 1 think it is exceedingly important for us to remember that. While only the unbalanced might be affected by portrayals of sex or violence on television, if those unbalanced individuals are adults, there is sufficient evidence for us to be concerned about the effect of the portrayal of sex or violence on television on people of tender years-evidence enough that this parliament should act. It should not act willy-nilly, to stand upon rights or to obliterate rights; it should act to establish a way by which we can assure that, after sufficient public hearings, this industry, self-regulating though it says it tries to be, is in fact regulated in a reasonable but certain way for the public good.
I hope this bill will be acceptable to the House because it comes from the foundation of the hon. member's social conscience. In his general work in this area over a number of years he has been a leader, not just in this place but also perhaps in the country.
The other point about sex and violence on television and its impression on children of tender years is that it can give them nightmares. I have seen it in my own children and in children's friends. They told me about these things. It is not always a lasting condition, but it can be a hurtful one. It is certainly not a healthy one. That is the least that can be said for that kind of impression. But in terms of sex and one's value of life, it does lead to distortions at an age when impressions are made. From that point of view this parliament should at least be given the opportunity to discuss in some meaningful way the proposition of guidelines, and a debate is not the place to do that. Here we talk about general propositions. We have no opportunity to discuss and to view the evidence, and I think we should, as parliamentarians, at least have that opportunity.
July 8, 1977

The hon. member for St. John's East has indicated that the bill as such cannot go to a committee where it can be scrutinized. In view of its importance, I believe that the subject matter of the bill should go to committee where it can be scrutinized and the evidence heard.
1 speak now personally and sincerely as a private member of this House, not as House leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. This bill should go to a place where evidence, expert and lay, of parents and others, can be examined. May I say that I am profoundly grateful to my hon. friend from Restigouche, who is not a member of my party-which indicates the importance of this piece of legislation-for agreeing to second an amendment to this motion. 1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Restigouche:
That Bill C-229, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (guidelines respecting portrayal of sex and violence) be not now read a second time but that it be withdrawn and the order discharged, and the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
1 move this amendment so that the subject matter of this bill can go to the place in this institution where it can be dealt with in detail. This action has occurred three times previously in the House. It occurred on Bill C-220, the Federal Transport Commission of Inquiry Act. It occurred on Bill C-221 having to do with the Criminal Code and the abduction of children. It happened with respect to Bill C-208, to amend the Criminal Code, which involved the provision of humane trapping equipment for animals-all of them private members' bills. If we owe that duty to animals and to transportation, then I say that we owe it to children as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: It is on that basis that I move this amendment.


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. When I was asked to speak in this debate I did not know I would rise at this particular point. I regret that, and I speak most sincerely. When the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) first stood, he made it clear that he understands the responsibilities faced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Milne), and I do as well.
If I may, I should like to spend approximately three or four minutes making several points. As a member of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, and as a vice chairman at one point, I have worked with the hon. member for St. John's East. I have attended meetings which were held in his office. Also, I have viewed material put together by the hon. member which indicated some of the problems that are being created for our young people.
I have some problem with the actual form of the bill, but I believe the hon. member for St. John's East made it clear that that was not the essence of what he wanted to talk about, nor why he put it forward. He believes there should be a thorough
Broadcasting Guidelines
and thoughtful discussion of this problem. He has felt that for some time, and so have I, as I am sure others have in this House. I support his desire for that discussion. If that discussion is to take place and have proper effect, it must take place here as part of parliament's responsibility and not under some other jurisdiction which does not have those responsibilities.
It is possible to be very philosophical about the pendulum of society and society's mores. If you swing in a certain direction and you go a little too far, then the pendulum swings back. I find myself in something of a dilemma because how can we have too much freedom? You can have too much of what some people may call freedom and deny people what freedom should represent. It should represent a fair and humane society and not a society which twists young minds and misguides them about the society in which they are growing up.
As a journalist for the best part of my adult life before entering parliament, I was against censorship and very much in favour of freedom of information. As the situation regarding pornography has shown us lately, total freedom can lead to very perverse situations-situations which threaten the society we want to improve upon. Sick and perverse material is available now, including youngsters in it, and that material should not be available to juveniles in stores across our country. As well, I believe adults should have total freedom. But when material is available to them which makes them behave in an unnatural and abnormal way, then I believe perhaps that material should not be available to them.
At the very best, we are not sure if there is a direct effect on children. At the very worst, there is a direct effect from sex and violence on television. If that is the case it should be discussed with those who have the power under our laws to regulate the industry. It should be discussed also with those who act under our laws and the people of the country whose children and themselves may be affected by it.
I realize other hon. members wish to speak on this subject, but time is passing and we cannot afford to let the situation continue and wonder why. At the time this bill was introduced in parliament by the hon. member, I was proud to have seconded it. I believe the time is here for us to get down to a thorough and thoughtful consideration. I do not believe in censorship, but we must do something to protect our children and stop what is happening at the moment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, orginally I had not intended to speak this afternoon on this bill introduced by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), but I am impressed by the sincerity which he brings to this debate and the very interesting documentation he has received from the American Medical Association to support the bill. I appreciate the dilemma the parliamentary secretary is in, in not being in a position to allow this bill to come to a vote tonight.
I congratulate my House leader, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), for having the wisdom to present his amendment which, if it is passed, will allow us to discuss this subject matter in committee.

July 8, 1977
Broadcasting Guidelines
I am concerned with a government which has the concern of people at heart and yet takes this type of callous attitude toward something as serious as the growth and development of our children. I am reminded of the discussions we have had in this House during the last six months precipitated by the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) regarding his concern about saccharin. We had good reason to challenge the minister on his unilateral regulation and his control over the use of saccharin, when all he had to go by were some animal experiments with rats. It is disappointing that he would take that kind of information, resulting in discriminatory regulations which preclude us as thinking people from making up our own minds.
However, this situation is similar inasmuch as we have something which has been shown to be more harmful to human beings, particularly children, and we have a government which tells us to forget about it. The government indicated also that it was not going to discuss it. I hope I am exaggerating, and I hope I find today that the government side will recognize this as a very important subject. It should be discussed by the representatives of the people of Canada via a committee of the House of Commons.
The hon. member for St. John's East brought to our attention some very interesting documentation from the American Medical Association which deserves accentuation, to the point where the deliberating body of the American Medical Association is prepared to confirm the risk they see in the violence that has been portrayed on television. Surely we have an obligation, on behalf of the people of Canada, to recognize the decision this body has made. At least we should open up for discussion this subject among ourselves as representatives of the people. I am appalled by government officials who have issued directions to the parliamentary secretary indicating that this is not to be. Hopefully they will reverse their stand shortly and allow this subject matter to come to discussion in committee.
In conclusion, I congratulate the hon. member for St. John's East for bringing this to the attention of the House and the people of Canada. He indicated a concern which he has always expressed in this House for the consumer. It does not matter how that consumer is looked at, whether he is a consumer of food, a consumer of housing, or a consumer of television programming. The government should show equal concern for the consumer and permit the amendment proposed by my House leader to pass, in order for this subject matter to go to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) on his fine contribution. He dealt with matters which are bound to concern all of us, not just as parliamentarians, but as citizens.

I am tired of people speaking of freedom when they should really speak of licence. Exploitation of any kind may not be easy to define, but we must attempt it.
The hon. members who preceded me have examined in some detail the results of scientific research into the effects of televised violence. They did an admirable job in showing how gratuitous and unnecessary depiction of violence can strike at the very core of our social institutions. Those are the ties of affection which naturally bind us to our families, the most important foundation of society, and our fellowman.
I should like to go on and make a few remarks which are rather important to me in relation to this subject. At this point I should like to assure the hon. member for St. John's East that whatever the intention of the House, it would not be my intention to talk out this bill or to defeat this amendment, and I should like to make that very clear right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank A. Philbrook: But if the House will bear with me, I should like to make a few remarks which I think are important and bear on this subject. I should like to direct the attention of the House to a very different level of analysis, and examine televised violence, not just as a problem which threatens the individual psyche and social well-being, but also as symptomatic of problems which face the entire broadcasting industry in Canada. These may seem like strong words, but I think that if you will bear with me you will find that they are not altogether inappropriate.
In recent weeks we have heard equally strong words about the relationship of television violence and the state of our broadcasting system from many quarters, particularly from the LaMarsh Commission on violence in the media which recently reported to the government of Ontario, even though the provinces have no jurisdiction over television. It is an unusual situation but still important.
It seems to me that all the critics, however different their conclusions and recommendations, agree on one point: that the problem of violence on television is primarily a problem of the domination of the Canadian airwaves, and more especially of Canadian cable systems, by American programing. American programing is violent and Canadian programing is not-it is as simple as that. One of my colleagues has already cited the statistic that 97 per cent of the violence appearing on Canadian television is of American origin, and less than 3 per cent is natively Canadian. What more striking proof could we want?
But, although much has been heard lately, I should like to remind the House that there is nothing particularly new to be found in the recent spate of criticism of the broadcasting system. Approximately one and a half years ago, in a speech which she delivered in Ottawa, the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) stated that:
If there is a singular problem today, it is the domination of our airwaves and our cable system by American programs.
July 8, 1977

The minister pointed out that, as a by-product of this domination, the country was being flooded with violent programs that bore no relationship to day to day Canadian realities-and perhaps even less relationship to our historical traditions.
The minister concluded by saying that American domination-and the concomitant violence of programing-is an obvious cultural problem which will only be solved in the long term by developing Canadian alternatives that are attractive to Canadian viewers. This is one of the most important points 1 should like to make.
I think it is now widely agreed that this will be one of the major challenges to be faced by our broadcasting system-at least in English Canada-in the coming years. Here we could perhaps take a lesson from our French Canadian colleagues. The La Marsh Commission has presented an elaborate and somewhat revolutionary plan for accomplishing this goal, certainly judging from the reaction it received. The president of the CBC, Mr. Johnson, has recently published his objectives in this regard which call, among other things, for Canadianizing the airwaves, and about time, I say.
If I am correct in stating that there is widespread agreement on the nature of the problems which are facing our broadcasting system, I think 1 am also correct in stating that there is widespread recognition that there are a number of serious considerations which would stand in the way of any attempt to deal with these problems.
First of all, there is popularity to be considered. Really, how popular is violence? Many would argue that there is considerable popular demand for violent programing, and that shows which feature this type of programing often do quite well in the ratings game. Unfortunately it is not possible to provide a comprehensive assessment of this argument. At the present time the relationship between ratings, popularity, and public attitudes is not well understood. Nevertheless one point should be made. In the first place it is important to note that violent programs are not as overwhelmingly popular as is generally supposed. 1 think that probably has to be encouraging in terms of the best of what we suspect of human nature.
The spring 1976 Bureau of Broadcast Measurement findings demonstrate that there were no violent programs among the ten most popular shows, and only three in the top twenty. Secondly, even if a violent program achieves a very high rating-say a 20-all that this indicates is that 20 per cent of the population is watching it. If that sounds like a funny statement, let me explain.
Beyond this, it is possible to argue that the ratings of violent programs are artificially inflated, that is, they are packed into prime time. Prime time television is overwhelmingly dominated by violent programing. On most stations, little else is available, and this means that it is often difficult, if not impossible, to switch channels to other less violent programs. Under these circumstances, it would not be surprising if such programing did well in the ratings. To the contrary, it would be surprising it if did not do extremely well. Yet violent programs are not nearly as popular as non-violent programs,
Broadcasting Guidelines
regardless of their availability. If this line of reasoning is pursued, it suggests that the present ratings of violent programs would fall even lower if genuine alternatives were available, and we hope that is one of the most important parts of the answer and a situation which we will see come to pass. That is one of the very real points.
The second of many considerations that could be raised involves the reality of hard economic facts, and there are some real ones with which we have to deal. I would not suggest for a minute that this is a prime consideration. Given a choice, 1 think that we have to think in terms of the moral value of our broadcasting. We have to think of good taste, and so on, and certainly we have to put economic facts second and find a way to do what is right. But these considerations are there, not only for parliament and for the broadcasting industry, but they are there for every Canadian to consider and on which to make up his mind and take a stand.
As we know, Canada has a very small market, and at the same time we want as much Canadian content as possible- something in the area of 60 per cent. This means that we may have to make sacrifices, we may have to think in terms of subsidies. At present our subsidies are of two kinds: one from the government-this is a problem which perhaps the Canadian people have not come to grips with-and the second from foreign shows. It is a simple fact that to have the desired amount and quality of broadcasting of Canadian content we must have foreign shows at present to subsidize our Canadian shows. The cost of shows is in the ratio of $2,000 for half an hour of an American show to $60,000 for half an hour of a Canadian show. This is just to give you some idea of the extent of the problem. This is our dilemma. Undoubtedly some violence is popular. It is on both the United States and Canadian channels. If we eliminate it on Canadian channels, many of our people will switch to the American channels and see it anyway.


James Aloysius McGrath: It could be blacked out.


Frank A. Philbrook: That is another serious subject-blacking it out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Because of an order made earlier today, I must interrupt the hon. member to say the time allotted to him has expired.


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure the vast majority of members in the House would join me in congratulating the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for bringing this bill forward, and perhaps would share the viewpoint of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) that the substance of this bill might be referred to committee.
i would not want anyone-particularly the hon. member for St. John's East-to think that those who have participated in the debate are the only ones interested. 1 think that from time to time the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Ethier), the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier),
7518

July 8, 1977
Broadcasting Guidelines
the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) and others have spoken in this Chamber expressing their concern. I expect that in the next few minutes there will be some urging that we accept the motion put forward by the hon. member opposite, but I want to reinforce the argument put forward by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) that in the CRTC survey of programing on violence that is available to Canadian people it is stated that 97 per cent of this comes from the United States. Of the violence that is available to the Canadian viewing public, both from off air and through cable, roughly 3 per cent of it is generated by Canadian broadcasting.
It seems to me that pursuing this motion would present two very great difficulties. If we really want to reduce the amount of violence which is available to Canadian viewers, we would have to jam signals from American stations, and I suspect hon. members might find their in-baskets with more mail in them than usual if the government were to proceed with that in an effort to reduce the amount of violence which is shown on screens.
In terms of the 3 per cent that is generated within the country, hon. members should think about the difficulty in drawing acceptable guidelines. I suggest that the end result would be a division. There would be those who would think that the guidelines would be too restrictive and impinging on freedom of broadcasters to present what programming they feel desirable and upon the freedom of viewers. Other groups would feel that the guidelines would not be restrictive enough. As the parliamentary secretary on behalf of the minister I have had the opportunity to talk with various groups which have come to the department expressing these very concerns. Some feel very strongly that there should be more restrictions. These various groups have varying motivations.
I have also heard the representation that freedom of broadcasting is one of the fundamental rights in our democratic system and that it should not be interfered with and drawing these guidelines would be largely ineffective because 97 per cent of the violence that is available is generated in the United States.
Earlier today I was talking to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, and he raised a point which I think should go on the record. Had he been able to be here he would have wanted to speak in this debate. The hon. member suggested that if there is violence in programming, broadcasters should forewarn parents and children at the beginning of that programming. I watch very little television, but I have had occasion to see on the television screen at the beginning of particular programs a statement that part or all of the contents of certain programs might be offensive or harmful for family viewing. I think that is the way we should be proceeding. That way there is still a choice on the part of viewers as to whether they choose to watch or not. That would not interfere with either the freedom of the broadcaster or the freedom of the viewer.
One of the most persuasive ways to make viewpoints known would be for those people who share the view set out in the bill of the hon. member for St. John's East to make representations to broadcasters, and more particularly, to sponsors. I do not think there is anything more persuasive to a broadcaster or a sponsor than off switches on televisions. Sponsors spend large amounts of money to sponsor programs, and if the viewing public feels that those programs are not acceptable or to their liking, I think turning off the switch is one of the most effective ways of convincing producers that there really should be a different thrust.
I want to speak in support of the minister, who has on a number of occasions spoken about this point across the country. She has tried encourage people who feel strongly about this to communicate their points of view directly to television stations and to advertisers.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is a cop-out Ross.


William Ross Milne: My memory is not terribly long, but I do remember the debate which went on at great length in this House on Bill C-58. Many adamant viewpoints were expressed. Bill C-58 was a measure put forward as a means of helping the broadcasting industry in Canada to be strengthened. When we consider that 97 per cent of the violence that is shown on the screens in Canada is American generated, there really needs to be a considerable strengthening of Canadian programming.
According to the background on this subject I have read, Canadian programming is predominantly non-violent. The broadcasting industry in Canada generally does not use the medium of violence to attract an audience, but those who feel strongly that violence is detrimental should let the industry know. I certainly respect the opinions of the hon. member for Halton and the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday). They are both medical doctors who obviously have researched this subject and know about the impact on behavioural patterns of children when they are subjected to or have the opportunity to watch a great deal of violence.
We should seriously discuss the Canadian broadcasting industry in this House, and we should be discussing what can be done to strengthen it. Those people who speak about this matter should be making that one of the cornerstones of their argument. We need a much stronger and more dominant broadcasting system. If the majority of people are against watching violence on television, then that same majority want to view good programming which is generated by Canadian sources.


Walter David Baker: Don't talk it out, Ross.


William Ross Milne: It was interesting when Bill C-58 was being debated-


James Aloysius McGrath: Don't talk it out.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Let it go to the committee.


William Ross Milne: -there were very few people who-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. This House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, July 11, 1977